Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed
Options
Comments
-
-
BattleCorp wrote: »How are those unarmed citizens getting on in Myanmar at the moment?
Can you elaborate on what you feel the similarities are between the USA and Myanmar?0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Our sport/hobby/lifestyle is under constant attack, I see it every day here in Ireland so I can understand why the NRA and other shooting organisations resist at every stage because if you give an inch, the authorities will take a mile.
Did you ever consider that maybe your "sport/hobby/lifestyle" is no longer acceptable to society? There is no God given right to anything.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »Note I said this should be federal exercise.
Way to try to conflate the issue.
And if you don't see the difference in controlling access to what is proven to be a hazardous and detrimental activity (the laissez faire attitude to gun control) versus the right to speech and vote (both activities which are widely in the news already with respect to doing so) then I don't know what to tell you.
The right to drink in public, smoke indoors, take drugs, how we drive, the chemicals we put in to the environment etc are all controlled because of the recognition that not doing so would negatively impact on society, why should guns be any different given the evidence that is available as to the impact they have.
(But, given that you brought it up, why do you think Georgian officials brought in the raft of measures they did last week to impact on people voting and why Republicans (aside from enacting this at the state level) are largely in agreement with it on a national level.
Having to complete a background check before buying a gun at a gun show is an infringement on peoples rights if they are to be believed while giving someone, who might be waiting in line for several hours to vote, food or water is a criminal offence in their book. And you suggest gun control advocates should be the ones coming with reasonable ideas and solutions? Seriously? How does that make any sense?
You are under the impression that enlarging a system to encompass ~330 million people will somehow improve on cost and effectiveness? Every other effort in that regard has collapsed under massive costs, so that's a curious position to stake.
I don't see any difference between the freedoms to vote or free speech, and firearm ownership, as they're all protected under the Constitution. Attempts to diminish or encroach them ought to be vigorously beaten back. Not sure what gotcha moment you're going for with your whataboutery there.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »How are those unarmed citizens getting on in Myanmar at the moment?
Terrible. Completely unarmed.
How are the shooting stats looking in the U.S?
Terrible. Over-armed.
A middle ground might look something like UK.
How are they doing for all things firearm related?0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »You are under the impression that enlarging a system to encompass ~330 million people will somehow improve on cost and effectiveness? Every other effort in that regard has collapsed under massive costs, so that's a curious position to stake.
I don't see any difference between the freedoms to vote or free speech, and firearm ownership, as they're all protected under the Constitution. Attempts to diminish or encroach them ought to be vigorously beaten back. Not sure what gotcha moment you're going for with your whataboutery there.
First bold point. I'm not sure that there has been a concerted effort to have a nationwide database such as I suggest given the resistance thus far towards anything like this so please show where cost was the reason such an attempt failed so we can consider if things have changed since it was last tried.
Second bold point, the fact that some items, including those you mention are in the constitution as amendments shows that what it aims to guarantee can change based on what society feels is necessary. The idea of a well regulated militia (written in a time of muskets and a country of 2.5M) can counter the most heavily funded military in the world is absolutely nonsensical at this point. It fails in several ways; the development in weapons technology, the absolute lack of a any sort of cohesiveness amongst the citizens which might be a platform by which to formulate a response, the fact that so few other countries (if any) see arming their citizens for this purpose as being necessary and the fact that that the only time when democracy was seriously under attack since the civil war, was when pro-2A people sought to carry out an insurrection.
Finally, as an aside, how does this ability to respond to errant officials square away with the suggestion that all black people have to do is obey police and they won't get shot? Will that guidance be removed when republicans decide what they want is most important?
P.S. Any thoughts on why Republicans are limiting the access to voting, while demanding the 2A be maintained?0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »My point being that the citizens of Myanmar have nothing to fight back with...........because they are unarmed.
a) Do you think having the general population shooting at the government/army is a good idea and would work out well?
b) Your point seems to be that the US citizens would need to defend against a similar situation, do you really believe this?
