15 confirmed dead so far in Oregon college shooting

zeffabelli

BattleCorp wrote: »

Most drug dealers get their guns smuggled in with shipments of drugs. Often they get guns as sweetners in their drug deals. Buy 10kg of coke, get 10 AK47's free sort of thing.

This is why the legalisation of drugs might have a strong impact on the gun trade.

Also some research into making guns safer, like they did with cars....

The genie is out of the bottle - can't put it back in....

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think it's the attitude of the people between the two countries is the main difference why Switzerland don't have the scale of gun crime as the US.

The Swiss have an EU gun culture, the US has a US gun culture, the two are *very* different. It's not just Switzerland either, it's pretty much all of Europe (us and the UK are somewhat anomalous, and you can pretty much point to 30 years of domestic terrorism for that on our part; prior to the Troubles, we had very different attitudes to firearms).

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll take your word that statistics show...

I really wish people wouldn't do that. I wish they'd go look for themselves. That's the whole point of statistics...

BattleCorp

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is why the legalisation of drugs might have a strong impact on the gun trade.

Also some research into making guns safer, like they did with cars....

The genie is out of the bottle - can't put it back in....

Criminals will still get guns whether drugs are legal or not. That's the sad fact.

I don't know what can be done to make guns safer. They tried finger print scanners on guns, and that could be bypassed by using a jelly sweet.

And how do you retrofit the 300,000,000 guns that are already in the States?

I don't think technology will provide the solution for a very long time.

BattleCorp

Sparks wrote: »

I really wish people wouldn't do that. I wish they'd go look for themselves. That's the whole point of statistics...

Too busy shooting to go look, Sparks.

Sparks

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

If only there was a method or precedent to amend the constitution :rolleyes:

What, you want to abolish the thing that is the foundation of all gun control in the US???

The second amendment isn't the thing that allows americans to keep and bear arms, it's the thing that lets the government put limits on that right. Same as for all the other US constitutional amendments.

listermint

MadsL wrote: »

The primary purpose of firearms ownership in the US is not mass murder.

Thats right... its 'self defense'. 2015 the argument is trite, You either have law enforcement or you dont. People walking around as self appointed defenders of the peace is laughable.

Hero wannabee is pervasive

Sparks

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not that stupid actually.

I'm a law abiding citizen. If a law is passed to make my guns illegal, I will hand in my guns, because I'm a law abiding citizen.

The criminal doesn't have a licence for his guns. He doesn't give a fcuk about what the Gardai say. He'll still sneak in his guns with shipments of drugs

Not to mention, we've tested this rather extensively in Ireland, let alone anywhere else. In 1972, all firearms were to be handed into the Gardai under a Temporary Custody Order. They were. The IRA still got started.
And more recently, we've had drug gangs shooting each other with firearms you couldn't legally own anywhere in the EU.
When the penalty for possession of a Mac-10 is seven years in jail and the penalty for murder is life in prison, and some drug dealer wants to shoot some other drug dealer, then he's not going to care about the Firearms Act because he's looking to do something with a much higher penalty. That's your problem.
Funding the Gardai and pointing them at the drug gangs, that's your solution. And we know from New Zealand, Australia and the UK that it works (and on a smaller scale we know it works here too).

Sparks

listermint wrote: »

Thats right... its 'self defense'. 2015 the argument is trite, You either have law enforcement or you dont. People walking around as self appointed defenders of the peace is laughable.

Pretty sure the loons looking to "defend the peace" are more busy looking at the mexican border and voting for Trump.
The vast majority of those buying guns for self defence in the US are doing it because they're worried themselves, not "the peace".

AbusesToilets

asherbassad wrote: »

That's a stupid statement. Real chicken/egg/cart/horse nonsense.

It's really not. I might like to own a fully automatic, suppressed, short barrel carbine. The paperwork required and legal exposure however, make it not worth the effort. As a law abiding citizen I respect that. If I was a criminal, I could very easily acquire the necessary components and install them illegally.

Theboinkmaster

MadsL wrote: »

And then? Forceably dearming citizens? That worked well in Waco, Texas.

