patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,193,318 comments by 13,877 users - clambo, DhammaStep, HeadSet, zzyzzx online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 52 - 91 of 1,288 Next » Last » Search these comments
55
bob2356
2018 Feb 19, 7:45am
Sniper says
Quick math question. In any group of say 1 million people (assuming theoretical even distribution) are there more or less gun households at 36% now than at 51% then? Hint 510,000 is larger than 360,000. Right wing math strikes again.
So if a country A has a million people with a million gun owners and country B has 500 million people with 1 million and 1 gun owners that means you are more likely to get shot in country B because they have more gun owners. OF COURSE, how could I not have seen that?
Yes those troublesome (if you don't understand them) percentages do matter.
Not these percentages again, some just haven't learned math.
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners.
Quick math question, which is larger, 37 million or 45 million?
What was that again about "right wing math"?
More households own guns NOW.
Quick math question. In any group of say 1 million people (assuming theoretical even distribution) are there more or less gun households at 36% now than at 51% then? Hint 510,000 is larger than 360,000. Right wing math strikes again.
So if a country A has a million people with a million gun owners and country B has 500 million people with 1 million and 1 gun owners that means you are more likely to get shot in country B because they have more gun owners. OF COURSE, how could I not have seen that?
Yes those troublesome (if you don't understand them) percentages do matter.
56
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 7:48am
Why do conservatives frame it as "giving up our guns"? We're talking about regulating a very small subset of firearms whose only purpose is to kill as quickly as possible.
57
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 7:48am
Goran_K says
Fact: One high school student death is one too many.
Fact, 3 times more people die to knives in the U.S than to rifles.
Fact: One high school student death is one too many.
58
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 7:48am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Great--let's go after the black market on guns then by limiting production. That can be part of the legislation.
On the other hand, Jamal Jackson and Juan Jiminez would still have access to the same .25 Auto that's been making the rounds on the Chicago or San Juan black market since Superfly was in the cinema and is linked to dozens of deaths. And the Mexican Cartels would just smuggle more in.
Great--let's go after the black market on guns then by limiting production. That can be part of the legislation.
59
bob2356
2018 Feb 19, 7:50am
Sniper says
ROFLOL. The NRA defines sensible as any background check that would not prevent a gun sale. The NRA used to call for sensible background checks when it was actually a group of gun owners not gun manufacturers. Those days are long gone.
The NRA has ALWAYS called for sensible background checks.
ROFLOL. The NRA defines sensible as any background check that would not prevent a gun sale. The NRA used to call for sensible background checks when it was actually a group of gun owners not gun manufacturers. Those days are long gone.
60
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 7:53am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 7:53am
anon_8f378 says
Nah, let's just have at least one guard controlling the entrance to schools like we do at every other similarly sized facility in the country.
Great--let's go after the black market on guns then by limiting production. That can be part of the legislation.
Nah, let's just have at least one guard controlling the entrance to schools like we do at every other similarly sized facility in the country.
61
MrMagic
2018 Feb 19, 8:25am
MrMagic
2018 Feb 19, 8:25am
bob2356 says
I'll try and help.
bob2356 says
That's NOT what your chart says. It says TOTAL households in the country, NOT a slice of a certain number of households. The facts are, the number of households has risen considerably between 1978 and 2016 on your chart.
So, here's the basic math again:
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners
Please show me on your chart where it says "Taken from a sample of 1 million households"......
Go contact CBS and NYT and tell them their Liberal Spin chart didn't work (except for clueless Liberal sheep).
I'll be waiting.
bob2356 says
Yes, percentages matter, when dealing with facts.
Those pesky facts again.
Quick math question.
I'll try and help.
bob2356 says
In any group of say 1 million people (assuming theoretical even distribution) are there more or less gun households at 36% now than at 51% then?
That's NOT what your chart says. It says TOTAL households in the country, NOT a slice of a certain number of households. The facts are, the number of households has risen considerably between 1978 and 2016 on your chart.
So, here's the basic math again:
In 1978 there were 73 million households, so 51% of 73 = 37 million were gun owners.
In 2016 there were 126 million households, so 36% of 126 = 45 million were gun owners
Please show me on your chart where it says "Taken from a sample of 1 million households"......
Go contact CBS and NYT and tell them their Liberal Spin chart didn't work (except for clueless Liberal sheep).
I'll be waiting.
bob2356 says
Yes those troublesome (if you don't understand them) percentages do matter.
Yes, percentages matter, when dealing with facts.
Those pesky facts again.
