I think it should be "Sic" rather than "Sick," but I'm open to petulant argument.

You guys have editors over there, right?

@1 is correct, though rethuglicans would no doubt enjoy the juxtaposition of "sick" and "UN" in a sentence.

sic, sics, siccing, sicced

sic

Why would suicides be included? Dumb bitch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou…

Suicide rate in America - 12.0
Suicide rate in the United Kingdom - 11.8
Yes, that 0.2 difference really makes his point.

Suicide rate in Japan - 21.7
So where is his piece on invading Japan to save it from its own people killing themselves?

And do they even have editors in England?

It's time for another episode of EVERYONE'S favorite game show
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!

Today's winning picks are:

Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
I don't want to ban all guns but ... !
The NRA!

Beat a straw man for big bonus points!

UN's a'commin to take our guns!!

I KNEW IT! Thats why there are black helicopters everywhere!!

I wonder how many of the deaths were caused by mj prohibition?

Any asshole who in ignorance opens their damned piehole about "the McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit, hurr durr" should have scalding hot liquid (coffee, acid, whatever) poured down said orifice. Yes: a bunch of lazy halfwit comedians and a bunch of hard-working hard-right ideologues portrayed the Hot Coffee Case as being the Nanny State Gone Mad, and a bigger number of unquestioning fools seem to have accepted and internalized this narrative. Because, you know, judges, juries, and appeals courts are all idiots, or something.

Back in the real world, what happened is this (and, mind you, all of this came out in the lawsuit, through the Discovery Process): McDonalds established a corporate policy that for reasons of efficiency (labor, time, energy, maintenance - I don't recall) they would brew their coffee at extremely high temperatures, and would immediately serve it at those temperatures. These temperatures were well beyond anything safe for human contact, let alone consumption; the plaintiff sued because a coffee spill caused third-degree burns to a sensitive part of their anatomy. McDonalds did this knowing the physical hazards involved, to save money. The plaintiff was initially awarded damages based in part on the amount of money McDonalds had sought to save by their mandated dangerously-hot-coffee plan; because of the way our system worked, this number was based on their savings statewide (and California is a big state), and all awarded to the one plaintiff. Damages were later reduced on appeal, but McDonalds's culpability was never called into question.

One result of all of this was that sensible companies now mandate chain-wide policies of delivering to their customers liquids that won't immediately send said customers to the hospital, lest they be liable for having a policy of risking their customers' health. Apparently to this author, that's a cruel imposition of Big Brother or something.

I was wondering when someone would want to attack us to bring us democracy again, instead of whatever clusterfuck the teabaggers have led us to.

@12

You're welcome to leave what you believe to be a hellhole of a nation any old time, moron.

Now would be good.

Still here?

Oh yeah, I forgot, whiny unemployable idiots wanting to ride on government programs others pay for aren't in high demand in your socialist wonderlands, are they?

Somebody actually takes the UN seriously? Really? Cut it out, you're killing me.

Directly after the gun ban, in the United Kingdom, homicides increased pretty steadily for 5 years, and then began to taper downward (The UK has historically had a much lower rate of homicide per-capita). They have only recently gone below the pre-gun-ban levels. While homicides by firearm decreased significantly afterwards, homicides by other methods (blunt and sharp objects) increased significantly. Personally, I don't really see a difference in getting killed by a knife/bat or a firearm - either way you're still dead.

I'd say that the UK's history with homicide pretty clearly shows that poor, disenfranchised people will kill each other regardless of the weapons available.

As fairly.unbalanced points out, suicide rates are similar (wow, how is that possible, Goldy says that suicides are caused by gun ownership!)

The majority of gun violence in this country is committed in areas with high levels of income inequality. Raising the minimum wage to $25/hour would probably have a greater impact on overall homicide and suicide rates than if you could magically turn every privately owned firearm in the USA into pixie dust.

Hey, if a person wants to kill himself, I think that's a human right. It's a very selfish act, but I think that's their right. Guns make it far messier for friends/family/other discovering and cleaning up the body... so even more selfish. But whatevs.

