Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gun Control in the US

  • 05-10-2017 10:17am
    #1
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.


    I think it's a bit of both..

    There's no question that the solution is not as simple as "Ban Guns" , although having said that I fail to see any reasonable or legitimate argument for allowing the sale of things like Bump Stocks & Silencers to name a few..

    After events like this , the two sides always seem to settle into well-worn tropes of "gun control" on the left and "improved mental health provisions" on the right , although this latest horror doesn't yet seem to fit the typical mental health narrative.

    Other countries have guns , other countries have people with Mental health issues - Yet no other country on the planet comes even close to the level of gun deaths and mass shootings as the US.

    So - Why do Americans "use" their guns much much more than any other gun owners in other countries??

    There is a cultural/societal issue at play here that needs to be addressed.

    As an outsider looking in ,albeit one that has spent a lot of time in the southern United States over the past 20 years. As a nation the US has an extremely unhealthy relationship with guns that needs to be addressed.


«13456719

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,858 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    It's definitely both. But, it's just stupid and pigheaded to keep skirting around the issue of the ridiculous availability of guns to people wholly undeserving of them.

    Much, MUCH, better regulation is needed, which would go someway to minimising the death tolls these sick fucks mount up when they want to suicide by cop.

    Not only that, America needs to get its **** together regarding access to mental health facilities for people who cannot afford those facilities. Simply turning these people loose is a recipe for disaster. Reagan has an awful lot to answer for in that regard.

    It comes down to this and I've said it before. The gun crowd simply just don't care about these mass slaughters. Access to their toys is more important to them than other people's lives.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,253 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    After events like this , the two sides always seem to settle into well-worn tropes of "gun control" on the left and "improved mental health provisions" on the right , although this latest horror doesn't yet seem to fit the typical mental health narrative.
    Except the minor fact that NRA and Republicans actually reduced the mental health provisions and removed previous Obama legislation to limit those with such problems being allowed to buy guns...


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Nody wrote: »
    Except the minor fact that NRA and Republicans actually reduced the mental health provisions and removed previous Obama legislation to limit those with such problems being allowed to buy guns...

    Absolutely agree - It's the "Guns don't kill people , People kill people" argument to deflect away from serious discussion about Gun control.

    They never actually do anything about it.. It's just used as a shield.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Tony EH wrote: »
    It's definitely both. But, it's just stupid and pigheaded to keep skirting around the issue of the ridiculous availability of guns to people wholly undeserving of them.

    Much, MUCH, better regulation is needed, which would go someway to minimising the death tolls these sick fucks mount up when they want to suicide by cop.
    There is an obvious solution here.

    A federal weapons register which links weapons' serial numbers to a person, so every weapon can be traced to an owner.

    This would also allow for reasonable limits to be placed on the number of weapons a single person may own, and a much simpler way of discovering if the weapon that Joe Bloggs is carrying, is actually legally held. If Joe is found with an unregistered weapon, that's a federal offence that carries jailtime. When Joe goes to buy a weapon, the dealer runs a check which says that Joe already had 3 weapons, he can't have another one. Sorry Joe, but you are keeping and bearing enough arms already.

    It is no way infringing on the 2nd Amendment to regulate weapons in this way, since it does not include a blanket right to hold as many weapons as you feel like, or weapons of whatever type you feel like, nor keep them without registration or regulation.

    If private citizens were entitled to pistols and simple hunting rifles only, the second amendment is happy and incidents like this would not be possible. A mass shooter with a scoped rifle, sure might kill a couple of people. Like those guys in Washington in 2002.
    But they wouldn't be able to stock themselves with a military arsenal and massacre people from a distance like Paddock did.

    Yes it is that simple, but there are too many vested interests tied up in it. The problem is that any time there has been an attempt in the US to tighten up gun control, the NRA with the assistance of the GOP and their partisan supreme court have pushed back even harder and loosened controls rather than tightened them.

    The U.S. is onto a loser really. We're witnessing its last decades as a stable entity because those with the power to change the toxic parts of US society (gun control and healthcare being two examples) seem hell bent on going in exactly the wrong direction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,858 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Agreed. That's a reasonable solution here and yes, nobody should be allowed to amass an arsenal that's roughly the same as the average Platoon. That's an utterly ridiculous situation.

    But, it still comes down to giving a shit and as long as gun nuts don't and the NRA has the GOP in their pocket, nothing will change. It's money and there's too much to be made - so lives don't matter.

    Maybe if these nutters made an effort to shoot the "right" people (a few politicians might do), something might happen.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,408 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    Good piece from John Oliver on the NRA:



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Forgive me, but this seems to imply that there is only one viable course of action. That is not a position universally shared by the US population (or the population of this board). Personally, I have emailed my two congresscritters earlier this week and inquired as to if they have any interest at all in considering other points of focus such as prohibition on publicising such shooters or perhaps looking at the social or societal reasons these things seem to be happening in the US more than other firearms-holding countries. After all, the NRA can't object to those. Given that one is Kamala Harris, and the other Eric Swalwell, both (D-CA), I'm unconvinced that the response will do anything but focus on feelgood, superficial issue of the firearms. DiFi has wasted no time in copy/pasting a paragraph from her last attempt at a ban, submitting her new proposal which ignores the practical aspects of how the things work that she is trying to ban in the first place. But it's much easier to get superficial things passed when emotions are high, and when things settle down in the end, it's those of us on the receiving end that are trying to figure things out. As it is, I spent a half-hour today trying to figure out whether or not one of my rifles needs to be registered under the latest California regimen (And I still haven't come to a conclusion on the matter) because the folks passing the legislation have no clue what they're legislating about. And in the meantime, nothing is done as regards the most commonly used weapons in the US for murder or mass murder, precisely because they are (a) explicitly protected by the courts, and (b) also the most commonly legitimately held weapons. Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.
    wp-1488703847913.jpg
    Good piece from John Oliver on the NRA:/QUOTE]

    So in a country that wants to build a wall to keep out all Mexicans because some of them may be rapists, that wants to ban all Muslims until they work what what the "hell is going on" you think that the best response after the latest in a long line of mass shootings is to have a report on why other countries don't have the same problem?

