15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

BoatMad

Sure. I've never claimed that the people doing the shooting aren't responsible for it. But they shouldn't be allowed to have guns. How can you stop a crazy person from getting a gun? Considering someone can just snap all of a sudden or turn over a short period of time, you'd need to assess people constantly.

Sure, but this a theoretical solution not one that can be implemented in a nominally free society.

given we really cant effectively pre-screen for sudden nut-jobs. we have to focus on stopping them when it clear what their intent is .

Aka Ishur

Meh this whole discussion is moot., akin to discussing vaccination after the population is 100% infected.

Limiting the rights of the many because of the actions of the few just goes against every thing I believe in.

steddyeddy

In fairness either you grant universal access to mental health or you restrict gun control. Right now you have a situation where some people who need mental health treatment can't afford it. If you grant universal access to mental health services you might increase people using the services (the 47% who couldn't afford it). Then you could have a register of people who really shouldn't have guns.

Sparks

justchecked wrote: »

Make sure to keep away from those mass shooting numbers.

(a) Those mass shooting numbers are not the majority of gun violence even in the US. For example, from 1982 to 2015, there have been a total of 581 people killed in mass shootings in the US (source). In 2014 alone US police shot and killed 1,104 people (source), and the total number of gun deaths that year in the US (not counting suicide but including accidents) came to 12,563.

Let's be very clear here - one is too many. But if you're concerned about people being killed by guns, you tackle the largest killer first and save the most people first, you don't go for what gets Fox News's advertising managers most interested.

(b) We don't know what causes mass shootings. It's been studied since the late 1800s and we still don't know. But sure, you can write a law that'll stop something we don't understand, despite not knowing anything about firearms or how they are used or what the existing legislation is or what has and has not worked in the past for tackling gun crime. Because that's how this kind of thing works, it's not about people spending their lives learning and studying this stuff, it's about some random punter on the internet with the first idea anyone who has ever looked at this has thought of, just so long as he believes in the truthiness of his idea enough.

There is no practical need for anything beyond the most basic of firearms to be in public reach.
Im talking very low capacity very low fire rate. Basic bolt load, maybe 4 or 5 clip, or breach load shotgun.

Those weapons make holding up a taxi driver or sneaking up on a cinema a wee bit difficult.

Have you actually lived in our world for very long? Watched the news at any point in the last thirty or so years? Honestly, you need to do more research. A lot more.

Wompa1

BoatMad wrote: »

Sure, but this a theoretical solution not one that can be implemented in a nominally free society.

given we really cant effectively pre-screen for sudden nut-jobs. we have to focus on stopping them when it clear what their intent is .

nominally free?

Online Poker is illegal. You drive to work, you have to follow the rules of the road. Get to work, don't curse, dress appropriately, do your work or you can be fired on the spot in most states. Get the insurance provided with your employment that dictates which Doctors, Dentists etc. that you can visit. Go home to your house in a housing estate with an HOA (most affordable homes, have HOA's..they work to the benefit of homeowners in some regards. Maintaining a standard to the neighborhood but at the cost of freedom) that tells you what color you can paint the place, where you can park etc. Vote for whoever you want to...out of these two candidates.

Let's face it. The only way you get freedom in America is if you can afford it. Even the big two that people draw comparisons to other countries over. Well, we have freedom of the press, you won't see that in China....the media owned by a few big companies with vested interests. The toughest questioning Bush faced during his tenure was from the woman from RTE that mysteriously left RTE, not long afterwards.

Or how about the idea that in North Korea you can't complain about Government or the Country?

Again, you can to that here, if you can afford it. My fiancé is the whole time telling me to stop replying to comments on News sites incase somebody figures out where I work and that they could get me fired. Nothing derogatory or inflammatory, mind you. I said that the guy that deserted his platoon and was held POW was a kin to somebody getting fed up with their job and quitting all of a sudden... Just something people here disagree with. Her, a lady that grew up here thinks that could get me fired.

You don't have freedom, unless you can afford it

asherbassad

Guns essentially comfort Americans. Their innate fear of everything has to be quashed by something.

