Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Stop the Bullets, Kill the Gun

1

Another topic: Who wanted to see a bullet hit the kid. And, why is the sky blue?

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 6, 2007 11:33 AM
2

The watermelon was my favorite.

Posted by brappy | September 6, 2007 11:35 AM
3

So, because it's a black kid it's racism? Can't a kid just be a kid? Or are you just trying to get a good argument going?

I think the takeaway lesson is definitely that high-speed cameras are awesome.

Posted by Levislade | September 6, 2007 11:37 AM
4

that ad is awesome.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 6, 2007 11:37 AM
5

As ex-military, I've never understood why Americans are so paranoid they think they need Uzis.

Want a gun? Buy a shotgun but don't buy shells and take the pin out.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 6, 2007 11:38 AM
6

"I think the takeaway lesson is definitely that high-speed cameras are awesome."

Word.

Posted by Mr. Poe | September 6, 2007 11:38 AM
7

No, it's racism because the black kid came after the watermelon. :-D. Seriously though, Dan was likely just trying to start a flamewar for his amusement (can't blame him).

Posted by Jason Petersen | September 6, 2007 11:39 AM
8

1) Guns are cool.
2) That's not a good reason to own guns.
3) There are good reasons to own a gun.
4) I do not own a gun.

=-=-=-=-

1) Guns are too dangerous to allow the general population to own or carry them.
2) Only authorized parties such as police officers should own guns because only those parties can be trusted to use them responsibly.
3) Police officers and the people who control them are popularly regarded as some of the most corrupt, racist, and fascistic individuals in our society.

=-=-=-=-

1) Firearms represent a unit of political power.
2) We live in a democracy.

=-=-=-=-

Posted by Judah | September 6, 2007 11:43 AM
9

How is Dan responsible? His being responsible assumes that people take him seriously: which no one does.

But the water bottle was the coolest!

Posted by Just Me | September 6, 2007 11:44 AM
10

That commercial is beautiful. Why can't they air it here, every hour of every day on every tv and cable network?

Posted by thankshappy | September 6, 2007 11:47 AM
11

i'm no gun nut but, gotta say, i went to the firing range a week or two ago and it is an awesome experience.

and i mean awesome in that holding a loaded firearm inspires fear, power, and a sense of shock.

i am more scared of guns, having blown paper men to oblivion with a glock. i am more interested in knowing how to handle a gun safely, after loading the clip. i am most of all interested in tighter controls on firearms, which is something i don't think will ever happen.

that is a fucking epic ad.

Posted by kerri harrop | September 6, 2007 11:47 AM
12

Oh man, that was awesome! I was almost gripping my seat at the end. I thought that kids head was going to explode. That would have been awesome.
actually, can we get some videos of peoples heads exploding? like from kung fu movies or something. not actual real heads exploding.

Posted by Blah!! | September 6, 2007 11:52 AM
13

didn't korn already do this in a music video like 10 years ago?

Posted by xiu xiu | September 6, 2007 11:52 AM
14

am i the only one who was totally expecting the kid to get it?

Posted by kate | September 6, 2007 11:54 AM
15

I haven't decided if it's significant that the commercial doesn't ever actually show a gun. And who the hell would be testing out a gun on a kid's head? See? It's an ineffective commercial aimed at people's emotional reaction rather than their logical thought process. Lame and manipulative.

(But the high speed camera shots ARE cool. Really cool.)

Posted by Katelyn | September 6, 2007 11:59 AM
16

Funny how nobody seems to be taking the bait. In a perfect world, only responsible people who have taken the time to learn how to safely own and operate a firearm should have them--but then you've got that pesky 2nd amendment to deal with.

You could make the exact same commercial with exquisite slow-motion photography of car crashes, which cause more carnage than guns, but I don't think you'd get people to agree to ban cars as a result

Posted by Westside forever | September 6, 2007 11:59 AM
17

I love guns and firmly believe we need stronger gun control in this country.

I don't think just anyone should be able to own one.

Posted by monkey | September 6, 2007 12:00 PM
18

@17 What are your criteria then for who gets to own a gun?

Posted by Katelyn | September 6, 2007 12:11 PM
19

@16 - Except there are a lot more regulations around cars and licenses to drive than there are around guns and gun licenses.

