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.

(WTKR)   Active shooter alert issued for Naval Medical Center Portsmouth. UPDATE: Not a shooter, but there wasn't an Active Stabber alert code   (wtkr.com) divider line 494
    More: News, Naval Medical Center Portsmouth  
•       •       •

6776 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Jun 2014 at 9:30 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-06 12:04:26 PM  

Dimensio: peterthx: Dimensio:

I am pedophobic.


That is certainly better than the other kind.

/Chris Hansen looks dejected
 
2014-06-06 12:05:32 PM  

menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.

I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.

Well I'm glad that we can agree that my goal and desire is for there to be more innocent people murdered. Clearly that's what I want.

I'm glad if the homicide rate is dropping, of course. And if it is then it's doing so in spite of the ubiquity of deadly firearms, and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence. I hope it continues to fall despite the firearms-worshiping wild west town society we've been forced to live in.


Can you cite relevant data souurces from England and Australia showing the homicide rate before and after they enacted very strict gun control laws and bans?  (I'm being quite serious...)
 
2014-06-06 12:06:47 PM  

Seraphym: Dimensio: peterthx: Dimensio:

I am pedophobic.

That is certainly better than the other kind.

/Chris Hansen looks dejected


I thought I was the only one scared of feet.
 
2014-06-06 12:06:55 PM  

unamused: menschenfresser: I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.

That is not possible.  The Russian Mafia did just fine getting guns for illegal activities in the Soviet Union.  If someone is willing to commit murder and face the DP, all your crappy minor gun laws become irrelevant.  They are only relevant to the poor schlep who pays his parking tickets when he gets one.


I'd like to thank both you and Dimensio for contributing some facts to our discussion. The more facts we have, the more informed decisions we can make. I'm not convinced that the availability of guns is totally unrelated to the level of homicide, but I do want to have as many facts as possible in forming my positions. I may be prone to snark sometimes but I really do want the best for this great country, like I think you guys do, too.
 
2014-06-06 12:10:47 PM  

menschenfresser: unamused: menschenfresser: ...it's logical to conclude that fewer guns would mean fewer homicides...

No, it is not "logical" at all if you only take guns away from people who would not shoot anyone.  So long as people can shoot more than one person a one to one relationship can not be established.

Reality teaches us that a gun that is never touched by a human won't kill.  It is the human that makes the kill/don't kill decision.  The problem is the human.  Logic tells us that the best success will be achieved by segregating violent people from non violent people.  Stop letting people with years of violent history remain free to move among their victim pool.

People will find a way to kill if they want to, obviously. But guns make it much, much easier to do than it otherwise would be. Saying that people will kill anyway so there's no point in curbing the availability of guns is like saying that if someone wants to break into your house then they'll find a way, so there's no point in locking your doors. We just shouldn't make it so easy, is all. Also, I didn't say anything about limiting confiscation to any group(s) so I'm not talking about just law-abiding people losing guns. I'm including "inner-city thugs" or whomever else you may have been referring to.


Guns are a symptom. Perhaps it's time to stop talking about the symptoms, and instead focus on the actual disease. Focusing only on symptoms doesn't do much more than mask the problems. It is short term thinking, that does little to alleviate the problems we face. It's easier to look at the symptoms, but it doesn't make the problems go away. If anything, the gun control debate simply masks the larger issues.

