Also I think it says a lot about the legitimacy of your stance given that you have to resort to calling me a sociopath and implying that im racist when you know nothing about me.

I wouldn’t say they’re okay and I don’t think I implied that I think all criminals deserve to die either but thanks for assuming that I’m a sociopath. I’ll take that as proof, for the record, that everyone around here is fairly biased in this debate.

I would say though that it is supremely dumb to take away the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens in the misguided hope that criminals who, by definition, don’t give a shit what laws you pass, will stop doing crime because they can’t legally own one or carry one. You do realize that the absolutely most essential tool for a criminal is a weapon? Illegal to carry in a lot of places, sure, but they’re easily concealable so it doesn’t really matter. Why, in a million years, would a professional criminal give up their most essential tool for fear of incarceration when it can easily be hidden with a baggy shirt? Gun control legislation makes absolutely zero sense to me. The only people who actually respect gun control laws are the good guys like me. Sane, law-abiding citizens, ex-military and LEO, people who just want the ability to protect their homes and families.

You might go on to say that banning gun ownership would make it harder to get guns. This is not true. Most criminals get their guns from friends or family or people they meet in prison already. And plus, the government will never ban the ownership of guns in your home. It’s one of our defining principles. You can try to ban concealed carry and put “gun free zones” stickers everywhere (a whole new level of stupid) and a lot of states and places do but the concealed carry permit holders are the most responsible people in our culture. You WANT them to carry guns, you should at least, if you know what the hell you were talking about.

If you’re a concealed carry holder you’re about eight times less likely to be charged with a crime and they’re actually competent with their firearms (they have to be to trained by the same people who train military and police to qualify). Besides Zimmerman, how many other concealed carry citizens have been convicted of a misuse of deadly force do you know of (even though Zimmerman probably isn’t guilty of murder)? Not many, I’m assuming, because there aren’t many. The chances of a concealed carry citizen accidentally or maliciously shooting someone are minuscule.

And let’s not forget the whole point of concealed carry, it’s not just some frivolous privilege, it’s important. It is to me at least. Come walk through the neighborhood I work in some time, seriously.

And don’t even get me started on “gun free zone” signs. They are the epitome of this “pants on head” retarded liberal thinking. As if an unhinged, mass murdering sociopath is going to change his mind because of a fucking sticker. I’m sorry, gun control is 9 times out of 10 completely idiotic, ineffective and pointless.

Almost_uptown has no clue what he’s talking about, like most gun control advocates. They think the issue is black and white, they can reference some studies (and then ignore the countering evidence as biased and cherry-picking) and just assume that guns are somehow inherently dangerous. Guns are just tools. You’re trying to outlaw a behavior by banning the tool which just doesn’t work (especially when the tool is easily concealable and absolutely essential for a criminal who, again (not sure how many times I have to say this) does not care what the law says.). It’s nonsense. If you look at enough studies it eventually becomes clear that gun control has no effect on crime. You show me ten that says one thing and I can show you ten that say the opposite, it’s never that simple. That’s the truth.

Go on, find ten examples and I’ll find ten that say the opposite. Seriously, I’m not joking.

I wouldn’t say that criminal on criminal killings are okay, no, I would say they’re not relevant to the discussion for reasons I’m not going to reiterate.

So I managed to bypass the fascist mod on here and get my comment posted, but it’s kind of too late now.

I know you guys won’t care because you were all downvoting, but how would you feel if you went on to a conservative forum and got into a drawn out debate with someone only to have the crux of your argument censored? It’s bullshit, it’s not right, no matter what side of the argument you’re on.

And for the record, gun control is to liberals as all the separation of church and state issues (creationism in school, gay marriage, abortion) is to conservatives. Conservatives are just plain wrong when it comes to these issues, there is no grey area, no real room for debate. Creationism doesn’t belong in class rooms, gays deserve equal rights and a woman should have the right to choice (this one is a little more of a gray area) and the right’s obsession with these issues does them great discredit. But it’s a hot button issue and politicians can build careers taking advantage of it.