No, but stop selling guns & ammunition. Would be a good start, then bring down gun ownership over next 30 years.

Sick of Americans sh!ting on about the constitution, completely irrelevant.

asherbassad

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not that stupid actually.

I'm a law abiding citizen. If a law is passed to make my guns illegal, I will hand in my guns, because I'm a law abiding citizen.

The criminal doesn't have a licence for his guns. He doesn't give a fcuk about what the Gardai say. He'll still sneak in his guns with shipments of drugs.

Who suffers if guns are restricted or banned? Not the criminal, he never had a licence in the first place. It's the law abiding citizen who suffers.

Most drug dealers get their guns smuggled in with shipments of drugs. Often they get guns as sweetners in their drug deals. Buy 10kg of coke, get 10 AK47's free sort of thing.

And I'm not worried about criminals in the sense that you're talking about. I have absolutely no fear of armed drug dealers and gang members in the Dundon sense of the word. Why? Because violent as these guys are they have absolutely zero interest in putting a bullet in me. I am not a rival. I am not a threat. I am not a grass or an infiltrator. These guys have zero interest in hurting Joe Public.

It's the Joe Public's in America who can get guns that I would be worried about. Nevermind the lunatic who sprays up a college campus or movie theatre. The fuckers who should worry everyone ARE the technically law-abiding citizens who have access to guns and shouldn't have because they are too prone to hotheadedness rather than being cool and calm. The guy who get cut off at an intersection so races after the car and starts blasting, the guy whose girlfriend dumps him and rather than taking it like a man her traces her to some bar or night club where she's kissing some new bloke and starts firing. These are the bastards you need to worry about and they are a dime a dozen in the US.

Sparks

asherbassad wrote: »

And I'm not worried about criminals in the sense that you're talking about. ... These guys have zero interest in hurting Joe Public.

I'm glad you think they're all expert marksmen who never miss and that bullets that miss just stop in mid-air and fall harmlessly to the ground.
There's at least one kid out in east wall in a wheelchair who'd disagree with you though.
And at least one carpenter's apprentice who was in the wrong place at the wrong time who'd disagree, if he wasn't already dead.
And a host of other examples.
To say nothing of the chilling effect their capability to decide to shoot you has.
That's the kind of fear that drives a lot of the self-defence stuff in the US.

(Also, the guys you highlighted in the US - the ones who carry out mass shootings - have shot half as many people in the decades between 1982 and 2015 as the police shot in just one year (2014), so you're kindof missing the scale here)

Ush1

So cus Murica was actually the correct answer?

BattleCorp

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

No, but stop selling guns & ammunition. Would be a good start, then bring down gun ownership over next 30 years.

Sick of Americans sh!ting on about the constitution, completely irrelevant.

Their constitution is irrelevant? You think the will of the people is irrelevant in the world's largest democracy?

This is what happens in America.

There is a mass shooting. People give out about AR15's. There's talk of a ban. Half the country rush out to buy AR15's.

When you suggest gun bans in the US, gun sales go way up. After Sandy Hook, it was nearly impossible to get an AR15 because they all sold out. Pretty much all the ammo that was in production was bought up. All types of ammo for all types of guns was snapped up. So much so that there was an ammo drought.

You won't change that culture easily.

America doesn't want it to be changed either.

asherbassad

Sparks wrote: »

I'm glad you think they're all expert marksmen who never miss and that bullets that miss just stop in mid-air and fall harmlessly to the ground.
There's at least one kid out in east wall in a wheelchair who'd disagree with you though.
And at least one carpenter's apprentice who was in the wrong place at the wrong time who'd disagree, if he wasn't already dead.
And a host of other examples.
To say nothing of the chilling effect their capability to decide to shoot you has.
That's the kind of fear that drives a lot of the self-defence stuff in the US.

(Also, the guys you highlighted in the US - the ones who carry out mass shootings - have shot half as many people in the decades between 1982 and 2015 as the police shot in just one year (2014), so you're kindof missing the scale here)

Oh come ON! The number of people killed or wounded by accident in gang-related incidents is so miniscule as to be irrelevant. It pales in comparison to your chances of getting hit by a car when you're crossing the road or even walking on the footpath.