Posted by Levislade | September 6, 2007 12:11 PM
20

As long as I don't shoot anybody with a gun or commit some other harmful act, why shouldn't I be allowed to own them?

Posted by Smegmalicious | September 6, 2007 12:13 PM
21

@5 i agree. i hunt and enjoy skeet shooting but there is way too much out there, who needs automatic weapons?

Posted by J | September 6, 2007 12:21 PM
22

High speed cameras=awesome!

I'm a little worried that that feeling in some of us to see the kid's head get blown up is exactly how some kids feel when they take a gun and kill their frienemy. Will this ad make kids want to use a gun? I mean the ad makes guns look pretty damn cool. It reminds of what has been said about cigarette ads.

Posted by Papayas | September 6, 2007 12:25 PM
23

BOOM! Headshot!

Posted by kid icarus | September 6, 2007 12:30 PM
24

@21 Automatic weapons have been basically illegal since 1930.

Posted by Smegmalicious | September 6, 2007 12:32 PM
25

@8 - we don't live in a democracy.

And the UK isn't one either. They are a constitutional parliamentary monarchy. We are a representative republic with an insurgent executive that thinks it's a monarchy.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 6, 2007 12:36 PM
26

#18 -
1. I think you should be required to take and pass gun safety classes.
2. You shouldn't have a criminal record, including violence related misdemeanors.
3. All guns must be registered with the state.
4. There should be at least a 30 day waiting period, regardless of where or how you purchase the gun (no gun show loop-holes).

For starters anyway.

Posted by monkey | September 6, 2007 12:39 PM
27

@26 Most of those restrictions are in place. I've been to gunshow, there are no loopholes unless people are breaking the law, which they aren't.

Your background is checked before you buy a gun

Gun safety is a prudent measure, and waiting periods are cool but the thing is, criminals don't go through legal means to get a gun.

No one is planning to rob a liquor store, then going to a gun store (which are actually hard to find a lot of times) filling out paperwork and getting a background check then committing the crime.

If you want to curb gun violence make violent crimes with a gun carry much much harsher penalties, don't restrict sportsmen and people who want to defend their homes and families.

Posted by Smegmalicious | September 6, 2007 12:46 PM
28

All firearms should be made illegal, and the sooner the better IMHO.

Posted by SnazzySteve | September 6, 2007 12:59 PM
29

@25

I love it when that happens. It's like those people who used to get all snooty about how "It's not Russia, it's the Soviet Union." It's like yeah, who gives a shit?

We live in a federated republic. We also live in a constitutional republic. We also live in a representative republic. What fucking ever.

For purposes of this discussion, the governed are the moral and intellectual equals of the governors and the governors derive their power from the consent of the governed, which are the relevant characteristics of a democracy. This reflects on the issue of firearm ownership to the extent that our government is no more wise or moral than we are and therefore does not deserve nor should they be granted any special warrant to keep or bear arms. In other words, the question of whether we're a representative republic or a crypto-plutocratic proto-totalitarian oligarchy has -- for the time being -- no bearing on my point whatsofuckingever.

So how 'bout the next time you want to dazzle everyone with your fucking intellect and correct someone on the "America is a democracy" question, maybe you take a deep breath and ask your smart sell if it makes any fucking difference to the point the person you're addressing was trying to make.

Sigh.

Sorry. I'm cutting down on the coffee and I guess it makes me a little cranky.

Posted by Judah | September 6, 2007 1:01 PM
30

@16

Banning cars would never work - well, hardly anyone buys a car with the intent to protect themselves from other people with cars. But cars are demonstrably more expensive than guns - so perhaps if using cars to kill one another were the law, then - well, my point. Banning guns! Hah - you might as well make it illegal to consider soliciting sex from a Rutger Hauer look-alike whose job it is to read those salacious impure thoughts and to entrap your sorry DL ass.

Posted by National Recovery Addiction | September 6, 2007 1:03 PM
31

@19: There are more motor vehicle regulations than gun regulations? Do you read or do you just parrot and drool?

Are there 10-day waiting periods for when you buy a car so you won't "run over anyone in anger"? Are there "capacity restrictions" on the size of your gas tanks? Are there laws prohibiting "steering wheel shrouds", "folding spoilers", and any modification that will make your car look like an "assault car"? Are there minimum and maximum length restrictions to how long a car can be? Are cars of a certain "cylinder size" banned from the market, despite that cylinder size having never been used in a crime? Does accidentally driving into a wall land you a year in prison and a 10-year automobile ban? Is it illegal to drive within 300 yards of any populated area? Are "steel-cored" bumpers outlawed? Is any car classified as a Class III destructive device and can land you a felony for possession? Will the police illegally confiscate your cars in an event of civil disorder?