It seems to most that the only thing armed civilians would need to defend themselves from is the government taking their guns...
Who gives you the right? You said that you don't want to cede any ground since it will eventually lead to more restricted access.BattleCorp wrote: »I'm not claiming it's a God-given right.
Really? That doesnt seem to line up with any of the polls I've seen.BattleCorp wrote: »I think the vast majority of citizens in the US reckon it's acceptable to society.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »Speaking as a gun owner here in Ireland, we have a well regulated licencing system but it's still death by a thousand cuts here.
Every few years we lose something, or some new rule that makes it more difficult to licence a gun.
Our sport/hobby/lifestyle is under constant attack, I see it every day here in Ireland so I can understand why the NRA and other shooting organisations resist at every stage because if you give an inch, the authorities will take a mile.
The vast majority of jobs people are doing today did not exist 100 years, the majority of hobby's people are doing now probably didn't exist even 50 years ago.
Things evolve, I think the system in Ireland is quite good given that you and others can own certain weapons and the rest of us don't even know about it. As long as it continues like that I personally don't think we need to change rules in Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »First bold point. I'm not sure that there has been a concerted effort to have a nationwide database such as I suggest given the resistance thus far towards anything like this so please show where cost was the reason such an attempt failed so we can consider if things have changed since it was last tried.
Second bold point, the fact that some items, including those you mention are in the constitution as amendments shows that what it aims to guarantee can change based on what society feels is necessary. The idea of a well regulated militia (written in a time of muskets and a country of 2.5M) can counter the most heavily funded military in the world is absolutely nonsensical at this point. It fails in several ways; the development in weapons technology, the absolute lack of a any sort of cohesiveness amongst the citizens which might be a platform by which to formulate a response, the fact that so few other countries (if any) see arming their citizens for this purpose as being necessary and the fact that that the only time when democracy was seriously under attack since the civil war, was when pro-2A people sought to carry out an insurrection.
Finally, as an aside, how does this ability to respond to errant officials square away with the suggestion that all black people have to do is obey police and they won't get shot? Will that guidance be removed when republicans decide what they want is most important?
P.S. Any thoughts on why Republicans are limiting the access to voting, while demanding the 2A be maintained?
You're all over the place, lurching from a stated desired to disregard people's rights in pursuit of their guns, to questioning the reasons why you shouldn't fight police. Yes, Amendments can be changed, as the name implies, that doesn't give the government leave to ignore those rights.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »You're all over the place, lurching from a stated desired to disregard people's rights in pursuit of their guns, to questioning the reasons why you shouldn't fight police. Yes, Amendments can be changed, as the name implies, that doesn't give the government leave to ignore those rights.
lol. I asked that question as an aside, as I literally said when I asked it.
Still waiting on an example of when the cost of a national gun registry prohibited its implementation.
Still waiting for a logical argument as to why something added to the constitution via amendment cannot be removed.
Still waiting on comments relating to voting rights being removed by Republicans who want guns to prevent a tyrannical government.
Keep going the way you're going, your lack of response and reasonable arguments are proving the lack of logic in all areas related to modifying gun laws.0 -
Did you ever consider that maybe your "sport/hobby/lifestyle" is no longer acceptable to society? There is no God given right to anything.
What is it about Irish gun owners' practices that YOU think is "no longer acceptable to society"?
What can Irish gun owners do that you would prefer to prevent them doing?
And what makes you so sure that YOU speak for "society" at large?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »lol. I asked that question as an aside, as I literally said when I asked it.
Still waiting on an example of when the cost of a national gun registry prohibited its implementation.
Still waiting for a logical argument as to why something added to the constitution via amendment cannot be removed.
Still waiting on comments relating to voting rights being removed by Republicans who want guns to prevent a tyrannical government.
Keep going the way you're going, your lack of response and reasonable arguments are proving the lack of logic in all areas related to modifying gun laws.
Here's an example from Canada of a national system.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.
You can see that it ran wildly over cost, and accomplished nothing of note. A common feature of such registries.