The issues are crime and safety. You want to deal with crime, then we have to look at economic stability and mobility, we have to look at education--access as well as the skills we are teaching, retention rates, and opportunities--we need to look at health care--bodily as well as mental--and we need to likewise address social justice issues, and perhaps an examination of our drug laws on top of it all. THOSE issues aren't exactly easy. So, instead, we have discussions about the tools used in violence, and looking at symptoms. We have folks blaming the guns themselves, we have folks who are blaming the music that people listen to, we have them blaming video games, movies, and other media, and all of these things ARE indeed symptoms, when taken together, but that doesn't address the underlying issues that cause folks to gravitate towards these things. If we deal only with the tools, we're not going to make a dent in things. We have made some strides over the years, but we are still a long ways from coming out of the darkness. And with increasing economic instability, with further fractionating of the population into cultural and ideological clades, we see division of the populace whereupon folks do NOT accept that their neighbors are even of the same tribe, let alone same nation. That itself increases the rationale that these others are not deserving of the same treatment, or respect, and that division only increases the distance that allows folks to put folks into a mental box space that says "others" are meet and proper targets--not just for violence, but as a rationale to remove rights since they aren't "our" people. THAT is the real issue. We are training folks to break down the inhibitions that most humans have against seriously harming other humans, and it's social conditioning that we continue to pile on that isn't intentional, but we keep applying that pressure to force people to make choices, and increasingly, with divisions between our populace that makes those decision trees easier to take towards piling on hurt to others. That unintentional training is the larger issue. Police, the military, they take deliberate steps to train folks to make the leap to be able to do harm, under the proper circumstances. As a society, we're not taking that same care with this unintentional training. We need to stop looking at one another as being so terribly different. We need to come together, not keep slicing up how incredibly different we are. Our politics right now is a symptom of the issues we face as a society, and these fractionating divides need to slow, because we are slicing ourselves away from one another, at a time when we need to pull together, and work together. And stop using bullsh*t to justify it, so that we can feel smug that OUR side is right, while EVERYONE ELSE IS WRONG. That's just not going to work. And it's not working now.
 
2014-06-06 12:15:08 PM  

hubiestubert: Guns are a symptom. Perhaps it's time to stop talking about the symptoms, and instead focus on the actual disease. Focusing only on symptoms doesn't do much more than mask the problems. It is short term thinking, that does little to alleviate the problems we face. It's easier to look at the symptoms, but it doesn't make the problems go away. If anything, the gun control debate simply masks the larger issues.


Another well-thought-out contribution, if I may say. Very good points for thinking and broadening the scope to include more than just black/white binary factors.
 
2014-06-06 12:19:15 PM  

Farkage: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.

I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.

Well I'm glad that we can agree that my goal and desire is for there to be more innocent people murdered. Clearly that's what I want.

I'm glad if the homicide rate is dropping, of course. And if it is then it's doing so in spite of the ubiquity of deadly firearms, and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence. I hope it continues to fall despite the firearms-worshiping wild west town society we've been forced to live in.

Can you cite relevant data souurces from England and Australia showing the homicide rate before and after they enacted very strict gun control laws and bans?  (I'm being quite serious...)


Australia:
www.gunsandcrime.org

England:
2.bp.blogspot.com
(Note that the largest spike may be a result of a number of corpses found in a single location were counted as homicides for that year, despite the murders likely being spread over multiple years).

The "strict" laws imposed in both nations mandated surrender of currently owned firearms, without any "grandfathering", meaning that any effect of the ban should be immediately visible (though not necessarily immediately complete).
 
2014-06-06 12:20:59 PM  
I will note also that the graphs were located through a Google search using the terms "australia homicide rate per year" and "england homicide rate per year". I did not seek any specific sites for them.
 
2014-06-06 12:22:31 PM  
Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.
 
2014-06-06 12:25:08 PM  

msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.


Do you think the gun the murderer brings with him into your home to murder you should be counted under the category "you are likely to be murdered by a gun if a gun is in your home"?

If any of these students at the university yesterday owned a gun but were prohibited from carrying it on campus should they have their ownership of a gun used against them in a study when a study counts how many gunshot victims own guns and they try to claim owning a gun doesnt protect you?

Because they did that too, which is what prompted the Dickey amendment in the first place
 
2014-06-06 12:30:50 PM  

Dimensio: Farkage: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: topcon: menschenfresser: And there are people out there who think ubiquitous firearms are what keep "gubmint" from "taking away our freedumbs" or something. Uh huh. Well what about the freedom the rest of us have not to live in a perpetual mass murder society? Fark your "rights" to deadly weapons. And fark you too if you think you have a "right" to force this kind of third-world murderocracy on the rest of us.

