Mass shooting in el paso

greencap

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You'd wonder what goes through the minds of people like this guy walking through a neighbourhood on "armed patrol"

I bet anything he's a white supremacist nutcase and probably a Nazi

This is the kind of thing we got up to age 12.

Slight difference, we had torches, maybe a walkie talkie.

Seriously now, that guy appears to have stunted development of some variety.
(I think the host alluded to as much)

As we found out as kids with our color filter torches, his bad guys aren't going to manifest.

He's going to get bored and frustrated as he roams around the suburbs with his assault rifle.

Rayne Wooney

Does America actually want to change? Or are they fine with the way things are

hill16bhoy

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You'd wonder what goes through the minds of people like this guy walking through a neighbourhood on "armed patrol"

I bet anything he's a white supremacist nutcase and probably a Nazi

Turns out he is a white supremacist and a Nazi, what a surprise.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/vegas-man-white-supremacist-attack-lgbtq

A Las Vegas man who once claimed he was protecting his neighborhood while patrolling on foot with an assault rifle has been arrested and charged with plotting to carry out an attack on a synagogue and LGBTQ bar in the city.

Conor Climo, 23, allegedly sent encrypted messages to white supremacists this year discussing a possible attack using Molotov cocktails and other improvised explosives, federal officials said Friday.

Climo told the FBI he had also been looking at creating an eight-man "sniper platoon" to conduct a shooting attack against Jews, court documents said, a plan he said he had been considering for two years. The 23-year-old also claimed he was trying to recruit a homeless person to conduct surveillance on a possible target, according to the complaint.

El_Duderino 09

snowblind wrote: »

Source please

Without a source aid imagine most mass shootings are in the course of committing a crime as opposed to going out to kill random people. Drug deals and gang warfare. Maybe I've fallen for the media hype.

El_Duderino 09

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Does America actually want to change? Or are they fine with the way things are

Fine with the way things are. They enjoy playing with guns and are easily convinced that any gun laws will lead to banning guns and the government confiscating guns. Gun advocates look for any reason not to attribute mass shootings to availability of guns, which is silly because it's obviously a major factor.

Bit the answer is "yes" they're happy with the status quo. Availability of guns and at least the current number of shootings. It's worth remembering that the current fuss is only because there were 2 high profile shootings in 2 days. There had been 250ish mass shootings so far this year without much fanfare.

The mental health angle is valid but I doubt it will cause much change. I really doubt they'll make mental health care widely available to whoever needs it. It'slore likely they'll use mental health as a scapegoat to take the heat off guns.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879


I'm becoming more and more convinced that the US is heavily populated with idiots.

steddyeddy

Amos Polite Cabinet wrote: »

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49303879


I'm becoming more and more convinced that the US is heavily populated with idiots.

"I wanted to know if that Walmart honoured the second amendment," the 20-year-old told police after his arrest.

Well certainly the gun nuts in America are complete and utterly oblivious to the human cost of their obsession.

tuxy

He was setup! Walmart had announced that open carry was still ok!

batgoat

tuxy wrote: »

He was setup! Walmart had announced that open carry was still ok!

He was in body armour and carrying a semi automatic rifle... Seems like a guaranteed way to disturb the peace.

tuxy

batgoat wrote: »

He was in body armour and carrying a semi automatic rifle... Seems like a guaranteed way to disturb the peace.

He probably should have worn something over the body armour but Missouri is very warm right now!

steddyeddy

batgoat wrote: »

He was in body armour and carrying a semi automatic rifle... Seems like a guaranteed way to disturb the peace.

But the thing is those who worship the second amendment in effect are arguing that this guy was well within his rights. I think what this guy did was wonderful.

tuxy

Should they have arrested Conor Climo years ago or was it best to wait until they found out about his plans to carry out mass shootings?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

tuxy wrote: »

He was setup! Walmart had announced that open carry was still ok!

And it obviously was ok, as this guy was held at gunpoint by an off duty fireman using the gun he himself was carrying in the store at the time. :eek:

riffmongous

Anyone see the videos of the mass panic on Times Square? What a mental country

steddyeddy

riffmongous wrote: »

Anyone see the videos of the mass panic on Times Square? What a mental country

I did now R. thanks for the heads up. It's gone mental at this stage.