It’s the exact same thing with gun control for liberals. Politicians use it to build careers, they capitalize on it whenever a school shooting happens, they skew the facts and pander to people’s knee-jerk emotional reaction. And ultimately, like being anti gay marriage and forcing creationism into classrooms, it’s un-American. It’s just not what this country is about. The founding fathers put the separation of church and state and the 2nd amendment into law because they had experienced at the hands of the British when governmental powers go unchecked by the people.

Granted, gun owners need SOME regulation but supporting an all out ban on guns is nonsense and quintessentially un-American.

part 2 of 3:

You clearly have your mind set and I can change it. For the record, all your data doesn’t really prove anything and I don’t have time to put together a “you’re an idiot” package of research for you. The numbers are there, roughly 30k gun related deaths a year, half are suicides. So, 30k out of 310 million a year? Sorry, not worth my right to bear arms. I’m a history buff, I’ve seen how an unarmed citizenry gets treated. And, like I said, I work in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. I NEED to carry a gun. Try visiting your friend in the hospital after he’s been nearly beaten to death, or have some crackhead hold a knife to your throat, and then we’ll see how you feel about the 2nd amendment.

While you’re yawning like a triumphant twat, here’s a little data I rustled up in a few minutes:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls

Hey look, MA, NY, NJ with arguably the strictest gun control in the country had murder rates go up an average of almost 20%. Vermont, some of the loosest gun laws, went down 13% and Florida, home of the racist, violent Zimmerman and loose gun laws, went down 5%

Another one from our friends at the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-annual-crime-statistics-for-2010

2009, 2010 and 2011 all saw decreases in crime but increases in gun ownership, that’s weird?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.

This is a repost of the comment that I made that has mysteriously been held for moderation for over an hour now:

Oh boy, here we go.

>Again, do you have any actual evidence or citations to back this up? It’s simply invented and untrue.

Gun related crime has risen 90% in the UK in the past decade:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

An article about the ineffectiveness of CCTV systems, there are many others:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-does-not-deter-crime

>So yes, there is absolutely reduced rates of suicide where gun ownership is lower or curtailed, despite the possibility of other methods.

Sure, I said arguably, didn’t I? Still not worth giving up my rights in my opinion.

>200 self-defense usages of firearms annually (statistics from those pinko liberals, the FBI)?

LOOOOOOOOOOOL speaking of references, would love to see where that one comes from.

>I mean, I know you feel like a big man showing your gun off if some kid hassles you, just curious how many have to die to preserve that ‘right.’

lol ‘right’. Obviously you have no understanding of why the 2nd amendment is so important. You forget how different America is from other countries and how lucky you are to live here. Just a refresher, part of our greatness is because we are one of the only truly free societies in the world. Founded by and for the people, by people who understood why it was so important that it in a free society it can’t be that only the government gets guns. It’s as true as it was then as it is now.

You clearly have your mind set and I can change it. For the record, all your data doesn’t really prove anything and I don’t have time to put together a “you’re an idiot” package of research for you. The numbers are there, roughly 30k gun related deaths a year, half are suicides. So, 30k out of 310 million a year? Sorry, not worth my right to bear arms. I’m a history buff, I’ve seen how an unarmed citizenry gets treated. And, like I said, I work in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. I NEED to carry a gun. Try visiting your friend in the hospital after he’s been nearly beaten to death, or have some crackhead hold a knife to your throat, and then we’ll see how you feel about the 2nd amendment.

While you’re yawning like a triumphant twat, here’s a little data I rustled up in a few minutes:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls

Hey look, MA, NY, NJ with arguably the strictest gun control in the country had murder rates go up an average of almost 20%. Vermont, some of the loosest gun laws, went down 13% and Florida, home of the racist, violent Zimmerman and loose gun laws, went down 5%

Another one from our friends at the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-annual-crime-statistics-for-2010

2009, 2010 and 2011 all saw decreases in crime but increases in gun ownership, that’s weird?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.

