Active shooter Maryland

Will I Am Not

I’m no Trump fan but f*ck me it’s pathetic at this stage. You would swear he invented guns and forced people to shoot others... at gunpoint... with a bigger gun...GUNS!!!

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Some of these people have no criminal records or history. The ones that do don't need to legally purchase them. They can borrow one of the 400 million readily available already. The issue is unstable and irresponsible people having easy access to guns. We have the same unstable and irresponsible people everywhere else in the world.....whats the contributing factor? Easy access to guns.




The idea that the solution to combating gun violence is..."MORE GUNS!" is ridiculous. It would be like thinking the answer to road deaths due to speeding is to have everyone drive faster. The answer is fewer guns, not more guns.

Yes, it would take a few generations. Probably over 50 years. But something being difficult is not a reason to avoid doing it.




No need? Mass shootings every few weeks and you think there is no need?

I guess thats the issue here. The first step in fixing a problem is admitting you have one. I guess that burning "everything is fine" gif would go well here.

One read of the guy's twitter would show he should not be allowed to hold a gun.


Outlaw those people from having guns without impinging upon the rights of upstanding citizens from having a gun or guns.



You'll never implement a gun ban now, so it should be about restricting for mental health or other suitability criteria.

wexie

ELM327 wrote: »

You'll never implement a gun ban now, so it should be about restricting for mental health or other suitability criteria.

How likely do you think that is to happen when congress struck down a motion to stop people on terrorist watch lists from owning guns?

(which, by the way, is more insane than I have time to try put in words)

ELM327

wexie wrote: »

How likely do you think that is to happen when congress struck down a motion to stop people on terrorist watch lists from owning guns?

(which, by the way, is more insane than I have time to try put in words)

Not very.
But it's not beyond the realms of possibility.


A gun control regime similar to the super restrictions applied here in the EU will not ever happen.

seannash

ELM327 wrote: »

One read of the guy's twitter would show he should not be allowed to hold a gun.


Outlaw those people from having guns without impinging upon the rights of upstanding citizens from having a gun or guns.



You'll never implement a gun ban now, so it should be about restricting for mental health or other suitability criteria.

I'm not pro gun, I believe what is happening int he USA is madness in relation to guns but use that argument when giving out driving licenses and you can see how difficult it would be. As we have seen before, a car in the hands of someone who wants to kill people is potentially worse than a gun.
Also a lot of mental health issues go undocumented, what if these issues weren't present s a child and developed later on in life.

ELM327

seannash wrote: »

I'm not pro gun, I believe what is happening int he USA is madness in relation to guns but use that argument when giving out driving licenses and you can see how difficult it would be. As we have seen before, a car in the hands of someone who wants to kill people is potentially worse than a gun.
Also a lot of mental health issues go undocumented, what if these issues weren't present s a child and developed later on in life.

Well I'm not pro gun control but the lefties want some change so best to proffer something that pleases both sides (gun controls on suitability criteria only) rather than impinge on the rights of citizens to own guns.


Ireland was a shock when I found out our gun restrictions. I grew up around guns (farm in family) so to learn that I was the oddball compared to the rest of the country was interesting.

Kirby

ELM327 wrote: »

rather than impinge on the rights of citizens to own guns.

What about the rights of the people killed? Do they matter less?

A man in Sauidi Arabia believes he has the right to own a woman. In his country, thats his right.

But does it make it right? When he argues that it's his right.....what is your response?

Whenever this issue comes up, gun nuts just parrot "Brrrrr second amendment" as if thats the end of the conversation. Maybe you shouldn't have the right to own guns. The rest of the free world gets along pretty well without them. At what point do you amend this holy doctrine known as the constitution for the good of the country?

Hector Savage

Will I Am Not wrote: »

I’m no Trump fan but f*ck me it’s pathetic at this stage. You would swear he invented guns and forced people to shoot others... at gunpoint... with a bigger gun...GUNS!!!

Exactly, this is something that is so ingrained into the American way of life, there would be just as many shootings if Hillary was president - maybe more.

Don't know how they will solve it though, an attitude change is needed but can't see it happening.

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

What about the rights of the people killed? Do they matter less?

A man in Sauidi Arabia believes he has the right to own a woman. In his country, thats his right.

But does it make it right? When he argues that it's his right.....what is your response?

Whenever this issue comes up, gun nuts just parrot "Brrrrr second amendment" as if thats the end of the conversation. Maybe you shouldn't have the right to own guns. The rest of the free world gets along pretty well without them. At what point do you amend this holy doctrine known as the constitution for the good of the country?

Should we ban trucks and cars after all the islamist extremist terror acts?
Ask the same questions of yourself regarding trucks and cars that you have asked about guns.
Guns don't kill people. A person has to pull the trigger.