As to the rest of your post, who is arguing that such changes are illogical? The mechanism exists, has been used previously. So not sure what point you're striving for, other than an attempt to pad out an otherwise empty argument.0 -
Rows Grower wrote: »I'd hazard a guess that in the vast majority of cases where the 1,000 people were shot, the police felt that their lives were in a lot more danger compared to your situation.
It's almost like a catch 22 situation for a cop to have to deal with someone resisting arrest as things stand. There are just too many guns in circulation.
Well Duhhhh!!!!
So what's the answer? More guns????
It would seem to me that the better answer would be just the opposite, but I be a simple lad.
Let's try it another way: why, when so much of its popular culture and aspects of its society are so admired around the world and so widely copied by just about EVERYONE do so few other countries want to implement US style gun laws?
If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, what is a stubborn refusal to imitate something that is so central to a country's self image?
Seriously. The contempt around the world for US gun culture is so withering that it would be hard to put into words. And if you could, they would be so toxic you could only use their initials.
Just as well they don't give a rat's ass what other people think.0 -
Terrible. Completely unarmed.
How are the shooting stats looking in the U.S?
Terrible. Over-armed.
A middle ground might look something like UK.
How are they doing for all things firearm related?
I'd be one of those who are seeking a happy middle ground too. I wouldn't be in favour of American style gun laws over here. I'd like our system to be loosened up slightly but not to the extent that everyone could have a gun.0 -
a) Do you think having the general population shooting at the government/army is a good idea and would work out well?
If the Government are acting the boll1x such as the military are doing in Burma, then yes.
If every single person in Burma was armed, I doubt the Burmese army would be shooting protesters so flippantly.b) Your point seems to be that the US citizens would need to defend against a similar situation, do you really believe this?
Nope, I don't believe it. But that's not to say it's an impossibility. Who knows what could happen in the future.It seems to most that the only thing armed civilians would need to defend themselves from is the government taking their guns...
Not quite. Armed civilians in the US might sometimes have to defend themselves from armed criminals.Who gives you the right? You said that you don't want to cede any ground since it will eventually lead to more restricted access.
As things stand in the US, the law (in the form of the Constitution and most State Constitutions) give people the right to bear arms.
We've no right in Ireland, we are allowed them by authorisation (again the law but it's not as strong as the US law).
Yep, I don't want to cede any ground because here in Ireland I've witnessed law abiding shooters have their sport/hobby/lifestyle chipped away at constantly. Give an inch and the authorities take a mile. There are constant hurdles thrown in the way either by the Irish Government or the EU. Every few years we lose something we had.Really? That doesnt seem to line up with any of the polls I've seen.
Show me a poll where the majority of Americans favour the banning of guns?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »The vast majority of jobs people are doing today did not exist 100 years, the majority of hobby's people are doing now probably didn't exist even 50 years ago.
Things evolve, I think the system in Ireland is quite good given that you and others can own certain weapons and the rest of us don't even know about it. As long as it continues like that I personally don't think we need to change rules in Ireland.
In general our gun laws are ok here but there are one or two areas seriously in need of improvement.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »So you're outlining a combination of things that already exist (background checks and waiting periods), things that are economically non-viable (databases and registries) and things that in violation of the Constitution (not just 2nd Amendment).
One wonders why folks might resist the idea of 'Common Sense" measures. Curious how you square support for such invasions of personal privacy with the goal of a better, safer society?
And all the while conveniently ignoring that criminals and crazies will get guns illegally while law abiding citizens must jump through bureaucratic hoops to exercise their inalienable right to keep and bear arms.0 -
Isn't the whole gun control angle almost irrelevant to what happened?
A Syrian immigrant with a history of violence against white people, who was fully bought into media fueled narratives about "racism" went to a public space and murdered 10 white people. Surely any serious examination of the attack has to start with how this anti-white domestic terrorist was radicalized and his extreme views given credibility by mainstream culture in the US.
