Active shooter Maryland

ELM327

Grayson wrote: »

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.

Same for me, I do some consulting work for a couple of multinationals based in Ireland and anytime the "bigwigs" are over from the US or even peers of mine or below in the company they always say how the pace of life over here is so much slower. They always laugh at the "sure its grand" attitude, one of them told me that we exist 24/7 on "sure its grand" with the slow pace.


The US has a plethora of social issues, from race to creed to fiscal and everything in between. It started to escalate during the Obama adminstration in my opinion. Everyone thought having a half black president would make race tensions better, but it seems to have made it worse. This is a country where people still alive today could remember segregation in the south.


Gun control highlights the larger issues. Bringing in EU style gun laws (suspension of disbelief required as it will not happen) will not fix the underlying cause, and are attacks with trucks or knives or tazers really any better than attacks with guns? At least now people can defend themselves. Remove the guns and it's just blatant unmitigated assault.

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

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.

What kind of guns are those?

Kirby

Vegeta wrote: »

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

As I've said, you can kill a man with a pen. The pens function is to write.

You can use a gun for target practice. A guns function is to kill.

An Air rifle/ airsoft gun that you are talking about is a safer way of simulating what a gun does. Like when you give one to a child instead of a real one. It's safer and they still get to emulate the real one.

ELM327

BattleCorp wrote: »

What kind of guns are those?

Since that argument is only used by left/liberals I guess only liberal guns are designed to kill people?

Sonics2k

Vegeta wrote: »

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

You're being intentionally obtuse and you know it.

I love guns, I've been shooting, maintained my gun licence. But they were created for a sole purpose, to maim or kill.

Gun control in America is a total ****ing joke, and no matter how you spin it, it will remain a joke until Congress actually cops on and changes things.

Kirby

ELM327 wrote: »

Bringing in EU style gun laws (suspension of disbelief required as it will not happen) will not fix the underlying cause

Really? So it "fixes" it everywhere else but not America? What sort of logic is that?

ELM327 wrote: »

are attacks with trucks or knives or tazers really any better than attacks with guns?

Yes, much better. You can overpower somebody with a knife or a tazer. You can also run away. They are designed to kill or incapacitate one person at a time in melee range unlike a gun which is designed to kill multiple people quickly at range. You think that guy in Vegas firing out of the hotel room could do that with a knife or a tazer?

Also, when the special forces show up with their guns....they can shoot the crazy lunatic trying to stab people.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti members of the public having guns. There is no justification for having one.

Vegeta

Kirby wrote: »

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 see the logical error you are making right? Some swords can kill people, so the function of all swords must be to kill people. That's a classic logical fallacy. In fact you have given an example yourself of swords specifically not designed to kill their users, negating your own argument.

If you are open minded you will acknowledge this, if not then I hope my posting highlights the error for others.

BattleCorp

Sonics2k wrote: »

You're being intentionally obtuse and you know it.

I love guns, I've been shooting, maintained my gun licence. But they were created for a sole purpose, to maim or kill.

Gun control in America is a total ****ing joke, and no matter how you spin it, it will remain a joke until Congress actually cops on and changes things.

I'll half agree with you. There is very little gun control in America. Agreed.

But those 10m air pistols were not designed to kill anything. They were designed for target shooting.

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

What kind of guns are those?

How about one of these?

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/775873049

Vegeta

Sonics2k wrote: »

You're being intentionally obtuse and you know it.

I love guns, I've been shooting, maintained my gun licence. But they were created for a sole purpose, to maim or kill.

Again I point out the logical fallacy, if guns were designed to maim and kill then all guns must function to maim and kill. This is simply not true and I have given an example which proves this.

Unless of course you are claiming that 10m air pistols were designed to maim or kill?

Kirby

Vegeta wrote: »

You see the logical error you are making right? Some swords can kill people, so the function of all swords must be to kill people. That's a classic logical fallacy. In fact you have given an example yourself of swords specifically not designed to kill their users, negating your own argument.

If you are open minded you will acknowledge this, if not then I hope my posting highlights the error for others.

What you have done there is whats referred to as a strawman. i.e. create an argument yourself and then knock it down and declare victory.