The real issue with guns is that mental cases can go shoot up a whole movie theater of innocent people before being taken out... or a cafe full of people before suiciding. Fuck that. People shouldn't have that much firepower just sitting around.

Sure, "rise up to defend against the tyrannical etc."... but why the fuck isn't that already happening?! I mean with the largest per capita jail population in the world, and a gov't in bed with the capitalist overlords... wtf guys? What's taking you so long? You're not gonna do it, are you? No, you're not. You just wanna feel tough on the streets with your concealed handgun which might-possibly-maybe "protect" you (aka 'endanger bystanders') that one time when you think you might be about to get mugged.

And here we go 'round again...

So gun nuts your whiny bitching about other nations starting to point at us and laugh over our obsession with guns aside, get over it you whiny little dicked fucks, I've a few questions.

1. What is wrong with requiring a trigger lock be included with every gun sold, or resold?

2. What is wrong with laws governing how guns are stored? i.e. if you are found to have a gun in your home and it is not locked up there is a penalty, I'm good with starting with a ticket. Unless that discovery is made because someone got shot in which case it should, of course be greater.

3. What is wrong with requiring those who wish to conceal carry (or open carry for those of you with micro dicks), carry liability insurance for the potential damage.

4. What is wrong with requiring those carrying to be subject to fines if they are found to be carrying with the safety off?

5. What is wrong with requiring proof of competency in gun laws, handling and safety at point of purchase for both guns and ammo? This could be accomplished by passing an exam at the point of purchase (with each purchase) or pre-registering and getting an i.d. card, renewable every 4 years.

No I'm not saying any of this would reduce gun violence. Just asking what would be unconstitutional about such laws?

@18,

1) Many states already require a trigger lock w/sale. I don't think it makes any difference, but I haven't really looked into any studies (if there are any). Actually, I think most new firearms come with a lock of some sort - from the manufactures. (At least every new firearm that I've seen in the last few years had one in the box.) That said, I don't think most people use them and I'd rather see firearms kept in a safe as trigger locks have various shortcomings and may instill a false sense of safety.

2) Personally I agree completely. However, if I was single and lived alone (or with other like-minded adults) and believed I needed a firearm to 'protect myself', I might think that was unreasonable and would make it more difficult to 'protect myself'. Yes, I am fully aware that there are quick-access safes, and other ways to make a firearm readily accessible while controlling access. I'm just giving you the potential argument as I see it.

3) Sounds great. People should be held responsible for their actions. Which is precisely the problem today - almost no cases of "accidental" discharges or "accidental" shootings are actually prosecuted. Same goes for someone's firearm ending up in the hands of a criminal. (Oh, that was stolen a couple years ago. Why didn't you report it? I was busy, the kid had the flu. Oh okay, no problem.)

4) I think if you were more familiar with firearms you'd realize that A) not all modern firearms have safeties, B) relying on the safety being on is the cause of many "accidental" discharges and C) not all firearms have ambidextrous safeties.

However, the real problem with #2 and #4 is A) they're not going to be actually enforced and B) the percentage of times that a member of law enforcement would actually have the opportunity to enforce them is probably small enough to be statistically zero.

5) I've said this before - there is NO reason why you shouldn't have a quick one page (or more) exam every time you go through a background check. Fail the exam, fail the background check. I think it would be more difficult to require one for buying ammo, but I think it would probably help.

I'm of the opinion that #5 would not reduce gun violence (the majority of gun violence is perpetrated with illegal firearms and the owners of them are not going to be taking any tests), but I do think it would reduce the incidents of dead kids that Goldy likes to salivate over.

@19 thoughtful answer thank you.

1) Good trigger locks should be included at the point of sale. As for people using them, I'm old I remember Public Service ads about cars, "lock it where you leave it and you'll find it where you left it".

2) My knee jerk response, get a dog not only will it buy you time to unlock the gun, its better for your mental health" response aside, who cares. Like you said enforcement level would be low, think tickets for bumper heights on cars. Its the oh yeah this is a GUN I SHOULD TAKE IT SERIOUSLY part that matters.

3) Yep, don't just toss it in your purse then drop it on the floor and shoot somebody while rooting for change in coffee shop.

