rhaig

But you desire more acts of violence. You've stated just that up thread. You're OK with removing firearms even though they're used for defensive means. You've stated you're FOR an increase in violent crime. The CDC study on gun violence determined that firearms are an important self defense tool. "Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." So yes. Increased presence of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens could mean less violent crimes. then go look at the CDC study yourself. It also found that laws removing guns would not be effective in reducing crime. Or you may not trust the CDC study commissioned by our President by executive order. So based on the CDC reported numbers of defensive gun uses (500K to more than 3M), let me revise the amount of additional violent crimes you're OK with. An additional rapes: 35K-211K robberies: 149K-894K assaults: 316K-1,895K That, vs 8,583 firearms murders in the 2011 FBI crime stats. Why do you promote an increase in violent crime? -- Rob

but what is the other hand doing while we're all looking at this one? -- Rob

there would be less thread derailment if everyone had a gun. We should make a forum rule that requires that. After all, an armed forum is a polite forum. -- Rob

you came HERE to get an argument settled? Really? It's not the same as listening to a scanner. The scanner probably gives more information. The FCC has a publicly accessible database of assigned frequencies including emergency services. You can search based on name, or based on the geographic location. There are also many websites with those frequencies aggregated for ease of display. For the price of a new unlocked unsubsidized smartphone, I can buy a scanner with digital trunking capabilities and listen to everything the police/fire/ems hear and say. -- Rob

Little Ponies? -- Rob

and if there was a big shiny red button that could magically make them all go away. Then your plan would work. But since there isn't, there will still be at least the same number of illegal guns in the hands of criminals. Likely more, as we know the chances of NONE of the confiscated weapons making it back onto the street is essentially nil. This is why I wish there was a category in the UCR stats for "legally purchased firearm" and "illegally purchased firearm". Confiscation would only affect the legally purchased firearms. And since there will still be criminals with firearms wanting to do bad things, and the police respond to phone calls in an average of 7 minutes in cities in my county (ignoring that most of the county is rural). I would expect that we could see those firearms continued to be used against law abiding citizens. Perhaps with more frequency than before. The efficacy of your plan relies on the magic "gun eraser" button. -- Rob

no... you've already told us that you're willing to take rifles away from millions to potentially save the lives of the 322 people murdered with rifles, and in exchange, you're OK with having thousands more raped, robbed and assaulted. based on the smallest number of estimated annual defensive gun uses, 100,000 (estimates based on different studies range all the way up to 3.6M DGU's annually) split on the proportions of 2011 violent crimes means you're OK with more than 7000 additional rapes, almost 30000 additional robberies, and more than 63000 additional assaults. Sound about right? -- Rob

no really... I don't expect that Obama would be involved in the details of logistics of movements of government equipment and personnel (including a dog), but I was looking for an opinion on where should the buck stop? Bush is blamed for everything that happened under his administration even when it was so far down the chain of command that it's quite absurd. I wouldn't blame the president for something like this unless there was a written order uncovered where he said "I don't care if it's just the dog on the flight, make the damn flight" but there isn't. and do you scoff AT me, or in my general direction? -- Rob

Are we talking about crimes in the US committed with legally owned fully automatic firearms? Which one? There was one in 1988 where a police officer shot an informant, and the other one was in 1992 in Ohio though there is some discrepancy over the details of that firearm being a legally purchased automatic weapon. so you didn't mean to say fully automatic.... ok then. ("world of pain") -- Rob

Only heartless gun loving homicidal maniacs dislike rainbows. My favorite is a rainbow getting danced on by a unicorn. (unicorn is unarmed obviously except for his pointy stick) I don't like rainbows. And I am not a maniac!! -- Rob

stipulating that this story was a BS exaggeration, where does the buck stop? Are you implying that a commander isn't responsible for what goes on in their chain of command? -- Rob

behavioral profiling works. -- Rob

Nunchucks? Really? There's a nationwide ban on nunchucks? Oh wait, you're talking about local jurisdictions who have laws against openly carrying nunchucks in public, but having them in your home or using them in a practice of a martial art is ok. So it's not really a ban is it? It's laws restricting carry of a type of weapon that are being followed and (realistically) selectively enforced. So, because there isn't a reason NOT to ban them, they should be banned? Cars should be banned then. People can take public transit or walk. Motorcycles? Yup... them too. No good reason not to right? No... that's absurd. You can't come up with a good reason why they should be banned? They shouldn't be banned. Well... they are enumerated in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the US. So to us, they ARE rights. They are rights enumerated by law. Yes, the Constitution can be modified. (as it was to abolish slavery) The process is outlined in the document itself. And if there were to be an amendment proposed to restrict firearms ownership to military and police, I do not believe it would pass. Do your own search for "assault rifle deaths per year". What you end up finding is that most of the time, the article will report on the "number of gun deaths" without detail for the type of gun used but then go on to talk about the massive amounts of death that assault rifles are capable of inflicting (thus implying thousands of assault rifle deaths). In 2011 there were 323 murders caused by rifles according to FBI crime stats. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11) I don't have numbers on how many of those 323 rifle murders were committed with legally obtained firearms. That would be a number that is interesting in the context of this discussion. I could guess that it is a small percentage, but I have nothing to back up that guess. and yes... what quade said -- "world of pain" -- Rob

this. The lazy ones are the ones who fail to inventory their candidates positions and decide on all the issues as opposed to which of the two buckets they are in. -- Rob

sometimes it's an effective self-hypnosis -- Rob

so one started it. the other is allowing it to continue. they're both wrong for doing it. they both get their own kind of blame. -- Rob

I'm with you except that we need to remember that the courts did not take away our right to defend ourselves from an attack. I'm not going to rehash how stupid both parties in the incident were. We just need to retain our rights. -- Rob

GWB signed the Patriot Act before BHO was even a senator. Xkeyscore was introduced under GWB's authority. and it's Bush's fault again... how surprising coming from you. Oh wait. This time you're actually right. The Patriot Act pile of shit was signed by Bush after it was rushed through both houses of congress and passed by large majorities. So They are all at fault too. Let's not forget them. -- Rob

What might also help is if the voting public quit being ignorant about the people they're voting for. And after elections are over, instead of being happy their guy won and being apathetic for another 4 years, they were critical of all the politicians in office regardless of where their vote landed or which party they belong to. -- Rob

saw the title and though it would be an article about a drone used for hunting game. -- Rob

right? and to think that people actually voted for the politicians! (wait... you WERE talking about the politicians being animals right?) -- Rob

Having not followed the whole argument, I'll drop in my $0.02 "the will of the people" implies majority rule. AKA mob rule. We have rule of law and a system put in place to keep bad laws from staying on the books. That system is being abusesd (legislative branch passing bad laws, executive branch, under more than one president, signing them) and putting the onus on the Judicial branch to clean up. DOMA was a stupid knee-jerk reaction by a bunch of religious extremists. It was a bad law. It's gone now. NEXT!! -- Rob

ok... ok... old news... but still thought it was funny. (It's late. I'm tired. I didn't look at the date. sue me.) -- Rob

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/this-is-not-a-joke-government-issues-study-of-a-study-about-studies/ -- Rob

the thing that ticks me off is that we are having unconstitutional laws passed and waiting for the judicial branch to be the police. The idea was that any of the 3 branches should be able to recognize unconstitutionality and stop the law from going forward. That's not happening. -- Rob