62
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 8:28am
anon_8f378 says
Because they are paranoid snowflake cunts just like the CUNTUS himself.
Why do conservatives frame it as "giving up our guns"? We're talking about regulating a very small subset of firearms whose only purpose is to kill as quickly as possible.
Because they are paranoid snowflake cunts just like the CUNTUS himself.
63
Onvacation
2018 Feb 19, 8:40am
Onvacation
2018 Feb 19, 8:40am
anon_6b979 says
So you only want law abiding citizens to own guns that kill slowly? Sounds inhumane.
whose only purpose is to kill as quickly as possible.
So you only want law abiding citizens to own guns that kill slowly? Sounds inhumane.
64
FortWayne
2018 Feb 19, 8:43am
FortWayne
2018 Feb 19, 8:43am
anon_8f378 says
How much quicker is AR-15 vs a handgun? Since you are all of a sudden an expert, please do tell how much faster one vs another is?
Why do conservatives frame it as "giving up our guns"? We're talking about regulating a very small subset of firearms whose only purpose is to kill as quickly as possible.
How much quicker is AR-15 vs a handgun? Since you are all of a sudden an expert, please do tell how much faster one vs another is?
66
Tenpoundbass
2018 Feb 19, 8:50am
Tenpoundbass
2018 Feb 19, 8:50am
Sniper says
I do It's called self driving electric cars. Outlawed private ownership of cars. Unless you're a VIP of course, or a Liberal A Lister.
Any Libbies want to touch on that o
I do It's called self driving electric cars. Outlawed private ownership of cars. Unless you're a VIP of course, or a Liberal A Lister.
67
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 9:51am
Sniper says
Sure-it's another strawman. Gun control is about closing loopholes that allow "drunk drivers" in your analogy to get them.. It's about restricting the general population's ability from dangerous cars which is already in place. (read--non street legal)
If gun control were similar to automobile regulations, I'd be happy.
There's a perfect example of Liberal Logic.
Any Libbies want to touch on that one?
Sure-it's another strawman. Gun control is about closing loopholes that allow "drunk drivers" in your analogy to get them.. It's about restricting the general population's ability from dangerous cars which is already in place. (read--non street legal)
If gun control were similar to automobile regulations, I'd be happy.
68
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 9:51am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
Useless. I'm looking for solutions that help fix the problem.
Nah, let's just have at least one guard controlling the entrance to schools like we do at every other similarly sized facility in the country.
Useless. I'm looking for solutions that help fix the problem.
69
MrMagic
2018 Feb 19, 9:51am
MrMagic
2018 Feb 19, 9:51am
anon_8f378 says
Is this your daily "Chuck Schumer" talking point that you'll keep posting, day after day?
We're talking about regulating a very small subset of firearms whose only purpose is to kill as quickly as possible.
Is this your daily "Chuck Schumer" talking point that you'll keep posting, day after day?
70
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 9:52am
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 9:52am
anon_8f378 says
Yeah, not having ANY controls to exit and enter a 3100+ Person Facility, much less one filled with kids, is not a problem. The kid was on a ban list but there was not one (1) person charged with the responsibility of checking entrants into the complex, so the list was nothing more than ass covering useless bureaucracy.
Or a kid who the police responded to complaints 39 times at his house, was expelled from regular school, on SSRIs, and diagnosed with mental issues, experienced no intervention despite at least one verified recent tip to a LEO Agency about Violent Threats by an adult, and many more by peers.
Instead, let's select the politically difficult idea of banning firearms.
Useless.
Useless. I'm looking for solutions that help fix the problem.
Yeah, not having ANY controls to exit and enter a 3100+ Person Facility, much less one filled with kids, is not a problem. The kid was on a ban list but there was not one (1) person charged with the responsibility of checking entrants into the complex, so the list was nothing more than ass covering useless bureaucracy.
Or a kid who the police responded to complaints 39 times at his house, was expelled from regular school, on SSRIs, and diagnosed with mental issues, experienced no intervention despite at least one verified recent tip to a LEO Agency about Violent Threats by an adult, and many more by peers.
Instead, let's select the politically difficult idea of banning firearms.
Useless.
71
zzyzzx
2018 Feb 19, 9:55am
zzyzzx
2018 Feb 19, 9:55am
More children dies of the flu last week than from school shootings.
Where is the cry from Democrats to outlaw the flu?
Where is the cry from Democrats to outlaw the flu?
73
FortWayne
2018 Feb 19, 10:08am
FortWayne
2018 Feb 19, 10:08am
There are more gun laws than automobile laws already.