    Why not call for an immediate ban on gun sales? For every firearm to be registered and a halt on 2nd sales?

    As was proposed above, an immediate register of all guns, limiting the number per person. It would actually make sense for the US to buy back the guns to get the additional guns out of circulation.

    You claim that the NRA can't be against a report, but we already know that they are. In 1996 the Dickie act bared the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) for advocating or promote gun control. The CDC is already barred for advocating for anything, only to produce reports, but this amendment resulted in the research in gun violence dropping by 96%. It now spends just 100k a year out of a budget of over 5bn. On gun violence.

    Gun violence has accounted for an average 33,000 deaths each year in the US. In 2016 there were more than 1 mass shooting everyday. Yet not only is nothing being done, research isn't even being carried out.

    440k people have died as a result of guns since 2001, against less than 4k from foreign terrorism. Trump wants to keep the threat from getting in, guess what, the threat is already there and has access to military grade weapons.

    Why is there not a call for all white men to be checked? Across all of the mass shootings, which have been carried out across many states, by different age groups, backgrounds, political and religious reasons. The common thread in all of them is the use of high grade weapons. Yet it seems US is oblivious to that simple fact.

    You say it is not universally accepted. Do you know what the opinion polls show about Gun control. Depending on the poll, anywhere between 70% and 90% believe in stricter controls. Even a majority of NRA members agree. So yeah, you're right not universal, but in a democracy surely the majority gets some say. It is the skewed nature of US politics that the very states that are most for lax gun control happen to carry quite a weight within the system.

    After the Orlando shooting, the Dems tried, even going as far as staging a sit in, to amend the laws. Not to take peoples gun away, to to restrict the types of weapons, or limit the ammunition. No. The wanted to legislate for background checks for sales in gun shows and to prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. Hardly an attack on gun ownership. Hardly a feel good action. A practical, if limited start.

    How did that go I hear you ask? Of course the GOP ignored it.

    So when you post your funny cartoon showing the simple way being popular but the complex being "right", they have tried to do nothing approach and how has that gone? Each year seemingly brings a new record. Each year brings more deaths and more injured. But your thinking is that there is no need to go after any thing to do with guns but rather to have a review.

    It is very simple. Take away peoples ability to own these types of weapons and their ability to create the carnage that this man did is massively reduced. Will it stop all the killings? No. But how many would he have killed with a pistol? 10 maybe. And injured? lets go with 50. So even that simple change would save 49 lives and save 450 people being injured.

    US spends €2.8bn on gun related healthcare. Jebus. All so that a few people can feel big and strong and play at being Rambo.

    And whenever a mass shooting occurs, the NRA etc come out bemoaning the fact that if only the teachers/parents etc had guns then it wouldn't have happened. Well this massacre well and truly blows that theory out of the water. Despite the state having very lax gun laws, where people are free to own as many as they want and can obtain permits to carry them. When every policeman is armed. Nobody could do a thing to stop him. Nothing. Where are all these gun owners that vow that they need guns to stop the bad guys. They completely failed. If being armed was the only way to avoid being shot then how come fully trained soldiers die in battle. How come a US marine, with years of training still gets shot? Because your weapon is only useful if the other guy isn't a step ahead of you. No point having a house full of guns if the guys can simply sneak up on you.

    Simplistic? The reason the points put forward seem simplistic is that they really are. This really needed be complicated. US needs to stop this love affair with the gun.

    For all the people that were involved, killed, injured or just caught up in it including all the brave police etc I have the utmost sympathy. I have no sympathy for US society. They have accepted that this is, as Bill O'Reilly said, "the price of freedom". They accept that to have toys people must die.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Because your weapon is only useful if the other guy isn't a step ahead of you. No point having a house full of guns if the guys can simply sneak up on you.
    This is great point. Once arms are introduced, it becomes an arms race.

    So every teacher is carrying a pistol? Fine, I'll buy a bulletproof vest, use an automatic and pick off the adults first.

    Everyone has an automatic? Fine, I'll just use some explosives instead and then pick off anyone who's not dead or stunned.

    Local cops have a SWAT team? Don't care, I'm not planning on getting out alive. I'll just lock the doors and kill everyone.

    Everyone's carrying? Fine, I'll just get an elevated location and fire from a distance.

    The "good guy with a gun" logic maybe works in a warzone where you're expecting an attack. It doesn't work in everyday life. Even if they came up with a good counter-terrorist strategy against the Paddock scenario, the next guy will just pick a different more devastating strategy. This is not "bad guys versus good guys". This is "bad guys and defenceless civilians".

    One point that also worth noting is that it's irrelevant whether the guns Paddock held were legally or illegally held. The majority of illegally held weapons in the US come from legal sources - be that moved across state lines, stolen from gun shops and peoples' homes, or second sales.

    Why doesn't most of Europe have this issue with illegal weapons? Because you have to smuggle them into the country. There isn't a gun shop on every street that you can ram-raid and drive off with hundreds of weapons.