4) Well since as a fairly unbalanced friend once explained "well regulated" refers to mechanical things so clearly we can require manufactures to fix that.

5) Oh I didn't mean back ground checks, though I'm good with that too. I meant display a knowledge of how to safely handle a gun, and a knowledge of gun laws in your State (stand your ground laws vary) so sorry a bit longer and more involved then a page or two. Though you could opt just to do the back ground check sign the registry, take the competency test and be good for 4 years till your next renewal. Of course few businesses would want to bother with both the expense of giving the test and keeping the records for each sale of a gun or ammo, if enough folks didn't want to get their government card, they could pay more and go to those shops that would deal with the hassle.

Cienna, you're much cuter when you're mad about gang rapes in India.

@19
"but I do think it would reduce the incidents of dead kids that Goldy likes to salivate over."

As long as there are privately owned guns there will be accidents involving children and privately owned guns.
And Goldy will continue to post those.

Because it was never about the children.

@23 Oh there you are sweetheart, you little vixen always ducking and hiding.

If "well regulated" applies to the mechanical device can we regulate that?

Or if "well regulated" applies the "militia" of one, can we at least take a cursory glance at the buyer?

Oh don't misunderstand me I'm not saying it will reduce gun violence. America loves it's gun violence. I'm just asking if it infringes upon your rights if we force the gun manufactures to provide you with a lock, and threaten you with a ticket if you don't use it. Oh and that you show some knowledge of what your buying.

Ah but my sly nymph you'll just blow fart gas, run away and hide.

I like the idea of requiring anyone who buys a gun to also buy liability insurance. $1 mil coverage would be good. That would mean that gun nuts would still be able to have what they want as long as they had plenty of money, which ties right in with the conservative/tea party ethos.

Well, except it doesn't, because government. Ooops.

@ what doesn't? Defend yourself Sarah, defend your point.

Why can't the government fine you if they find your gun unsecured?

@21 - 5) I was saying there should be a test, however long you want it to be, covering proper firearm handling and whatever else seems reasonable, as part of the background check. As in, not only am I not a criminal but I also know how to properly 'care' for the firearm I am purchasing.

1) I also pointed out that every new firearm appears to come with a locking device - apparently the gun manufactures have already been "forced" to provide such. And, seeing as how I almost never (except in Manhattan and areas of LA) lock my car, and usually leave my keys in it, apparently I missed those PSAs. Of course, since I've never owned a car that wasn't at least six years old, perhaps it is just that no one would ever want to steal my POS...

3) I agree.. However, there are plenty of laws already regarding such instances but people are rarely charged with the full penalty of law. If you accidentally shoot someone by dropping your purse with a loaded weapon in it, you're already liable for a civil lawsuit as well as potential for criminal liabilities. However, if you look into actual instances, the usual penalty is a virtual slap on the wrist.

2) I think there will be some constitutional issues to requiring all gun owners to also have a dog. :D

4) I don't think most gun owners/manufacturers think that the lack of a 'safety' (switch/lever/knob/whatever) on many modern firearms is something that needs to be 'fixed'. IF I were carrying (concealed, or open) a loaded handgun (in condition one 'cocked and locked'), I'd be much more comfortable with a modern safety-less handgun (Glock, S&W M&P, Springfield XD..etc.) than an older 1911 (or similar) with the safety on. The modern firearm is much less likely to discharge if dropped, the trigger is less likely to be pulled accidentally and is less likely to discharge if pulled accidentally.

Also, for the record, I think that, for the most part, anyone carrying condition one who is not active duty law enforcement, in a war zone, or similar situation, needs to have their heads examined to see if there are any brains left. Then again, I will admit that I don't really understand the fear that makes people want to carry a firearm around, with them as part of their every day life, in general. That said, I believe that the incidences of 'accidents' is much higher with improper storage of firearms than it is with carry issues.

@28 Well perhaps if we applied as much effort to gun safety as we do to automotive safety we might be in a better place. Alas we don't. Not in terms of how we push the manufactures in making their product safer nor in terms of how we push the owners of the guns to behave more responsibly when owning them.

A sad state of affairs the NRA hides from.