Active shooter Maryland

BattleCorp

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!"

The man/woman in charge can't amend the Constitution just because he/she wants to. It has to be voted on. A 2/3 majority is needed to change it.

There isn't the appetite at the moment to change it. And I can't see that changing any time soon.

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

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.

No one will support that, as to change the 2nd amendment requires a 2/3 majority.


Americans - particularly in the south and midwest don't trust the government and would view the guns as protection from all and sundry - government included.

If I have purchased legally an AR15 today under the constitution, you can't then make it illegal by 2025 or any other time.

ELM327

BattleCorp wrote: »

The man/woman in charge can't amend the Constitution just because he/she wants to. It has to be voted on. A 2/3 majority is needed to change it.

There isn't the appetite at the moment to change it. And I can't see that changing any time soon.

A point missed by the lefties on this thread.

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

No one will support that, as to change the 2nd amendment requires a 2/3 majority.

That's what I mean when I say it's not a practical issue, it's a political one.

So long as Americans refuse to endorse sane gun laws, then they approve of their daily mass shootings.

I've given up caring tbh. Another day, another shooting.

If I have purchased legally an AR15 today under the constitution, you can't then make it illegal by 2025 or any other time.

Like I say, it wouldn't be illegal. You just have to register it. The law broken would be a possession of an unlicenced firearm; not possession of a firearm.

BattleCorp

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.

What sports use fake rounds? Genuine question because I don't know.

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.

I'm not trying to be rude but you are in cloud cookoo land if you think that there is a more effective way for farmers to control vermin. Wild dogs are attacking your sheep, maybe killing 30 or 40 at a time as happened down my way a few times, what is your suggestion for stopping that happening?

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?

Believe it or not but I am actually in favour of gun control. I really am. Everybody should not have access to guns. Guns need to be controlled. Note I said controlled and not banned.

Everything should be done to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people with substance addiction issues and mental issues. And yes, I believe every firearm should be licenced.

Kirby

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

It came to me on the previous page. Did you miss it? If you are using fake guns in the olympics.....you practice with fake guns outside the olympics. No need for a real one. No problem there. Next.

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

Animals dying in pain can be euthanized with Stun Bolt. Its just as effective and what they use to humanely kill cattle. Works with anything else in pain. No gun needed there. Next.

Vermin? Unless you are farming near the savannah in Africa, your vermin can be dealt with by fences, good livestock management and humane traps to deal with and relocate problem animals. No gun needed there. Next.

Vagrants? John Frog Ward? Are you for real? You are just proving my point for me. Vigilanteism like that is just further evidence that guns escalate things further.
The way to deal with a dispute like that is to call the Guards. No gun Needed there.

ELM327 wrote: »

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

Americans will not agree to abolish slavery!
Americans will not agree to giving women the vote.
Americans will not agree to negros having the same rights!

You get the point. Times change. They should be changing quicker but when enough people have died......the hard right republicans will eventually be run out of office.

BattleCorp

seamus wrote: »

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.

Good post.

But it would be a struggle to get those laws in place. You'd be fought every single step of the way with no guarantee that those laws would be found constitutional.

And as soon as you start to do any of this stuff, people will rush out and buy every feckin gun that is on sale. Like what happened following Sandy Hook. And the number of guns in circulation would go up instead of down.

Kirby

BattleCorp wrote: »

And as soon as you start to do any of this stuff, people will rush out and buy every feckin gun that is on sale. Like what happened following Sandy Hook. And the number of guns in circulation would go up instead of down.

Temporarily. You can't solve this overnight and nobody is suggesting so. Over time the number would come down....particularly if a financial incentive is given for surrendering one.

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

It came to me on the previous page. Did you miss it? If you are using fake guns in the olympics.....you practice with fake guns outside the olympics. No need for a real one. No problem there. Next.




Animals dying in pain can be euthanized with Stun Bolt. Its just as effective and what they use to humanely kill cattle. Works with anything else in pain. No gun needed there. Next.

Vermin? Unless you are farming near the savannah in Africa, your vermin can be dealt with by fences, good livestock management and humane traps to deal with and relocate problem animals. No gun needed there. Next.

Vagrants? John Frog Ward? Are you for real? You are just proving my point for me. Vigilanteism like that is just further evidence that guns escalate things further.
The way to deal with a dispute like that is to call the Guards. No gun Needed there.