And yes more people die in car accidents than from rifles.
anon_8f378 says
And yes more people die in car accidents than from rifles.
anon_8f378 says
Sniper saysThere's a perfect example of Liberal Logic.
Any Libbies want to touch on that one?
Sure-it's another strawman. Gun control is about closing loopholes that allow "drunk drivers" in your analogy to get them.. It's about restricting the general population's ability from dangerous cars which is already in place. (read--non street legal)
If gun control were similar to automobile regulations, I'd be happy.
74
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 10:21am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
How about let's do both?!?
Why must everyone pretend we can't do two things at once?
Or a kid who the police responded to complaints 39 times at his house, was expelled from regular school, on SSRIs, and diagnosed with mental issues, experienced no intervention despite at least one verified recent tip to a LEO Agency about Violent Threats by an adult, and many more by peers.
Instead, let's select the politically difficult idea of banning firearms.
How about let's do both?!?
Why must everyone pretend we can't do two things at once?
75
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 10:21am
zzyzzx says
Enough with this nonsense. It really is one side made up of adults and the other made up of 3 yr olds.
More children dies of the flu last week than from school shootings.
Where is the cry from Democrats to outlaw the flu?
Enough with this nonsense. It really is one side made up of adults and the other made up of 3 yr olds.
76
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 10:21am
TwoScoopsPlissken says
But since that is a lie, let's move on to discussing actual relevant issues and solutions.
Yeah, not having ANY controls to exit and enter a 3100+ Person Facility, much less one filled with kids, is not a problem.
But since that is a lie, let's move on to discussing actual relevant issues and solutions.
80
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 1:49pm
Sniper says
This isn't correct. The nuke of the day was a pre-drednaught ship of the line with a full arsenal of long nines. Governments made damn sure that no private citizens with means could own one.
CajunSteve saysThe government pretty much has access to any and every weapon now. So, you think citizens should too, right?
When the 2nd was written they both had access to the same equipment.
This isn't correct. The nuke of the day was a pre-drednaught ship of the line with a full arsenal of long nines. Governments made damn sure that no private citizens with means could own one.
81
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 1:50pm
zzyzzx says
I'm all for the Swiss system. Everyone does 2 years in the military to get the right to a gun then gets checked out by the military every year. Can congress vote on that today?
Does Hondruas and Switzerland have he same poverty rate? Your picture doesn't say.
I'm all for the Swiss system. Everyone does 2 years in the military to get the right to a gun then gets checked out by the military every year. Can congress vote on that today?
Does Hondruas and Switzerland have he same poverty rate? Your picture doesn't say.
82
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 1:50pm
zzyzzx says
You were lied to there is no requirement for gun ownership in switzerland. Google doesn't work for you"
The swiss have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. When will the NRA start lobbying for swiss style gun control?
You were lied to there is no requirement for gun ownership in switzerland. Google doesn't work for you"
The swiss have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. When will the NRA start lobbying for swiss style gun control?
83
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 1:59pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 1:59pm
Oh look, NeverTrump Bill Kristol endorses NeverTrump Ross Douhat (The Very Reverend, Bailiff Knights Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion, et cetera) NYT Piece about banning AR-15s
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/sunday/no-country-for-young-men-with-ar-15s.html
I'm shocked that NeverTrump RINOs wanted gun control all along.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/17/opinion/sunday/no-country-for-young-men-with-ar-15s.html
I'm shocked that NeverTrump RINOs wanted gun control all along.
84
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 2:12pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2018 Feb 19, 2:12pm
anon_81928 says
If you mean a long 9 pounder brass or iron cannon in the age of sail, merchant ships certainly carried those into the Civil War Era. Otherwise they would have fallen to pirates that abounded in the off the Horn of Africa, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, South China and Java Seas, if not elsewhere.
Here is a ship of the Black Ball Line with clearly visible gun ports. The ship was built in 1818 and this picture was painted in 1851, just prior to the Civil War.
A nine-pounder was hardly considered a big cannon, either. Six-pounders were for anti-personnel use; a nine-pounder would have been the smallest cannon effective against shipping. A nine-pounder would have been considered adequate only to fend off sloops, barques, and various smaller vessels. The Constitution, considered a Frigate, not at all a Ship of the Line, carried multiple 24-lb Long Guns.
Most private whalers carried cannon as well, and a great many skirmishes and actual wars were fought or began with or between whalers, such as the Nootka Crisis off the NW Pacific Coast or the capture of the French Whaler Hebe by a British Whaler in the 1790s.
