Mass shooting in el paso

BattleCorp

Igotadose wrote: »

Simple. Ban them both, by name if necessary.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

And here is where you lose the support of law abiding gun owners.

banie01

Igotadose wrote: »

Simple. Ban them both, by name if necessary.

Banning by name is easily circumvented by changing the name though.

That's an Irish approach to legislation that has failed here in the past, and will most certainly fail in the US.

There's nothing inherently wrong with semi auto centre fire rifles.
The issue Stateside IMO, is their easy availability without appropriate background checks and control along with the concurrent availability of High Capacity magazines.

There needs to be a sea change in the popular mindset stateside of what gun ownership actually means.
Open carry, high cap magazines, concealed carry all need to be addressed.

Travelling with a firearm openly visible in Ireland will lead to quite an interesting discussion with the ERU.
Even if it's just visible in your car.

Whereas Stateside, the right to carry, to be armed in a paramilitary fashion while walking around a supermarket!
Well, that honestly is been seen as normal and that's not gun ownership, it's testosterone fuelled stupidity IMO.

sdanseo

BattleCorp wrote: »

^^^^^^^^^^^^

And here is where you lose the support of law abiding gun owners.

Unfortunately not. In America, you lose the support of most gun owners when you mention any restrictions on their rights.

Even the most generous, likeable people - I've seen a few on youtube - who are confronted with the idea will tell you firmly that if the government ever comes for their guns, they'll go down shooting.

It's a terrifying attitude. Having fired an AR on holiday, though, the idea of them being legal to own and carry effectively without restriction is more terrifying.

The concept of a "good guy with a gun beats than a bad guy with a gun" only leads to a greater propogation of firearms, many of which end up being used illegally. If you pump the market with 100m guns sold to 100m law abiding citizens, the chances that a proportion will be stolen or otherwise used in crime outweighs the benefit for a potential good-samaritan-stops-shooter scenario.

In a perfect world where society was not so utterly individualistic, with almost inhumane apathy towards these sorts of events, the 2nd amendment wouldn't even be a problem.

Czech Republic has very similar gun laws with none of the same problems.
In fact

Police recorded 45 violent crimes (most of them, 17, being "dangerous threats" and 9 homicides, mostly intra-family) being committed with legal firearms (A,B,C category) in 2016

45. In a country with nearly 11 million people.

The issue is American society at large rather than the issue of guns alone.

joseywhales

"legitimate gun owners" is a serious oxymoron. If you don't have to kill pests to protect agriculture there is obviously no legitimacy

Beasty

Philadelphia shooting posts moved here

notobtuse

joseywhales wrote: »

"legitimate gun owners" is a serious oxymoron. If you don't have to kill pests to protect agriculture there is obviously no legitimacy

Oh bother... The right to own guns is in our Constitution. Do we tell you who live in other countries what is wrong with your laws and how asinine you are, ad nauseum? I own 5 firearms. They remain locked up when not in use. I know this might be hard to believe but none of my guns have ever wounded or killed anyone. EVER! I don't own an AR15 but my son-in-law does. He is also a police officer. He recommends we own firearms, with training, as you are the first line of defense against those with intent on doing harm. And there are lots of them. The inner cities have become hellholes with gangs, drugs, illegal firearms, drive by shootings and murders. And the bad elements have been reaching out into the suburbs and even into the countryside where I live. There are many legitimate reasons to own firearms.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

"legitimate gun owners" is a serious oxymoron. If you don't have to kill pests to protect agriculture there is obviously no legitimacy

What's wrong with clay pigeon shooting or other forms of target practice? Don't some people own guns in our world for that?

I do not own any guns myself here in Ireland as the effort to get them legitimately is not something I have any interest in going through. I do have a bow and arrow though And been working on choosing a new crossbow.

But through some contacts I have I do get to fire a variety of guns quite often and I rather enjoy it.

My daughter who is now 9 is able to load aim and fire a hit with a particular rifle in under 10 seconds. She gets a kick out of that. But she also gets coached on complete respect and propriety around weapons.

8-10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But through some contacts I have I do get to fire a variety of guns quite often and I rather enjoy it.