Many Americans will say that they need a gun for home protection. They will come up with macho arguments espousing "blowing someone away" who comes near their property. If you were to tell an American that there is a guy about to break into their home and that this guy has no gun, no knife, no stick, no weapon of any description at all, the American would still want his gun rather than use his fists. He would dream up some excuse that the intruder could be a ninja or "high" on something or whatnot. Nevermind that the excuse to have a firearm for home protection is in case an armed intruder comes calling, the American would still need that gun. It shields him from fear and from ever having to worry about getting into an even scrap.

johnny osbourne

did the perpetrator announce the shooting on social media>

i know some false leads were being given out

my neighbour got raided a few weeks back

he wasn't home,

firearms taken unfortunately

Manic Moran

justchecked wrote: »

But if you're doing it with a tec-9 you should probably vote so that you have to leave it as a rented item locked up in a regulated area for your own self interest.

Out of interest, what's your beef with a TEC 9? I'm not about to buy one myself, they really aren't my style, but the thing is less accurate than, say, a military issue Beretta 92 pistol, less concealable, and very arguably less reliable. You'd almost prefer the bad guy to have one over a Glock 17, Beretta 92, SIG 226, or basically any other well manufactured pistol.

Its the same logic as with many restricted things, Im sure you see the sense in regulating heavy belt fed machine guns or industrial explosives. They have little civil purpose and pose a threat to everyone, including you, if openly available.

Not sure I follow. They are regulated items in the US already.

When you see billybob on youtube referring to his threaded barrel, hologram sighted tavor as a close combat weapon you generally see right through the shyte.

Not sure I follow here either. I've already pointed out that carbines are very suitable defense weapons, and bullpups such as Tavor even more so in the close environs of a house. Similarly, the entire point of a holosight is that one may rapidly engage targets at close quarters while retaining peripheral vision. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself with firearms design?

People there treat them as toys, thats why you can get replica bulpup designs and folding stocks, with high fire rates and high capacity magazines - do you really think those features are needed for varmiting.

Mmm.. I have a real bullpup design, nothing replica about it. Folding stocks have never, to my knowledge, killed anyone, they are designed to make things easier to transport. Extending stocks are particularly useful as they can be easily adjusted to the length of pull of the individual shooter.

The greater part of the US gun culture clearly revolves around military fantasy.

I'm eighteen years so far in Army uniform. I am capable of distinguishing between military fantasy, military reality, and the US attitude to firearms. All I can say is that you are entirely out of touch with the history of firearms in the US. The most popular rifle sold in the US today, and has been for many years, is the AR-15 type. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, it is a weapon which people are very familiar with from military service. This has historically been the case in the US, from the Colt single action through the Springfield .30-06, M1 Garand and now the M16. Secondly, and more importantly, it's a damned good rifle. Extremely versatile, one rifle can be easily configured to multiple roles from target shooting to deer hunting to zombie apocalypse, it's proven reliable, it's light, can be used by anyone from 8-year-old girls to 70-year-old men. I don't know about you, but I don't lightly spend $700-1000 at a time. People spend their money where it's most worth it.

in any case you don't need a pistol. You might want it, for fun, but you don't need it for any practical purpose.

I would consider personal defense to be an extremely practical purpose.

There is no practical need for anything beyond the most basic of firearms to be in public reach.
Im talking very low capacity very low fire rate. Basic bolt load, maybe 4 or 5 clip, or breach load shotgun.

I'm really getting the idea you don't do much practical shooting, do you?

I'll concede that for self defence at home a pistol can be preferable, but on the other hand pistols are extremely handy for committing crime so there must be a loser in any given case.

Yep. And in the US, the winner is usually the individual right of those who are law abiding. In any case, that argument is gone: The Supreme Court has been very direct about very little in the world of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, but one thing they -were- specific about was that in the US, one cannot ban pistols, especially as they are the single most commonly used weapon for self defence.

Worth saying though is that in home defense if pistols were banned there is at least some recourse, you can use security systems with a rifle/shotgun.

Arguably inadequate. As mentioned above, I use a pistol for the role as opposed to a carbine, because I have a young daughter, and I am not going to leave a loaded weapon where she can reach it. Ergo, the pistol lives in a quick-access safe in my bedroom. This is not an option for me with a rifle or shotgun. (Neither is it an option for people who have, for some reason, lost the ability to use both arms, there are a host of reasons why people choose pistols for the job)

There is however no real recourse for people in a classroom or cinema when someone comes in waving two pistols (other than having more people armed but no, that will just lead to more deaths in the long run).