    If they weren't generally available in the first place, then it would be much harder/more expensive to get your hands on illegal weapons.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,182 ✭✭✭demfad


    Forgive me, but this seems to imply that there is only one viable course of action. That is not a position universally shared by the US population (or the population of this board). Personally, I have emailed my two congresscritters earlier this week and inquired as to if they have any interest at all in considering other points of focus such as prohibition on publicising such shooters or perhaps looking at the social or societal reasons these things seem to be happening in the US more than other firearms-holding countries. After all, the NRA can't object to those. Given that one is Kamala Harris, and the other Eric Swalwell, both (D-CA), I'm unconvinced that the response will do anything but focus on feelgood, superficial issue of the firearms. DiFi has wasted no time in copy/pasting a paragraph from her last attempt at a ban, submitting her new proposal which ignores the practical aspects of how the things work that she is trying to ban in the first place. But it's much easier to get superficial things passed when emotions are high, and when things settle down in the end, it's those of us on the receiving end that are trying to figure things out. As it is, I spent a half-hour today trying to figure out whether or not one of my rifles needs to be registered under the latest California regimen (And I still haven't come to a conclusion on the matter) because the folks passing the legislation have no clue what they're legislating about. And in the meantime, nothing is done as regards the most commonly used weapons in the US for murder or mass murder, precisely because they are (a) explicitly protected by the courts, and (b) also the most commonly legitimately held weapons. Perhaps the solution is not, in fact, to look at firearms, but to look at the people.
    wp-1488703847913.jpg

    Australia banned the sale of automatic and semiautomatic weapons in the 90s. It hasn't had a mass shooting since.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,931 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Perhaps another gun control issue, even if the desire was there, would be different states have different laws. So if it is illegal to buy a fully auto assault rifle in X State, I'll just head across the border to Y, pick one up, and then head back home.

    Any counter-measures must be Countrywide and consistently enforced. The problem is some are pro-gun and others not.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,136 ✭✭✭✭MadYaker


    In most states they don't even have regulations stating that people have to keep their weapons in a proper gun safe like they do in Ireland, and even in states where these regulations exist they are very hard or impossible to enforce. People keep guns in their bedrooms, in their cars, on their boats etc so it's not that difficult for people to steal weapons and sell them on the black market.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    MadYaker wrote: »
    In most states they don't even have regulations stating that people have to keep their weapons in a proper gun safe like they do in Ireland, and even in states where these regulations exist they are very hard or impossible to enforce. People keep guns in their bedrooms, in their cars, on their boats etc so it's not that difficult for people to steal weapons and sell them on the black market.

    And this is actually used as part of the defence of doing nothing.

    "Sure no point doing anything unless you can do everything" attitude.
    "The problem is so big there is nothing we can do about it". Well, no solution is going to stop it instantly (although you can be sure if they brought something in and other massacre happened that would be used to 'prove' the solution didn't work). But at this stage it has been allowed to develop for so long it will take time to change. But first step is to stop selling guns.

    There is approx, 350m guns in the country, more than enough for everyone. Stop the sale of all guns unless you can prove you own none or trade in the ones you do have.

    Also, ammunition should be limited to the basic type. None of this armour piercing, cop killer stuff. Will bad guys still get it, yeah, happens everywhere. But bad guys also use drugs and money laundering. Doesn't mean they should be legal.


    Like in the John Oliver report, some of the GOP heads saying that there is no proof that tighter gun control would have an impact. Yes there is. Australia is a perfect example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,931 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Like in the John Oliver report, some of the GOP heads saying that there is no proof that tighter gun control would have an impact. Yes there is. Australia is a perfect example.


    And in the UK - after Dunblane


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,863 ✭✭✭Christy42


    MadYaker wrote: »
    In most states they don't even have regulations stating that people have to keep their weapons in a proper gun safe like they do in Ireland, and even in states where these regulations exist they are very hard or impossible to enforce. People keep guns in their bedrooms, in their cars, on their boats etc so it's not that difficult for people to steal weapons and sell them on the black market.


    Doesn't Ireland have a weird law where you need a gun safe but don't have to use it?


    As you say some laws in this should be required. How many cases have we heard of toddlers finding a parents pistol and accidentally doing some damage?


  • Registered Users Posts: 350 ✭✭Palmy


    It’s too little too late. It would almost be impossible to clamp down. Too many guns in circulation. No law abiding citizen is going to hand over their guns. Not a chance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    Palmy wrote: »
    It’s too little too late. It would almost be impossible to clamp down. Too many guns in circulation. No law abiding citizen is going to hand over their guns. Not a chance.

    Not a single one?
    3%
    Proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns, according to an unpublished Harvard/Northeastern University survey result summary. Anchoring this group are America’s gun super-owners – an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/us-gun-control-ownership-violence-statistics
    Which suggests that the vast majority of Americans don't own a gun or wouldn't be die hard NRA/2nd amendment types


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Christy42 wrote: »
    How many cases have we heard of toddlers finding a parents pistol and accidentally doing some damage?

    http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/toddler-shoots-two-threeyearolds-at-us-home-childcare-facility-36180117.html

    There was that only a few days before the massacre. Didn't seem to raise much of an eyebrow (although the concert shooting did rather shove it into the background).


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,178 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    There's no question that the solution is not as simple as "Ban Guns" , although having said that I fail to see any reasonable or legitimate argument for allowing the sale of things like Bump Stocks & Silencers to name a few..

    Although I'm happy enough to see bump stocks banned as an idea, there are two not so insignificant details.

    1) How to define them in legislation, given that they do not change the mechanics of the firearm. Bump firing is a technique, not a device. It's like the difference between making your car go faster around a track by adding a Nitrous boost, vs changing the steering wheel from stock leather to racing-sized microsuede in order to make it a bit easier to grip as you're going around corners. The one is a mechanical change, the other is an aid to doing something which you can do with a 'stock' vehicle. 2) I can probably come up with some long-winded description which will cover them (and which bears no similarity to the proposals currently being put forward by politicians), but since I can go to the DIY store and in the shelving area get materials which will do the same thing for about $30 and requires only the most basic of mechanical ability (i.e. ability to measure, cut, drill and screw), I'm not sure I see the point anyway.