And I'm not missing the point. You're the one who brought up the criminal who will want a gun to conduct his day to day affairs. Well these people just aren't a threat to Joe Public (at least in Ireland). I'm not saying LET them have guns, I'm just saying your drug smugglers are not a threat to anybody except those in the same business and law enforcement. By contrast EVERYONE in the US is a threat purely because EVERYONE could have a weapon and many of them don't pull the trigger in self defence. They pull the trigger in a fit of rage. That asshole who shot those black kids in a car because their music was too loud springs to mind.

Sparks

asherbassad wrote: »

Oh come ON! The number of people killed or wounded by accident in gang-related incidents is so miniscule as to be irrelevant.

As are those killed in mass shootings in the US by comparison to all the others shot in the US...
But people are much more scared by the stuff that's reported more.

BattleCorp

asherbassad wrote: »

I'm just saying your drug smugglers are not a threat to anybody except those in the same business and law enforcement. By contrast EVERYONE in the US is a threat purely because EVERYONE could have a weapon and many of them don't pull the trigger in self defence. .

Ask Shane Geoghegan's family if drug smugglers/dealers are not a threat to anybody except those in the business.

There are over 200,000 guns here in Ireland. Does that mean that firearms owners here are all a threat purely because we could have firearms?

I'm not trying to be personal here but if you consider every person who owns a firearm to be a threat, you are being a bit paranoid.

Guns can be used safely. Most people with guns use them safely. Unfortunately, there seems to be a careless attitude and a willingness to use guns readily to settle disputes in the States.

This attitude towards guns doesn't seem to be present anywhere else in the developed world. Gun ownership in Switzerland is high, but they don't have the same attitude as the States and thus their level of gun crime is way lower.

Theboinkmaster

BattleCorp wrote: »

Their constitution is irrelevant? You think the will of the people is irrelevant in the world's largest democracy?

The part about right to bear arms is yes, written in a time when it took you 20secs to re-load per bullet. Current assault rifles can fire hundreds of bullets per minute.

Also was a very different time of course.

Manic Moran

asherbassad wrote: »

The guy who get cut off at an intersection so races after the car and starts blasting, the guy whose girlfriend dumps him and rather than taking it like a man her traces her to some bar or night club where she's kissing some new bloke and starts firing. These are the bastards you need to worry about and they are a dime a dozen in the US.

Yet.... they're not. This parade of horribles keeps being trotted out, but the conviction rates of people with concealed weapons permits is on about the same level as police officers. (And that's for all crimes, not just those involving firearms). Florida was one of the first States to move to a 'right to carry' law, with over 1.3 milliion licenses active for the first decade or so, all of 4,000 were revoked for any reason at all (which need not involve the firearm). We have information from over half the country which has started allowing more carriage of firearms, it just doesn't happen with any level of concern. So if you would care to support your assertion that such incidents are 'a dime a dozen', please do so.

zeffabelli wrote: »

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with defence.

asherbassad wrote: »

Purposes of personal defense is not cited in the US Consitution.

It doesn't need to be. It may cite the most important reason as being the 'security of a free state', but it is not an exhaustive list. The thing about the Bill of Rights is that it is not a list of things the government can do. It is a list of things the Federal Government cannot do. It cannot deny freedom of speech. It cannot enforce military quartering. It cannot stop and search you at random. And so on. And it cannot remove your firearms. The right to a firearm is a pre-existing one, and some State constitutions are far more explicit about the reasoning than others, to include, in a number of them, personal defence.

Note it says "arms"...which can mean anything..

It has been defined in the courts as "weapons which are in common use", which seems a fairly reasonable interpretation. It's flexible enough to allow for advancements in technology, (so much as the right to speech has evolved from quills, basic printing presses, and standing on a street corner to the Internet, television, radio, firearms have moved from black powder or air weapons to cordite cartridges) while still leaving open restrictions on things which most ordinary people don't think are ordinarily worth having, such as tanks, rockets, etc.

justchecked wrote: »

that being the case its strange that the nra wouldn't encourage states to experiment with restriction, as a means to disprove the flawed assumptions.