What's the legality around that? Do you need a permit?

8-10

8-10 wrote: »

What's the legality around that? Do you need a permit?

I have not enquired too deeply into that to be honest. He runs a business - and he as a friend lets me in after hours. So I just assume everything is above board as he is not the type to recklessly jeopardize his business on my account.

Obviously being sketchy on details all the same so as not to identify him or his.

8-10

Seems a little strange that you have to jump through hoops to own a firearm here but you're freely able to just borrow someone else's (presumably if they're present)

Maybe it's just me but sounds like a bit of a loophole to look at if there's no permit required to do that

Think "borrow" or "freely" might be the wrong words - as it gives the impression I show up and then leave with one like a library

It does not quite speak to the strict supervision and guidance he offers - on site and in his constant presence while I am around him.

I once got to go into the back rooms of a museum a friend works at and experience some artefacts that the public do not generally see. I would not say I showed up and freely borrowed those things either

"experience under invitation" might be a better term than borrow I think.

8-10

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Think "borrow" or "freely" might be the wrong words - as it gives the impression I show up and then leave with one like a library

It does not quite speak to the strict supervision and guidance he offers - on site and in his constant presence while I am around him.

I once got to go into the back rooms of a museum a friend works at and experience some artefacts that the public do not generally see. I would not say I showed up and freely borrowed those things either

"experience under invitation" might be a better term than borrow I think.

Right, but regardless of the level of supervision we're saying what you're doing is within the law and does not require any paperwork from you. That's what sounds like a loophole. Same with a 10 year old handling a gun.

Doesn't sound above board to me and if it is I think we should be tighter on it. You might be sensible about it but what if the next chap isn't?

Indeed. I can not speak for the next chap - and my chance to "play around" is seemingly by far the exception not the rule. I really would not intend to put my single anecdote forward as being in any way relevant to policy or procedure.

What I was addressing it to was more the question of legitimacy of wanting access to weaponry for anything but agricultural reasons. Sport is one justifiable reason. Another user brought up home defence. Whatever we think about each reason however - I think it is enough to doubt the legitimacy of sweeping statements saying "no legitimate reasons except for one".

tuxy

Not sure about the legality of it, that would be a question for the shooting forum.

When I owned a shotgun I would sometimes take friends to a bog near me and shoot clays. I knew that if there was any incident no matter how minor and the guards got wind of it my licence would be gone.
Even if you have guns stolen from you, you can lose your licence for being careless. Any completely problems with the law unrealted to fire arms can mean you lose your licence or will have a licence for a new gun rejected.
I don't know anyone stupid enough to let someone use their guns while the owner is not there that would really be asking for trouble.

BattleCorp

8-10 wrote: »

Seems a little strange that you have to jump through hoops to own a firearm here but you're freely able to just borrow someone else's (presumably if they're present)

Maybe it's just me but sounds like a bit of a loophole to look at if there's no permit required to do that

8-10 wrote: »

Right, but regardless of the level of supervision we're saying what you're doing is within the law and does not require any paperwork from you. That's what sounds like a loophole. Same with a 10 year old handling a gun.

Doesn't sound above board to me and if it is I think we should be tighter on it. You might be sensible about it but what if the next chap isn't?

tuxy wrote: »

Not sure about the legality of it, that would be a question for the shooting forum.

.

Without knowing the exact circumstances, it isn't necessarily illegal to use someone else's gun. But it depends on the circumstances.

One example is if you are on a shooting range. Someone could use one of my guns on the range totally legally even though they don't have a licence for it - as long as it's an unrestricted firearm. If it's a restricted firearm, then only I can use it.

Someone mentioned a crossbow earlier. Believe it or not, a crossbow is a restricted firearm in Ireland. It's classed the same as a large calibre gun (over .308) and therefore requires a special type of gun licence.

tuxy

BattleCorp wrote: »

Someone mentioned a crossbow earlier. Believe it or not, a crossbow is a restricted firearm in Ireland. It's classed the same as a large calibre gun (over .308) and therefore requires a special type of gun licence.