Here are some more fun facts:

-New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

-In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

-Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime. It has subsequently ended its ban as a result of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case, upon a federal lawsuit by the National Rifle Association being filed the day after Heller was entered.

-Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

-The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report ranking of cities over 40,000 in population by violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) finds that the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates for 2003 include three cities in the very strict state of New Jersey, one in the fairly restrictive state of Massachusetts.

Also a fun note, this is all academic anyways because there are literally hundreds of millions in America already. Even if you banned guns, it would be impossible to get rid of them. The only way to completely get rid of them would be to go back in time and somehow stop the founding fathers from writing the 2nd amendment into the Constitution. If only you could build a time machine that ran on self-righteousness and willful ignorance.

My reply to this post has been awaiting moderation for almost a half hour now…

And he was going to get an investigation with or without the public outcry. The police didn’t arrest him but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t going to be an investigation. There just wasn’t enough evidence to hold him on a charge at the time, that’s standard procedure.

Ignoring the advice to not confront Martin was stupid but not illegal. I can tell you right now that there is absolutely no way he will get charged for murder. First, he calls the police to report a suspicious person. Unless that is part of his master plan, that suggests that it wasn’t premeditated. Second, there is evidence of a violent struggle. Moreover, there is evidence that he was on the losing end of that struggle. Now, unless Zimmerman came charging at Martin and tried to attack him, there is no way to justify being on top of him and slamming his head into the ground. And at that point, the use of deadly force is justified.

However, if he provoked the attack by approaching Martin in a threatening manner, by yelling or running at him, he would be at fault. But it still wouldn’t be murder, it would be manslaughter. And since it seems there is little evidence to suggest that he approached Martin in a threatening manner, it will be difficult to get even that. Just sayin’. Being a concealed carry holder I’m fairly well versed in self defense law.

Oh boy, here we go.

>Again, do you have any actual evidence or citations to back this up? It’s simply invented and untrue.

Gun related crime has risen 90% in the UK in the past decade:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

An article about the ineffectiveness of CCTV systems, there are many others:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/17/why-cctv-does-not-deter-crime

>So yes, there is absolutely reduced rates of suicide where gun ownership is lower or curtailed, despite the possibility of other methods.

Sure, I said arguably, didn’t I? Still not worth giving up my rights in my opinion.

>200 self-defense usages of firearms annually (statistics from those pinko liberals, the FBI)?

LOOOOOOOOOOOL speaking of references, would love to see where that one comes from.

>I mean, I know you feel like a big man showing your gun off if some kid hassles you, just curious how many have to die to preserve that ‘right.’

lol ‘right’. Obviously you have no understanding of why the 2nd amendment is so important. You forget how different America is from other countries and how lucky you are to live here. Just a refresher, part of our greatness is because we are one of the only truly free societies in the world. Founded by and for the people, by people who understood why it was so important that it in a free society it can’t be that only the government gets guns. It’s as true as it was then as it is now.

You clearly have your mind set and I can change it. For the record, all your data doesn’t really prove anything and I don’t have time to put together a “you’re an idiot” package of research for you. The numbers are there, roughly 30k gun related deaths a year, half are suicides. So, 30k out of 310 million a year? Sorry, not worth my right to bear arms. I’m a history buff, I’ve seen how an unarmed citizenry gets treated. And, like I said, I work in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. I NEED to carry a gun. Try visiting your friend in the hospital after he’s been nearly beaten to death, or have some crackhead hold a knife to your throat, and then we’ll see how you feel about the 2nd amendment.

While you’re yawning like a triumphant twat, here’s a little data I rustled up in a few minutes:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls

Hey look, MA, NY, NJ with arguably the strictest gun control in the country had murder rates go up an average of almost 20%. Vermont, some of the loosest gun laws, went down 13% and Florida, home of the racist, violent Zimmerman and loose gun laws, went down 5%

Another one from our friends at the FBI:

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-annual-crime-statistics-for-2010

2009, 2010 and 2011 all saw decreases in crime but increases in gun ownership, that’s weird?