How many people do cars kill a year?

Posted by TFRznode | September 6, 2007 1:19 PM
32

Monkey @26 is off to a good start.  The current requirements for safety training are a joke, about as effective as a 12-page cookbook included with rice cookers is at creating chefs.

It should be harder by far to legally own a gun than to drive a car.  (And while we're at it, it should be a hell of lot harder to get a driver's license.)

I'd meet those burdens willingly, just as I willingly pay taxes for the benefits of living in a civil society.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 1:46 PM
33

TFRznode @31, you apparently have no clue of the byzantine depth and breadth of automotive regulations.  As personally put upon as you seem to feel by firearms regulation, it's not even in the same league as what automakers contend with.

Try importing a car model not sold in the U.S. sometime.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 1:53 PM
34

@26
1. That is already the case.
2. That is already the case.
3. Many states already have 10-day waiting periods. What will a 30-day waiting period do?

Posted by TFRznode | September 6, 2007 1:54 PM
35

@26 -- I agree those are good restrictions, in particular the 30 day waiting period. But would they actually make a difference in number of gun fatalities in the US? It seems like the more official red tape, the more lively the black market and the more numerous the shortcuts created to get through the red tape. If I were to get a gun for hunting or self-defense, I would of course go through any and all required steps because I already know I won't be using this gun in any illegal activities. But why bother following the rules if I happen to know I will not be using this gun in a legal capacity? If my purpose in getting a firearm is to blow some fucker's kneecap out in revenge for... whatever, then I don't care if my gun is legal or not. What matters more to vengeful me is that I obtain the gun quickly through whatever means and then that I blow the kneecap out as satisfactorily as possible.

Anyway my point is that while restrictions on ownership are worth some time and energy developing, they won't be what's preventing gun crime. My guess is that they won't even slow it down.

Posted by Katelyn | September 6, 2007 1:54 PM
36

When President Cheney declares martial law in 16 months, you're all going to want to have as many guns as possible.

Posted by Big Sven | September 6, 2007 1:56 PM
37

@32
And what would be the purpose of raising the requirements to inane levels for a firearm? Do you think that the vast criminals actually obtain firearms legally?

@33
But I'm not an automaker, am I? Nor am I a gunsmith, no gun manufacturer. No, I'm just an end-consumer. The regulations placed on gun manufacturing and importation already ensures my safety as long as I behave in a non-idiot fashion when in possession of a firearm. How would adding on regulations on MY END do anything?

Posted by TFRznode | September 6, 2007 1:59 PM
38

Lostboy you are so right on. But most importantly is that people who procreate - whether by choice or by I-was-so-drunk-last-night-I-can't-remember-what-I-did must be licensed before they are permitted to bring children into a world where babies are accidentally microwaved, forgotten in broiling hot cars or baby sat by stoned boy friends and their Rhodesian ridgebacks.

Posted by LICENSE TO BREED REQUIRED | September 6, 2007 2:01 PM
39

But LICENSE TO BREED, if we only allow the fittest parents to have children, who will argue about stupid crap on the internet to fill sites with vague notions of content?

Posted by Dr Kenneth Noisewater | September 6, 2007 2:37 PM
40

I wanted to see the negro die.

But I saw it was wrong.

Posted by Jimmy Walnuts | September 6, 2007 2:42 PM
41

I think if you want to exercise your second amendment "rights" you should be required to give up the rights you take from others by possessing potential murder weapons. I would be in favor of mandatory national registration of guns, so that when the time comes we can have the Army (the police could do it but knowing some gun nuts they'll shoot at the cops) take back the guns so we can finally have peace. I would also be amiable to wiretapping and such to make sure that gun owners aren't going to shoot up a school or a bank. Obviously I think anyone in possession of an assault weapon should be locked away for a long long time, or even shown what it's like to be the victim of their "hobby." Hopefully in 10 years we can have it all banned and then there will be no more blood running through the streets and our schools. Remember Columbine!

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 2:56 PM
42

I cant tell if #41 is being sarcastic or not.