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

Should we ban trucks and cars after all the islamist extremist terror acts?
Ask the same questions of yourself regarding trucks and cars that you have asked about guns.
Guns don't kill people. A person has to pull the trigger.

Cars and trucks are heavily regulated. The vehicle is registered in 3 or 4 different ways, and the person needs to be vetted, registered and trained to be permitted to drive one. Misusing one and breaking the incredibly complicated rules around using one can lead to having your right to use a vehicle revoked.

The nature of how one uses it and the size of what they're allowed to own and use is also heavily regulated.

And also, vehicles are never advertised or sold for the purposes of running down other people.

So there's that too.

Bad comparison ELM. If guns were regulated like vehicles are, I think most people would be satisified with that.

pawdee

How would one recognise an "active" shooter? Would he be wearing a tracksuit? Such bollixological terminology.

WinnyThePoo

Hector Savage wrote: »

Exactly, this is something that is so ingrained into the American way of life, there would be just as many shootings if Hillary was president - maybe more.

Don't know how they will solve it though, an attitude change is needed but can't see it happening.

Why would there be more shootings? Pretty empty remark.

seannash

seamus wrote: »

Cars and trucks are heavily regulated. The vehicle is registered in 3 or 4 different ways, and the person needs to be vetted, registered and trained to be permitted to drive one. Misusing one and breaking the incredibly complicated rules around using one can lead to having your right to use a vehicle revoked.

The nature of how one uses it and the size of what they're allowed to own and use is also heavily regulated.

And also, vehicles are never advertised or sold for the purposes of running down other people.

So there's that too.

Bad comparison ELM. If guns were regulated like vehicles are, I think most people would be satisified with that.

Again, not pro guns but you can obtain and drive a car illegally right. None of those measures are necessary if you want to drive a car illegally

Sonics2k

I love the distraction technique by the pro-Trump people in here. Diverting the conversation away from legitimate gun control to how "Trump is being blamed".

Literally, in every instance in this thread, the first people to bring up Trump are the usual people around defending him, everyone else was talking about methods of gun control.

Kirby

ELM327 wrote: »

Should we ban trucks and cars after all the islamist extremist terror acts?
Ask the same questions of yourself regarding trucks and cars that you have asked about guns.
Guns don't kill people. A person has to pull the trigger.

We've been over this. A truck and car is designed to ferry people and goods. That is its function. What it was designed to do. Yes, as I already said it can kill a person. But you can kill a person with a pen. It doesn't mean you ban pens. Pens have other uses.

A gun does not. It has one function. Killing. Thats what it was designed for and thats what it does. "Protection" is just a flowery word for killing somebody. It sounds nicer than "If I feel like shooting somebody, I want my gun". Can't say that in public. Protection though? Thats grand sure. Conjures images of bravely protection my family. Where as in reality Cletus isn't protecting anything but his pride. He is probably going to get drunk and shoot his neighbor in an argument. Or his son will take his gun and go kill the kids who were mean to him. Or his four year old will find it and shoot either himself or his friend. Or if the statistically improbable actually happens and an axe murderer breaks in to kill him.....poor old Cletus will find himself at the business end of his own gun.

The only function of a gun is to kill. It has no other uses. Unlike a car or truck. Your analogy is flawed because of this.

seamus

seannash wrote: »

Again, not pro guns but you can obtain and drive a car illegally right. None of those measures are necessary if you want to drive a car illegally

This is a oft-used distraction hole that people often fall into.
Every gun starts out its life as a legally-held one. The more legal weapons you have, the more illegal ones you have. And the less legal weapons you have, the less illegal ones you have.

Nobody is saying that you can eliminate illegally-held weapons. But by reducing the volume of legal ones to what is necessary, and having strong punishments for misuse and illegal possession - like we do with vehicles - you will reduce the volume of misuse and illegal possession.

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

Cars and trucks are heavily regulated. The vehicle is registered in 3 or 4 different ways, and the person needs to be vetted, registered and trained to be permitted to drive one. Misusing one and breaking the incredibly complicated rules around using one can lead to having your right to use a vehicle revoked.

The nature of how one uses it and the size of what they're allowed to own and use is also heavily regulated.

And also, vehicles are never advertised or sold for the purposes of running down other people.

So there's that too.

Bad comparison ELM. If guns were regulated like vehicles are, I think most people would be satisified with that.

Most of these shooters kill themselves anyway so I doubt that's a deterrent
Most privately held guns everywhere (including US) are not sold with the aim of harming or killing. Merely for hunting and for protection in a life or death scenario


We collectively on boards can debate this back and forth all we wish but the fact remains that not much is likely to change in the US. An amendment removing the 2nd amendment (similar to prohibition for alcohol around 90 years ago) would not pass and if it did it would be removed quickly

seannash

seamus wrote: »

This is a oft-used distraction hole that people often fall into.
Every gun starts out its life as a legally-held one. The more legal weapons you have, the more illegal ones you have. And the less legal weapons you have, the less illegal ones you have.