Hey, cletus, I hate to break it to you, but the murder rate keeps going down.

http://www.fark.com/comments/8286906/Gun-homicides-have-actually-gon e- down-once-again-proving-Fark-liberals-wrong-about-gun-control

And if that's true then it's obviously because we have guns everywhere. It just makes sense. I mean, I've noticed that the more insecticide I use, the more insects I have. The more fat I eat, the thinner I become. The more alcohol we drink, the more sober we are. It all makes equal sense so there's definitely a correlation here.

I did not claim nor do I think the presence of guns is why the murder rate is dropping and HAS dropped since the early 90's.  It is, however, a fact, which I know you can't stand being true.

Well I'm glad that we can agree that my goal and desire is for there to be more innocent people murdered. Clearly that's what I want.

I'm glad if the homicide rate is dropping, of course. And if it is then it's doing so in spite of the ubiquity of deadly firearms, and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence. I hope it continues to fall despite the firearms-worshiping wild west town society we've been forced to live in.

Can you cite relevant data souurces from England and Australia showing the homicide rate before and after they enacted very strict gun control laws and bans?  (I'm being quite serious...)

Australia:
[www.gunsandcrime.org image 610x256]

England:
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 632x472]
(Note that the largest spike may be a result of a number of corpses foun ...


I knew you would have it.  I was specifically asking the person that made the claim " and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence."  :)
 
2014-06-06 12:36:18 PM  

hubiestubert: ...and this is why we can't have anything nice.

In fairness, knives scare me a lot more than guns, and I work with knives every day. My father taught HTH, and knives and the use of entrenching tools, were part of that training, along with some other sundry objects, and a knife absolutely turns my insides to ice water, mainly because I have a fair understanding that someone who has trained with one can have you laid out before you even understand that what the heck is happening, and be gone before anyone notices that you've gone down. Accidents with knives are fair common in my profession, and in unskilled hands, a knife is damn scary. In untrained hands, a knife does a lot of very quiet damage. If you know it's coming, there are some things you can do, but unarmed against a knife is nothing you ever want to face, because unless you've got friends with you, or scream real, real, real loud, no one is going to realize what in the heck happened until afterwards. Knives are easy to hide, they can be ditched with alacrity, and with some skill, or even without, the damage that can be done in seconds is far greater than most folks seem to think. There is a reason that police are trained to NOT even attempt to draw a gun if someone is within 20' with a blade, because by the time you draw, someone can be on top of you, and sticking metal into things you'd rather not be perforated or opened to air. Past 21'? You got a chance. 30'? It's potting a target. Up close? Even with a weapon drawn? It's a toss up. Knives are a big NOPE in my book. I am not a fan of guns up close, but for damn certain, they don't scare me as much as a knife up close.


I had a link to a bunch of medical stats where they claimed a knife which can make a 3 inch deep gash in you from your shoulder to belly button can cause more damage than the wound channel a bullet leaves behind.

Dull knives are even more dangerous in a food prep environment because people press harder when cutting. And a well maintained sharp knife will cut you without pain. You won't feel the cut but you will feel the blood running down your hand.
 
2014-06-06 12:36:48 PM  
HOLY HELL this thread is funny as shiat!
 
2014-06-06 12:38:04 PM  

Farkage: I knew you would have it. I was specifically asking the person that made the claim " and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence." :)


That was me. I'm not claiming to be certain on the claim, which is why I added the qualifier "almost" to it. However, I think it's logical to assume that fewer firearms means fewer firearms deaths, unless we're actually going to argue that more firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths, which seems like nonsense.

If the evidence shows no change in homicides after a gun confiscation, then that's obviously significant. I'm in no position to argue with evidence. It is, however, counter to logic - at least to me.
 
2014-06-06 12:39:33 PM  

Thunderpipes: Gun availability has not changed, actually has gotten tougher since I was a kid by far. Gun homicide is actually down.

So why are guns such a problem now? Maybe because we hear of every single shooting as it happens?

Teach kids not to be bad people, problem solved.


Guns are harder to get and gun homicides are down... hrm.
 
2014-06-06 12:39:44 PM  

devilEther: The frequency of these events will eventually reach the point where bullets whizzing by your head as you walk down the dairy aisle is normal and to be expected.


When I was a junior in high school in Decatur IL there were grocery store shootings every day over the holidays. Gangs were literally shooting up the ceilings in the dairy aisle as some kind of initiation thing.

That was in 1992-93. So I'd say that we've been in that stage for a while.
 
2014-06-06 12:39:51 PM  

msqualia: Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: msqualia: Dimensio: According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?

Maybe the NRA should not have lobbied to outlaw the government's collecting of gun statistics so we could have a study by an organization with the means to provide accurate statistics (including the raw data, so gun advocates would have access to it).

Apparently they don't anticipate flattering statistics.

I was not aware that "gun statistics" were not collected by any government agency. What, then, is the basis for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's report on murder by weapon used, which includes counts for various firearm categories?

I didn't say they were entirely successful.  I say that's what they lobby for.  And they do.  They have made some headway.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

If they thought performing gun crime studies would reflect well on gun ownership, they wouldn't be lobbying so hard to stop research on gun crimes.

I don't think saying "But they haven't SUCCEEDED in preventing the government from collecting gun statistics entirely" is a good argument for you.

Are you claiming, then, that data would show that concealed weapons permit holders are more likely to have their weapon taken than to use it for successful self-defense during a confrontation were the National Rifle Association not working to suppress research, or were you simply changing the subject?

You're the one claiming that the research that exists is biased because it's by an interested party.  Which is convenient given that the NRA has tried to thwart all studies by the organizations most poised to actually conduct studies.

Even if you don't agree with their conclusions, government studies come with the raw data, which the NRA could use if i ...



Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who was then director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the CDC, explained his aim was to make the public see firearms as "dirty, deadly-and banned." (Quoted in William Raspberry, "Sick People With Guns,"  The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 1994.)

 Dr. Katherine Christoffel and Dr. Robert Tanz of the Children's Hospital in Chicago, explained their "plan to do to handguns what their profession has done to cigarettes ... turn gun ownership from a personal-choice issue to a repulsive, anti-social health hazard." (Harold Henderson, "Policy: Guns 'n Poses,"  Chicago Reader, Dec. 16, 1994.)

It seems that the data would not be able to speak for itself, they would do with the data what they want to get it to say what they want which is guns should be banned.
 
2014-06-06 12:40:34 PM  

Fubini: I know we all love a good circle jerk, but there are over 10,000 gun homicides in the US every year, or an average of at least 27 a day. I'm not going to look up the official number, but it's higher than that.

So, rather than freaking out every time the news media decides there's nothing more interesting to report, why don't we have a real discussion about realistic policy in a country of 300,000,000 people?


No offense see, but 10k out of 3 million is random noise. More people die of awful life choices such as obesity, yet we dont force candy licenses on people.

You have to undrrstand benefit versus cost. You are regulating an insignificant statistic.
 
2014-06-06 12:45:58 PM  
menschenfresser

If the evidence shows no change in homicides after a gun confiscation, then that's obviously significant. I'm in no position to argue with evidence. It is, however, counter to logic - at least to me.

I would submit that some of the lack of expected change may be due to the fact that, despite what we might anecdotally think due to media coverage, the fact is that the vast majority of legal firearm owners do not engage in criminal activity with firearms. If the majority of those responsible for murders by firearm are illegal operators, then confiscating the firearms of those who weren't responsible for the murders in the first place will, logically, have very little effect on homicide rates.

There's the argument that fewer legitimate firearm owners means fewer firearms to be stolen and then used for murder, which is somewhat sensible, but is generally a longer-term thing than can be illustrated in studies from the last few decades.
 
2014-06-06 12:47:51 PM  

Dimensio: England:


that spike was from ONE soccer match. ONE. And that was only because there wasn't anyone with a gun to stop the fisticuffs.

And to be fair here, fisticuffs is kind of a dangerous game to play at the best of times, and englanders know how to fisticuffs pretty good, so it was only a matter of time after the ban on guns that a spike in homersides from 'other' would happen.

/your 'spike' is a matter of 5, which is kindof a shyte 'spike' by anyone's measure.
 
2014-06-06 12:49:04 PM  

menschenfresser: Farkage: I knew you would have it. I was specifically asking the person that made the claim " and would almost certainly drop much farther in their absence." :)

That was me. I'm not claiming to be certain on the claim, which is why I added the qualifier "almost" to it. However, I think it's logical to assume that fewer firearms means fewer firearms deaths, unless we're actually going to argue that more firearms leads to fewer firearms deaths, which seems like nonsense.

If the evidence shows no change in homicides after a gun confiscation, then that's obviously significant. I'm in no position to argue with evidence. It is, however, counter to logic - at least to me.


I actually posted an excellent article by factcheck.org yesterday on gun laws versus crime,(http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/ ) and at best you can say for certain there was zero correlation.  In that instance we should, as a whole, go with freedom of choice or else we are banning things we don't happen to like.

/And yes, I really wish people would sttop killing each other
 
2014-06-06 12:53:06 PM  

Fubini: I know we all love a good circle jerk, but there are over 10,000 gun homicides in the US every year, or an average of at least 27 a day. I'm not going to look up the official number, but it's higher than that.

So, rather than freaking out every time the news media decides there's nothing more interesting to report, why don't we have a real discussion about realistic policy in a country of 300,000,000 people?


Exactly.

But it's more sensational when a white, mentally ill young man does it out of vengeance than when a non white criminal does it. Where's the story in that?
 
2014-06-06 01:08:03 PM  

jaybeezey: mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.


Do you have the memory of a gold fish.  Three armed highly trained RCMP were murdered by a gun nut yesterday.  You think a bunch of armed civilians would have fared better?
 
2014-06-06 01:10:27 PM  

Dimensio: jaybeezey: mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.

According to reports*, an armed person is more likely to have their gun taken by an attacker and used against them than to actually successfully use their gun in self-defense.


*Gun control advocates have "reported" this, and they would not lie, would they?


Stats don't lie.  People lie with stats, like you just did.  The real stat is that the hand gun you purchased is more likely to kill you (accidentally, taken from you or including suicide) than save your life in self-defense.
 
2014-06-06 01:10:36 PM  

mrshowrules: jaybeezey: mrshowrules: Giltric: Its always the stupid farkers who haven't read the article or thread who wants more gun laws passed.

Why should we listen to you again?

So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

Unless the gun was owned by the person who was assaulted. Heaven forbid someone be able to protect themselves from an attacker.

Do you have the memory of a gold fish.  Three armed highly trained RCMP were murdered by a gun nut yesterday.  You think a bunch of armed civilians would have fared better?



What about three gun nuts? That way, it's three against one.
 
2014-06-06 01:13:16 PM  

S10Calade: [img.fark.net image 480x422]


Obviously, the answer is tort reform.
 
2014-06-06 01:13:48 PM  
www.fatwallet.com
 
2014-06-06 01:14:19 PM  

Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.


That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.
 
2014-06-06 01:19:16 PM  
I haven't seen it on Fark yet but this morning some nut job with guns and explosives was killed when he was attempting to occupy the courthouse in Cumming, Ga.  Dude was about to go Columbine.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/police-activity-around-forsyth-courthou se /ngFsZ/
 
2014-06-06 01:19:53 PM  

uttertosh: Dimensio: England:

that spike was from ONE soccer match. ONE. And that was only because there wasn't anyone with a gun to stop the fisticuffs.