Gun control is a poor substitute for violence control. Attacking guns and legal gun owners is much easier and safer that challenging criminals or the root social causes of crime.

You cannot dis-invent firearms. Even if the impossible was achieved and every civilian owned gun was taken and melted down, more would come to fill the gap.

I think the anti-gun crowd has nothing but the kindest intentions but their well wishing is only matched by their naivety.

Posted by Dr Kenneth Noisewater | September 6, 2007 3:16 PM
43

Do Stranger staffers get, like, a point for each comment on one of their Slog posts? with extra credit for starting flame wars? What's the prize?

Posted by Emma Leigh | September 6, 2007 3:28 PM
44

#43 I believe the prize is the ability to laugh about it on SA.

#41 I'm pretty sure people killed each other before guns became prevalent.

Posted by TFR linked me here | September 6, 2007 3:45 PM
45

I also like the irony of a station called "choice" seeking to ban anything.

Posted by TFR linked me here | September 6, 2007 3:54 PM
46

TFRznode, @31 half of your rhetorical questions are about manufacturing regulation, but @37 you whine that manufacturer regulation isn't relevant to your point?

I'll humor you anyway.  Remember driver ed?  Been to the DOL (either branch) or your insurance agent lately?  Compared the size of the state vehicle code to the firearms code?  Maybe because it's so routine, it seems you've lost sight of just how tightly regulated you are as a driver or vehicle owner.

And yeah, many criminals get guns illegally, blah blah blah. The majority of firearms fatalities in the U.S. are suicides.  Homicide is a big fraction, to be sure, but how many homicides are committed with legally owned firearms? (I don't have the numbers yet, will add them when I can.)

The black market for firearms exists and is a problem needing its own solution, yes.  That doesn't make stupidity or violence by legal owners any less of an issue, and certainly doesn't make good regulation pointless.

Among other things, well-educated owners are a lot less likely to leave a weapon in an unattended car, or at home outside of a safe, decreasing the supply of stolen guns available.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 4:08 PM
47

@42, that is exactly why we must remove guns from the equation. It is easier, safer, and more effective than willy-nilly gun control and "respect the legal gun owners." I'm sorry if I'm not going to respect someone who wants to murder someone instead of just running away or calling the cops!

@44, That is why we should remove dangerous elements from the society. First step, guns.

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 4:13 PM
48

@41 is definitely being sarcastic, with a fine sense of comic irony.  Several nice touches.

Noisewater @42 and everyone, "gun control" is an awfully loaded term.  Let's not confuse regulating firearms with banning them, please.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 4:15 PM
49

#47 People are dangerous. It is not hard for one person to kill another person. People aren't going to sudenly run out of ideas once knee jerk reactors like you have destroyed my hobby.


Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin

Posted by TFR linked me here | September 6, 2007 4:22 PM
50

@49, does your "hobby" include murder? Otherwise, why else would you need a gun? It's for killing people. You can lie to yourself all you want about that, but that doesn't change the fact that every clip you load into your assault rifle is meant to kill people.

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 4:39 PM
51

"I'm sorry if I'm not going to respect someone who wants to murder someone instead of just running away or calling the cops!"

Puhleaze. Someone breaks into your house, and you're going to "run away"?!?

If someone breaks into my house, I will kill them. If it turns out they just wanted to steal my TV, oh well. I didn't know that. Can't be too careful. Then I will call the cops. Then I will have a snack and go back to bed. And I will sleep the sleep of the just and righteous. Because the criminal was the one who forced the situation by breaking into my home, NOT me.

"Liberal" isn't a synonym of "wimpy."

Posted by Big Sven | September 6, 2007 4:42 PM
52

TFR linked @49, you're misquoting. : The correct quote is:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
[Wikiquote]

The change from "essential liberty" to "a little liberty" perverts the statement into an argument for anarchy.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 4:48 PM
53

@51, you'd kill someone over a television? Is life worth so little to you?

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 4:51 PM
54

lostboy, to say that the second most important man in the founding of our country was arguing for anarchy is a complete misread of history. Franklin was the first libertarian.

It's really funny to me- all the people bleating about how bad guns are, and how the guv should enact all these new laws to monitor and control gun users are the EXACT same crowd that (rightly) decries the liberties stolen by Bush in his "War on Terror(R)"

Posted by Big Sven | September 6, 2007 4:53 PM
55

Big Sven @51, wow. Hook, line, and sinker.