Nobody is saying that you can eliminate illegally-held weapons. But by reducing the volume of legal ones to what is necessary, and having strong punishments for misuse and illegal possession - like we do with vehicles - you will reduce the volume of misuse and illegal possession.

I agree

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

We've been over this. A truck and car is designed to ferry people and goods. That is its function. What it was designed to do. Yes, as I already said it can kill a person. But you can kill a person with a pen. It doesn't mean you ban pens. Pens have other uses.

A gun does not. It has one function. Killing. Thats what it was designed for and thats what it does. "Protection" is just a flowery word for killing somebody. It sounds nicer than "If I feel like shooting somebody, I want my gun". Can't say that in public. Protection though? Thats grand sure. Conjures images of bravely protection my family. Where as in reality Cletus isn't protecting anything but his pride. He is probably going to get drunk and shoot his neighbor in an argument. Or his son will take his gun and go kill the kids who were mean to him. Or his four year old will find it and shoot either himself or his friend. Or if the statistically improbable actually happens and an axe murderer breaks in to kill him.....poor old Cletus will find himself at the business end of his own gun.

The only function of a gun is to kill. It has no other uses. Unlike a car or truck. Your analogy is flawed because of this.

We haven't "been over" anything. This is the first post I've ever seen from you.


The rest of your anti US rhetoric is quite frankly abhorrent and not worthy of response.

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

Most privately held guns everywhere (including US) are not sold with the aim of harming or killing. Merely for hunting and for protection in a life or death scenario

These two statements are at odds with eachother. Hunting and protecting with a weapon by definition involves "harming or killing".

I know what you're trying to say, that most people buy a weapon for what they feel are honest purposes, and not malicious ones.

That's not up for debate. The issue is that people are people. Someone who is honest and decent today may be angry and psychotic in five year's time.

Someone who's a good skin, would never harm a fly, can also be incredibly forgetful or negligent, leaving weapons unlocked, or loaded, or on public display.

Peter can say that he has a weapon for "home defence" and understands the gravity of what that means. John buys a weapon for home defence because Peter did and reasons that he should use it when the opportunity presents itself.

We don't just make laws to protect us from bad people, we make laws to protect us from ourselves. Because we're incredibly fallible, irrational and irresponsible animals.

The US has taken the position that everyone should be entitled own a gun with as few barriers as possible preventing it. If we took that same attitude with vehicles, there would be carnage on our roads - even though nobody would drive a car with the aim of harming or killing.

The simple fact is that when you freely introduce dangerous tools to humans, they use them dangerously. Legal or illegal is irrelevant.

Kirby

ELM327 wrote: »

We haven't "been over" anything. This is the first post I've ever seen from you.


The rest of your anti US rhetoric is quite frankly abhorrent and not worthy of response.

You do realise we've been quoting each other for several pages right? Who did you think you were arguing with exactly if not me? And by "been over this" I was referencing the fact that I had already debunked your analogy on the previous page. I was having to repeat myself.


As for your charge of me being "anti-US".....I'm not surprised you went there. It's a common tactic. If I had been American, your next shot would be that I'm not being patriotic. Its a familiar song and dance.

I'm not anti-American for the record. I'm pro common sense. You have a gun violence problem in your country. Nothing will change until you deal with the underlying issue here. The guns.

The only truly abhorrent thing in this whole mess is the cognitive dissonance the far right has when it comes to gun violence. Thoughts and prayers though. That'll help.

Outlaw Pete

Liberal lefties in the states using these recent deaths to try and bring down Trump is just going to increase the chances of him getting four more years if anything.


https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1012550215159578624

Kirby

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Liberal lefties in the states using these recent deaths to try and bring down Trump is just going to increase the chances of him getting four more years if anything.

Trump really isn't the focus of the topic here. The only people bringing up are his acolytes. Besides, there is next to zero chance of him being re-elected. He won't have the support he needs. Too many people in the red tent have turned against him.

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

These two statements are at odds with eachother. Hunting and protecting with a weapon by definition involves "harming or killing".

I know what you're trying to say, that most people buy a weapon for what they feel are honest purposes, and not malicious ones.

That's not up for debate. The issue is that people are people. Someone who is honest and decent today may be angry and psychotic in five year's time.

Someone who's a good skin, would never harm a fly, can also be incredibly forgetful or negligent, leaving weapons unlocked, or loaded, or on public display.

Peter can say that he has a weapon for "home defence" and understands the gravity of what that means. John buys a weapon for home defence because Peter did and reasons that he should use it when the opportunity presents itself.