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.

Here are some more fun facts:

-New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as “the most stringent gun law” in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.

-In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Since then, the city’s murder rate has risen 134% while the national murder rate has dropped 2%.

-Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime. It has subsequently ended its ban as a result of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case, upon a federal lawsuit by the National Rifle Association being filed the day after Heller was entered.

-Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

-The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report ranking of cities over 40,000 in population by violent crime rates (per 100,000 population) finds that the ten cities with the highest violent crime rates for 2003 include three cities in the very strict state of New Jersey, one in the fairly restrictive state of Massachusetts.

Also a fun note, this is all academic anyways because there are literally hundreds of millions in America already. Even if you banned guns, it would be impossible to get rid of them. The only way to completely get rid of them would be to go back in time and somehow stop the founding fathers from writing the 2nd amendment into the Constitution. If only you could build a time machine that ran on self-righteousness and willful ignorance.

>is more than sufficient for a reasonable person to draw some conclusions

I guess the fact that he had a bloody gash on the back of his head, was bleeding from his nose, his back was wet (suggesting he had been on his back) and an anonymous witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman doesn’t really matter. He was just a crazy, gun-toting racist, right? (not that I’m convinced he’s innocent either, but this knee-jerk, hate filled reaction is ridiculous).

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/?hpt=us_bn1

> any purported successful self-defense usage of a firearm is drastically outweighed by the enormously elevated rates of homicide, suicide and accidental death among legal firearms owners

Wow, thank you captain obvious. Suicidal people who have access to guns will use the guns to commit suicide, you don’t say! And not only do more people kill themselves, they also kill eachother? Who would have ever guessed?

First, despite what the Brady campaign says, there is no statistical correlation between gun control laws and gun related crime, period. Not even going to bother googling it.

Second, the suicides. So, because people are killing themselves with guns (and stupid parents who aren’t using gun safes) we should ban guns, right? I guess we’ll have to ban ropes, and pills, and heights (that will be difficult), swimming (because they might want to drown themselves). This won’t be easy.

But we’ll never ban a person’s right to own a firearm in their own home (unless we go the route of the UK which saw a huge increase in knife crime, then they banned knives and now there’s a TV camera on every corner that is equally ineffective at stopping crime, yay!), so your argument as it pertains to preventing suicide is pointless. Even in LA and NYC you can have pistols and long guns in your home. I agree though, if we did ban guns completely, I’m sure the number of gun suicides would drop considerably (nevermind that there would definitely be an increase in other types of suicide that might even negate the ban on gun’s effect on suicide rates). Still, I’m not willing to give up my rights because of a small percentage of people killing themselves (who would arguably still kill themselves even if guns were banned).

Second, the accidental deaths. There are like 500-1000 of those a year. Definitely not going to re-write the constitution for 500-1000 lives, end of story (also, hate to say it, but it’s natural selection at work).

Lastly, what everyone is really worried about, the homicides. There are about 14,000 per year. As I said earlier though, most of those are criminals killing other criminals (most of whom acquired their firearms illegally anyway and don’t care what laws are passed). I’m not going to give up the right defend my home and family in a misguided attempt to keep criminals from killing eachother. That leaves a paltry few thousand annually (usually relatives or acquaintances killing eachother in crimes of passion or calculated murder/robbery) and the occasional sociopath on a killing spree (and again, arguably, these murders could still be perpetrated without the access to guns). Sorry, still not enough to give up such an important right as the right to self defense. If you don’t like guns, don’t buy them and live in a place where they’re outlawed. Maybe China? Or Russia or Jamaica where gun control is the most strict but they have some of the highest murder rates in the world.