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 4:53 PM
56

Big Sven @54, read my post again.  I said the misquote by the putz @49 is an argument for anarchy.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 4:55 PM
57

lostboy@56: you're right, I misread. Thanks.

oppression@53: I didn't say that. I said that I wouldn't know his intentions ahead of time. Net net: I think that if someone breaks into my house, I'm going to do whatever it takes to get rid of them. Would I shoot them in the back if they fled? Of course not. But if there's any question, I'm putting my safety of me and my family ahead of theirs.

Posted by Big Sven | September 6, 2007 5:01 PM
58

@54, I find it funny that you think you are aware what "crowd" I am in. Considering you have never heard me say anything that you just claimed I have against Bush, I'm curious how you have come to that (wrong) conclusion.

@57, which is what the police is there to do: protect you. More deaths are caused by guns than in self defense.

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 5:19 PM
59

@47
Removing the gun factor would probably be easier than changing society for the better, in the sense that blocking the sun's light to earth would be easier than destroying the sun.

I feel your Orwellian society of tapped phones and forced confinement on mere suspicion would be more miserable than one with guns. Although I fear many societies are heading there regardless, case in point the most recent US Presidency. A lot of people like would trust your freedom and security to Bush and his cronies instead of yourselves or your neighbors. So I suppose you will win in the end. Trust your government, big brother will be watching, this is for your protection.

Who was it that wrote: 'To many, the tranquil seas of fascism are a temptation away from the tempestuous seas of liberty'?

Posted by Dr Kenneth Noisewater | September 6, 2007 5:22 PM
60

#58 I can have my own personal gun. I can't have my own personal cop.

But it doesn't matter because #50 makes me pretty sure you are, to borrow a term from YCS, "fakeposting."

#52 I don't have a good head for details, so when I think of an apropriate quote I usually have to copy it from somewhere.

Posted by TFR linked me here | September 6, 2007 5:35 PM
61

@59, if fascism keeps me safe and our children safe, then so be it. Frankly, I'd rather be secure in the knowledge that I'm not going to be murdered by a gun toting lunatic or a terrorist trying to convert me to Muslim. Frankly, though, I'd rather live in a country in which we could all agree that guns need to be banned. I would say that's highly democratic, but unfortunately the gun nuts support Bush and he needs all of the help he can get. So which is it, "Dr" Kenneth Noisewater? Are you against Bush and democracy, or for fascism?

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 5:39 PM
62

Your idea of a democracy where everyone thinks the same thing is flawed. Democracy is not about conforming to one belief, its about a constant struggle to come up with the best solutions to a problem. Hence the unending debate about weapons ownership.

A society free of lunatics and terrorism has never existed, and likely will never exist. I encourage you to perhaps move to North Korea, where your children can be murdered in a camp by gun toting lunatics wearing uniforms, since that is so much more acceptable to you.

There are certainly no scary Muslims there.

Posted by Dr Kenneth Noisewater | September 6, 2007 5:56 PM
63

@62, and I'm pretty sure the best solution is to not have people running around with murder weapons. Do you think it is? Do you think people should be allowed to go around killing people, completely avoiding the rule of law? I pay so much in taxes so that we can have a police force to protect us from illegals, criminals, and what not, not for some vigilante redneck with a gun to shoot up my son because his baseball landed in the wrong yard.

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 6:06 PM
64

I should clarify, I don't think guns are bad.  I own three, and I enjoy firing them.  I know how use them for defense, though it's very, very unlikely I would ever need to.

What I think is bad: Too many uneducated, irresponsible, Rambo-wannabe gun owners.

Using a firearm safely and effectively is neither simple nor easy, and the consequences of error are severe. We require pilots to know what the hell they're doing. Demanding the same of gun owners is not too much to ask.

Non-joke training requirements would turn some of the Rambos into good owners and lead others to give up on buying a firearm.  Both outcomes are good, and I'd gladly bear the burden of licensing and reasonable scrutiny to see it happen.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

On a side note, end the oppression is one of the more cleverly successful trolls I've seen in a while...


Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 6:16 PM
65

Where is anyone running amok with murder weapons? Are you going to cite Columbine and VT? Those events were so freakish and catastrophic that they were major international news events.