Will it? You, presumably have some substantive reason for this statement? The reason I ask, is that I'm unaware of any instances where armed citizens have made matters worse in a potential mass shooting situation, several where it's made matters better, and there is a lack of any evidence at all that a concealed weapons program has led to an increase in violence or crime despite a steady increase in the amount of people licensed to carry them over the last 30 years. As the US 7th Circuit observed as it struck down Illinois' ban on carrying concealed weapons last year, as the last of 50 States, Illinois could surely provide data from any of the 49 others ahead of it to support the idea that the claimed parade of horribles would occur if Illinois' ban were to be struck down. Illinois could not.

asherbassad wrote: »

It shields him from fear and from ever having to worry about getting into an even scrap.

Why, on God's green Earth, would I ever want to be concerned about getting into an even scrap? Is there some moral obligation on people to give the aggressor a chance? He had his chance. He could have walked on. And how even a scrap would it be when I'm thirty years older than I am now?

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

Guns essentially comfort Americans. Their innate fear of everything has to be quashed by something.

Many Americans will say that they need a gun for home protection. They will come up with macho arguments espousing "blowing someone away" who comes near their property. If you were to tell an American that there is a guy about to break into their home and that this guy has no gun, no knife, no stick, no weapon of any description at all, the American would still want his gun rather than use his fists. He would dream up some excuse that the intruder could be a ninja or "high" on something or whatnot. Nevermind that the excuse to have a firearm for home protection is in case an armed intruder comes calling, the American would still need that gun. It shields him from fear and from ever having to worry about getting into an even scrap.

I picture asherbassad in a dukes up pose, bobbing on his toes, "let's settle it Queensbury style, good sir!"

AbusesToilets

asherbassad wrote: »

Guns essentially comfort Americans. Their innate fear of everything has to be quashed by something.

Many Americans will say that they need a gun for home protection. They will come up with macho arguments espousing "blowing someone away" who comes near their property. If you were to tell an American that there is a guy about to break into their home and that this guy has no gun, no knife, no stick, no weapon of any description at all, the American would still want his gun rather than use his fists. He would dream up some excuse that the intruder could be a ninja or "high" on something or whatnot. Nevermind that the excuse to have a firearm for home protection is in case an armed intruder comes calling, the American would still need that gun. It shields him from fear and from ever having to worry about getting into an even scrap.

Because in a situation involving an intruder into my property, the thing I would be most concerned with is ensuring he has a fair chance in any confrontation.

For all your misinformed talk of restricting access to slow firing, low capacity type firearms, you fail to grasp that a bullet from a bolt action will kill you just as dead as it will from an AR-15. Claiming that it would somehow decrease the lethality of someone engaged in a shooting spree is fairly spurious, as it takes a special kind of bravery to rush an armed aggressor when you yourself are unarmed. Not many such individuals abound in society , although there was one such hero in the latest shooting.

The only effective way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun.

justchecked

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of interest, what's your beef with a TEC 9? I'm not about to buy one myself, they really aren't my style, but the thing is less accurate than, say, a military issue Beretta 92 pistol, less concealable, and very arguably less reliable. You'd almost prefer the bad guy to have one over a Glock 17, Beretta 92, SIG 226, or basically any other well manufactured pistol.



Not sure I follow. They are regulated items in the US already.



Not sure I follow here either. I've already pointed out that carbines are very suitable defense weapons, and bullpups such as Tavor even more so in the close environs of a house. Similarly, the entire point of a holosight is that one may rapidly engage targets at close quarters while retaining peripheral vision. Perhaps you need to refresh yourself with firearms design?



Mmm.. I have a real bullpup design, nothing replica about it. Folding stocks have never, to my knowledge, killed anyone, they are designed to make things easier to transport. Extending stocks are particularly useful as they can be easily adjusted to the length of pull of the individual shooter.