Manic Moran

Apparently a phenomenon known as 'flocking'.

Here's the same effect in Paris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDJvnWgREQw

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem is “a study”.

You're saying study like it's a bad thing. What other studies are bad? The link between cancer and smoking? Global warming and CO2?

Here's another study. Simple conclusion here. States with more permissive gun control legislation have more mass shootings.

Objective: To determine whether restrictiveness-permissiveness of state gun laws or gun ownership are associated with mass shootings in the US.
Conclusions: States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divide appears to be emerging between restrictive and permissive states.

If I may quote RAND, https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html
Because so much more study has been done of this relationship than of any other gun policy and outcome, there is a much richer evidence base to draw on,

You can quote them MM but this study supersedes this in terms of comprehensiveness. This was an analysis done at state level, not county level. It actually debunks the study you linked to. That's how science and research works. We're always trying to disprove earlier studies. From the paper:

Our preferred panel data regression specification, unlike the statistical model of Lott and Mustard that had previously been offered as evidence of crime‐reducing RTC laws, both satisfies the parallel trends assumption and generates statistically significant estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime.

So, relying just on the study you link first has its own problems, such as addressed specifically https://econjwatch.org/articles/do-right-to-carry-laws-increase-violent-crime-a-comment-on-donohue-aneja-and-weber

I'm relying on the most comprehensive study.

John J. Donohue, Abhay Aneja, and Kyle Weber have released multiple versions of research finding that certain laws concerning the carrying of firearms, those known as right-to-carry or RTC laws, increase violent crime. Examining recent versions of their research, we find that their results concerning the effects of RTC laws on violent crime are fragile and most likely incorrect... Nevertheless, when we use the synthetic control model, we find that the claim that RTC laws increase either murder or violent crime is not supported. We find states where crime increased after the implementation of the RTC law, and we find more states in which crime decreased after the law. Our tests reveal that there is no significant overall net effect of the RTC laws on murder or violent crime across all 33 states that have implemented such laws.

That's a rebuttal, not a study.

Fortunately, we need not rely merely on rebuttals, since there are so many such studies. such as the about-as-recent one from the American College of Surgeons. https://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(18)32074-X/fulltext
During the study period, all states moved to adopt some form of concealed-carry legislation, with a trend toward less restrictive legislation. After adjusting for state and year, there was no significant association between shifts from restrictive to nonrestrictive carry legislation on violent crime and public health indicators. Adjusting further for poverty and unemployment did not significantly influence the results

Again M the latest study is more comprehensive and supercedes the older ones you provided. Would you rely on a 20 year old cancer research paper or a much newer one?



[/QUOTE]Given that is is fairly undisputed that those with concealed carry permits tend to be some of the most law-abiding members of the population, with an offender rate less than police officers, the lack of any particular correlation with overall crime rates in most studies is logical.[/QUOTE]

Law abiding until they're not. The fact is that states with more permissive gun laws have more mass shootings.

At this point in the debate I'd like to point out that discussing studies is actually a bit of a red herring so to speak. Worshippers of the 2nd amendment in America don't really care if more guns = more crime. Previously on here you've had posters stating that they wouldn't give up their weapons even if it meant saving lives. When asked my definition of a gun nut, it's simply someone who won't offer any sort of restriction on societal gun ownership even if it saves lives.

greencap

tuxy wrote: »

Should they have arrested Conor Climo years ago or was it best to wait until they found out about his plans to carry out mass shootings?

He should never have been a thing.

A man strolling around the suburbs with a semi-auto rifle and belts of ammunition should be the kind of thing that triggers an all points police alert, a news flash, and maybe some helicopters overhead.

Because odds are its a mental case.

And unsurprisingly, thats what he turned out to be.

tuxy

greencap wrote: »

He should never have been a thing.

A man strolling around the suburbs with a semi-auto rifle and belts of ammunition should be the kind of thing that triggers an all points police alert, a news flash, and maybe some helicopters overhead.

Because odds are its a mental case.

And unsurprisingly, thats what he turned out to be.

At least that has changed now and someone can be arrested for fitting the profile of a mass shooter.