Americans will not agree to abolish slavery!
Americans will not agree to giving women the vote.
Americans will not agree to negros having the same rights!

You get the point. Times change. They should be changing quicker but when enough people have died......the hard right republicans will eventually be run out of office.

This is nothing to do with negros or slavery.
You can't call the guards if someone has broken into your house with a weapon (yes there are other weapons not just guns) and you have none. Around where I live the gards are half an hour away, and that's if they leave instantly (IE the simpsons isnt on).


At the end of the day if you're going to tell me that farmers don't need guns... when that's on the Super's list of reason for guns - I think we've reached the end of this discussion, or as you'd say.. we've been over this, did you miss it?

ELM327

seamus wrote: »

That's what I mean when I say it's not a practical issue, it's a political one.

So long as Americans refuse to endorse sane gun laws, then they approve of their daily mass shootings.

I've given up caring tbh. Another day, another shooting.
Like I say, it wouldn't be illegal. You just have to register it. The law broken would be a possession of an unlicenced firearm; not possession of a firearm.

But if I met the conditions at the time of purchase, you can't then change the requirement. I don't think guns should be registered. Merely some sort of background checks to weed out mental issues or terrorism.

wexie

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not trying to be rude but you are in cloud cookoo land if you think that there is a more effective way for farmers to control vermin. Wild dogs are attacking your sheep, maybe killing 30 or 40 at a time as happened down my way a few times, what is your suggestion for stopping that happening?

I dunno bout where you are but around here the farmers seem to be a big fan of making things as easy as possible.

If there was an economically viable solution to vermin control that they could put in place and not have to worry about they'd be lining up out the door to buy it.

Kirby

ELM327 wrote: »

At the end of the day if you're going to tell me that farmers don't need guns... when that's on the Super's list of reason for guns - I think we've reached the end of this discussion, or as you'd say.. we've been over this, did you miss it?

Are you going to actually state a reason why a farmer NEEDS a gun?

You've given euthanasia, vermin, and trespassers so far which I've given alternatives to.

Saying "Because they do! Other people think they do too!" is not a reason. You made the statement that they need guns. If you want to stand by it....back it up.

As for the Olympics I still think using facsimiles is the way to go but I'm willing to cede that perhaps sports stars could be given an exemption. 0.000001% of the population owning a firearm isn't going to effect gun violence a great deal and there won't be many shooting Olympians in the population.

wexie

Kirby wrote: »

Are you going to actually state a reason why a farmer NEEDS a gun?

Okay so, my neigbour is a sheep farmer who regularly has to deal with dog attacks (not his dogs obviously)

How do you suggest he would deal with one or more dogs in the process of destroying his livelihood? Keeping in mind that the majority of the time he will not be able to recuperate any costs from the dog's owners.

Kirby

wexie wrote: »

I dunno bout where you are but around here the farmers seem to be a big fan of making things as easy as possible.

If there was an economically viable solution to vermin control that they could put in place and not have to worry about they'd be lining up out the door to buy it.

People are lazy. Farmers are no exception. "Maintain my fences? Monitor my livestock properly? Traps? Pfff. Thats effort. Why do that when I can just shoot the f*cker."

A gun is a convenience....not a necessity. They aren't dealing with Grizzlies or Lions ffs.

As for the dog issue, are you talking about wild dogs?

wexie

Kirby wrote: »

As for the dog issue, are you talking about wild dogs?

Does it matter when they are attacking sheep?

Just regular out of control dogs that either ran away or were let roam.

(interesting by the way you mention grizzlies and lions, I've a friend in South Africa, he lives very rural and doesn't go anywhere without a gun)

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

People are lazy. Farmers are no exception. "Maintain my fences? Monitor my livestock properly? Traps? Pfff. Thats effort. Why do that when I can just shoot the f*cker."

You know absolutely nothing of the economics of farming if you think every farmer can fence off his land to such an extent to prevent foxes etc. from attacking their livestock.

And if you were able to do that, it would have catastrophic consequences for native wildlife here in Ireland.

The type of fencing etc. you are talking about is economically unviable.

A gun is a convenience....not a necessity. They aren't dealing with Grizzlies or Lions ffs.

As for the dog issue, are you talking about wild dogs?

Family pets that are left to roam about at night become wild dogs. I've seen it plenty of time. A friendly Labrador that would lick the face off you during the day makes quite an effective sheep killer at night.