How he did it is a detail. He could just as easily have run amok with a knife. As did a black man on March 22nd when he stabbed a 12 year old white boy in the neck whilst screaming anti-white abuse. He could have doused people in flammable liquid and set them on fire, as did two black teenagers to an old white man back on March 16th. These sort of sadistic attacks on white people (the murder of cannon hinnant, and the 5 year old who was tossed off a balcony in a shopping centre also comes to mind) have been normalized. This is all the more telling in the context of BLM raising a character like Flyod to sainthood, and anti-white libels like Jussie Smollet and that Nascar driver being given such media support.0 -
Advertisement
-
Isn't the whole gun control angle almost irrelevant to what happened?
A Syrian immigrant with a history of violence against white people, who was fully bought into media fueled narratives about "racism" went to a public space and murdered 10 white people. Surely any serious examination of the attack has to start with how this anti-white domestic terrorist was radicalized and his extreme views given credibility by mainstream culture in the US.
How he did it is a detail. He could just as easily have run amok with a knife. As did a black man on March 22nd when he stabbed a 12 year old white boy in the neck whilst screaming anti-white abuse. He could have doused people in flammable liquid and set them on fire, as did two black teenagers to an old white man back on March 16th. These sort of sadistic attacks on white people (the murder of cannon hinnant, and the 5 year old who was tossed off a balcony in a shopping centre also comes to mind) have been normalized. This is all the more telling in the context of BLM raising a character like Flyod to sainthood, and anti-white libels like Jussie Smollet and that Nascar driver being given such media support.
And here are you standing up for good old 'conservative' values by trying to draw attention to crimes committed by black people like you either deliberately want to deflect from the conversation or through an incapacity to understand that several different things have different relevant elements associated with them.
Interesting you didn't mention the crime just the week before in which 8 people at asian businesses were killed and whether or not there should be consideration as to how he may been radicalised and whether or not the cop who tacitly tried to explain how he had just had had a bad day and who had also pushed anti-asian sentiment may have also been radicalised.
No, none of that, just lets presume islamic radicalisation on one side, excuse cops for excessive force in a given situation and try to suggest the only people committing crime are black people.
Meanwhile, the rest of us here are discussing whether or not the sheer volumes of goods in the US (About 1.2 for every person) is something which contributes to these attacks being carried out and if so what can be done about it.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »
Interesting you didn't mention the crime just the week before in which 8 people at asian businesses were killed and whether or not there should be consideration as to how he may been radicalised and whether or not the cop who tacitly tried to explain how he had just had had a bad day and who had also pushed anti-asian sentiment may have also been radicalised.
That’s not the subject of this thread though. That said, as a moderate sinophile, I agree that Trumps rhetoric was problematic. Also anti white rhetoric may well have contributed to the killings here. And indeed easy access to guns.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »That’s not the subject of this thread though. That said, as a moderate sinophile, I agree that Trumps rhetoric was problematic. Also anti white rhetoric may well have contributed to the killings here. And indeed easy access to guns.
Subject of the thread isn't George Floyd or those other crimes either, can I ask, why you extracted that portion of my post to say that it is not the focus of this thread?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Subject of the thread isn't George Floyd or those other crimes either, can I ask, why you extracted that portion of my post to say that it is not the focus of this thread?
Because that was the bit I was responding to as not relevant. Not sure why you mentioned George Floyd.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »And here are you standing up for good old 'conservative' values by trying to draw attention to crimes committed by black people like you either deliberately want to deflect from the conversation or through an incapacity to understand that several different things have different relevant elements associated with them.
Interesting you didn't mention the crime just the week before in which 8 people at asian businesses were killed and whether or not there should be consideration as to how he may been radicalised and whether or not the cop who tacitly tried to explain how he had just had had a bad day and who had also pushed anti-asian sentiment may have also been radicalised.
No, none of that, just lets presume islamic radicalisation on one side, excuse cops for excessive force in a given situation and try to suggest the only people committing crime are black people.
Meanwhile, the rest of us here are discussing whether or not the sheer volumes of goods in the US (About 1.2 for every person) is something which contributes to these attacks being carried out and if so what can be done about it.