El_Duderino 09

Since mental I'll health is being identified as a factor in these shootings, are there any plans to do anything about mental health in the US? I suspect they will be happy to simply identity a cause and leave it at that.

Guns don't kill people, mental illness does. So there's no point passing gun legislation. The end.

Manic Moran

steddyeddy wrote: »

You're saying study like it's a bad thing. What other studies are bad? The link between cancer and smoking? Global warming and CO2?

Ones which are of questionable methodology should be considered suspect. The whole 'anti-vaxx' thing was started by a study concluding that vaccines can cause autism. It was a flawed study, but a study people relied upon none-the-less, and we've been fighting the results for three decades. If you haven't noticed, it's been a rather significant issue the last year, we still haven't slain that beast.

If we have a slew of studies on a specific subject such as this, the one you linked from Donohue says "Increasing right to carry laws increases violent crime", one from Lott saying "Increasing right to carry laws reduces violent crime", and a whole slew of them are saying "No significant effect", the most likely cause is that either all but one are wrong, or the majority which agree with each other are correct, and the two outliers are suspect. I mean, if you want me to quote Lott's work, I can, he's been doing it for about a quarter-century now, but there are those who question his methodology, so I tend not to.

Here's another study. Simple conclusion here. States with more permissive gun control legislation have more mass shootings.

Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the study you linked earlier which concerns to 'right to carry' legislation.

With respect to that one coupling mass shootings, yes, it makes sense. Chances are, they have more mass shootings because more people have guns to shoot with, much as States with more people who have cars probably have more major RTAs. Of course, there is the question of causality. It has been observed that States with a high proportion of people who don't like guns and thus wouldn't be inclined to buy one in the first place are also the ones most likely to pass restrictive laws. It's not the laws reducing the ownership, but actually the ownership which has the knock-on effect on the laws. Sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, really. You will note that even in the most restrictive State of all, the minimum standards to own a firearm are the same: Anyone can get one if they make the federal minimums. The fact that so few people in Hawaii own a gun has nothing to do with the law, it's to do with the fact that Hawaiians generally are not inclined to get one.

You can quote them MM but this study supersedes this in terms of comprehensiveness. This was an analysis done at state level, not county level. It actually debunks the study you linked to. That's how science and research works. We're always trying to disprove earlier studies. From the paper:

Yes, I've read the link. The RAND link is an overview of a whole slew of studies, covering the gamut from State to City levels, including one by Donohue. The 'debunk' is of the Lott study, which, as I mentioned, I tend not to quote.

That's a rebuttal, not a study.

I never said it was a study. But that doesn't deny that the rebuttal puts forward questions about the study.

Again M the latest study is more comprehensive and supercedes the older ones you provided. Would you rely on a 20 year old cancer research paper or a much newer one?

I question that position. The Hamill one from the American College of Surgeons was released barely six months before than the one by Donohue, so is hardly outdated. As for 'more comprehensive', I note that Donohue uses data to 2014 on, apparently, 33 States, whilst the ACS one looks at all fifty States using data to 2015.

Why is the Donohue one more comprehensive?

Law abiding until they're not. The fact is that states with more permissive gun laws have more mass shootings.

At which point they would be picked up in the statistics for 'number of crimes committed by lawful concealed carry people'. That doesn't require a mathematical analysis, they are figures of public record, because a conviction comes automatically with a license revocation, and that information is public.

For example, my State, TX, has 1.2 million people with permits to carry a firearm, of which in 2015, 108 were convicted of something which resulted in a revocation of their permit. (Basically something bigger than a Class C misdemeanour, regardless of if their gun was involved or not). That's 9/100,000 people. If you're curious, a Class B includes such horrific crimes against society like possession of under 2oz of marijuana, littering, or failing to pay child support. We're not talking a high bar of crime, here. Class C is something like a speeding ticket.

By comparison, over 10% of Texas adults have a felony conviction, the criminal conviction rate, per year, is 2,116/100,000 Americans in the State in 2016. (Illigal aliens are not normally permitted firearms, and legal ones have good cause to not break any laws at all). So a Texas CCW holder is, by public figures, 235 times more likely to be law-abiding than the typical person. Either that, or they are really, really, good at getting away with crime.

