Gun Control in the US

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So abusestoilets after over a week since the shooting in Florida and all the public outcry from people who never worked want this utter madness to happen again, have you changed your position even slightly ?

I don't believe in banning types of guns, no. I've laid out ideas for policies that would work towards reducing gun related deaths overall. I think that you can't legislate for crazy, in that someone who is deranged enough to want to commit mass murder is likely to find a way to do so.

You can do things to help reduce suicides, to reduce accidents, to lower the crime rate, and hopefully to help identify people who are at risk for such a spree.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't believe in banning types of guns, no. I've laid out ideas for policies that would work towards reducing gun related deaths overall. I think that you can't legislate for crazy, in that someone who is deranged enough to want to commit mass murder is likely to find a way to do so.

You can do things to help reduce suicides, to reduce accidents, to lower the crime rate, and hopefully to help identify people who are at risk for such a spree.

So no type of gun should be off limits to the public ?
Most if not all of the major mass shootings were carried out by legally held guns though. So legislating for crazy isn't a solution. Suicides have feck all to do with mass shootings.

Abuses toilets I'm genuinely trying to find a middle ground on the issue of guns but for a reason which may be valid to you alone I can't when you mad most of this forum are so apart.,

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't believe in banning types of guns, no. I've laid out ideas for policies that would work towards reducing gun related deaths overall. I think that you can't legislate for crazy, in that someone who is deranged enough to want to commit mass murder is likely to find a way to do so.

You can do things to help reduce suicides, to reduce accidents, to lower the crime rate, and hopefully to help identify people who are at risk for such a spree.

Do you object to the current restrictions on some fire arms?

Grab All Association

It’s not PC to bring it up but Autism spectrum disorder is the real problem in most of these mass shootings. Tackle gun restrictions later. A total ban on people with ASD and aspergers owning/using weapons is need.

Leroy42

Grab All Association wrote: »

It’s not PC to bring it up but Autism spectrum disorder is the real problem in most of these mass shootings. Tackle gun restrictions later. A total ban on people with ASD and aspergers owning/using weapons is need.

How does sit with the 2nd?

Leroy42

I do think, however, that we have witnessed a significant shift from Trump since the latest shooting.

After Vegas, he has all about shutting down any discussions "now is not the time" etc. Now, whilst the arming teachers is nonsense, he has also talked about raising the age limit on guns "he said on Fox yesterday that the need to wait for 21 to get a pistol but 18 to get an AR-15 is crazy, I assume he means raise up the lower 1!) and he is also talking about extending background checks.

Whilst these may appear minor to us in Ireland, it is a significant shift from Trump who claimed that HC was coming to take peoples guns and he would protect them.

I'm cynical about anything Trump says, he rarely actually follows through, but if he did I would think that there really is no one better placed to tackle this issue that him. He doesn't need the support of anyone in particular, and if he falls out with the NRA or some Senator's he has shown before that he doesn't care and those have the difficult position of having to attack Trump and thus his base.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Do you object to the current restrictions on some fire arms?

For the most part, yes. I don't think any civilian has a need for fully automatic weapons or those that fall under destructive devices like grenade launchers etc. I think that suppressors and SBRs should be freely available.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

For the most part, yes. I don't think any civilian has a need for fully automatic weapons or those that fall under destructive devices like grenade launchers etc. I think that suppressors and SBRs should be freely available.

What reasoning is behind your logic for a civilian to be allowed have a suppressor?

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What reasoning is behind your logic for a civilian to be allowed have a suppressor?

What's your objection to them? They reduce the report of a gun's report approx 30 decibels, from near instant hearing damage to more moderate levels. 130ish decibels is still loud AF. Their use is considered good manners in most European countries.

Civilians are already allowed to have them, they have to go thru meaningless layers of bureaucracy to do so.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

For the most part, yes. I don't think any civilian has a need for fully automatic weapons or those that fall under destructive devices like grenade launchers etc. I think that suppressors and SBRs should be freely available.

If your case is that the citizenry needs to be armed in order to resist tyranny, shouldn't they be allowed own fully automatic weapons , grenade launchers, flamethrowers, tanks, F-15s and so on? The government forces have them, surely a level playing field is needed.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

What's your objection to them? They reduce the report of a gun's report approx 30 decibels, from near instant hearing damage to more moderate levels. 130ish decibels is still loud AF. Their use is considered good manners in most European countries.

My objection is they are unnecessary, and the suppressor does not just reduce the report by 30 decibels. The louder the report the better gives potential victims a chance of survival. Ear protection would negate your hearing worries so still not necessary. In European countries we don't have anything approaching the level of slaughter in America. You still haven't given a valid reason for unrestricted availability.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

If your case is that the citizenry needs to be armed in order to resist tyranny, shouldn't they be allowed own fully automatic weapons , grenade launchers, flamethrowers, tanks, F-15s and so on? The government forces have them, surely a level playing field is needed.

Well, citizens can own most of those things, if they want to go thru the mountains of paperwork and tens of thousands of dollars. Not too dissimilar to government themselves.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

My objection is they are unnecessary, and the suppressor does not just reduce the report by 30 decibels. The louder the report the better gives potential victims a chance of survival. Ear protection would negate your hearing worries so still not necessary. In European countries we don't have anything approaching the level of slaughter in America. You still haven't given a valid reason for unrestricted availability.