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

As for the Olympics I still think using facsimiles is the way to go but I'm willing to cede that perhaps sports stars could be given an exemption. 0.000001% of the population owning a firearm isn't going to effect gun violence a great deal and there won't be many shooting Olympians in the population.

How is a sports start made?

An ordinary person tries target shooting, discovers they like it and have a talent for it and practice for a lifetime.

Without ordinary people shooting, we'd have no sports stars.

So you'd need to allow ordinary people guns for target shooting.

Kirby

wexie wrote: »

(interesting by the way you mention grizzlies and lions, I've a friend in South Africa, he lives very rural and doesn't go anywhere without a gun)

See below.

Kirby wrote: »

Vermin? Unless you are farming near the savannah in Africa, your vermin can be dealt with by fences, good livestock management and humane traps to deal with and relocate problem animals. No gun needed there. Next..

wexie wrote: »

Does it matter when they are attacking sheep?

Yes, it matters. Privately owned dogs have owners who will be responsible for damage done. They will also be chipped. Letting them roam free is illegal so that won't last long. Either way, the farmer is compensated for any damage done.

As for wild dogs, thats incredibly uncommon these days. Call it in and they'll be rounded up.

Anyway, how the hell are these dogs getting in to do this damage in the first place? Are the animals not fenced in?

I would make a more important point that a friend of the family who has a farm hasn't lost any livestock to wildlife in the 20 years I've known him. Anecdotal? Absolutely but he takes care of his animals as they are his livelihood.

Billy86

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Here's the shooter's twitter which has his intro as:

"Dear reader: I created this page to defend myself. Now I'm suing the **** out of half of AA County and making corpses of corrupt careers and corporate entities."
https://twitter.com/EricHartleyFrnd/status/689262288000413701
https://twitter.com/EricHartleyFrnd/status/690309688668372997
And disturbingly wrote just hours before the shooting:
https://twitter.com/EricHartleyFrnd/status/1012404716272324611

Can't see the tweets (I'm guessing they've been deleted), just some predictable Trump supporters crying about how they're the victims in all this because their account was suspended once. What was the last one?

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

Yes, it matters. Privately owned dogs have owners who will be responsible for damage done. They will also be chipped. Letting them roam free is illegal so that won't last long. Either way, the farmer is compensated for any damage done.

That's a lovely ivory tower you live in up there. I'd say the vast vast majority of dogs in Ireland aren't licenced nor do they have microchips. And not all microchips are registered.

The underlined bit made me laugh.

Good luck to the farmer who thinks he is going to get compensation from scumbags down here who don't mind their dogs.

As for wild dogs, thats incredibly uncommon these days. Call it in and they'll be rounded up.

How do you round them up? Talk nicely to them?

I would make a more important point that a friend of the family who has a farm hasn't lost any livestock to wildlife in the 20 years I've known him. Anecdotal? Absolutely but he takes care of his animals as they are his livelihood.

What type of farming does he/she do? That's very relevant. Obviously a fox isn't going to take a cow, but it might take a lamb/chicken etc. Or they could be in an area that doesn't have cover for foxes.

wexie

Kirby wrote: »

Yes, it matters. Privately owned dogs have owners who will be responsible for damage done. They will also be chipped. Letting them roam free is illegal so that won't last long. Either way, the farmer is compensated for any damage done.

Eh no....should be chipped and should be responsible...if you think they are the same thing then you really are off with the faeries.

From what I understand most of the time compensation can't be had for farmers. Even if the owners can be traced (and that is a BIG if) compensation is incredibly hard to get and there is little (if any) legal assistance for it.

Taytoland

People keep banging on about gun laws. America will never  introduce substantial gun laws which make the 2nd Amendment weaker or null and void. It's a complete waste of time people debating something which won't change.

BattleCorp

Taytoland wrote: »

People keep banging on about gun laws. America will never introduce substantial gun laws which make the 2nd Amendment weaker or null and void. It's a complete waste of time people debating something which won't change.

It might change slowly but as long as people harp on about banning guns, then the American populace will dig their heels in further and be even more resistant to change.

As technology changes I think America will have even more problems with guns. Gun control will go out the window with advances in 3d printing. Give it 10, 20 or 30 years and it should be easy enough to print a pretty advanced gun in the comfort of your own home.