It can get even better. The 7th Circuit ordered Illinois in 2013 that it had to start issuing concealed weapons permits because it couldn't show any evidence why it shouldn't. Between 2014 and 2018, 265,000 people obtained a license to carry a firearm. The number of people convicted of a crime using their weapon in those four years: 0.

So, whatever the relationship between crime and liberal firearms laws, right to carry isn't it.

At this point in the debate I'd like to point out that discussing studies is actually a bit of a red herring so to speak.

Well, you brought it up. I saw no reason not to respond.

steddyeddy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Ones which are of questionable methodology should be considered suspect. The whole 'anti-vaxx' thing was started by a study concluding that vaccines can cause autism. It was a flawed study, but a study people relied upon none-the-less, and we've been fighting the results for three decades. If you haven't noticed, it's been a rather significant issue the last year, we still haven't slain that beast.

If we have a slew of studies on a specific subject such as this, the one you linked from Donohue says "Increasing right to carry laws increases violent crime", one from Lott saying "Increasing right to carry laws reduces violent crime", and a whole slew of them are saying "No significant effect", the most likely cause is that either all but one are wrong, or the majority which agree with each other are correct, and the two outliers are suspect. I mean, if you want me to quote Lott's work, I can, he's been doing it for about a quarter-century now, but there are those who question his methodology, so I tend not to.

MM I appreciate the long reply. I'll get back to it but first I thought I'd respond to the most salient points made i.e the misapprehension there isn't a single study that points to gun control saving lives.

I don't mean this to cause offence but I'm guessing you're a member of the NRA? The reason I say this is you're stating the exact same views about gun control that the organisation and it's members say in relation to gun control. That research is inconclusive or that there's not enough research.

It's an interesting point of view that evidence is inconclusive. It isn't at all. Research was somewhat lacking in the US as the NRA actually lobbied against gun research and the effect of gun control on saving lives. Similar to the tobacco companies lobbying congress I suppose.

The correlation between gun control and gun violence is well documented in the literature. When the NRA and its members question this I'm not inclined to believe that they don't believe it, rather that they'll believe anything that convinces them gun control is bad.

So here we go.

The American Journal of Public Health:

Objectives. To examine the relation of “shall-issue” laws, in which permits must be issued if requisite criteria are met;“may-issue”laws, which give law enforcement officialswide discretion over whether to issue concealed firearm carry permits or not; and homicide rates.

Methods. We compared homicide rates in shall-issue and may-issue states and total,firearm, nonfirearm, handgun, and long-gun homicide rates in all 50 states during the 25-year period of 1991 to 2015. We included year and state fixed effects and numerous state-level factors in the analysis.

Results. Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homiciderates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates,but were not significantly associated with long-gun or nonfirearm homicide.

Conclusions. Shall-issue laws are associated with significantly higher rates of total,firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide. (Am J Public Health.
Published online
ahead of print October 19, 2017: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.304057

So states with lack of discretion in issuing guns have more firearm related homicide.

Epidemiologic Reviews stated that in every country where stricter gun control is introduced there's a reduction in firearm homicides.

Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.

For example, in South Africa in 2000, the Firearm Control Act contained all these measures, and saw a 13.6 percent reduction in firearm homicides every single year for the next five years.


Their conclusions:

It usually takes major legislation overhaul - not just one new law - to see significant change.

Restricting access to guns and their purchase is associated with reductions in firearm deaths.

Gun control saves lives in every single country. The Journal of Urban Health report on what happens when gun controls are reversed? Well for that we can look at the state of Missouri. The state got rid of laws requiring a permit to purchase a firearm. Guess what happened next? The firearm homicide rate went up by 23%.

Using death certificate data available through 2010, the repeal of Missouri’s PTP law was associated with an increase in annual firearm homicides rates of 1.09 per 100,000 (+23 %) but was unrelated to changes in non-firearm homicide rates

There's more funded by John Hopkins medical research centre. Connecticut introduced permit to purchase for handguns. What happened? Yep a 40% reduction in firearm homicide.