Are you planning on reengaging on your claims re: databases and legislation?0 -
Tell me how wrote: »And here are you standing up for good old 'conservative' values by trying to draw attention to crimes committed by black people like you either deliberately want to deflect from the conversation or through an incapacity to understand that several different things have different relevant elements associated with them.
No, I'm highlighting hateful attacks committed against white people. Very telling though that you couldn't see that.Interesting you didn't mention the crime just the week before in which 8 people at asian businesses were killed and whether or not there should be consideration as to how he may been radicalised and whether or not the cop who tacitly tried to explain how he had just had had a bad day and who had also pushed anti-asian sentiment may have also been radicalised.
Interesting you're still pushing those false narratives which were driven by the media. That was widely portrayed in media as a far right white terrorist attack on Asians, despite the reality that two of those shot were themselves white. So white people were simultaneously victims of that shooting and libeled.No, none of that, just lets presume islamic radicalisation on one side,
I didn't mention islamic radicalization at all. The Boulder shooter was definitely radicalized, but not by Islam.excuse cops for excessive force in a given situation and try to suggest the only people committing crime are black people.
That's interesting projection given the entirely false claims that mass shootings are a white male thing. And again, your regard for white people is so low you cant process a discussion from the point of view of attacks against them.Meanwhile, the rest of us here are discussing whether or not the sheer volumes of goods in the US (About 1.2 for every person) is something which contributes to these attacks being carried out and if so what can be done about it.
Its entirely irrelevant to who was targeted in the attack and where that attack originated from. The issue is this attack against white people happened, not the method of how it was carried out.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Are you planning on reengaging on your claims re: databases and legislation?
Absolutely not, if it's going to be expensive, let the gun industry pay towards it. Id be perfectly fine with the network of gun sellers being responsible for the administration of it which should make it much less expensive than setting up a new body to do it.
It just needs to be traceable and have the ability for it to be audited to ensure it is working.
Are you going to comment on why you think conservatives are so forceful on maintaining the 2A to protect against tyrannical government, while simultaneously so active in inhibiting peoples access to voting?0 -
No, I'm highlighting hateful attacks committed against white people. Very telling though that you couldn't see that.
Interesting you're still pushing those false narratives which were driven by the media. That was widely portrayed in media as a far right white terrorist attack on Asians, despite the reality that two of those shot were themselves white. So white people were simultaneously victims of that shooting and libeled.
I didn't mention islamic radicalization at all. The Boulder shooter was definitely radicalized, but not by Islam.
That's interesting projection given the entirely false claims that mass shootings are a white male thing. And again, your regard for white people is so low you cant process a discussion from the point of view of attacks against them.
Its entirely irrelevant to who was targeted in the attack and where that attack originated from. The issue is this attack against white people happened, not the method of how it was carried out.
So you don't want to hypothesize on why 8 people at Asian businesses might have been shot but are sure that other attacks are definitively motivated by a hatred of whites?
That aside, why is it you think that having better gun control will not influence the ability of people, irrespective of their motivation from carrying out attacks?
There are people motivated against others in every other country and society, we don't see the same levels of attacks or deaths in many comparable ones as what we see in the US, there is only a singular difference....0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Because that was the bit I was responding to as not relevant. Not sure why you mentioned George Floyd.
Because it was in the post I was responding to...0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »Absolutely not, if it's going to be expensive, let the gun industry pay towards it. Id be perfectly fine with the network of gun sellers being responsible for the administration of it which should make it much less expensive than setting up a new body to do it.
It just needs to be traceable and have the ability for it to be audited to ensure it is working.
Are you going to comment on why you think conservatives are so forceful on maintaining the 2A to protect against tyrannical government, while simultaneously so active in inhibiting peoples access to voting?
To your question, they do so to play to their base. Is that meant to be some sort of gotcha? In the same manner as Democrats parrot empty identity politics slogans.
Given the details of how the Canadian system failed, how do you envision a federal one in the US would work.
How do you think it will prevent firearms related deaths?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement