patrick.net

kentm says

It's funny, thats a good point. How is forcing someone to own a gun different from forcing someone to own a healthcare policy. Its not, there is no difference.

No, silly - things that Obama does are bad, but things that right-wingers do are good.

Homeboy says

Not a single source for any of the "statistics" in that article.

This is Patrick.net. Everyone knows we don't back anything we say with facts. LMAO

IDDQD says

Ceffer says

If you keep a gun in your house, and there are children around, they will find it, guaranteed, and play with it, maybe discharging it.

I think the possibility of somebody being hurt by a gun in my house is a lot greater than the possibility of me being hurt by a burglar or home invader.

Sorry, but if this is the case in your house, you are not coming across as a very bright person. Hint: gun safes are widely available and quite affordable if you can afford a gun. Buy one!

That's me, Mr. Stupid. Obviously, all the bright people have guns.

"Hey, that guy has more guns than me, he must be a lot smarter!"

In CA they banned guns when politicians felt threatened by folks showing up with guns to public political events. Politicians like to do the intimidation, they lack the backbone when it's done to them.

I think 2nd amendment was working as intended when politicians were in check. Today that part is missing in CA.

Or maybe nobody should feel threatened at public events?

Call it Crazy says

Do you get to pick and choose which Socialism you want??

Gov't forced Socialism to buy a gun = Bad?

Gov't forced Socialism to buy healthcare = Good?

You can't have it both ways you know!!

Should I then assume that the advocates and supporters of the mandatory gun owning law also support Obama care?

There were no deaths in that town cause they're all related to each other.
Cue banjo music.

kentm says

the small town of Kennesaw

It's a suburb of Atlanta, not a "small town".

FortWayne says

In CA they banned guns when politicians felt threatened by folks showing up with guns to public political events. Politicians like to do the intimidation, they lack the backbone when it's done to them.

I think 2nd amendment was working as intended when politicians were in check. Today that part is missing in CA.

I'm pretty sure every sentence in this post is false.

Homeboy says

FortWayne says

In CA they banned guns when politicians felt threatened by folks showing up with guns to public political events. Politicians like to do the intimidation, they lack the backbone when it's done to them.

I think 2nd amendment was working as intended when politicians were in check. Today that part is missing in CA.

I'm pretty sure every sentence in this post is false.

FW is right on target...and there are many who back his comment.

marcus says

I wonder how many towns with populations of 15,000 - 35,000 have gone 30 years without any gun deaths.

I'm guessing that out of the 18,000 or so cities, towns and villages in the U.S., and a conservative guess that maybe a third to a half of those are in the 15 - 35K range, probably about a third of those would have gone 30 years without a gun death.

2000

Yeah, it's a total guess. But I would bet for sure, that at least 1000 small towns, cities or village have had no gun deaths in 30 years.

That's why the guards with guns in every school is so ridiculous.

If I'm wrong, then make it 2 or less gun deaths in 30 years, and for sure it's at least 1000 small towns, villages or cities.

I was born and raised outside of a town with a population of less than 8,000 .. it is still under 10,000 to this day ... and it was, in the 70's and 80's, in the top ten of per-cap murders. It has multiple murders every year still, and so does most every other small town around here like it. So, as far as in the central valley of California, I disagree. I happen to sleep in a well protected home, but I drive and work naked .. well, almost naked. Ok, not naked, just gun-less. I keep a ball bat with me at all times, mainly incase of pitbull problems.

marcus says

That's why the guards with guns in every school is so ridiculous.

but ... Lord BArry and his spawn are protected in the very manner you suggest is not a good idea. So, remove all of the weapons protecting Lord Barry and his spawn first, that will show he's serious.

Bap we don't want to discuss this one. You get extra retarded when it comes to your guns.

By the way over 90% of Americans are for better background checks.

Even 85% of republicans and 75% of NRA members are for this.

I wonder what percent of NRA members (not their fucked up leadership) can comprehend that nobody is coming for your guns.

Just say no to propaganda.

Bap33 says

So, remove all of the weapons protecting Lord Barry and his spawn first, that will show he's serious.

You must know how stupid this sounds.

Or is it that since the election you have lost the small remaining partial semblance of sanity you previously had retained ?

Bap33 says

So, as far as in the central valley of California, I disagree. I happen to sleep in a well protected home, but I drive and work naked .. well, almost naked. Ok, not naked, just gun-less. I keep a ball bat with me at all times, mainly incase of pitbull problems.

How sad for you.

thomaswong.1986 says

FW is right on target...and there are many who back his comment.

Uh, no, he's not on target, and there are many who don't back his comment.

I'm rubber and you're glue - nyah, nyah.

Call it Crazy says

Just compare the laws that get passed in CA versus Texas, that should give you the answer if it's true or false.

That makes no sense. What happens in Texas has nothing to do with whether California "banned guns". Texas lost me when they decided to execute retarded people.

Homeboy,
Did did they execute all Republicans & Tea Baggers in Texas?

Call it Crazy says

Please prove links or stats that support your statements.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/?tag=nl.e879&s_cid=e879

Correction 89% of republicans.

THe 75% of NRA members number I have heard tossed around a lot before this was done. I'll leave it to you to find that poll. But this one said "85 percent of those living in a household with a member of the National Rifle Association."

Support for universal background checks went across party lines: 89 percent of Republicans and 93 percent of Democrats and independents were in favor, as well as 93 percent of gun households and 85 percent of those living in a household with a member of the National Rifle Association.

THat poster "You think criminals will obey gun control laws......you must be a special kind of stupid," is ironic. Because only a special kind of stupid would be so arrogant about holding on to stupid views.

If it's true that 40% of gun sales happen now without background checks, and it's also true that in major cities, a significant percentage of murders are committed by extremely low level small time criminal teeagers,...

are you then going to tell me that you believe that if we started having 100% of guns sales done with background checks, and extremely heavy (say 30 years in jail) penalties for anyone who is caught selling a gun without a background check, that 40 years from now there would be just as many teenagers killing teenagers in Chicago Detroit or New York?

You may have other arguments against gun control, that have to do with paranoia about the government.

Or you mgight want to argue that our government is too dysfunctional to ever pass laws and implement strict universal background checks.

But saying that gun control won't work at all over the long term in making guns harder to get for small time criminals (the type that shoot other children), is in my opinion very stupid.

(Note: reducing senseless murders is the goal, not lowering them to zero. Nobody is claiming that gun control can achieve close to that).

marcus says

THat poster "You think criminals will obey gun control laws......you must be a special kind of stupid," is ironic. Because only a special kind of stupid would be so arrogant about holding on to stupid views.

Call it Quits IS a special kind of stupid.

FortWayne said California "banned guns", which is patently false, and I said so. Call it Quits' response was to "just compare the laws that get passed in CA versus Texas", and that gets a giant WTF???? from me. Then he says, in an utter non-sequitur, "You actually think criminals will obey gun-control laws?" Again, WTF????

FortWayne said they "banned guns" in California; I said no they didn't. Is this really that hard to follow?

By the way, to answer your non-sequitur, Call It Quits, the murder rate is way down in California, so apparently gun control laws DO work.

Homeboy says

Call it Quits IS a special kind of stupid.

Exactly, who are you arguing with? An Orangutan?

They" YOU KNOW WHO" are a special kind of stupid, just like Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumberer!

Homeboy says

FortWayne says

In CA they banned guns when politicians felt threatened by folks showing up with guns to public political events. Politicians like to do the intimidation, they lack the backbone when it's done to them.

I think 2nd amendment was working as intended when politicians were in check. Today that part is missing in CA.

I'm pretty sure every sentence in this post is false.

What's new!

The government is banning assault weapons including AR-15's to little too late.

The NRA needs to get the fuk out of the way of the ATF and we need to roll back a few nightmare laws imposed on the ATF.

Gun shops are under no obligation to maintain inventory records! have you heard anything so stupid in all your life?

The frickin' IRS places more regulation on Gun business than the ATF.

40% of illegal gun trafficking is done by 1% of gun shops! due to the NRA rolling back inventory clauses!

It;s all gonna change.

Thedaytoday says

40% of illegal gun trafficking is done by 1% of gun shops! due to the NRA
rolling back inventory clauses!

look, professor, 100% of gun crime is done by criminals that don't give two shits about your libtarded laws. Armed citizens that follow the existing laws against murder are not your problem, they are the criminals problem. NEXT!

Bap33 says

criminals that don't give two shits about your libtarded laws

THey don't have to give to shits. If guns get harder for criminals to obtain, then guns get harder for criminals to obtain.

Even if it was just a matter of the price going up tenfold over a period of a few decades (inflation adjusted dollars) - that is, for guns bought on the black market.

How can anyone in their right mind not realize that will cause less teens shooting each other in inner cities.

"libtarded laws" that 89% of republicans and most gun owners agree with.

Moderate Infidel says

There were no deaths in that town cause they're all related to each other.

Cue banjo music.

I'm not sure if this will enhance or refute your point but . . .
86 years ago my grandpappy's father died in a pistol duel with his brother over a woman.
Family is no barrier to aggression.
Ever heard of domestic violence?

Bap33 says

Thedaytoday says

40% of illegal gun trafficking is done by 1% of gun shops! due to the NRA

rolling back inventory clauses!

look, professor, 100% of gun crime is done by criminals that don't give two shits about your libtarded laws. Armed citizens that follow the existing laws against murder are not your problem, they are the criminals problem. NEXT!

It seems to me that if 40% of illegal weapons are being obtained from a small number of places, making it so that those small number of places go away will result in it being harder for bad people to get guns.

The truth, of course, is that the NRA doesn't give two shits about 'bad people' obtaining guns. They want anybody to have any weapon at any time, because the NRA represents the interests of firearms manufacturers.

It's the same group of people who push the "OMG THE WORLD IS SO DANGEROUS" meme. "You'd better buy more guns so you can protect yourself when a home invader tries to kill you. Which is something that happens to everyone all the time!"

Call it Crazy says

Over a million more background checks in 2012 which means more firearms were purchased in 2012, but murders are down...

How do you explain that Einstein??

Gun ownership in 1990 was 54%. Today it's 47%. In 1990 the gun murder rate was 2.5x what it is today.

As I've said before, these things have nothing to do with each other. It isn't the guns killing people, it's the culture that teaches that guns are both necessary and proper ways to solve problems, that there are "others" trying to harm you, and that the big, bad government is going to take away your freedom.

There's this bizarre mentality that says that if somebody does something to offend or harm you, the appropriate response is to KILL them. No concept of appropriate responses. You wrong me in any way, I kill you, end of story.

Two teenagers fighting over a girlfriend turns into gunshots. Some poor kid finds the weapon his dad bought for "protection". Some guy sees someone he doesn't know in his neighborhood and decides to follow him with a loaded gun. An ignorant dipshit decides that he needs to shoot up a religious group that he doesn't understand.

Call it Crazy says

... how about Chicago, how about Oakland, how about Stockton, how about Camden...

that would trigger the other complaints regarding racial profiling and discrimination.

these are the same people who want to release more convicts into the population..

Call it Crazy says

I know, facts don't matter...

Wtf ?

Comprehend my argument that your quote came from.

40% of guns are sold without a background check. Yes it's partly about enforcing existing laws (sometimes legislation is aimed at that), but it's also about loopholes.

Address this with facts: If nation wide, we were to have background checks for gun purchases to increase from 60% eventually to approaching 100%, then guns would be harder for criminals to get ?

No, not impossible. But for impoverished children ? You don't think we can make it harder for them to get guns, if currently 40% are currently sold without any background check?

Bring me some of your facts to address this.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cory-booker-lambasts-false-gun-debate-i-dont-know-if-anybody-here-has-seen-someone-shot-i-have/

Call it Crazy says

Kevin says

Gun ownership in 1990 was 54%. Today it's 47%. In 1990 the gun murder rate was 2.5x what it is today.

Here we go with meaningless percentages... what was the total population in 1990 versus what is the total population now. Give us the actual numbers for your percentages and you will see a higher number of people own guns while the murder rate went down.

How could that be??

All of these are per-capita numbers, you stupid fucking moron. The TOTAL NUMBER of murders has gone down as has the TOTAL RATE OF MURDERS.

This is because the TOTAL RATE has gone down by MORE THAN POPULATION HAS GROWN.

Using your logic, here are a bunch of other things that are true:

- There has been a dramatic increase in people born with two penises!
- The number of cars, houses, and t shirts are completely out of control!
- Consumption of food has MORE THAN DOUBLED! No wonder why we're so fart!
- Basically everybody graduates from college!
- There are more jobs than there are people!

Living in a reality-based reality is a good thing. You should try it some time.

Call it Crazy says

Answer, they're not.... but we need NEW laws banning "assault weapons" (whatever they might be) and 30 round magazines, like this will make a difference, since 80% of all murders happen in the inner cities with handguns...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/

80% of gun murders happen in cities because EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE POPULATION LIVES IN CITIES. Do you even read the shit you write?

Call it Crazy says

A few examples where the existing laws don't work because the criminals don't give a shit about them... how about Chicago, how about Oakland, how about Stockton, how about Camden... how are the strict laws working out to minimize shooting deaths in these areas??

Hard to say. Chicago had the highest murder rate in the country when they started enacting strict gun controls in the 80s and 90s. They're squarely in the middle now.

Like every US city, crime rates are down dramatically overall. There were 940 murders in Chicago in 1974 and about 500 in 2012. Population has been relatively constant.

It's worth mentioning that chicago's murder rate declined by more than any other city since they started enacting strict gun control. How much of that owes to simply starting from a higher peak and how much owes to the gun control is extremely poorly researched.

Call it Crazy says

Strict gun laws and background checks already exist in many states. In fact, in the recent CT. school shooting, the owner of the guns used had passed all required checks and the guns were legally owned. Also, Adam Lanza had tried to buy his own gun and was turned down. So, now what.

Looks like the background check system worked in that case, didn't it??

But, Lanza stole the firearms from a legal owner and went on his rampage, so all the background checks in the world wouldn't have prevented him, since he was hell bent on breaking the law.

See, this is everything that's wrong with this logic.

NOBODY is suggesting that gun control eliminates all murders. ZERO PEOPLE ARE SAYING THIS.

Yes, there are plenty of situations where a bad person could obtain a weapon.

The whole point is to make it more difficult.

The only way for it to be impossible for a bad person to obtain a firearm would be for firearms to not exist.

You can definitely argue that gun control laws don't have the intended effect, but starting with the premise that they're only effective if they eliminate bad people from getting guns entirely is completely wrong.

Bap33 says

Thedaytoday says

40% of illegal gun trafficking is done by 1% of gun shops! due to the NRA

rolling back inventory clauses!

look, professor, 100% of gun crime is done by criminals that don't give two shits about your libtarded laws. Armed citizens that follow the existing laws against murder are not your problem, they are the criminals problem. NEXT!

Dude, try to follow, o.k.? 40% of illegal gun trafficking done by 1% of gun shops. So if we were to simply keep track of who the shops are selling the guns to, we could significantly cut down the number of CRIMINALS who are getting guns. Try to think about that before your knee starts jerking.

Call it Crazy says

But, Lanza stole the firearms from a legal owner and went on his rampage, so all the background checks in the world wouldn't have prevented him, since he was hell bent on breaking the law.

If I were arguing that ALL gun murders would be prevented by making guns harder for criminals to get, then you might have an argument here that was worth making. Do you understand this ?

Call it Crazy says

Show me the facts and data that says criminals bought their weapons without background checks? I haven't seen any of that data yet from the anti-gun crowd.

"anti-gun crowd ?" Again 89% of republicans, and 75% of NRA members are for universal background checks.

The data says 40% of guns are bought without background checks.

The simplest part of background checks is the part that checks criminal record.

So let's see people with criminal records are getting guns, and 40% of gun sales are made without a background check.

Do you really need me to connect the dots for you ?

I'm sure more will have to be done. But you have to start somewhere.

Call it Crazy says

Oh, and I wouldn't use Cory Booker as a reference... he is the mayor of the garbage, sewer city of Newark... and NJ has extremely strict handgun laws...

Booker can't even clean up his own town of gun violence, but he wants to go on the national stage and rant about gun laws... he's as bad a Rahm in Chicago!!!

He talks a lot about how criminals get their guns. That's his obsession, how to curtail illegal or black market gun traffic.

And he's right, it is a false debate. Over 90% of americans are for universal background checks. I don't think universal background checks will be nearly enough to significantly stop illegal or black market gun trafficking. But it's a good place to start.

marcus says

Bap33 says

criminals that don't give two shits about your libtarded laws

THey don't have to give to shits. If guns get harder for criminals to obtain, then guns get harder for criminals to obtain.

Even if it was just a matter of the price going up tenfold over a period of a few decades (inflation adjusted dollars) - that is, for guns bought on the black market.

How can anyone in their right mind not realize that will cause less teens shooting each other in inner cities.

I do not think the inner city youths are so lazy as to not do what it taks to be armed better than their target. Ponder that a minute, because at some point it may be you that is the target. You see, in my opinion, when red and blue come together, they will target you and I.

There is no reason behind limiting access to any weapon by any legal American citizen. None. It just makes liberals feel empowered and self-important. Much like man-made-global-wraming bull shit EPA laws, gun control is just the now-in-power dopehead generation's way to feel like they make a difference when making a difference is too much work.

3000 babies are murdered by abortion each and every day in America. If you made that harder to access it would save more lives than all the gun murder of teens, in all innercities, combined. Fact.

This is not about the libtarded progressives saving any life .. not one ... it is about spreading the misery, creating as many possible victims to rely on Lord Barry as possible -- text book liberalism 101

Homeboy says

Bap33 says

Thedaytoday says

40% of illegal gun trafficking is done by 1% of gun shops! due to the NRA

rolling back inventory clauses!

look, professor, 100% of gun crime is done by criminals that don't give two shits about your libtarded laws. Armed citizens that follow the existing laws against murder are not your problem, they are the criminals problem. NEXT!

Dude, try to follow, o.k.? 40% of illegal gun trafficking done by 1% of gun shops. So if we were to simply keep track of who the shops are selling the guns to, we could significantly cut down the number of CRIMINALS who are getting guns. Try to think about that before your knee starts jerking.

dude, pay attention, the "illegal gun traffic" has a zero effect or value unless said weapon is used in a crime. Your knee is a bit wobbly?

Bap33 says

There is no reason behind limiting access to any weapon by any legal American citizen.

This is true, which is why nobody is doing that.

Get a grip man.

As we get older we are supposed to get smarter, wiser, better at learning, and above all more emotionally well grounded and balanced.

But some people go the other way. They get more ignorant, more close minded, less capable of learning, with their worst emotional attributes only growing and taking over.

Go ahead find some hate radio to turn on or something. I don't think you are going to find any normal people that can appreciate your point of view here.

THen again, if you live in hillbilly territory, maybe it's as easy as walking outside and talking to your neighbors.

Bap33 says

I do not think the inner city youths are so lazy as to not do what it taks to be armed better than their target.

So if guns get harder to get. If it gets harder for a legal citizen to buy 20 legal guns in one state, and then sell them for a profit to kids in Jersey. If background checks are improved and penalties for individual illegal resales are made huge....If all of these things are done, you don't think that decades from now we can't have less teens on the street armed ?

You don't think that sometimes murder happens just because some stupid punk kid has a gun that was too easy to get ?

Quigley says

86 years ago my grandpappy's father died in a pistol duel with his brother over a woman.

She wasn't their sister was she?
Cue banjo music.
Sorry, couldn't resist.