    Depending on where you go, silencers (AKA Suppressors, Moderators) are mandatory to outright forbidden. They are lawful in Ireland with a permit. They are totally unregulated in countries like New Zealand or Norway, and effectively banned in Australia or Netherlands (Though Australia is starting to loosen them up a bit given recent incidents: Embarassingly ACT discovered that their own employees were breaking the law by using suppressors in kangaroo culls, which rather made the shooters' point of their positive features, a permitting scheme is being created). Their use can be dastardly, a courtesy, or a safety system. There is no common consensus worldwide, but that you are aware of no reasonable or legitimate argument is evidently not the case in more than a few jurisdictions. It has become a legislative and regulatory balancing act with arguments on both sides.
    Except the minor fact that NRA and Republicans actually reduced the mental health provisions and removed previous Obama legislation to limit those with such problems being allowed to buy guns...

    The provision which even the pro-gun-control ACLU said needed to go away?
    https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
    But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

    In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.

    There is an obvious solution here.

    A federal weapons register which links weapons' serial numbers to a person, so every weapon can be traced to an owner.

    This would also allow for reasonable limits to be placed on the number of weapons a single person may own, and a much simpler way of discovering if the weapon that Joe Bloggs is carrying, is actually legally held. If Joe is found with an unregistered weapon, that's a federal offence that carries jailtime. When Joe goes to buy a weapon, the dealer runs a check which says that Joe already had 3 weapons, he can't have another one. Sorry Joe, but you are keeping and bearing enough arms already.

    There are equally obvious problems.
    1) Good luck creating such a register. Ask the Canadians how successful their attempt was a couple years back.
    2) OK, we know who has the guns. Fantastic to know, after the fact.
    3) I only have a pair of hands, and one dominant eye. What difference does it make to my lethality if I have three rifles or twelve? And that's assuming they are all comparable firearms, not ones suitable for the whole range of things for which they can be used. In the AH thread some chap listed off why he could have use for a dozen different firearms in the Irish legislative environment, let alone the US one.

    I mean, if it makes people feel better, OK, try setting up a register. California already knows I have my firearms, it hasn't stopped me from committing any crimes (Not that I have committed any, but CA's knowledge hasn't been the cause of that). Of course, I can probably think of more practical things for my tax dollars to be going towards: Just as Canada did once they realised the registry wasn't working.
    So in a country that wants to build a wall to keep out all Mexicans because some of them may be rapists, that wants to ban all Muslims until they work what what the "hell is going on" you think that the best response after the latest in a long line of mass shootings is to have a report on why other countries don't have the same problem?

    No, the best response is not only to understand why other countries don't have the same problem, but to actually do something about it. We have one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, but the number of folks actually owning guns has dropped as a percentage.
    You may have seen a video going around in the last couple of weeks by the Spokane County Sheriff, after there was a school shooting in his jurisdiction three weeks ago. Tell me he's wrong. Video below from NBC news. https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/videos/10155875993533689/
    Why is there not a call for all white men to be checked? Across all of the mass shootings, which have been carried out across many states, by different age groups, backgrounds, political and religious reasons. The common thread in all of them is the use of high grade weapons. Yet it seems US is oblivious to that simple fact.

    Define high grade weapons?
    Look at the "top ten" mass shootings in the US.

    #1 (Vegas) Semi-auto Rifle
    #2 (Orlando) Semi-auto Rifle and Pistol
    #3 (Virginia Tech) Pistol
    #4 (Sandy Hook) Semi-auto Rifle, Pistol present but not used.
    #5 (Luby's) Pistol
    #6 (San Ysidro) Pistol, Shotgun, and a single-shot Uzi which effectively is a 9mm pistol
    #7 (U-Texas) Shotgun, Bolt-action rifle
    #8 (Edmond Post office). Pistols (Stolen from a military armory, of all places)
    #9 (San Bernadino). Semi-auto rifle.
    #10 (Fort Hood). Pistol and Revolver.

    That makes six of ten solely using weapons which are legal for sale in Australia today. Only in three of them did the man solely use semi-auto rifles. "High grade weapons" is the common thread?
    You say it is not universally accepted. Do you know what the opinion polls show about Gun control. Depending on the poll, anywhere between 70% and 90% believe in stricter controls. Even a majority of NRA members agree

    We do, but not the gun control which is being advocated. We are, for example, as a majority heavily in favour of requiring background checks for all sales. Closing, as they say, the "gun show loophole." It's easy to do. "If you are planning on selling a firearm, call this number. It is the same number that dealers use, the person on the other end will ask for the details and run the check. Its use is mandatory. We will enforce by undercover purchase attempts." That's it. Such a proposal was actually put forward after Sandy Hook by one Republican congresscritter. But, no, that wasn't what was put to the vote. Instead we got a bill put forward by the Democrats which overreached with an excessive system for doing the same thing, except with more hassle and expense. And got shot down as a result.

    Oh, wait, you're familiar with the incident:
    The wanted to legislate for background checks for sales in gun shows and to prohibit those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns.

    Yes, so not only do we have the first problem, but then you now add the problem of allowing an unaccountable, anonymous government functionary from restricting Constitutional rights. Can you imagine the outcry if the same system of unaccountability was being used to remove folks from voters' rolls? That wouldn't go over well at all.

    I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote.
    . Nobody could do a thing to stop him. Nothing. Where are all these gun owners that vow that they need guns to stop the bad guys. They completely failed. If being armed was the only way to avoid being shot then how come fully trained soldiers die in battle. How come a US marine, with years of training still gets shot? Because your weapon is only useful if the other guy isn't a step ahead of you. No point having a house full of guns if the guys can simply sneak up on you.