I'm eighteen years so far in Army uniform. I am capable of distinguishing between military fantasy, military reality, and the US attitude to firearms. All I can say is that you are entirely out of touch with the history of firearms in the US. The most popular rifle sold in the US today, and has been for many years, is the AR-15 type. This is for two reasons.
Firstly, it is a weapon which people are very familiar with from military service. This has historically been the case in the US, from the Colt single action through the Springfield .30-06, M1 Garand and now the M16. Secondly, and more importantly, it's a damned good rifle. Extremely versatile, one rifle can be easily configured to multiple roles from target shooting to deer hunting to zombie apocalypse, it's proven reliable, it's light, can be used by anyone from 8-year-old girls to 70-year-old men. I don't know about you, but I don't lightly spend $700-1000 at a time. People spend their money where it's most worth it.



I would consider personal defense to be an extremely practical purpose.



I'm really getting the idea you don't do much practical shooting, do you?



Yep. And in the US, the winner is usually the individual right of those who are law abiding. In any case, that argument is gone: The Supreme Court has been very direct about very little in the world of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, but one thing they -were- specific about was that in the US, one cannot ban pistols, especially as they are the single most commonly used weapon for self defence.



Arguably inadequate. As mentioned above, I use a pistol for the role as opposed to a carbine, because I have a young daughter, and I am not going to leave a loaded weapon where she can reach it. Ergo, the pistol lives in a quick-access safe in my bedroom. This is not an option for me with a rifle or shotgun. (Neither is it an option for people who have, for some reason, lost the ability to use both arms, there are a host of reasons why people choose pistols for the job)



Will it? You, presumably have some substantive reason for this statement? The reason I ask, is that I'm unaware of any instances where armed citizens have made matters worse in a potential mass shooting situation, several where it's made matters better, and there is a lack of any evidence at all that a concealed weapons program has led to an increase in violence or crime despite a steady increase in the amount of people licensed to carry them over the last 30 years. As the US 7th Circuit observed as it struck down Illinois' ban on carrying concealed weapons last year, as the last of 50 States, Illinois could surely provide data from any of the 49 others ahead of it to support the idea that the claimed parade of horribles would occur if Illinois' ban were to be struck down. Illinois could not.



Why, on God's green Earth, would I ever want to be concerned about getting into an even scrap? Is there some moral obligation on people to give the aggressor a chance? He had his chance. He could have walked on. And how even a scrap would it be when I'm thirty years older than I am now?

Trying hard to keep this brief as if you check the replies to points seem to expand exponentially. Also if I rant it still still wont change anything - which is a shame ... for you, believe it or not.

First - you know nothing about me yet make assumptions. But Ill clarify - I'm not entirely ignorant and/or inexperienced with firearms, your years of experience in the military would certainly trump me .... if only a certain level of technical level were involved.

The nature of the argument is more centered around the causes of mass shootings (hence thread title) and why they exist. And what a logical policy response would be. No military experience or gun ownership beyond basics is needed in general to reach a logical conclusion on the topic.

I suggest you re-examine the fire rate of the tec-9. And then try pairing it with the canned responses from the pro-gun lobby. Simply doesn't fit.

(although I see now that it is restricted to some point - some intelligence at work, but I've no doubt some among us would have them handed out willy nilly to joe public in case the military turns on the people, in which case they could be a key factor in victory)

I mentioned the logic of restricted items because I think that even the most hardened denier of the problem in US gun policy will agree that some things need to be kept away from the general public, if only for their own good.
Otherwise anarchy and exploding houses.

Such a logic has already been applied, it hasn't caused much outcry or misery - except among those who are very niche ... aka oddballs - so maybe when you see so much horror occurring it might be a signal that nows the time to extend restriction again.

Im sure a host of reasons do exist for keeping a pistol and Im sure it endows you with many advantages in certain situations, I believe I conceded that.
However, as usual the greater picture is missed - that for every one armed householder who's been outsmarted by the ubiquitous home invader who couldn't possibly be stopped by normal security precautions, a locked door and a shotgun/rifle ..... there exists a counter situation of a pistol being smuggled into a club, a taxi, a corner shop etc etc etc.

And just as a tavor, or similar, makes an excellent weapon for defending your home (in the event of a heavily armed mob) it also makes an excellent weapon for taking down a dozen people in a public area.

The question is whether on a grand scale people can get by in their lives without a supercharged rate of fire or a 50 round magazine. I think they can.

Or at least they could if they'd stop treating weapons as toys. But hey, their choice. Bad luck.

(failed to not rant )

Manic Moran

justchecked wrote: »

which is a shame ... for you, believe it or not.

I'm not quite sure if that was intended as an insult or not.