There is no logical error here. Ill explain why.

All swords are designed to kill. That is their function. Pretend swords are designed to emulate real swords. THIER function is not to kill but to allow to contestants to simulate a real fight.

They dont use real swords because obviously, they would be dangerous. Which is why they are made of polycarbonate. Because it's not a real sword.

What you are doing is essentially pointing at a paper plane and saying "Look! An airplane! Exact same as a 747!". No. It's not. Or perhaps more apt would be you comparing a six foot long bastard sword to the plastic one you give a child. Intellectually dishonest and I think you know that.

Sonics2k

Vegeta wrote: »

Again I point out the logical fallacy, if guns were designed to maim and kill then all guns must function to maim and kill. This is simply not true and I have given an example which proves this.

Unless of course you are claiming that 10m air pistols were designed to maim or kill?

Are you incapable of reading?

Vegeta wrote: »

But they were created for a sole purpose, to maim or kill.

The bow and arrow was designed with the intent to hunt, maim and kill. Just like the gun. Yes, you can use a bow and arrow at the Olympics, but it was not made with the intention of getting points for shooting a target.

Are you really going to sit there, continue to be obtuse, just to avoid the conversation of the Americans serious problem with gun control?

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

How about one of these?

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/775873049

I can't swear on the exact make and model but you do realise that there are some of these licenced here in Ireland and the UK and have never ever been used to commit a crime.

MNSCI near Tullamore is a range that is licenced for up to 50cal, similar to that rifle.

They can be legitimately licenced for target shooting here in Ireland, although on a restricted licence as the bullet is larger than a .308.

20Cent

Guy has a beef with a newspaper.
The president also thinks the media are the enemy.
Well known right winger Milo Yiannolopolus says he is looking forward to journalists being shot.
Not rocket science to see that this toxic atmosphere is making journalism a dangerous occupation. Journalist have reported a huge increase in death threats and hatred towards them.
Not saying this is directly responsiible for the Maryland shooting but it certainly isn't helping.

BattleCorp

Sonics2k wrote: »

Are you really going to sit there, continue to be obtuse, just to avoid the conversation of the Americans serious problem with gun control?

Serious question.

You are in charge of America.

What is your idea of gun control and how will you achieve it?

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

I'm not anti-gun. I'm anti members of the public having guns. There is no justification for having one.

Yes, yes you are anti-gun.

There are plenty of reasons a civilian might need access to a gun.

And the Gardaí here in Ireland disagree with you also. They define justification for having a gun as hunting, vermin control and target shooting. And in limited circumstances humane despatch of sick or injured animals.......and self defence. But self defence is very very rare here in Ireland.

Kirby

Make it illegal to sell guns and ammunition to the public. However leave the guns already in circulation. They still have the right to bear arms. They just cant buy more. Also give financial incentives to current owners to turn them in.

It would be tumultuous but ultimately the best solution long term.

The effect will be small and slow to begin with as there is simply so much already out there. But with the end of ammo production eventually, the supply will run dry. It may take a hundred years but it will have the desired effect.

The likelihood of it happening is low. Realistically a more softly softly approach is required. Boil the frog slowly and all that but If I was the man in charge and had congress behind me, it's likely what I'd try. Ammo is the key. A gun is a paperweight without it. Obviously you would have import issues and people manufacturing their own but thats something you could manage.

Vegeta

Kirby wrote: »

What you have done there is whats referred to as a strawman. i.e. create an argument yourself and then knock it down and declare victory.

There is no logical error here. Ill explain why.

All swords are designed to kill. That is their function. Pretend swords are designed to emulate real swords. THIER function is not to kill but to allow to contestants to simulate a real fight.

They dont use real swords because obviously, they would be dangerous. Which is why they are made of polycarbonate.

What you are doing is essentially pointing at a paper plane and saying "Look! An airplane!". No. It's not. Or perhaps more apt would be you comparing a six foot long bastard sword to the plastic one you give a child. Intellectually dishonest and I think you know that.

Nope, air pistols require a license here, they are certainly not toys. So I picked them as most glaringly obvious example of error you are making.