    You can never eliminate all risk. You can take actions to mitigate it, but there is never a guarantee. Anywhere. Anybody who claims otherwise, on any side of the argument, is deluding themselves.
    Australia banned the sale of automatic and semiautomatic weapons in the 90s. It hasn't had a mass shooting since.

    The Australian murder rate has been on a downward trend both before and after. It is the sixth largest importer of firearms in the world. It is estimated that 2/3 of the 'banned' weapons are still in the country. University of Melbourne could not find any causative relationship between the buyback and crime rates. A 9mm Glock such as used by at least two of the shooters in the 'top ten' list above is available online (As of two days ago) at GunWorld for Aus$898. Plus, presumably, shipping. Neighbouring New Zealand has not banned semi-automatic weapons, they also have not had a mass shooting since the 90s. (Incidentally, most weapons in NZ don't need to be registered either).

    Now, certainly, the application/eligibility schemes are entirely non-comparable between the US and Australia. But whatever the reasons that Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1990s, the lack of availablility of firearms isn't it. Some time ago Sparks did a long post on the issue, quoting the head of the federal police as well as a few other sources, saying that the solution was police work and social policy. I'm good with police work and social policy. Particularly the latter. We sure as heck need it in the US.
    None of this armour piercing, cop killer stuff.

    What 'armor piercing, cop killer stuff?' You realise that the legal definitions of what is or is not armor piercing does not involve the question of 'does it pierce armor'? Resulting in all sorts of bizarre outcomes, such as some ammunition being banned which won't penetrate any sort of armor, ammunition which penetrates body armor but not steel being not banned, ammunition which penetrates steel but not body armor also not being banned, and with no attempt made at making a standard level of penetration by calibre against any type of armor at all. The regulation was put into place so they could say "We are banning armor-piercing, cop killer bullets", and the only effect was to confuse the industry. It's a great vote-winner, fantastic for the emotional appeal to "We must do something", and achieves nothing. And that's basically what we're expecting to deal with next.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    While a well written post Manic, it all basically revolves around the central point of it would be really difficult so probably not worth it.

    You mention loads of ways that it would be impracticle to enforce, but not really. Like the steering wheel example, you obviously can't stop a person determined to get one from the black market, but you make sure there is heavy penalties for those caught using them or selling them. Will that stop them all? Of course not, no more than having a speed limit stops everybody from speeding. But it makes the majority of people to think about it as getting caught could have the consequence of losing your right to own guns for example.

    In terms of limits on the type of bullets. You are right that trying to define what is and isn't acceptable is very difficult, but again a start can be made. To simply say that it must be a free for all makes no sense. You make some regulations. It won't solve all the issues but will solve some of them.

    But you're right. Tell those 59 dead and 500+ injured, not to mention all the hundreds that have been killed in other recent shooting that nothing can be done. That in the internet age, where FB have literally every piece of personal info that it is not possible to gather a register of guns and owners.

    In terms of high grade, I am talking about anything other than that required for personal protection. What possible reason is there for a civilian to have anything other than a side arm? That is not meant as an accusation, I really don't understand the thinking so if you can provide some then I would welcome it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,526 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    Although I'm happy enough to see bump stocks banned as an idea, there are two not so insignificant details.

    1) How to define them in legislation, given that they do not change the mechanics of the firearm. Bump firing is a technique, not a device. It's like the difference between making your car go faster around a track by adding a Nitrous boost, vs changing the steering wheel from stock leather to racing-sized microsuede in order to make it a bit easier to grip as you're going around corners. The one is a mechanical change, the other is an aid to doing something which you can do with a 'stock' vehicle. 2) I can probably come up with some long-winded description which will cover them (and which bears no similarity to the proposals currently being put forward by politicians), but since I can go to the DIY store and in the shelving area get materials which will do the same thing for about $30 and requires only the most basic of mechanical ability (i.e. ability to measure, cut, drill and screw), I'm not sure I see the point anyway.

    Depending on where you go, silencers (AKA Suppressors, Moderators) are mandatory to outright forbidden. They are lawful in Ireland with a permit. They are totally unregulated in countries like New Zealand or Norway, and effectively banned in Australia or Netherlands (Though Australia is starting to loosen them up a bit given recent incidents: Embarassingly ACT discovered that their own employees were breaking the law by using suppressors in kangaroo culls, which rather made the shooters' point of their positive features, a permitting scheme is being created). Their use can be dastardly, a courtesy, or a safety system. There is no common consensus worldwide, but that you are aware of no reasonable or legitimate argument is evidently not the case in more than a few jurisdictions. It has become a legislative and regulatory balancing act with arguments on both sides.



    The provision which even the pro-gun-control ACLU said needed to go away?
    https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
    But gun control laws, like any law, should be fair, effective and not based on prejudice or stereotype. This rule met none of those criteria.

    In this era of “alternative facts,” we must urge politicians to create laws based on reliable evidence and solid data.




    There are equally obvious problems.
    1) Good luck creating such a register. Ask the Canadians how successful their attempt was a couple years back.
    2) OK, we know who has the guns. Fantastic to know, after the fact.
    3) I only have a pair of hands, and one dominant eye. What difference does it make to my lethality if I have three rifles or twelve? And that's assuming they are all comparable firearms, not ones suitable for the whole range of things for which they can be used. In the AH thread some chap listed off why he could have use for a dozen different firearms in the Irish legislative environment, let alone the US one.

    I mean, if it makes people feel better, OK, try setting up a register. California already knows I have my firearms, it hasn't stopped me from committing any crimes (Not that I have committed any, but CA's knowledge hasn't been the cause of that). Of course, I can probably think of more practical things for my tax dollars to be going towards: Just as Canada did once they realised the registry wasn't working.