First - you know nothing about me yet make assumptions. But Ill clarify - I'm not entirely ignorant and/or inexperienced with firearms, your years of experience in the military would certainly trump me .... if only a certain level of technical level were involved.

I make assumptions based solely on what I read you say. And if your writing is reflective of your background, it leads me to conclude that you are lacking in the area of the practical, as opposed to regulated sporting, applications of modern firearms. For all I know, you are Ireland's leading clay pigeon shooter and have been using firearms since the age of eight.

The nature of the argument is more centered around the causes of mass shootings (hence thread title) and why they exist. And what a logical policy response would be. No military experience or gun ownership beyond basics is needed in general to reach a logical conclusion on the topic.

If your conclusion is founded upon deriding someone's choice of firearm for close quarters engagement as "shyte" when it is actually very well suited for the job, I submit that your logical conclusion may, in fact, based on faulty foundations.

I suggest you re-examine the fire rate of the tec-9. And then try pairing it with the canned responses from the pro-gun lobby. Simply doesn't fit.

The TEC-9 as commonly sold in the US is a 9mm semi-automatic, exactly the same as the Beretta 92, P226 etc...firing one round per pull of the trigger. I don't know what the pro-gun lobby says about the firearm, but as both operate as fast as one can pull the trigger, I'm not sure what this comparison is supposed to do.

(although I see now that it is restricted to some point - some intelligence at work, but I've no doubt some among us would have them handed out willy nilly to joe public in case the military turns on the people, in which case they could be a key factor in victory)

Are you referring to the variants which were sold prior to 1986 as submachineguns, are subject to the 1934 National Firearms Act, require a Title II certification to own, and currently cost over ten thousand dollars each, if you can find one on the open market?

I mentioned the logic of restricted items because I think that even the most hardened denier of the problem in US gun policy will agree that some things need to be kept away from the general public, if only for their own good.
Otherwise anarchy and exploding houses.

OK, we agree, as far as that goes. We seem to disagree on which are the 'some things'.

Such a logic has already been applied, it hasn't caused much outcry or misery - except among those who are very niche ... aka oddballs - so maybe when you see so much horror occurring it might be a signal that nows the time to extend restriction again.

The difference, I think, is that there are fewer practical uses for things like machineguns and tanks. When you start intruding into 'mainstream' firearms, you're going to get a lot more pushback.

And just as a tavor, or similar, makes an excellent weapon for defending your home (in the event of a heavily armed mob) it also makes an excellent weapon for taking down a dozen people in a public area.

We agree here also, absent the 'heavily armed mob' barb.

The question is whether on a grand scale people can get by in their lives without a supercharged rate of fire or a 50 round magazine. I think they can.

Again, it depends on what you want to use it for. Most firearms do not come with reliable or practical 50-round magazines (P90 comes to mind as an exception). The Tuscon shooter was tackled as he was dealing with a stoppage caused by one of those 'extended' magazines, which most good shooters know are unreliable for practical purposes and avoid anyway, except for pleasure at the range. Since it does not, however, take very long to change magazines, the actual capacity per magazine is something of a red herring, except insofar as that when used by the typical private citizen who is not wearing a gun belt with additional magazines as a cop would, what he has in the mag is often all he gets to work with, so the more the better.

Here's the bottom line from my perspective: There are few valid mechanisms which have any acceptable effect against wildlife with fangs, claws and teeth, and people who may need shooting, except for a good firearm which is capable at this function. There are a number of mechanisms for dealing with the problem of active shooters beyond making it a little harder for them to kill as many people in as short a time by limiting their choice of weapon. Why not focus on this number of mechanisms instead?

You Mirin?

Lol why do people on here that aren't from or at least living in USA bother arguing and debating about their gun problems

pmasterson95

MadsL wrote: »

I picture asherbassad in a dukes up pose, bobbing on his toes, "let's settle it Queensbury style, good sir!"

And you were all against personal attacks yesterday mads. Ah well do as you say not as you do.

BattleCorp

justchecked wrote: »

Of course gun fetish leads to proliferation,

What's a gun fetish? I enjoy target shooting here in Ireland. Does that mean that I have a gun fetish? I have 5 different guns for 5 different types of target shooting. Does that mean I have a gun fetish?