And to be fair here, fisticuffs is kind of a dangerous game to play at the best of times, and englanders know how to fisticuffs pretty good, so it was only a matter of time after the ban on guns that a spike in homersides from 'other' would happen.

/your 'spike' is a matter of 5, which is kindof a shyte 'spike' by anyone's measure.


That spike (18/1,000,000 vs 11.5/1,000,000) in a nation of 53 million people is a difference of 325 murders per year.
 
2014-06-06 01:22:49 PM  

mrshowrules: Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.


img.fark.net

Who's pretending? In the short run, if anything, it cost lives.
 
2014-06-06 01:23:48 PM  

mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.


Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?
 
2014-06-06 01:25:50 PM  
mrshowrules

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.

So if I look at a chart of American homicide rates by type of weapon, what do you think I see? Do it yourself...what do you see?

Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.

I am sure it saved at least two lives, somehow. But the actual firearm homicide rate (if we take the posted graph as accurate) demonstrates that there was little actual change that can immediately be ascribed to the ban, overall.

The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

This is, somewhat ironically, a dishonest statement. I haven't advocated an "unencumbered right," despite your assertion.
 
2014-06-06 01:26:55 PM  

KidneyStone: I haven't seen it on Fark yet but this morning some nut job with guns and explosives was killed when he was attempting to occupy the courthouse in Cumming, Ga.  Dude was about to go Columbine.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/police-activity-around-forsyth-courthou se /ngFsZ/


That can't be true we were all just told that using a gun for defense or to stop a crime always results in your own death.
 
2014-06-06 01:29:37 PM  
are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?
 
2014-06-06 01:32:42 PM  
Has the whole world gone CRAZY?!

/MARK IT ZERO
 
2014-06-06 01:33:02 PM  

CADMonkey79: mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?


Well there's a lot of cultural "bleed" due to both proximity and a large degree of shared culture in general. Maybe that's why.

It's also possible that it's just an interesting philosophical debate for people in a cerebral sense.
 
2014-06-06 01:33:45 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: So you would have considered the outcome to have been better if this guy had a gun instead of a knife.  This a perfect example of the absence of gun improving outcomes.

We just did this in the other thread. Removing guns from society through prohibition does not necessarily reduce homicide rate.

It does actually.

I'm not saying that it won't, I'm saying that we don't know if it will or will not. I'll go ahead and copy-paste for you. I was responding to someone else saying that we'd save "tens of thousands of lives" through gun prohibition.

We're currently barely breaking 10,000 gun homicides per year. In order to save "tens of thousands of lives every year" you'd have to presume that banning firearms will eliminate virtually all homicides committed with firearms. Consider that non-firearm weapons are currently used in 93% of non-fatal violent crimes, and in 32% of fatal violent crime, I have a hard time believing we're going to see a 90% reduction in homicides just because we've removed the weapon of choice.


What if it only saves the lives only a few thousand people and we made things less fun for gun hobbyists everywhere?  That would be too horrific to contemplate.

The UK first banned semiautomatic shotguns and rifles in 1988, and then most semiautomatic handguns in 1997. Despite that, the overall homicide rate doesn't show any obvious reaction to those years (Figure 1.1), and in fact increased subsequently, and the overall violent crime rate went up as well.

 On 31 December 1996, prior to the large-calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the following year?  Reduced homicides does not match-up with the passage of the law but it does match-up with less people having these guns which was as a direct result of the legislation.

The fact is that no one knows what effect a firearms ban will have on the homicide rate in the US. It's certainly not going to save "tens of thousands of lives". It's debatable whether it would save any statistically significant number of lives. It seems that things like the violent crime rate and the homicide rate are much more heavily influenced by large-scale social, economic, and demographic factors rather than the availability of specific weapons.


False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?
 
2014-06-06 01:37:05 PM  

stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?


Knives aren't sexy like guns. Stop being a killjoy.
 
2014-06-06 01:37:47 PM  

Dimensio: The United Kingdom imposed severe bans on firearms.
Australia also imposed severe bans on firearms.

Both nations show a lower homicide rate than the United States of America.

Therefore, the severe bans on firearms in those nations is responsible for their homicide rates being lower than the rate in the United States of America.


That's a pretty naive way of looking at it. Both of countries have their own cultures that lead, in aggregate, to some crime rate. The idea that the US *should* have the same crime rate at Australia or the UK, and the thought that the *primary* reason we don't is guns, is a pretty huge and unwarranted assumption in my opinion.

Through the 80's, up until their first major firearms prohibition in 1988, the UK had a homicide rate of about 1 per 100,000 people. The US had a rate of about 8.5 per 100,000 people during the same time period.

At that time, the citizens of both countries had relatively equitable access to firearms. If firearms availability was the only thing at play, then they should have had similar homicide rates. Obviously, there are multiple things at play that drive homicide and violent crime. The notion that the US *should* have the same crime rate as other countries is debatable and the idea that firearms are solely responsible for our higher homicide rate is frankly ridiculous. Firearms are used in less than a 1/3 or the total homicides in the US.
 
2014-06-06 01:38:57 PM  

CADMonkey79: mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?


First, I like Americans but secondly, American policy/laws is having a direct impact on Canada.  Our economy/policies/culture is so derivative of the US it is pathetic.   You should check our equivalent NRA up here (NFA), they are following the NRA approach like a farking how-to guide.  Including releasing a letter yesterday blaming Canada's gun control laws for the murder of RCMP officers by that gun nut.
 
2014-06-06 01:43:18 PM  

Witness99: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

Knives aren't sexy like guns. Stop being a killjoy.


Nope. Knives are a damn lot scarier. Knives are close. They're personal. You can lash out with a knife by accident, you can pick one up in the heat of passion, but they're all about being right there. It's hard to come up with a "it just went off" excuse with a blade. Maybe, "he tripped and fell on that big ass blade" but not sixteen or seventeen times. Knives are when you absolutely, positively HAVE to see someone's lights go out, or you want things to hurt for a long while. Personal.
 
2014-06-06 01:47:14 PM  

This text is now purple: mrshowrules: Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.

[img.fark.net image 610x256]

Who's pretending? In the short run, if anything, it cost lives.


This is one of the most thorough, neutral and comprehensive studies on the subject:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf 

With just under a decade of post-NFA deaths data now available, key
studies based on time series data have agreed that there has been a
significant fall in the number of firearm suicides in Australia since 1997.
Firearm homicides also appear to have declined substantially, though with
a smaller number of deaths per year, it is more difficult to be sure that this
change was related to the NFA. At a minimum, there is some time series
evidence against the notion that stricter gun laws have led to increases in
total homicides.
 
2014-06-06 01:51:03 PM  

mrshowrules: False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?


You have yet to demonstrate this point effectively (meaning, with statistically significant data).

Less guns will of course mean less gun homicides, but it doesn't necessarily mean fewer total homicides. Case in point, in the US we have more than 2/3rds of our homicides committed without firearms. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be fewer total homicides, I'm saying that nobody knows what the real effect would be. The lack of a significant effect doesn't mean anything either, because as you point out these policy decisions can take a long time to have broad-scale effect.

What threshold I think is acceptable doesn't matter here, because so far I have yet to see a statistically significant decline in the overall homicide rate of a country that has enacted a gun ban. Furthermore, I don't make policy decisions based on "If it saves X number of people's lives, then we should do it!"

The US is a country with 315,000,000 people, with an annual death rate of about 2,500,000. It would be great if we could save 1000 lives for free and for no inconvenience to the other 315,000,000 people who survive them, but that's not how policy works in the real world.
 
2014-06-06 02:00:20 PM  

menschenfresser: CADMonkey79: mrshowrules: Facetious_Speciest: Dimensio

Australia:

Kinda interesting that homicide by firearm was already declining and continued declining at roughly the same rate after the ban. Almost like the two had little to do with each other.

That's why you compare with other countries who didn't enact increase gun controls.  Pretending the Australia gun ban didn't save lives is just false.  The honest gun rights position it that you want this unencumbered right despite the increase in overall societal dangers in represents.

Just out of curiosity why does someone from Canada care so intensely about American gun laws/policy?

Well there's a lot of cultural "bleed" due to both proximity and a large degree of shared culture in general. Maybe that's why.

It's also possible that it's just an interesting philosophical debate for people in a cerebral sense.


In a gun control thread?  Started the weekend a little early eh?
 
2014-06-06 02:02:36 PM  

Witness99: stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?

Knives aren't sexy like guns. Stop being a killjoy.


take it back!

i1207.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-06 02:06:07 PM  

mrshowrules: This is one of the most thorough, neutral and comprehensive studies on the subject:

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf


"neutral and comprehensive"

1) Random low-ranked journal
2) Doesn't give numbers for gun homicides
3) Disclaims multiple other studies finding different results

Stopped reading there.
 
2014-06-06 02:08:45 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?

You have yet to demonstrate this point effectively (meaning, with statistically significant data).

Less guns will of course mean less gun homicides, but it doesn't necessarily mean fewer total homicides. Case in point, in the US we have more than 2/3rds of our homicides committed without firearms. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be fewer total homicides, I'm saying that nobody knows what the real effect would be. The lack of a significant effect doesn't mean anything either, because as you point out these policy decisions can take a long time to have broad-scale effect.

What threshold I think is acceptable doesn't matter here, because so far I have yet to see a statistically significant decline in the overall homicide rate of a country that has enacted a gun ban. Furthermore, I don't make policy decisions based on "If it saves X number of people's lives, then we should do it!"

The US is a country with 315,000,000 people, with an annual death rate of about 2,500,000. It would be great if we could save 1000 lives for free and for no inconvenience to the other 315,000,000 people who survive them, but that's not how policy works in the real world.


It would be nice if the GOP didn't block CDC from officially looking at homicide and gun violence epidemically.  However, failing that, this is the largest study of its kind and spanning the most years.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?jo ur nalCode=ajph

The conclusions are summarized in many articles but basically more guns, more murders.

Free Republic's summary here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3066226/posts
 
2014-06-06 02:11:55 PM  

stonelotus: are you idiots  still talking about guns in this knife thread?


It's like...I know this sounds crazy but...the anti-gun nuts are crying and whining because a gun wasn't involved.


assets.nydailynews.com
 
2014-06-06 02:20:04 PM  

Fubini: mrshowrules: False again.  Less guns means less homicides.  Period.  Full-stop.  Of course it is not going to save 10,000 people per year.  What would be a relevant threshold for you?

You have yet to demonstrate this point effectively (meaning, with statistically significant data).

Less guns will of course mean less gun homicides, but it doesn't necessarily mean fewer total homicides. Case in point, in the US we have more than 2/3rds of our homicides committed without firearms. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be fewer total homicides, I'm saying that nobody knows what the real effect would be. The lack of a significant effect doesn't mean anything either, because as you point out these policy decisions can take a long time to have broad-scale effect.

What threshold I think is acceptable doesn't matter here, because so far I have yet to see a statistically significant decline in the overall homicide rate of a country that has enacted a gun ban. Furthermore, I don't make policy decisions based on "If it saves X number of people's lives, then we should do it!"

The US is a country with 315,000,000 people, with an annual death rate of about 2,500,000. It would be great if we could save 1000 lives for free and for no inconvenience to the other 315,000,000 people who survive them, but that's not how policy works in the real world.


Honestly, in any fark gun thread or even in the real life, have you ever seen anyone post or offer up a policy idea/law that not only would have a significant impact (prevent mass shootings) but also ever have a chance of actually be passed into law?
 
Displayed 50 of 494 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report