1
3

[–] placoid 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Guns are deliberately misused, this is the single most inconvenient fact for people like this author, who believe that guns themselves (not people) are causing deaths.

So of course we should try to reduce this carnage. But we need a new strategy, a public health approach that treats guns as we do cars — taking evidence-based steps to make them safer. That seems to be what President Obama is trying to do.

Because we had a blackmarket in car sales, and restricting the types of cars, the size of their gas tank, and who could buy them, eliminated their use in crime? Regulating guns is as effective in preventing crime as regulating drugs has been in preventing addiction.

1
11

[–] Moonbat 1 point 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

These figures refer to all gunfire-related deaths, not just homicides. In fact, homicides represent a minority of gun deaths, with suicides comprising the biggest share. In 2013, according to CDC data, 63 percent of gun-related deaths were from suicides, 33 percent were from homicides, and roughly 1 percent each were from accidents, legal interventions and undetermined causes.

Suicide related deaths shouldn't count, in comparing gun deaths vs. war deaths. If somebody's wants to kill themselves, a gun merely makes it more convenient. It by no means "enables" them.

1
5

[–] Totenglocke 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

But how can they frighten the uninformed masses if they tell the truth?!

[–] [deleted] 5 points 14 points (+19|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

2
0

[–] Eualos 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

They are basically appealing to other liberals to change their rhetoric while keeping the exact same stances so as not to piss off the logical people who believe in the freedom to own and use guns. This is done so we don't fight them while they steadily erode our rights.

1
15

[–] retsopertidder 1 point 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

I don't understand the term "liberal" anymore. Doesn't "liberal" literally mean "in favor of freedoms"? Like in the freedom to carry guns, or the freedom of speech? Does the term "liberal" really mean the exact opposite of what it once meant?

I call myself a liberal, because I believe in liberty.

0
0

[–] aakaakaak ago 

Reading through the article, the guy was pretty focused on your kind of liberal.

1
0

[–] FloatsYourVoat 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Similar to how feminism has evolved, the word meant one thing until it morphed into something the original was never about.

2
0

[–] Sippio 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Similarly, the activists behind the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011 should be considered true conservatives, because they were calling to restore the order of law and regulation within the financial sector.

2
0

[–] Totenglocke 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Funny how I never met a single OWS supporter who wanted that, they all just wanted free shit because they chose useless majors in college.

1
4

[–] Moonbat 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

That's what it's supposed to mean. It's one of those words the left has rather dishonestly appropriated as their own in order to seem like something they're not. In it's original sense people now say instead, "classical liberal". I do think though, that compared to social conservatives (anti choice, anti gay, etc.) the word "liberal" still matches the democratic party a little better.

2 replies

4
22

[–] darthskids 4 points 22 points (+26|-4) ago 

This guy is a fucking idiot.

 

Some evidence supports steps that seem common sense. More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex.

 

Getting married? No guns.
Getting divorced? No guns.
For fuck's sake, you don't "win" a restraining order. It is issued solely based on one parties word alone. Do you think a guy who is going to kill his wife or girlfriend gives a fuck whether it's illegal or not? Fucking air headed liberals.

1
4

[–] Eualos 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Plus, what if they already had a gun? Do they have to give it up to get married? Just what I want, to leave my wife and kids safety in the hands of the police, I obviously shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. I might hurt the people that I love. That burglar definitely means them no harm.

1
32

[–] CherryVanillaMoira 1 point 32 points (+33|-1) ago 

That means universal background checks before somebody acquires a gun. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?

Gee, too bad the already criminal types and gangs aren't popping into the corner gunstore to buy their weapons so they can have that background check.

Burglars steal guns and smugglers bring them in wholesale. You can't stop a criminal from obtaining a gun because they by definition, don't obey the laws. So, good luck with getting the submachine guns away from the gangs...

2
3

[–] Eualos 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Why is this so hard for them to understand? Criminal don't give a fuck about laws and regulations, law abiding citizens do! All they are doing is making it harder for the people who actually want to protect others.

1
0

[–] CherryVanillaMoira 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Ignore the law. If you need to kill an attacker, just do so and keep walking while looking around as if to see what those backfire noises were. Chances are good that everyone else will also start looking around. If it doesn't seem to be working, shout there they are and point somewhere in the distance or to the upper floors of a building, duck for cover and then scoot away.

1
9

[–] Totenglocke 1 point 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Funny how their "source" for that "New Harvard research" only links to another article that still fails to site an actual source for the new research. Very convenient to have "new research" confirming every liberal talking point and yet no one actually can see a copy of said research. Kind of like liberal's idea of a "social contract" that says "You have to do whatever I say" and yet no one has ever seen or agreed to said contract.

1
1

[–] CherryVanillaMoira 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

It was typical NYT double talk. They use words and phrases with slightly negative connotations and introduce little factoids into their narrative as though if they are actually well known and established fact.

I don't remember what that method of argument is called. But it was prominent in Soviet disinformation campaigns designed to discredit something while all the time seeming to support it.

I wish I'd finished that school year :-(