States -have- experimented with restrictions on things like weapon configuration or carriage. Indeed, the federal government did too (the 1994 assault weapons ban). They have repeatedly failed to have any effect. There is little more to be learned by trying the same things again, the assumptions are already disproven.

Plus there are the other States which have had it. Australia is commonly mentioned, but there is no evidence that the gun legislation had any particular bearing on gun related crimes, and it's not as if Australian and American researchers haven't looked into it.

zeffabelli wrote: »

When teachers have to cram 30 six year oldsvin a closet for a rehearsal in case some lunatic is going to shoot them... What are they creating for the future? An entire generation or two will grow up thinking this is a possibility ...

Unfortunately, it -is- a possibility. I don't think anyone likes it, except maybe the news company shareholders. We all agree that something needs to be done. We seem to be in some agreement that the issue is cultural. We are in some disagreement as to where the cultural problem is. Either way, the firearms are an ancillary to the problem, not the problem itself, and until that cultural issue (which we disagree upon) is solved, the possibility will continue.

zeffabelli wrote: »

Seriously against what? A burgler?

That violent home invasions or other crimes against the person happen is undeniable. Every jurisdiction on the planet, to my knowledge (including the Vatican) authorises the use of lethal force if necessary for self defence. In no jurisdiction on the planet, to my knowledge, is the police responsible for your personal safety.

Assuming you do not deny these factors, then we are arguing about shades of grey. The US takes these principles to the logical conclusion: That if you are responsible for your own safety, and if necessary can use lethal force, then you should be allowed the tools necessary to accomplish this.

I know if I had a gun, there would be a very good probability it would be turned on me. So I'd be bringing more danger into myself.

And that is fine. A firearm is not for everyone, and one should take a fairly critical self-assessment of the risks and benefits. If you don't feel competent and confident with your firearm, don't use one. It is a personal decision, I would not insist you make such a choice. Even the towns in the US where firearms ownership is mandatory do not actively enforce such a law. (Not least, it's impossible to check anyway, courtesy of that pesky Constitution thing). Similarly, I object to other people making such a choice for me.

asherbassad

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ask Shane Geoghegan's family if drug smugglers/dealers are not a threat to anybody except those in the business.

There are over 200,000 guns here in Ireland. Does that mean that firearms owners here are all a threat purely because we could have firearms?

I'm not trying to be personal here but if you consider every person who owns a firearm to be a threat, you are being a bit paranoid.

Guns can be used safely. Most people with guns use them safely. Unfortunately, there seems to be a careless attitude and a willingness to use guns readily to settle disputes in the States.

This attitude towards guns doesn't seem to be present anywhere else in the developed world. Gun ownership in Switzerland is high, but they don't have the same attitude as the States and thus their level of gun crime is way lower.

I'm in agreement with you. The Americans don't know how to act responsibly at the best of times especially when safety is a concern. Perhaps legislation SHOULD be introduced to societies who can't "handle" their guns or control their emotions responsibly.

Restrict their guns the way the Irish get their booze restricted.

BattleCorp

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

The part about right to bear arms is yes, written in a time when it took you 20secs to re-load per bullet. Current assault rifles can fire hundreds of bullets per minute.

Also was a very different time of course.

It is generally agreed that the right to guns was put into the constitution to enable citizens to protect themselves from the Government should the Government act oppressively towards the people. If people agree on this point, then why do you think that they didn't mean it to apply to people if they had better guns?

The same rights exist today, to arm yourself to protect against an oppressive Government. The Government's technology has moved on, and so should the technology used by civilians if they have a right to arm themselves against an oppressive government. If the aim of the constitution was to protect the people from the Government in the best way possible, then there is not much point in the government having automatic firearms and the citizen is left with a single shot muzzle loader to defend themselves.

Manic Moran

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

The part about right to bear arms is yes, written in a time when it took you 20secs to re-load per bullet. Current assault rifles can fire hundreds of bullets per minute.
.

At the time, the Austrian Army had had in service for about a decade the Giradoni rifle, a semi-automatic which fired from 20-round magazines. (It was withdrawn from service 1815, mainly due to logistical/reliability issues)

In any case, the level of technology is a red herring, as mentioned previously. The principles apply to the Constitution, not the technology.