This isn't correct. The nuke of the day was a pre-drednaught ship of the line with a full arsenal of long nines. Governments made damn sure that no private citizens with means could own one.
If you mean a long 9 pounder brass or iron cannon in the age of sail, merchant ships certainly carried those into the Civil War Era. Otherwise they would have fallen to pirates that abounded in the off the Horn of Africa, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, South China and Java Seas, if not elsewhere.
Here is a ship of the Black Ball Line with clearly visible gun ports. The ship was built in 1818 and this picture was painted in 1851, just prior to the Civil War.
A nine-pounder was hardly considered a big cannon, either. Six-pounders were for anti-personnel use; a nine-pounder would have been the smallest cannon effective against shipping. A nine-pounder would have been considered adequate only to fend off sloops, barques, and various smaller vessels. The Constitution, considered a Frigate, not at all a Ship of the Line, carried multiple 24-lb Long Guns.
Most private whalers carried cannon as well, and a great many skirmishes and actual wars were fought or began with or between whalers, such as the Nootka Crisis off the NW Pacific Coast or the capture of the French Whaler Hebe by a British Whaler in the 1790s.
85
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 2:30pm
Nope - not just an armed mere merchant ship. I am talking about the entire class of people who wanted a ship armed to the teeth - and had to become a sanctioned privateer to withstand a frigate attempting to "cross the T" and blow them out of the water.
86
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 2:30pm
anon_8f378 says
Exactly, let's discuss what's relevant and provide solutions. Got any for this list?
But since that is a lie, let's move on to discussing actual relevant issues and solutions.
Exactly, let's discuss what's relevant and provide solutions. Got any for this list?
89
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 4:03pm
anon_cf6c6 says
In fairness the distinction between banning guns and "banning heart disease" or any such absurdity- gun deaths are unique in that many of them are intentional - as in they WANT someone to die.
Except for maybe abortion - notice how every other class of things on that list that kill people are not intentional - and its difficult to regulate something which causes death as an accident in the first place.
anon_8f378 saysBut since that is a lie, let's move on to discussing actual relevant issues and solutions.
Exactly, let's discuss what's relevant and provide solutions. Got any for this list?
In fairness the distinction between banning guns and "banning heart disease" or any such absurdity- gun deaths are unique in that many of them are intentional - as in they WANT someone to die.
Except for maybe abortion - notice how every other class of things on that list that kill people are not intentional - and its difficult to regulate something which causes death as an accident in the first place.
90
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 4:03pm
anon_cf6c6 says
In fairness the distinction between banning guns and "banning heart disease" or any such absurdity- gun deaths are unique in that many of them are intentional - as in they WANT someone to die.
Except for maybe abortion - notice how every other class of things on that list that kill people are not intentional - and its difficult to regulate something which causes death as an accident in the first place.
anon_8f378 saysBut since that is a lie, let's move on to discussing actual relevant issues and solutions.
Exactly, let's discuss what's relevant and provide solutions. Got any for this list?
In fairness the distinction between banning guns and "banning heart disease" or any such absurdity- gun deaths are unique in that many of them are intentional - as in they WANT someone to die.
Except for maybe abortion - notice how every other class of things on that list that kill people are not intentional - and its difficult to regulate something which causes death as an accident in the first place.
91
anonymous
2018 Feb 19, 4:03pm
anon_cf6c6 says
The interesting thing about that list is that it shows society has a much higher tolarence for bad shit that happens where the relationship between cause and effect is well understood
Not so with things like a school shooting or other so called RANDOM acts of violence. Society has a much lower tolerance for these.
It is the randomness which also works to whip up the conservative crowd when the issue is terrorism. In other words "terrorism = omg ban Muslims" to a conservative works on the same mechanism "school shooting = omg ban guns" does to a liberal.
anon_8f378 saysBut since that is a lie, let's move on to discussing actual relevant issues and solutions.
Exactly, let's discuss what's relevant and provide solutions. Got any for this list?
The interesting thing about that list is that it shows society has a much higher tolarence for bad shit that happens where the relationship between cause and effect is well understood
Not so with things like a school shooting or other so called RANDOM acts of violence. Society has a much lower tolerance for these.
It is the randomness which also works to whip up the conservative crowd when the issue is terrorism. In other words "terrorism = omg ban Muslims" to a conservative works on the same mechanism "school shooting = omg ban guns" does to a liberal.
« First « Previous Comments 52 - 91 of 1,288 Next » Last » Search these comments
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.