I never stated that laws are not needed. Murder is still murder, loose gun laws and self defense laws do not change the definition of murder.

A vigilante redneck shooting your son would be guilty of murder. Any 'gun nut' would agree with this.

Posted by Dr Kenneth Noisewater | September 6, 2007 6:18 PM
66

end the oppression is probably just a gimmick poster, but there are plenty of people who feel the way he does, so I'll reply to his absurdities in a serious fashion.

Posted by Dr Kenneth Noisewater | September 6, 2007 6:22 PM
67

TFR linked @60 wrote:

#52 I don't have a good head for details, so when I think of an apropriate quote I usually have to copy it from somewhere.

Details matter.  The correct quote (@52) doesn't support your point.  The misquote (@49) does, but the assertion is absurd.  We trade "a little liberty" for security all the time.  For any society to be free, it must balance liberty and security.  The alternatives are fascism at one end and anarchy at the other, and you'll find freedom in neither.

Not everything you see online is true.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 6:40 PM
68

Either way it's a fair bet that he would have supported the rights of an armed citizenry, as most of his peers did.

Here's something from the internet, would you say it's true?


"In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." (David Kopel "More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)"

Posted by TFR linked me here | September 6, 2007 6:50 PM
69

@65, no, I'm going to cite the tens of thousands of gun deaths each year, urban devastation, youths turning to gangs and families destroyed by the continued existence of guns in the hands of civilians. I wouldn't trust any American but a cop or a soldier with a gun, and I'm surprised you would consider just letting anyone have something that is only for killing. It's pretty simple, really, less guns, less gun crime. No guns, no gun crime. You're probably one who thinks giving everyone guns would be better.

@66, thanks, I'm glad you dismiss me as absurd since you can't discuss this rationally.

Posted by end the oppression | September 6, 2007 7:57 PM
70

I don't understand the purpose of this commercial. No one could possibly be shot like that in England, because the UK banned possession of all firearms except single and double shotguns years ago. Handgun possession was banned after a frustrated pedophile shot up a primary school in Dunblane. It was easy for the government to tell who hadn't yet turned in their handgun because they could just look at their list of registered handgun owners and handguns. Previously, the owners had to go to their local police station for permission each time they wanted to buy a handgun, so their names were on a list next to the make, model, and serial number of their handguns. Which they had had to keep down at the shooters' club. That they had to belong to as a prerequisite of buying a handgun.

Now, do people see why we think gun control doesn't work? Because it won't prevent you from being shot.

Posted by Civilly liberal | September 6, 2007 8:04 PM
71

The black kid is only there because he heard there were watermelons

Posted by lol | September 6, 2007 8:07 PM
72

Re No. 61: end the oppression: Move to the UK. Gun control is much stricter there than here. Heck, move to Mexico. Gun control is even stricter there than here. Although the homicide rate is much, much higher.

Posted by Civilly liberal | September 6, 2007 8:11 PM
73

Trusting cops and soldiers with guns is a great irony, since police and soldiers killed more human beings in the 20th century than any other group of people.

How many of your gun deaths were caused by cops or soldiers? How many were committed by criminals on other criminals? How many were suicides? How many could have been prevented if the victim was armed? How many of these took place in cities or states that ban guns? You probably can't answer any of these questions, and probably don't care to, you'd rather just argue based on fear and emotion.

I never stated that everyone should be given a gun, I feel some qualifications are necessary such as being of age and having a clean record to start. Obviously guns or anything dangerous should be kept out of the hands of children, criminals and the mentally ill.
Training should be mandatory for anyone who chooses to use firearms for defensive purposes.

But this is too much for people like 'End the Oppression' to consider. In their view, every single human is a walking time bomb, ready to snap and begin murdering children. Guilty until proven innocent. If we're lucky a nice big government can be formed to protect us from ourselves.

Posted by Dr Kenneth Noisewater | September 6, 2007 8:13 PM
74

TFR linked @68 wrote:

Either way it's a fair bet that he would have supported the rights of an armed citizenry, as most of his peers did.

First: false binary choice - I support the rights of an armed citizenry.  I also support much stricter requirements for training, safe storage, and background checks and registration for all ownership transactions for the life of the weapon.

Second: By "he," do you mean Ben Franklin? It seems he published the quote but was not it's author. [Wikiquote, again]  You need to do more homework for your fair bet of a historic figure's support to carry much weight.