Objectives. We sought to estimate the effect of Connecticut’s implementation of a handgun permit-to-purchase law in October 1995 on subsequent homicides.

Results. We estimated that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place. By contrast, there was no evidence for a reduction in nonfirearm homicides.

Conclusions. Consistent with prior research, this study demonstrated that Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. As would be expected if the law drove the reduction, the policy’s effects were only evident for homicides committed with firearms.

Shall issue states are associated with significantly higher firearm homicide.

Objectives. To examine the relation of “shall-issue” laws, in which permits must be issued if requisite criteria are met; “may-issue” laws, which give law enforcement officials wide discretion over whether to issue concealed firearm carry permits or not; and homicide rates.

Methods. We compared homicide rates in shall-issue and may-issue states and total, firearm, nonfirearm, handgun, and long-gun homicide rates in all 50 states during the 25-year period of 1991 to 2015. We included year and state fixed effects and numerous state-level factors in the analysis.

Results. Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates, but were not significantly associated with long-gun or nonfirearm homicide.

Conclusions. Shall-issue laws are associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Centre had this to say.

In reality, the best research shows what common sense tells us: More guns mean more crime and more death. Gun possession significantly increases your risk of being killed by someone you know. A gun in the home doubles your risk of homicide and triples your risk of suicide. The presence of a gun increases the lethality of domestic violence. Areas with higher gun ownership see a significant increase in burglary. And states with higher levels of gun ownership experience higher rates of firearm fatalities.

Now you quoted the Rand organisation. I think you're misrepresenting their position. From their organisation's website. I mean you can't get clearer than that. Evidence suggests that carry and conceal laws are linked with violent crime increases.

For six of the 13 policies, either we found no studies examining the effects on any of the outcomes we considered or the evidence was inconclusive. However, we found some evidence that seven policies affect one or more of four of the outcomes, as shown below. For example, evidence shows that background checks may decrease (brown lines) suicide rates and that concealed-carry laws may increase (teal lines) violent crime.

Here's what the project leader at Rand had to say about the lack of research in some areas:

Having no research to answer crucial gun debate questions “creates a fact-free environment, where people can make claims that make problems for legislation moving forward”, Andrew Morral, the lead researcher on the project, said.

That lack of evidence is not an accident, but a political choice, shaped by more than two decades of opposition to federally funded gun research from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates.

So in short M, you're toeing the party line regarding the NRA and (A) complaining about lack of research (that the NRA blocks) and (B) stating the opposite of what the Rand organisation, a non-partisan body states, i.e that evidence suggests there may be link between conceal and carry and firearm violence.

Can I ask instead of linking to other studies can you tell me do you think gun control will save lives in the US?

steddyeddy

This is an open question to everyone but previously a firearm lover on Boards declared that they don't want gun control even if it saves lives. It's not that they don't believe gun control will work, they just don't want it. Rather than attack the poster I appreciated the candidness of the statement. I'm wondering is this the mentality underlying most people who argue against gun control in America?

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is an open question to everyone but previously a firearm lover on Boards declared that they don't want gun control even if it saves lives. It's not that they don't believe gun control will work, they just don't want it. Rather than attack the poster I appreciated the candidness of the statement. I'm wondering is this the mentality underlying most people who argue against gun control in America?

All of us gun owners don't think the same.

Personally, I don't want to give up any of my guns but that doesn't mean that I don't want gun control. And by gun control, I don't mean gun bans. I mean some sort of rules that try keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies.

I think everyone should have a background check and do some sort of safety course to get a gun but that kind of flies in the face somewhat of the 2nd Amendment.

El_Duderino 09

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think everyone should have a background check and do some sort of safety course to get a gun but that kind of flies in the face somewhat of the 2nd Amendment.

Does it? Would you give, "the crazies" as you put it, unlimited access to guns in your well-regulated militia? or would you find more suitable jobs for "crazies" depending on their brand of crazy?

I can never get over the blindness to the wording of the 2nd amendment. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems fairly obvious that the 2nd amendment covers well regulated militias. normal citizen don't really seem to be mentioned - unless they're part of a well regulated militia.

banie01

BattleCorp wrote: »

All of us gun owners don't think the same.