It's the same for a pellet gun over 1 joule isn't it?

banie01

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh bother... The right to own guns is in our Constitution. Do we tell you who live in other countries what is wrong with your laws and how asinine you are, ad nauseum?

By "we" I'm presuming you mean the US?

The same US whose President last month called the Prime Minister of Sweden and directly tried to intervene in Judicial proceedings?

The same US who has over the course of post world 2 history to date, installed, removed government s and armed "revolutionary" movements and oppressive regimes at a whim, dependent upon which particular flavour of foreign policy is in vogue in the White House at the time?

Demeaning and disregarding the opinions of non US citizens, whilst seeking to impose US norms on the world is a ridiculous position to hold and doesn't do much for the strength of your position.

BattleCorp

tuxy wrote: »

It's the same for a pellet gun over 1 joule isn't it?

Yes, you need a firearms licence for a pellet gun over 1 joule. It's not the same as a crossbow licence though.

Basically there are two types of licences here in Ireland. Unrestricted (normal licence) and restricted (extra strict licence).

This is a simplistic way of describing it but normal licences are for .17 to .308 cal rifles. A Superintendent decides on those licences. Anything larger requires a restricted licence. It's a Chief Superintendent who decides on those and they are more difficult to get. A .357 magnum rifle would be restricted for example.

A .22lr handgun is unrestricted and can be licenced if you are in a target club. A larger calibre handgun is restricted and they aren't giving out licences for those any more. If you had one before November 2008 you can keep it, but no new licences. A large calibre handgun would be a 9mm for example.

Shotguns are unrestricted if they fire normal cartridges and can only hold 3 rounds. But if they fire slugs or have a pistol grip or folding stock, or hold more than 3 rounds, then they are restricted.

You don't need a licence for a bow and arrows but you do for a crossbow. And it's a restricted licence so there will be lots of hoops to jump through.

I forgot to add that a semi auto centrefire rifle such as an Ar15 is restricted no matter what the calibre is.

Tony EH

notobtuse wrote: »

Do we tell you who live in other countries what is wrong with your laws and how asinine you are, ad nauseum?

Yes. All of the bloody time.

And when some countries don't play ball, you invade them.

Gatling

Just to show how bat**** crazy things can get this video is made up of police bodycams after they get called to a situation involving a black man who's armed and refusing to leave a government office (IRS) aka the tax office

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi7cjvB32Yw

Manic Moran

The security guard was, I believe, correct that non-federal law enforcement may not be armed on federal property when not on official business, but the whole thing was stupidly escalated. On the other hand, nobody seems to have been hurt, just a complete waste of everybody's time.

rocksolidfat

Just skimming through this thread, and worth pointing out two a few common misconceptions as displayed by Wibbs here.

MISCONCEPTION 1: THINKING GUN LEGISLATION IS NOT A KEY FACTOR.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree 100% P, but I would also say these kind of mass shootings and the society that appears to be breeding them is a more recent thing in American society. Go back pre say 1970 and they were a vanishingly rare crime. When gun legislation was significantly more lax. And it's not as if American society was all roses back then either and the culture was just as individualistic and circle the wagons and idolised violence in films and TV. Mass murders really start to ramp up by the end of the 80's and ramp up again after 2000 and ramp up yet again after 2010. Their access to guns is most certainly a major factor, but there is more going on.

This is a better representation of mass murder rates in the US:



Mass shootings rose starting in the mid 80s... right after the Firearm Owners Protection Act came in to limit gun controls - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

They then fell off from the mid 90s to the mid 00's (obvious exception being Columbine, though if that happened today it would be out of the news by the weekend)... right after the Assault Weapons ban came in.

And then they began skyrocketing in the mid 2000s and have only gone up since... which happened to be right in line with, you guessed it, the Assault Weapons ban being allowed to die.

Sometimes you have to just call a spade a spade.



MISCONCEPTION 2: THINKING DEATH BY GUNS ARE GOING DOWN

America's overall death by gunshot stats have actually trended downwards, while mass shootings have continued to climb ever upwards.