The next step up here is the .22lr rifles also used in the Olympics and Winter Olympics.



Rifles in .22lr calibre are almost certainly the most popular calibre of rifle in Ireland. Same argument holds, the .22lr rifles used in the Olympics are not designed to maim or kill.

Kirby

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, yes you are anti-gun.

There are plenty of reasons a civilian might need access to a gun.

There are no reasons. We've already gone over that. There are just "wants". But just because you want something doesn't mean you should have it. A civilian in the developed world has no reason to own a gun.

Vegeta wrote: »

Nope, air pistols require a license here, they are certainly not toys. .

I never referred to them as toys. You did. Please stop strawmanning . I referred to the pistols and sabres used in the olympics as simulations of the real thing. Which they are.

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

Make it illegal to sell guns and ammunition to the public. However leave the guns already in circulation. They still have the right to bear arms. They just cant buy more. Also give financial incentives to current owners to turn them in.

Illegal under the American Constitution.

It would be tumultuous but ultimately the best solution long term.

It would cause civil war. Seriously.

The effect will be small and slow to begin with as there is simply so much already out there. But with the end of ammo production eventually, the supply will run dry. It may take a hundred years but it will have the desired effect.

The smuggling of bullets would make the smuggling of drugs look small. Plus some people will start making their own bullets. That's relatively simple to do. Prohibition didn't work, and neither would this. It isn't doable.

The likelihood of it happening is low. Realistically a more softly softly approach is required. Boil the frog slowly and all that but If I was the man in charge and had congress behind me, it's likely what I'd try. Ammo is the key. A gun is a paperweight without it. Obviously you would have import issues and people manufacturing their own but thats something you could manage.

The majority of the US population would have to favour changing the constitution and I don't think there is the appetite for it.

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

There are no reasons. We've already gone over that. There are just "wants". But just because you want something doesn't mean you should have it. A civilian in the developed world has no reason to own a gun.

You do know that that doesn't mean you are right, yeah?
Just because two opinions have been expressed doesn't mean it's done/ "gone over" and you're right.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Serious question.

You are in charge of America.

What is your idea of gun control and how will you achieve it?

No one on the lefthas a plausible answer to that question.
Even a "Phased removal" will not work.

Kirby

BattleCorp wrote: »

Illegal under the American Constitution.

In your hypothetical, I'm the man in charge. As has been done before, you amend it.

Or did you really just ask "What would you do?" and then follow up with "But you cant!"

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

In your hypothetical, I'm the man in charge. As has been done before, you amend it.

Or did you really just ask "What would you do?" and then follow up with "But you cant!"

You will never get the 2/3 majority required
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Vegeta

Sonics2k wrote: »

Are you incapable of reading?

Ahh the old ad hominem :rolleyes:

The bow and arrow was designed with the intent to hunt, maim and kill. Just like the gun. Yes, you can use a bow and arrow at the Olympics, but it was not made with the intention of getting points for shooting a target.

What??? Bows used in the Olympics are made with the intention of getting points for shooting a target. They are solely designed with that in mind.

Are you really going to sit there, continue to be obtuse, just to avoid the conversation of the Americans serious problem with gun control?

I wouldn't argue for a second that America has a serious issue with gun violence. I have not commented on this once so far in the thread.

My goal is correct an error I have read and point out that not all firearms are designed for the same purpose.

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

There are no reasons. We've already gone over that. There are just "wants". But just because you want something doesn't mean you should have it. A civilian in the developed world has no reason to own a gun.

Is target shooting a legitimate sport? It's in the Olympics so we'll class it as a legitimate sport. Try Olympic target shooting without a gun. Do you think you'll have any success? No, you won't because you need a gun to do that type of target shooting. So straight away there is one example of needing a gun to do something.

The same with a sheep farmer. He/she would need a gun if their lambs are being killed by foxes. Hard to shoot a fox when you don't have a gun. There is another example of where you would need a gun.

There are about 200,000 licenced guns here in Ireland and the Gardaí are not permitted to issue a licence unless the applicant has a genuine need for a gun. Were the Gardaí mistaken 200,000 times. Actually, don't answer that. :-)

Sonics2k

Vegeta wrote: »

Ahh the old ad hominem :rolleyes:




What??? Bows used in the Olympics are made with the intention of getting points for shooting a target. They are solely designed with that in mind.