Personally, I don't want to give up any of my guns but that doesn't mean that I don't want gun control. And by gun control, I don't mean gun bans. I mean some sort of rules that try keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies.

I think everyone should have a background check and do some sort of safety course to get a gun but that kind of flies in the face somewhat of the 2nd Amendment.

100% agreed.

Buying a firearm in Ireland is a very involved process that would likely horrify the vast majority of US gun enthusiasts.
The restrictions and indeed the information that a license applicant is required to share, would make the proposed background checks in the US seem a doodle.

Our licensed firearms owners are not an issue IMO, and indeed I do think that they are if anything scape goated on quite a regular basis.

The instances of firearms incidents in Ireland involving licensed firearms are incredibly rare, and the 2 that come immediately to mind were severe mental health issues.

Unfortunately the US can't claim the same.
The US gun lobby claims the majority of gun crime is commited with illegally held firearms.
The data supporting that claim comes a 15year old survey of convicted felons where 40-60% claimed they obtained their weapon illegally.

I've looked for the raw data and can't find it, and I'll be quite honest.
I believe if the US Gun Lobby could verify that illegal weapons were more lethal, those numbers would not be at all difficult to find.

The criteria for illegally obtained in the study were incredibly loose too IMO.
Taking a firearm without a parent's knowledge, having a family member complete the purchase and so on.
Not some murky black market, or gang driven business.
Taken from homes or family members.

In Ireland, owners are required to have safes, alarms and secure storage of their firearms.
No such requirement exists stateside.


The genie is very much out of the bottle stateside.
A country where shooter drills are part and parcel of school life?
Where bullet resistant back packs are a back to school advertising dream...
Where young men resort to bullets and drive bus?
Where isolation leads to rampage?

There's no easy fix.
There is no magic wand to make people hand over there weapons, nor any compelling reason that would drive that public move.
There will be more, this will happen again.
Unlike in Australia, UK, NZ and other countries where gun crime led to near immediate change.
The US public and gun lobby have always felt that any such move was a grab for far too much of their personal "freedom".

Feisar

steddyeddy wrote: »

This is an open question to everyone but previously a firearm lover on Boards declared that they don't want gun control even if it saves lives. It's not that they don't believe gun control will work, they just don't want it. Rather than attack the poster I appreciated the candidness of the statement. I'm wondering is this the mentality underlying most people who argue against gun control in America?

Another firearm lover here. And damn do I love them!

I want/believe in gun control. As in proper checks to ensure as far as possible that insane/unstable people don't get access to firearms. Like a driving licence a gun is a privilege, not a right. I want a Colt Python so bad but unfortunately not possible under current legislation. I'll get over it though, more of a rifle man anyway.

Side note: Some people seem to have this weird irrational fear of guns.

greencap

Feisar wrote: »

Another firearm lover here. And damn do I love them!

I want/believe in gun control. As in proper checks to ensure as far as possible that insane/unstable people don't get access to firearms. Like a driving licence a gun is a privilege, not a right. I want a Colt Python so bad but unfortunately not possible under current legislation. I'll get over it though, more of a rifle man anyway.

Side note: Some people seem to have this weird irrational fear of guns.

how about weird and irrational fetish for guns?

most of us grow out of the 'guns are so cool' thing relatively early.

they are after all at the most fundamental level basically all just the same thing, a pipe from which a piece of metal projects. no matter how fancy.


ooooh pipe. fancy pipe, pipe with different bits. i wonder will a piece of metal shoot out of this one too.

tuxy

It's not as difficult to get a gun legally in Ireland as the average citizen here believes. Yes the time frame can be long, 3 months is not unusual. And realistically you are probably limited to a 12 gauge shotgun or bolt action rifle. These are gun that are more suited to hunting small animals or target practice not mass shootings. So if you live in Ireland and have a love for guns you can take part in that hobby but very few have an interest in doing so. Most guns are owned in rural areas out of necessity. I know plenty of farmers that don't like guns but own them because they need them. To them guns are about as interesting as owning a shovel or any other tool.

ClanofLams

Always find it utterly bizarre how animated pro gun Americans get about the 2nd Amendment. They have this weird notion that something written two hundred years is infallible.