You don't think 130 decibels is loud? Your argument is more of the same illogical, fear mongering wooly thinking that informs most of the anti-gun side. You feel they are unnecessary, but many shooters would disagree.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

You don't think 130 decibels is loud? Your argument is more of the same illogical, fear mongering wooly thinking that informs most of the anti-gun side. You feel they are unnecessary, but many shooters would disagree.

The suggestion of a straight 30 decibel reduction has already been answered on this thread and it was answered directly to you. It does not work the way you are trying to suggest.
Again why are they necessary, you still refuse to answer.

Chiparus

vetinari wrote: »

Someone's hobby being responsible for 252 deaths is way more than should be socially acceptable. If 250 people were killed with Japanese Samurai swords in a year, they would be banned in an instant.

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

Imagine suggesting banning alcohol in Ireland - the culture is quite analogous.

weisses

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You don't think 130 decibels is loud? Your argument is more of the same illogical, fear mongering wooly thinking that informs most of the anti-gun side. You feel they are unnecessary, but many shooters would disagree.

Isn't that the practice used to sell guns ?

Fear is the predominant state of mind carefully spoon fed in peoples minds across the whole of American society

Fear is what you drives you to buy guns (for self protection)

Fear is what was used to push through the patriot act

Fear sells

Chiparus

Brian? wrote: »

If your case is that the citizenry needs to be armed in order to resist tyranny, shouldn't they be allowed own fully automatic weapons , grenade launchers, flamethrowers, tanks, F-15s and so on? The government forces have them, surely a level playing field is needed.

I think you can legally own all these under 2nd ammendment rights.

weisses

Chiparus wrote: »

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

Imagine suggesting banning alcohol in Ireland - the culture is quite analogous.

If I would have told you 20 years ago that smoking would be banned in pubs you would have probably called me delusional

Hitman3000

Chiparus wrote:

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

A person doesn't rock up to a school in Ireland and kill 17 kids with a pint of Guinness.

Chiparus

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What reasoning is behind your logic for a civilian to be allowed have a suppressor?

Hearing protection, it is actually a requirement if you shoot on state forests in the UK.

You still can hear them hundreds of yards away , as most of the noise comes from the bullet travelling faster than sound.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The suggestion of a straight 30 decibel reduction has already been answered on this thread and it was answered directly to you. It does not work the way you are trying to suggest.
Again why are they necessary, you still refuse to answer.

Spoken like someone who has no frame of reference or experience to back up their assertions. Simply because the reduction is logarithmic as opposed to linear, does not mean 130db isn't still extremely loud.

Leroy42

So now we have gun owners complaining that guns are too loud! Wow.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

Spoken like someone who has no frame of reference or experience to back up their assertions. Simply because the reduction is logarithmic as opposed to linear, does not mean 130db isn't still extremely loud.

Actually 13 years in the military never used a suppressor hearing protection yes, you still haven't answered my question. Any chance you will ?

Hitman3000

Leroy42 wrote:

So now we have gun owners complaining that guns are too loud! Wow.

Hilarious isn't it?

spacecoyote

Chiparus wrote: »

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

Imagine suggesting banning alcohol in Ireland - the culture is quite analogous.

How is this even slightly analogous?

Alcohol may cause death & injury, but it's not a weapon created for the purposes of causing injury or death.

That's like saying we should ban cars because numerous people are killed in car crashes.

NIMAN

spacecoyote wrote: »

How is this even slightly analogous?

Alcohol may cause death & injury, but it's not a weapon created for the purposes of causing injury or death.

That's like saying we should ban cars because numerous people are killed in car crashes.

Get outta here with your logical thoughts!

Don't you know gun owners and advocates don't like logic.

jobbridge4life

spacecoyote wrote: »

How is this even slightly analogous?

Alcohol may cause death & injury, but it's not a weapon created for the purposes of causing injury or death.

That's like saying we should ban cars because numerous people are killed in car crashes.

Not to mention that our alcohol laws are increasingly more onerous than US regulation of firearms.

dr.fuzzenstein

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What's your objection to them? They reduce the report of a gun's report approx 30 decibels, from near instant hearing damage to more moderate levels. 130ish decibels is still loud AF. Their use is considered good manners in most European countries.

Civilians are already allowed to have them, they have to go thru meaningless layers of bureaucracy to do so.

Silencers are considered good manners in Europe? You must mean that other Europe, where everyone carries a gun.
In this Europe you wouldn't have a gun, let alone a silencer.
But from what a lot of Yanks comment, it looks like you guys are pretty happy to have your mass shootings and consider them a small price to be able to own a gun. Not that it ever does anyone any good at the next mass shooting, because all those fearless gun heroes that claim that only gun violence prevents gun violence never seem to be anywhere near or be able to do anything about them. Or the accidental gun deaths, small price to lose the odd friend and family member as long as you can own a gun.
And the "defence against a corrupt state" argument?
Purleaase! You don't like what the President does? Sure, draw your gun and charge the white house. Be sure to let us know how you get on and how dead you are.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Actually 13 years in the military never used a suppressor hearing protection yes, you still haven't answered my question. Any chance you will ?

Thanks for confirming that then. I did answer your question, the fact you don't like it is your business. They reduce the report of a gunshot from instant, permanently damaging levels, to more ear safe ones. They also have the benefit of increased muzzle velocity, which can be useful for long gun shooting.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, citizens can own most of those things, if they want to go thru the mountains of paperwork and tens of thousands of dollars. Not too dissimilar to government themselves.

You support their restriction though?

It seems to me that your argument for an armed citizenry to resist tyranny doesn’t really hold up if it’s taken to it’s logical conclusion.