I wouldn't argue for a second that America has a serious issue with gun violence. I have not commented on this once so far in the thread.

My goal is correct an error I have read and point out that not all firearms are designed for the same purpose.

What part of the word created are you struggling with?

ELM327

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is target shooting a legitimate sport? It's in the Olympics so we'll class it as a legitimate sport. Try Olympic target shooting without a gun. Do you think you'll have any success? No, you won't because you need a gun to do that type of target shooting. So straight away there is one example of needing a gun to do something.

The same with a sheep farmer. He/she would need a gun if their lambs are being killed by foxes. Hard to shoot a fox when you don't have a gun. There is another example of where you would need a gun.

There are about 200,000 licenced guns here in Ireland and the Gardaí are not permitted to issue a licence unless the applicant has a genuine need for a gun.

Maybe he should sit down and have a big rainbow unicorn happy hug with the fox to all live in harmony.

Kirby

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is target shooting a legitimate sport? It's in the Olympics so we'll class it as a legitimate sport. Try Olympic target shooting without a gun. Do you think you'll have any success? No, you won't because you need a gun to do that type of target shooting. So straight away there is one example of needing a gun to do something.

The same with a sheep farmer. He/she would need a gun if their lambs are being killed by foxes. Hard to shoot a fox when you don't have a gun. There is another example of where you would need a gun.

There are about 200,000 licenced guns here in Ireland and the Gardaí are not permitted to issue a licence unless the applicant has a genuine need for a gun. Were the Gardaí mistaken 200,000 times. Actually, don't answer that. :-)

Target shooting is a legitimate sport. But half of the shooting sports in the Olympic use fake guns with fake rounds. I would argue the rest should and no member of the public needs to own a real one.

Your second point....we discussed the farmer angle the previous page so I wont bother repeating the point.... I already explained why. It's there, it's valid. Farmers don't need guns. It's a want, not a need. Makes it convenient to keep bad habits.

As to your third point, Americans don't require a license to own a gun. Maybe they should? Their constitution states they have the right to own one without a license. So your argument seems to be in favor of gun control?

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

Well, you can do both.

You can control guns themselves without affecting existing owners. So for example, you make it illegal to sell or transfer a weapon (including through inheritance) without a licence. Effectively force all private sales to take place to or through gun shops - who will then be legally required to vet the new owner.

Then add in restricted classes of weapons. If someone sells an AR-15-style weapon back to a gun shop, the shop owner is legally required to surrender the weapon, whereupon he's compensated for it at a book value. This doesn't prevent people owning the weapon, but does reduce the number in circulation.

Then you create simple amnesties - register or surrender your AR15 compltely free by 1st January 2025. After this date, being in possession of this class of weapon unregistered is a federal offence.
Over time, expand it to all other weapons.

Again, people are not prevented from possessing the weapon, just from circulating it.

The aim being that within 30 years a sizeable proportion of your guns are registered, the volume of high-powered weapons has plummetted, and the number of people who own a weapon, "cos guns", is on the floor.

Realistically, this is not a practical issue, it's a political one. The politicians are scared of a small handful of lunatics who think that they are entitled to be Walker, Texas Ranger.

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

Target shooting is a legitimate sport. But half of the shooting sports in the Olympic use fake guns with fake rounds. I would argue the rest should and no member of the public needs to own a real one.

So how does one become proficient enough to reach the olympics, if members of the public can own a gun? Think about that one. It'll come to you.

Kirby wrote: »

Your second point....we discussed the farmer angle the previous page so I wont bother repeating the point.... I already explained why. It's there, it's valid. Farmers don't need guns. It's a want, not a need. Makes it convenient to keep bad habits.

As to your third point, Americans don't require a license to own a gun. Maybe they should?

As someone who grew up on a farm, guns are most definitely needed.
For animals dying in pain. For vermin encroaching on the lands. For vagrants of the ilk of John Frog Ward.


Americans will not agree to a license system, the guns are for protection against all, including government.