AbusesToilets

asherbassad wrote: »

I'm in agreement with you. The Americans don't know how to act responsibly at the best of times especially when safety is a concern. Perhaps legislation SHOULD be introduced to societies who can't "handle" their guns or control their emotions responsibly.

Restrict their guns the way the Irish get their booze restricted.

Absolutely, they should look to bastion of rationality that is Ireland for advice on governance. They can probably give them some help too with their blasphemy laws, and how to effectively manage public infrastructure. :rolleyes:

Foxtrol

Sparks wrote: »

I'm glad you think they're all expert marksmen who never miss and that bullets that miss just stop in mid-air and fall harmlessly to the ground.
There's at least one kid out in east wall in a wheelchair who'd disagree with you though.
And at least one carpenter's apprentice who was in the wrong place at the wrong time who'd disagree, if he wasn't already dead.
And a host of other examples.
To say nothing of the chilling effect their capability to decide to shoot you has.
That's the kind of fear that drives a lot of the self-defence stuff in the US.

(Also, the guys you highlighted in the US - the ones who carry out mass shootings - have shot half as many people in the decades between 1982 and 2015 as the police shot in just one year (2014), so you're kindof missing the scale here)

Your handful of examples don’t really help your case as Joe Public with a gun does nothing to protect them in the situation of being caught in sudden crossfire. Having a gun is useless in stopping these stray bullets and if anything I’d propose that in this sort of event had several armed Joe Publics the only outcome would be more bullets in the air and a higher chance of bystanders getting hurt/killed.

MadsL

asherbassad wrote: »

Restrict their guns the way the Irish get their booze restricted.

That's laughable. Underage drinking and drunk driving not a problem in Ireland because of such restrictions huh?

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irelands-dui-rate-among-highest-in-europe-new-study-shows-126616208-237403811.html

One of the highest rates in Europe (25th place) and three times higher than the European average.

gobsh!te

asherbassad wrote: »

The primary purpose of semi-automatic machine guns IS mass killing/murder.

Would you be for disarming citizens and police or just the citizens of these types of weapons?

gobsh!te

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

The part about right to bear arms is yes, written in a time when it took you 20secs to re-load per bullet. Current assault rifles can fire hundreds of bullets per minute.

Also was a very different time of course.

So silly....the right to bear arms would have prevented a lot of bloodshed in government coups in South America for example.

Jews were disarmed in 1938. Let that sink in.

Wompa1

MadsL wrote: »

That's laughable. Underage drinking and drunk driving not a problem in Ireland because of such restrictions huh?

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irelands-dui-rate-among-highest-in-europe-new-study-shows-126616208-237403811.html

One of the highest rates in Europe (25th place) and three times higher than the European average.

It's shameful that it's on the rise again. I was very proud when things seemed to be changing a few years ago. Pubs organizing buses at the end of the night to bring patrons home. Designated Driver incentives in Pubs around Christmas. More Gardai checkpoints, particularly around the bank holidays. When I moved over to Phoenix, it was really upsetting to see the drink driving culture here. Almost everybody I know over here, does it. Bar two people I know that don't drink due to their religion.

This city is one of the toughest for Drink Driving too. It's madness. It makes me really uncomfortable to have to call people out on it...(I only do if they want to drive me or other people around).

Ireland at least tried something to reduce DUI.

The similarities between the US Gun situation and Irelands drink situation could somewhat work when just boiled down to drinking in general. The Irish attitude towards drink is pretty over the top. Start drinking around 11 or 12. So much binge drinking. Death and Injury being caused by alcohol and like the US with guns...we never seem to do anything about it.

Both are pretty terrible. The US with it's hard on for guns and the Irish and it's sick obsession with alcohol

gobsh!te

Wompa1 wrote: »

It makes me really uncomfortable to have to call people out on it...(I only do if they want to drive me or other people around).

If you strongly believe in something you need to speak up.

Whether I agree with you or not, you need to speak up and be another voice in the debate in the real world not just here on Boards