    No, the best response is not only to understand why other countries don't have the same problem, but to actually do something about it. We have one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, but the number of folks actually owning guns has dropped as a percentage.
    You may have seen a video going around in the last couple of weeks by the Spokane County Sheriff, after there was a school shooting in his jurisdiction three weeks ago. Tell me he's wrong. Video below from NBC news. https://www.facebook.com/nbcnightlynews/videos/10155875993533689/



    Define high grade weapons?
    Look at the "top ten" mass shootings in the US.

    #1 (Vegas) Semi-auto Rifle
    #2 (Orlando) Semi-auto Rifle and Pistol
    #3 (Virginia Tech) Pistol
    #4 (Sandy Hook) Semi-auto Rifle, Pistol present but not used.
    #5 (Luby's) Pistol
    #6 (San Ysidro) Pistol, Shotgun, and a single-shot Uzi which effectively is a 9mm pistol
    #7 (U-Texas) Shotgun, Bolt-action rifle
    #8 (Edmond Post office). Pistols (Stolen from a military armory, of all places)
    #9 (San Bernadino). Semi-auto rifle.
    #10 (Fort Hood). Pistol and Revolver.

    That makes six of ten solely using weapons which are legal for sale in Australia today. Only in three of them did the man solely use semi-auto rifles. "High grade weapons" is the common thread?



    We do, but not the gun control which is being advocated. We are, for example, as a majority heavily in favour of requiring background checks for all sales. Closing, as they say, the "gun show loophole." It's easy to do. "If you are planning on selling a firearm, call this number. It is the same number that dealers use, the person on the other end will ask for the details and run the check. Its use is mandatory. We will enforce by undercover purchase attempts." That's it. Such a proposal was actually put forward after Sandy Hook by one Republican congresscritter. But, no, that wasn't what was put to the vote. Instead we got a bill put forward by the Democrats which overreached with an excessive system for doing the same thing, except with more hassle and expense. And got shot down as a result.

    Oh, wait, you're familiar with the incident:



    Yes, so not only do we have the first problem, but then you now add the problem of allowing an unaccountable, anonymous government functionary from restricting Constitutional rights. Can you imagine the outcry if the same system of unaccountability was being used to remove folks from voters' rolls? That wouldn't go over well at all.

    I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote.



    You can never eliminate all risk. You can take actions to mitigate it, but there is never a guarantee. Anywhere. Anybody who claims otherwise, on any side of the argument, is deluding themselves.



    The Australian murder rate has been on a downward trend both before and after. It is the sixth largest importer of firearms in the world. It is estimated that 2/3 of the 'banned' weapons are still in the country. University of Melbourne could not find any causative relationship between the buyback and crime rates. A 9mm Glock such as used by at least two of the shooters in the 'top ten' list above is available online (As of two days ago) at GunWorld for Aus$898. Plus, presumably, shipping. Neighbouring New Zealand has not banned semi-automatic weapons, they also have not had a mass shooting since the 90s. (Incidentally, most weapons in NZ don't need to be registered either).

    Now, certainly, the application/eligibility schemes are entirely non-comparable between the US and Australia. But whatever the reasons that Australia has not had a mass shooting since 1990s, the lack of availablility of firearms isn't it. Some time ago Sparks did a long post on the issue, quoting the head of the federal police as well as a few other sources, saying that the solution was police work and social policy. I'm good with police work and social policy. Particularly the latter. We sure as heck need it in the US.



    What 'armor piercing, cop killer stuff?' You realise that the legal definitions of what is or is not armor piercing does not involve the question of 'does it pierce armor'? Resulting in all sorts of bizarre outcomes, such as some ammunition being banned which won't penetrate any sort of armor, ammunition which penetrates body armor but not steel being not banned, ammunition which penetrates steel but not body armor also not being banned, and with no attempt made at making a standard level of penetration by calibre against any type of armor at all. The regulation was put into place so they could say "We are banning armor-piercing, cop killer bullets", and the only effect was to confuse the industry. It's a great vote-winner, fantastic for the emotional appeal to "We must do something", and achieves nothing. And that's basically what we're expecting to deal with next.

    Absolutely nothing in the way of solutions just a complete defence of why doing nothing is the best option.

    Tbh it's saddening you can't seem to get inside the hurt of the families of last week but I suppose if you did you'd offer more real solutions than typical 'no, no, no' responses.

    Anything in the way of concrete proposals? I mean how can you even fight a database of gun ownership it's laughable Manic


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,178 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    While a well written post Manic, it all basically revolves around the central point of it would be really difficult so probably not worth it.

    Not at all. It would be really difficult and absolutely worth it, to fix our problems which result in, not only mass shootings, but the rather substantial level of unlawful shootings in the US in general. But it is, however, far more difficult to achieve such a result than simply saying "Let's ban something which isn't responsible for a lot of our problems anyway.." Combination of Politician's Syllogism and the election cycle.

    Quoting the ever-accurate "Yes, Prime Minister"


    Let's do this thing, without thinking it through.
    You mention loads of ways that it would be impracticle to enforce, but not really. Like the steering wheel example, you obviously can't stop a person determined to get one from the black market, but you make sure there is heavy penalties for those caught using them or selling them. Will that stop them all? Of course not, no more than having a speed limit stops everybody from speeding. But it makes the majority of people to think about it as getting caught could have the consequence of losing your right to own guns for example.

    To change the AR rifles in the San Bernadino shooting from "legal" to "illegal" took somewhere under five minutes. I can change my SIG-556 from one to the other in about ten seconds, longer if I spend a while fumbling on my pocket for my multi-tool. I believe a bump-stock change would take somewhere not far over five minutes. I routinely enough take my rifles out and about, quite legally, only a few seconds (OK, my AUG and FAL will take a couple of minutes) away from illegality and there is no risk of my being caught. What positive achievement has been gained by the implementation of these laws, except for the creation of a new economy based on the premise of getting around them? (I've decided since yesterday that I needed to buy a $55 part to mount onto my FAL for the simple purpose of making it clear in a photograph to Cal DOJ that the rifle does exactly what I said it does because of a change I made internally to the rifle. Cal DOJ requires that I send visual proof.) It'll still take me only five minutes to take it off....