Also, here’s an article where they found that guns are used in self defense around 60,000 times annually. If half of those instances resulted in the saving of one life, that would basically counter all the lives lost to gun related homicides and suicides every year. And millions of sane, law-abiding citizens like myself would maintain our essential rights to defense, autonomy and a really fun hobby to boot.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615397/?tool=pmcentrez

Deal with it.

Camera tilted down slightly to fit boobs in frame.

I find it highly ironic that in a post that questions the very nature of internet culture, it’s purpose and existential significance, with an emphasis on people’s obsession with the accumulation of upvotes, followers, facebook friends, etc. that the most upvoted comment is a run-of-the-mill pun.

That being said, I think this is a brilliant thought, Gabe. I think part of it is the nature of the beast. Internet culture is a totally different animal from real human culture. It’s new territory and has it’s own unique traits, quirks and deficiencies. One thing is for sure though, it is the next big thing. The next 50-100 years will be the age of the internet. Right now we are experiencing the growing pains of the internet in SOPA/PIPA. It’s a culture that is trying to evolve and define itself and right now I think that the social structure and system of the internet is very basic and simple and one of the ways that this basic-ness manifests itself is the seemingly vapid nature of internet culture currency (upvotes, likes, etc.). But that’s really only the surface of things and only a reflection of popular culture that has and probably always will be a vapid affair.

The truth is that for every picture of a cat dressed as Harry Potter that gets a thousand upvotes or facebook likes there are little pockets of people having genuine human interaction that you don’t see, some kind of type of connection that only the internet with it’s anonymous users and free flow of information could enable. Videogum is one such a place, a prime example really, that on the surface appears to be just messing around and making fun of bad shows and awful people on the internet but it does serve a basic function and that is to help people to think analytically about the world and to meet other people who share the same perspective. And Videogum probably would not have worked ten years ago because the internet was still too “basic” back then, much more so than now I would argue. Ten years ago no internet user would be reading this post let alone be trying to have a conversation about it, he would either be looking for porn or funny videos (though Videogum posts it’s share of funny videos it has much more going for it than that and we all know it).

The internet is growing and so is the younger demographic that comprises most of it’s user base. I don’t share your apocalyptic view. Culture ebbs and flows. Though, admittedly, maybe internet culture oscillates at hyper speed. What’s hot now will be dead and buried in ten minutes. I think it’s high tempo can be off-putting, like the internet itself has ADHD. Again, the nature of the beast. But I believe it’s ultimate trajectory will naturally lead to a culture with depth and complexity that enables people to have real human connections with each other in ways and on a scale I can’t even imagine. There will always be the “noise”. If you went to a Roman forum two thousand years ago you would hear ninety-eight attention hungry people telling stupid jokes, sharing shallow gossip, preaching for this and selling that and then, in the corner, you’d see two old farts having a scholarly debate about culture, politics, philosophy; two ancient Videogum monsters. Let’s be real, an ancient Videogum monster would be criticizing last night’s greek tragedy but every now and then…

Props to anyone who reads this.

I was a huge George Carlin fan when I was a kid, he changed my whole way of thinking. As I got older, his preachy-ness and oppressively cynical perspective started to bother me (and I just didn’t think he was that funny any more) but I still appreciate his courage and brilliance and was sad when he passed as he did have a huge impact on me during my formative years.

He came into town when I was like fourteen (9 years ago) and was really excited to go see him, I was planning on just going by myself thinking my family wouldn’t enjoy it. But they all thought it would be fun and, full disclosure, this is was during my older brother’s emo, depressed, angsty period (complete with suicide attempts) so we were all kind of in a weird place and my dad thought this would be a good way for us to bond or something. Sure enough, George does over an hour of pure, bleak as fuck suicide, masturbation and death material and achieves only a handful of laughs during the whole set. We were so uncomfortable. My childhood hero just looked bitter and old. By the end the audience was practically silent except for the occasional tepid giggle. Maybe that’s the cost of brilliance though, you run the risk of just going off the deep end.