I'm not sure if you're misinformed on this, or just conflating some statistics. Mass shootings have been going up, but so have death by gunshot statistics and 2017 had the most deaths by gunshot in the US since the 1960s. Murder rates were steadily going down, but would have been likely going down even faster without these gun deaths, and have actually gone up more than 20% from 2015-17. I don't think the statistics for 2018 are out yet, but let's hope it doesn't carry on this way as by 2012-14 the murder rate had dropped lower than any point since at least in 1960, but the uptick in the statistics and more importantly the radicalization that has come with it, to not make for a rosy outlook.

Out of interest, I went to look up 'death by gun by state' statistics, and cross referenced it with the states having the strictest and loosest gun laws:



Now, if we are to grant a state 4 points on the basis of being in that lowest <5.0 per capita tier, 3 points for being in the next tier, and so on until granting no points for

• Strictest gun law states: 41/50
• Loosest gun law states: 16/50

Also worth noting, the 8 loosest gun law states made up just 9 points, almost half came from the 'strictest' 2 of those loose 10 (Wisconsin 3, Idaho 4). Idaho was the only of the loosest 10 states to score higher than 3, not a single one of the 10 tightest states scored lower than a 3. And that is despite the strictest states having major cities and gang issues that go with it (NY, Chicago, Philadelphia, L.A. etc) while on the other side there New Orleans and that's more or less it for major cities. Yet here we are with the more rural, 'gun owners rights' states having far higher death rates from, guess what? Guns.

Seriously man, it's a spade.

It's also worth noting that of the loosest 10 states, every single one voted for Trump in 2016, while of the 10 loosest only 1 did (Pennsylvania, by 0.7%), which brings me on to my next point...

MISCONCEPTION 3: THINKING OR PRETENDING WE DO NOT KNOW THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THIS RECENT UPTICK IN EXTREMIST ATTACKS.

What might be the other reasons? White disillusionment? Could be, as though there were always poor Whites the society was much more White anglo saxon focussed. Young male disillusionment could play into it too. Mental illness is often wheeled out, but unless mental illness was much less an issue in the past then that's not as much in play(though personally I believe mental illness rates have been going way up beyond the better diagnosis these days reason would suggest). Some have linked anti depressant use as a possible factor, noting that the major upswing in this type of crime follows a very eimilar trajectory of the coming to market and use in the population of SSRI type medications. The internet and modern mass media must play into it. The disillusionment felt by many while they look at people apparently living it up on instagram, arsebook et al and it provides a place for more extreme types to grow and set out their extremist stalls and comforts and amps up those looking for reasons for their disillusionment.

There is a list of reasons and multiple different shooters with different motives, but again in the interest of calling a spade a spade what we are seeing most commonly in the US, by a large distance, are white supremacist and neo Nazi terrorist attacks in these incidents.

Especially since they now feel significantly more emboldened and have a President who is extremely hesitant to condemn or even speak badly of them, as he knows they make up a noteworthy chunk of his voter base. And who keeps seemingly finding himself by neo Nazis in his White House... even just last week they were even sending white supremacist literature to Jewish groups, and are literally using an actual white supremacist logo for their 2020 campaign.. And then to top it all off, Trump decided to go full Adolf and attack American Jews who don't vote for him as showing "great disloyalty" (google "the Jews are not loyal to the state" if you can't guess who said it first). All of that happened by the way, within the span of one week, less than a fortnight ago, and is so normalized in the US after the last few years that it didn't even get much media in the press. Funny enough, and despite his endless moaning, Trump actually gets a relative cakewalk in the US media compared to his predecessor.

A decade ago Islamic extremism was the primary cause of terrorism in the world, and today while I am not sure when speaking globally, it is neo Nazis who are the primary cause it in the US today, and noticeably. What is most amazing though, is how staggeringly similar the two groups are once you remove the first few exterior layers of paint.

Let's not dance around the bush about it, and just call a spade a spade.

Outlaw Pete

Alyssa Milano, Ted Cruz and Fred Guttenberg (the father of a 14-year-old killed at Parkland) had a live streamed discussion earlier today for anyone interested:


https://www.facebook.com/SenatorTedCruz/videos/645853819238579/