    Besides, as I have said before, bump-stocks don't actually do anything to the rifle. Let's say Pollack didn't have a bump stock because they were banned. What difference on the receiving end is there between this wooden-stock semi-auto and the one Pollack used in Vegas?


    Now, since it's not necessary to have a bump-stock to fire rapidly, then it's no skin off my nose to see them banned. Unless, however, the legislation written to do it is so inaccurate, broad, or non-specific as to cause all sorts of additional hassle. So you've passed a law, provided little if any benefit other than a photo op, and risked 'collateral damage'. Much as the armor piercing regulation has done.
    In terms of limits on the type of bullets. You are right that trying to define what is and isn't acceptable is very difficult, but again a start can be made. To simply say that it must be a free for all makes no sense.

    I do not say they must be a free-for-all. I said that the regulations must make sense. They must set out to achieve a defined goal, and then meet that defined goal. They must be feasible and appropriate both. Regulation which does not do this is bad regulation, and should not exist solely for the purpose of existing. If someone wanted to say "No 9mm ammunition capable of penetrating Level II armor may be sold", then fantastic. Clear, unambigious regulation. We know the calibre type, and we know the armor it is not permitted to penetrate. This, apparently, is beyond the ken of whoever it is coming up with the rules.
    That in the internet age, where FB have literally every piece of personal info that it is not possible to gather a register of guns and owners.

    Can you come up with a case of a registry which has been created from scratch? Canada tried, and failed. Maryland tried, and failed. California tried, and failed. Heck, even the ones California knows about, California can't enforce: It is estimated that some 10,000 Californians are known to own weapons they are prohibited from holding due to subsequent conviction, mental adjudication, etc. California doesn't have the money to do anything about them.
    In terms of high grade, I am talking about anything other than that required for personal protection. What possible reason is there for a civilian to have anything other than a side arm? That is meant as an accusation, I really don't understand the thinking so if you can provide some then I would welcome it.

    That gets into a much larger argument varying from 'what are you protecting yourself from' (You use a sidearm against a bear, you'll just annoy it), through 'where are you protecting yourself'.

    The three general categories, pistol, rifle and shotgun all have their positives and minuses depending on the particular circumstances at play. Generally speaking, the only 'plusses' for a pistol are 'portability' and 'single-handed use'. Rifles and shotguns are substantially the better system if one is not concerned about those two criteria. The difference between rifle and shotgun tends to revolve around one's environment, layout of the house or property, construction materials, and so on.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    So 1 rifle. And your really telling me that there are bears out there that require a military grade machine gun to stop.

    But I'm no expert so am happy enough to admit that there are instances where serious firepower is required. But that must be a very small % of the population and certainly not too onerous a task to set up and maintain a database.

    How can a registered owner be maintained for every car but its beyond our ability to maintain one for guns.

    Limit guns to one per person. If they require more they should need to provide evidence of the reason and how it will be stored etc.

    Why do you need two guns? Not why do you have them, but do you need them? If everygun owner was required to ask that question it might lead to a change in thinking.

    There is no doubt that there is a certain % of the us population which believes that gun ownership should be free and unfettered. Large arsenals should be build up on the pretence of security. Yet I go back to the recent shooting. Despite lax laws, police all being armed, plenty of civilians being gun owners none of them were capable of doing anything to stop the carnage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,858 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    While a well written post Manic, it all basically revolves around the central point of it would be really difficult so probably not worth it.

    You mention loads of ways that it would be impracticle to enforce, but not really. Like the steering wheel example, you obviously can't stop a person determined to get one from the black market, but you make sure there is heavy penalties for those caught using them or selling them. Will that stop them all? Of course not, no more than having a speed limit stops everybody from speeding. But it makes the majority of people to think about it as getting caught could have the consequence of losing your right to own guns for example.

    In terms of limits on the type of bullets. You are right that trying to define what is and isn't acceptable is very difficult, but again a start can be made. To simply say that it must be a free for all makes no sense. You make some regulations. It won't solve all the issues but will solve some of them.

    But you're right. Tell those 59 dead and 500+ injured, not to mention all the hundreds that have been killed in other recent shooting that nothing can be done. That in the internet age, where FB have literally every piece of personal info that it is not possible to gather a register of guns and owners.

    In terms of high grade, I am talking about anything other than that required for personal protection. What possible reason is there for a civilian to have anything other than a side arm? That is not meant as an accusation, I really don't understand the thinking so if you can provide some then I would welcome it.

    It all just comes down to, simply, not giving a shit.

    People getting blown away?

    ...meh, whatever.

    Sure, there's "nothing" can be done.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,178 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So 1 rifle. And your really telling me that there are bears out there that require a military grade machine gun to stop.

    No, just ones requiring military grade rifles.
    But I'm no expert so am happy enough to admit that there are instances where serious firepower is required. But that must be a very small % of the population and certainly not too onerous a task to set up and maintain a database.

    So what happens under your theory if I, as a San Francisco, California area inhabitant, wish to go camping for the weekend three hours up the coast in Humboldt County, CA which is Black Bear territory?
    How can a registered owner be maintained for every car but its beyond our ability to maintain one for guns.

    A lot fewer cars in existance, they are not easily overlooked in public (Can't exactly put them in a suitcase) and they have a much shorter service life. The average car is around for ten, fifteen years. Firearms are around for decades, often without anyone other than the owner and some friends seeing them.
    Limit guns to one per person. If they require more they should need to provide evidence of the reason and how it will be stored etc.