We don't just make laws to protect us from bad people, we make laws to protect us from ourselves. Because we're incredibly fallible, irrational and irresponsible animals.

I see the points you are making and to be honest these are rational arguments. And if we were starting from a blank canvas there's a case to be made for "no guns at all ever" as the rule.
But we're not. There's 200 years of guns in the US. Every bad guy has a gun. Every maladjusted schizophrenic off his/her meds has a gun. Every islamist extremist has a gun. Hell as alluded earlier even everyone on the damn terror watch list has a gun.


So we can't just ban the good guy having a gun. The best way forward from where we are starting now is better restrictions on who can have a gun, not on guns themselves.

Kirby wrote: »

You do realise we've been quoting each other for several pages right? Who did you think you were arguing with exactly if not me? And by "been over this" I was referencing the fact that I had already debunked your analogy on the previous page. I was having to repeat myself.


As for your charge of me being "anti-US".....I'm not surprised you went there. It's a common tactic. If I had been American, your next shot would be that I'm not being patriotic. Its a familiar song and dance.

I'm not anti-American for the record. I'm pro common sense. You have a gun violence problem in your country. Nothing will change until you deal with the underlying issue here. The guns.

I'm not American.
Just pro citizens rights.


The underlying issue is not the gun control (although arguably it does exacerbate it), it's the tensions between peoples/races/demographics that do not exist in other countries. People are not well educated and are frustrated at a system. The system that charges thousands of dollars for healthcare, and the proposed Obamacare did not help this it just made it worse. The system that does not provide reasonable education and employment prospects and the future of working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. So why not tackle that as the underlying cause rather than putting a plaster on it with the gun issue.

Vegeta

Kirby wrote: »

A gun is not a tool. It's a weapon of war. It's designed to do one thing and thats to kill. That is its intended and only function.

Most of the firearms used in sport are not designed to kill, they're designed to hit a target with both accuracy and precision. This is a single shot air pistol, these are specifically designed for this Olympic discipline.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Liberal lefties in the states using these recent deaths to try and bring down Trump is just going to increase the chances of him getting four more years if anything.


https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1012550215159578624

Of course for both the guys who said the shooter was targeting someone because of trump and the guys who are pointing out they're mistaken it's all about point scoring.

We see the same thing here whenever there's a car crash and there are some guys who wet their pants because they're just willing it to be muslims. Stupidity doesn't take sides.

Grayson

ELM327 wrote: »

The underlying issue is not the gun control (although arguably it does exacerbate it), it's the tensions between peoples/races/demographics that do not exist in other countries. People are not well educated and are frustrated at a system. The system that charges thousands of dollars for healthcare, and the proposed Obamacare did not help this it just made it worse. The system that does not provide reasonable education and employment prospects and the future of working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. So why not tackle that as the underlying cause rather than putting a plaster on it with the gun issue.

Can't it be both?

Incidentally, I have a coworker over from the states. It's his first time over. He said he was amazed at how relaxed everyone is. In the us everyone is constantly worried about money. Even comfortable middle class people like him. It costs so much for healthcare etc that people have it hanging over their heads. It just generates low level stress.

Kirby

Vegeta wrote: »

Most of the firearms used in sport are not designed to kill, they're designed to hit a target with both accuracy and precision. This is a single shot air pistol, these are specifically designed for this Olympic discipline.

We make games based on war. This is no different. Karate, Judo, Wrestling, archery, fencing, etc. All sports you might see at the Olympics based on proving who was the best at the particular lethal discipline.

Yes, those people are using guns for target practice. You can do that. You can also butter your bread with a sword but thats not what the sword was invented for.

Are you trying to tell me that just because they use soft swords in Olympic fencing that the purpose of a sabre isn't to kill the enemy? You can use a gun for target practice. But thats not what its for. It's function is to kill. They've modified that one. It's still a gun.

Grayson

Kirby wrote: »

We make games based on war. This is no different. Karate, Judo, Wrestling, archery, fencing, etc. All sports you might see at the Olympics based on proving who was the best at the particular lethal discipline.

Yes, those people are using guns for target practice. You can do that. You can also butter your bread with a sword but thats not what the sword was invented for.

You can use a gun for target practice. But thats not what its for. It's function is to kill. They've modified that one. It's still a gun.

I like out system. You want a gun for hunting, the police check you out. they make sure you have somewhere to store the gun. You are limited in how much ammo you have and finally you can only own a hunting gun.

You want one for olympic target shooting, it's the same deal.

Guns can be used for more than just killing people but you shouldn't be able to own a gun who's primary purpose is killing people.

Vegeta

Kirby wrote: »

It's function is to kill.

This is incorrect, the 10m air pistol Olympic event does not include to death of anything.