You need better game here than a weak for-or-against-us schtick.

Here's something from the internet, would you say it's true?

It seems plausibly true.  Also true:

* The ambiguously referenced permits are not for simple ownership, but for concealed carry in public.

* Concealed carry permits in FL require, yes, some training

* Concealed carry permits in FL require fingerprints, making them unappealing to potential criminals.

* In 1996 when these stats were reported, the name and address of every concealed carry permit holder in FL was public record, making them really unappealing to anyone who might make some enemies by pulling their piece.

In short, your sample has a selection bias favoring a more responsible and regulation friendly crowd than gun owners overall.

While I'm at it, an 11-year-old stat from one state not exactly known for it's gun violence issues?  I shouldn't complain since if anything it supports my position of making gun ownership more exclusive, but that's an awfully narrow bit of data.  Is there a reason for not citing broader or more recent info?


Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 8:17 PM
75

Sorry, I should have quoted TFR linked @68's full citation.  Here it is.

"In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." (David Kopel "More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)"
Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 8:25 PM
76

Hellooo! Registration is just the prelude to confiscation, as our British and Aussie cousins found out to their detriment.

You should ask yourself why you don't trust your fellow man to do the right thing. And if you don't, you shouldn't live in a democracy.

Posted by Civilly liberal | September 6, 2007 8:30 PM
77

lostboy@64, I didn't think you were right about ETO, until he said:

if fascism keeps me safe and our children safe, then so be it.

Only then did I realize the power of his trolling genius.

Posted by Big Sven | September 6, 2007 9:24 PM
78

Sven @77, it'll be a fun story we can share.

Posted by lostboy | September 6, 2007 11:02 PM
79

The message is simple.

Guns are extemely dangerous to eggs, champagne flutes, apples, ketchup bottles, bottled water and watermelons.

Posted by The World's Best Commentor | September 7, 2007 12:36 AM
80

@69, if you want anybody to take you seriously, you should at least pretend to make an attempt to use empirical evidence in your argument. tugging on the heartstrings of your reads by citing "urban devastation" simply betrays your complete unfamiliarity with the statistics behind firearm usage and the urban ghettoes that you seem to be so concerned with.

you want to stop crime in the ghetto? end the war on drugs. create single-payer healthcare. end institutionalized racism. repeal no child left behind.

i could keep going. the fact of the matter is, the havoc that you claim guns are wreaking on our society is actually the end result of a myriad of complex socio-economic factors that all end up fucking over the poor in America. when the poor get fucked, they find ways to compensate - namely, crime. gang warfare is claiming the lives of our ghetto youth, not the guns that they carry.

Posted by fiat justitia | September 7, 2007 9:12 AM
81

WE SUPPORT KEEPING GUNS AWAY FROM BLICKS

THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH GUNS

THEY COVET OUR WHITE WIMMENZ

Posted by NWA 4 LYFE | September 7, 2007 11:11 AM
82

What's a blick?

Posted by Smegmalicious | September 7, 2007 11:19 AM
83

@80, you have no right to talk about urban devastation. Try growing up in the Philly ghettos, and then you can talk. I find it hilarious too that you bring up NCLB and "institutional racism" as causes for it. I'm pretty sure my* ghetto youth were dying from guns long before the NCLB was passed. As for "institutional racism" I would say it's pretty racist to assume that it's the institution's fault that certain races utilize their services more than others. What would you have them do? Turn people away because they've "had too many blacks" this month? Absolutely ridiculous.

*mine because they're certainly not yours.

@66,77, if that's your excuse for slinking away from the debate with your tails between your legs, so be it.

@82, what do you think a blick is? I'll also take that medal.

Posted by end the oppression | September 7, 2007 11:59 AM
84

Maybe NWA mean keeping guns away from Blix- Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency?

Posted by Big Sven | September 7, 2007 12:00 PM
85

If guns kill people, then ...
Pencils miss spel words,
cars make people drive drunk,
spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thoſe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchaſe a little Temporary Safety, deſerve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

Posted by Think B4 U Type | September 10, 2007 2:09 PM
86

WHO CARES IF ANOTHER NIGGER IS DEAD. GOOD FUCKIN RIDDENS

Posted by Jason Petersen | September 12, 2007 10:12 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).