    Case in point as to why someone in Ireland might want a dozen firearms.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104860611&postcount=929
    Why do you need two guns? Not why do you have them, but do you need them? If everygun owner was required to ask that question it might lead to a change in thinking.

    Perhaps. I'm not sure it would change the overall opinion, though.
    Yet I go back to the recent shooting. Despite lax laws, police all being armed, plenty of civilians being gun owners none of them were capable of doing anything to stop the carnage.

    Nope. And nobody has been able to stop vehicle carnage such as in France or Germany either. All one can do is try to minimize the damage and opportunity. An old truism of police work is that "we have to be lucky or get it right all the time. The other guy just needs to be lucky or get it right once."


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,467 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    The big difference with the car carnage is that vehicles were used to inflict death and damage in a split from their primary purpose. Remove all vehicles and the entire fabric of life would change.

    Guns sole purpose is to kill. They serve no other purpose. To limit guns would not a detremental effect on society.

    So you accept that the central argument of the NRA, that they have used after nearly every previous massacre, that if only the teachers/parents etc had guns this wouldn't have happened is bunk. So why the neec for civilians to have guns? This proves that there is little to be gained from arming everyone.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I can change my SIG-556 from one to the other in about ten seconds, longer if I spend a while fumbling on my pocket for my multi-tool.
    Would you not use a Swiss army knife for that? :D


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,178 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    So you accept that the central argument of the NRA, that they have used after nearly every previous massacre, that if only the teachers/parents etc had guns this wouldn't have happened is bunk. So why the neec for civilians to have guns? This proves that there is little to be gained from arming everyone.

    I do not so accept. There have been ample incidents in the past where personnel who are armed have intervened to limit death tolls. Of course, because they are 'limited', they do not often reach the stage of 'mass killing' for us to debate about. That it would not have worked in this specific instance does not deny the utility of other instances.
    nything in the way of concrete proposals?

    I copy my earlier statement

    I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote. (The simple one that was proposed by the Republican, for clarity). Simple, short, to the point. I would like to see better input of data into the NICS system to check against. I have also proposed setting an objective sensible standard for the definition of armor piercing ammunition. The long-term solution is to attack our societal issues, which I suspect is not easily packaged in a simple short bill which you would like to see. We have a cultural problem. Cultural problems cannot be legislated away overnight. They require a thorough, long-term plan involving multiple agencies. Something that the US government over the past decade or two seems to have failed to bring about.
    I mean how can you even fight a database of gun ownership it's laughable Manic

    It doesn't work, doesn't do anything, and costs money which could be better spent. What could Canada have done with the billion dollars? (Yes, Wiki says it cost $2bn, but I can't find supporting evidence for anything after 2002) https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#16c6ddeb5a1b . Perhaps spent it on firearms safety courses to help reduce the 60 or so accidental firearms deaths they have every year?

    Maryland tried a more sophisticated one. At least it only cost a couple million. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

    I'm a taxpayer. There's enough stupid use of my taxes going on without adding to them.

    OK, you like the idea of a firearms registry. I get it. Though you haven't explained how it would help on a practical level, even if one could be properly created. The US is not alone in not having a registry. The problem isn't a registry or lack thereof. Or we would be having US-type problems in places like Canada and New Zealand.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,526 ✭✭✭✭listermint


    I do not so accept. There have been ample incidents in the past where personnel who are armed have intervened to limit death tolls. Of course, because they are 'limited', they do not often reach the stage of 'mass killing' for us to debate about. That it would not have worked in this specific instance does not deny the utility of other instances.



    I copy my earlier statement

    I would be happy to see the above proposed legislation on background checks re-submitted for a vote. (The simple one that was proposed by the Republican, for clarity). Simple, short, to the point. I would like to see better input of data into the NICS system to check against. I have also proposed setting an objective sensible standard for the definition of armor piercing ammunition. The long-term solution is to attack our societal issues, which I suspect is not easily packaged in a simple short bill which you would like to see. We have a cultural problem. Cultural problems cannot be legislated away overnight. They require a thorough, long-term plan involving multiple agencies. Something that the US government over the past decade or two seems to have failed to bring about.



    It doesn't work, doesn't do anything, and costs money which could be better spent. What could Canada have done with the billion dollars? (Yes, Wiki says it cost $2bn, but I can't find supporting evidence for anything after 2002) https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#16c6ddeb5a1b . Perhaps spent it on firearms safety courses to help reduce the 60 or so accidental firearms deaths they have every year?

    Maryland tried a more sophisticated one. At least it only cost a couple million. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

    I'm a taxpayer. There's enough stupid use of my taxes going on without adding to them.

    OK, you like the idea of a firearms registry. I get it. Though you haven't explained how it would help on a practical level, even if one could be properly created. The US is not alone in not having a registry. The problem isn't a registry or lack thereof. Or we would be having US-type problems in places like Canada and New Zealand.

    Do nothing, basically.


    You are part of the problem which caused last week. There is no other explanation


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Manic Moran - is there a possibility of making guns less modifiable and/or something like tracking them through computer chips? I realise that this would cause the more ardent Second Amendment folk to spontaneously combust (which admittedly is one solution too).

    Gun GPS...yeah, that really would cause conniption fits. The physical structure of a gun is probably too simplistic to render permanently unmodifiable, there will always be people who are good at getting around that (although they will be far more limited than people able to just buy a modification such as a bump-stock or suppressor off the shelf), but then at least one has a clear violation and the modified gun is confiscated. It would also require concluding what is and isn't legal and sticking to it, which the US hasn't been all that good at.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 14,885 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Thread to discuss Gun Control in the US.


Advertisement