Someone, in their home, might have a basketball, a rugby ball, tennis balls, footballs, etc. Does that mean that they have a ball fetish?

People there treat them as toys, thats why you can get replica bulpup designs and folding stocks, with high fire rates and high capacity magazines - do you really think those features are needed for varmiting.

A bullpup just means that the magazine is positioned in the stock. It doesn't make the gun any more dangerous. It's just a different place that the bullets go into the gun. Everything else works the same. Bullpup designs aren't any more dangerous than standard rifles.

in any case you don't need a pistol. You might want it, for fun, but you don't need it for any practical purpose.

We don't need swimming pools either yet they are allowed. Here in Ireland, more people have died in swimming pools than have been shot on a firing range. The exact number of zero people have been killed on a firing range here in the past 150 years. Statistically, here in Ireland, swimming is far more dangerous than target shooting.

There is no practical need for anything beyond the most basic of firearms to be in public reach.
Im talking very low capacity very low fire rate. Basic bolt load, maybe 4 or 5 clip, or breach load shotgun.

The Gardai disagree with you because they licence semi-auto firearms for target shooting and hunting.

We have guns here yet we don't have the mass shootings like the US has.

There are powerful handguns and rifles licenced here and yet we don't have the mass shootings that America has. There are between 178,000 - 200,000 guns licenced here (depending on what figures you believe) yet we dont' have anything like the scale of gun crime that they have.

The big problem with America is that, culturally, they tend to resort to violence at the earliest opportunity. That's the main problem, not the guns.

BattleCorp

You Mirin? wrote: »

Lol why do people on here that aren't from or at least living in USA bother arguing and debating about their gun problems

Freedom of speech probably.

zeffabelli

Reminder to the gun defenders....

The only child who survived sandy hook did not have a gun.

She played possum.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2315947

Sparks

You Mirin? wrote: »

Lol why do people on here that aren't from or at least living in USA bother arguing and debating about their gun problems

In my case, because TDs here insist on using the US as a reason to push for a few column inches in the paper ahead of a general election change in Irish firearms legislation.

zeffabelli

Sparks wrote: »

In my case, because TDs here insist on using the US as a reason to push for a few column inches in the paper ahead of a general election change in Irish firearms legislation.

Well that's nonsense. Funny how they do that for a non problem but not for their abortion laws, a real problem.

zeffabelli

MadsL wrote: »

I picture asherbassad in a dukes up pose, bobbing on his toes, "let's settle it Queensbury style, good sir!"

Ever learned of de escalation?

You might need it one day if your own weapon gets turned on you.

Happened to a guy I went to school with. In college in computer science some other student put a gun to his temple and he was able to de escalate and take the him away, leaving him owner powerless.

This is but the kind of world I want to live in.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

What's a gun fetish? I enjoy target shooting here in Ireland. Does that mean that I have a gun fetish? I have 5 different guns for 5 different types of target shooting. Does that mean I have a gun fetish?

Someone, in their home, might have a basketball, a rugby ball, tennis balls, footballs, etc. Does that mean that they have a ball fetish?



A bullpup just means that the magazine is positioned in the stock. It doesn't make the gun any more dangerous. It's just a different place that the bullets go into the gun. Everything else works the same. Bullpup designs aren't any more dangerous than standard rifles.



We don't need swimming pools either yet they are allowed. Here in Ireland, more people have died in swimming pools than have been shot on a firing range. The exact number of zero people have been killed on a firing range here in the past 150 years. Statistically, here in Ireland, swimming is far more dangerous than target shooting.



The Gardai disagree with you because they licence semi-auto firearms for target shooting and hunting.

We have guns here yet we don't have the mass shootings like the US has.

There are powerful handguns and rifles licenced here and yet we don't have the mass shootings that America has. There are between 178,000 - 200,000 guns licenced here (depending on what figures you believe) yet we dont' have anything like the scale of gun crime that they have.

The big problem with America is that, culturally, they tend to resort to violence at the earliest opportunity. That's the main problem, not the guns.

And the fact that people with mental health problems aren't treated due to a financial barrier.

Sparks

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well that's nonsense. Funny how they do that for a non problem but not for their abortion laws, a real problem.

You'd be surprised how often I've thought that...

zeffabelli

Sparks wrote: »

You'd be surprised how often I've thought that...