Kirby

BattleCorp wrote: »

How do you round them up? Talk nicely to them?

Stop being facetious. Call the ISPCA and they will do it. You know this.

Chipping and licensing of dogs is the law. If they aren't, the owner is going to be fined and have the animal taken away. I've seen this first hand.

As to his stock, cows yes but also sheep. And our area is bloody full of foxes. I'm not a farmer so I don't know everything he uses but I've seen one of his traps and he has an electrified fence. He's never had a problem. His father owns a gun that I believe is still in the house but he himself has never used it. The father likely did back in the day as he's a bit old-fashioned.

Billy86

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

Although one wonders how somebody of that mental state in any civilized society is allowed to buy a gun in the first place. Welcome to NRA's America.

What, the same NRA that run TV ads advocating for terrorist violence against those you disagree with? That NRA? No no no sir, surely they have no blame here whatsoever.

And then you've got milo yiannopolous, of pedophile supporting fame that so many in here used to worship, calling for journalists to be shot right before this happened.

Good thing violent language, rhetoric and propaganda don't have any risk of pushing mentally unstable people to do dangerous things, right?

Taytoland

BattleCorp wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

People keep banging on about gun laws. America will never  introduce substantial gun laws which make the 2nd Amendment weaker or null and void. It's a complete waste of time people debating something which won't change.

It might change slowly but as long as people harp on about banning guns, then the American populace will dig their heels in further and be even more resistant to change.

As technology changes I think America will have even more problems with guns.  Gun control will go out the window with advances in 3d printing.  Give it 10, 20 or 30 years and it should be easy enough to print a pretty advanced gun in the comfort of your own home.

It's not even that, it's the fact that to millions of Americans it's as important to them as water. It's inbuilt into the American psyche, the culture of America is built from the barrel of a gun, the whole founding of the nation was build on it. It's not going to change. No potential President will ever run or implement gun laws which make such incidents very rare.

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

Are you going to actually state a reason why a farmer NEEDS a gun?

You've given euthanasia, vermin, and trespassers so far which I've given alternatives to.

Saying "Because they do! Other people think they do too!" is not a reason. You made the statement that they need guns. If you want to stand by it....back it up.

As for the Olympics I still think using facsimiles is the way to go but I'm willing to cede that perhaps sports stars could be given an exemption. 0.000001% of the population owning a firearm isn't going to effect gun violence a great deal and there won't be many shooting Olympians in the population.

It is a reason. I don't need to state one.
It's on the list of reasons from the government, therefore it is a need and identified as such. If you think it isnt, contact the government.

Kirby

ELM327 wrote: »

It is a reason. I don't need to state one.

So...."It is because it is, okay! They need one because they need one!" is basically your answer. :rolleyes:

BattleCorp

Kirby wrote: »

Stop being facetious. Call the ISPCA and they will do it. You know this.

Hahahahahahahahahahhaah. Good man/woman. You need to stop being so naïve. We aren't talking about a stray dog trapped in someone's back yard. Dogs could be roaming hundreds and thousands of acres at night killing sheep. When the ISPCA come out the next day, Rover is sitting in front of the fire being a good dog. Sorry to say but the only answer is a high velocity lead injection.

Chipping and licensing of dogs is the law. If they aren't, the owner is going to be fined and have the animal taken away. I've seen this first hand.

Go down to your nearest halting site and see how many dogs are licenced and chipped. Or pretty much any farm/town in rural Ireland. And even if the dog is licenced and chipped, there's no guarantee that you'll get compo.

As to his stock, cows yes but also sheep. And our area is bloody full of foxes. I'm not a farmer so I don't know everything he uses but I've seen one of his traps and he has an electrified fence. He's never had a problem. His father owns a gun that I believe is still in the house but he himself has never used it. The father likely did back in the day as he's a bit old-fashioned.

The electric fence is to keep the cattle in, not to keep vermin out. I'm curious what kind of traps he has. Are they snares? Wire nooses that the fox gets caught on? I very much doubt he catches foxes and then releases them back into the wild. That'd be very nice of him.

ELM327

Kirby wrote: »

So...."It is because it is, okay! They need one because they need one!" is basically your answer. :rolleyes:

No, :rolleyes:
It is on the list of reasons. So whatever you or I think, that is accepted by the people we elect to govern us as an acceptable reason to own a firearm.