I don't think even with more liberal gun laws here it would be a problem...

There is no denying the numbers in the US of gun related deaths that there is a serious pathology going on. A disease in the culture.

That the possibility of being shot is now woven into the American childhood takes children of something they are entitled to, at least for the duration of childhood.

Could you imagine lockdown drills in Irish junior infants classes? That's what's happening in the US.

The pro gun right to defend yourself crackpots would suggest arm the children.

This is he problem:
http://www.theguardian./books/2013/mar/20/myth-of-the-cowboy

BattleCorp

zeffabelli wrote: »

Well that's nonsense. Funny how they do that for a non problem but not for their abortion laws, a real problem.

You might think it's funny or nonsense but that's the reality for gun owners here in Ireland.

We don't cause problems for the authorities but we are often looked upon as not much better than the criminals. Many gun owners were unfairly forced, at great expense, to go to court to get/renew their firearms licences. It wasn't only the gun owners who suffered, the taxpayer suffered the loss of millions too because of spurious licence refusals etc.

There was a firearms review recently and a committee was formed to make recommendations to the Minister regarding the types of guns that can be licenced in Ireland. There were many other changes proposed too regarding the licencing system etc. What was being proposed was draconian in the extreme and these recommendations would have decimated the sport of target shooting and seriously impacted every single gun owner in the country if they were implemented in full.


The Gardai and some TD's kept bringing up mass shootings in America at these committee meetings and said that they have to do something to prevent them happening here. They said this to the committee several times. It went along the lines of every gun owner here is a potential mass shooter like they have in America. They were trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist here.

Luckily for target shooters like me, the majority of the committee were fair and most of the recommendations were seen to be excessive and weren't implemented. They understood that here isn't the USA and that we don't have the same problems as they do.

BoatMad

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't think even with more liberal gun laws here it would be a problem...

There is no denying the numbers in the US of gun related deaths that there is a serious pathology going on. A disease in the culture.

That the possibility of being shot is now woven into the American childhood takes children of something they are entitled to, at least for the duration of childhood.

Could you imagine lockdown drills in Irish junior infants classes? That's what's happening in the US.

The pro gun right to defend yourself crackpots would suggest arm the children.

This is he problem:
http://www.theguardian./books/2013/mar/20/myth-of-the-cowboy

+1, the issue simply cant be boiled down to gun control , something far more insidious is going on in the US

Sparks

zeffabelli wrote: »

I don't think even with more liberal gun laws here it would be a problem...

On top of what Battlecorp has already said, we will from now on have a system here where all the stakeholders in the Firearms Act (the DoJ, AGS, insurers, sportspeople, farmers, vets, Sports Council, etc, etc, etc) will sit on one committee at one table to figure out any future changes as a whole.
Which will hopefully work a bit better...

pmasterson95

zeffabelli wrote: »

Ever learned of de escalation?

You might need it one day if your own weapon gets turned on you.

Happened to a guy I went to school with. In college in computer science some other student put a gun to his temple and he was able to de escalate and take the him away, leaving him owner powerless.

This is but the kind of world I want to live in.

They believe that the only answer is blasting yer mans head off. Cant see past the "but I have a gun?"

listermint

BoatMad wrote: »

+1, the issue simply cant be boiled down to gun control , something far more insidious is going on in the US

Yes something more insidious, Its called gun fascination something yourself and a few other posters appear to have.

Such gun fascination stems to their own kids and it appears some kids are quite happy to reach for this known entity in their own homes to resolve disputes.

Ergo if the gun wasnt in the home this would not have happened.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841


But sure keep the guns, they are the best.

An 11-year-old boy in the US state of Tennessee has been held on suspicion of shooting dead an eight-year-old girl in a row over a puppy.

Meanwhile we will hear the same / similar story tomorrow.

Congratulations on winning the argument ........

Benteke

The thread is going of topic, it's about human beings used as target practice and slaughtered while getting an education

Sparks

listermint wrote: »

Ergo if the gun wasnt in the home this would not have happened.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34450841

Well, if we're going to compare anecdotes as if the plural of anecdote was data, how about the time that that same kind of thing happened in Dublin, where there wasn't a firearm in the home and where the firearm wasn't legally held.


I mean, swapping anecdotes is a lot more productive than looking at data, that kind of thing is all boring and stuff.