Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

Manic Moran

The difference is, that angry or ill person can go to a Walmart and buy a gun in America.

Angry, yes. Ill, there are laws against it.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hasn't worked anywhere else. Look up Canada, Australia and New Zealand for estimated compliance rates for new legislation covering unregistered weapons. (Obviously estimated, since by definition nobody knows the true answers). Unlike Aussie and Kiwiland, where guns had to be surrendered, the Canadians only had to register them. They estimated maybe 30% compliance before the system was abandoned as useless.

Registering doesn't stop anyone from malfeasance with the weapon either, so it's more a feel-good piece of legislation.



It's also a bit self-fulfilling. The reason that they are only a novelty value is that there are currently cheaper ways of making your own gun, and they're getting cheaper all the time. A CNC milling machine which you plug into your laptop capable of turning a block of aluminium into a rifle receiver which cost $1,400 in 2014 today costs $500. It's still cheaper and easier to go to the store and buy a pre-built rifle, so even at that most folks don't currently use them. Remove the option of going to the store, however, and this sort of thing happens:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/10/12/a-california-man-sold-illegal-ar-15s-feds-agreed-to-let-him-go-free-to-avoid-hurting-gun-control-efforts/
For more than a year, Joseph Roh illegally manufactured AR-15-style rifles in a warehouse south of Los Angeles.

His customers, more than two dozen of whom were legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, could push a button, pull a lever, and walk away a short time later with a fully assembled, untraceable semi-automatic weapon for about $1,000, according to court records.

However, recent demonstrations indicate that if you want to make a gun with a 3D printer at home, you can now make one which is reliable.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/02/3d-printed-semi-automatic-rifle-fgc-9.html
If you already have a 3D printer (the recommended one is about $250) and basic hand tools, it costs about $100 for the rest of the tools to build the barrel, then about $100 in supplies for each gun after that

It shouldn't be surprising. People were making guns with 17th century technology. Ignoring the march of technology isn't a solution for the gun control problem.



Do I have to remind you the stats around effective defensive use from an owner's gun? You cannot look at the one without looking at the other.



Very common misconception. University of Melbourne could find no causal relationship between the rifle ban and the reduction in shootings. Police say better policing and government social policy is the cause. And, of course, there's the matter of just how many firearms were in circulation and neither registered nor handed in. You will note that there have been (according to Wiki) 28 gun amnesties in Australia since Port Arthur, which indicates that that at least 27 times before, there was something other than acceptable compliance levels. They figure there are at least a half-million unregistered firearms in Australia right now, and that compliance with the ban was on the order of about 25-30%. And, again, there's the Canadian example, which is probably more applicable to the US anyway, with a similar rate of non-compliance. Or California's recent registration requirement. Some 4% compliance. https://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-group-3-percent-californians-assault-weapons-registered-latest-gun-law/

It's a law which is not likely to be followed, and which is pretty much impossible to enforce. For example, the Idaho Constitution specifically prohibits registration of firearms, and also specifically prohibits confiscation of firearms unless they have been used unlawfully. (Article 1, Section 11) Is Idaho going to change the Constitution to allow it?

It's similar to the question of why Chicago has so much violence discussed a few pages back. "They just bring the guns in from where the guns are legal" Well, if it were merely a matter of the guns, the places where the guns are legal would be even worse. The question isn't "where are they getting the guns", it's "why are they shooting each other and what can we in the government do to make them stop?". Australia figured out a good answer to that question.



Also not likely to be. Two pieces of evidence show to this. The first is that the trend of amendments has been in the other direction. Since 1980, fifteen States have amended their constitutions to affect their right to arms. Not one was in the direction of tightening them.

The most recent was 2014, Missouri. It used to say (As enacted in 1945)
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons
Now it says
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity

It's typical. The one before that was Louisiana in 2012, it went from "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged" to "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed"

The last state to add any sort of reference at all was Wisconsin. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Given the mechanism to change the Federal Constitution requires 2/3 of States to approve, and the States themselves seem disinclined to do it, any statements about how 2A 'can be changed' ignores the reality on the ground that they won't be

Secondly, history aside, the current trend is that there has been a shift to gun ownership in the US.
https://newschannel9.com/news/local/tectonic-shift-as-first-time-gun-buyers-grow-to-nearly-5-million#:~:text=%E2%80%94%20Nearly%205%20million%20Americans%20purchased,never%20previously%20owned%20a%20firearm.
Nearly 5 million Americans purchased a firearm for the very first time in 2020, according to NSSF, the trade association for the firearm industry. NSSF surveyed firearm retailers which reported that 40 percent of sales were conducted to purchasers who have never previously owned a firearm

NSSF surveys revealed that 58 percent of firearm purchases were among African American men and women, the largest increase of any demographic group. Women comprised 40 percent of first-time gun purchasers. Retailers noted that they are seeing a 95 percent increase in firearm sales and a 139 percent increase in ammunition sales over the same period in 2019.

So historically, there's no indication of likelihood of a 2A change, and current indications are that a whole bunch more people are suddenly looking favourably upon gun ownership. Any plan which relies on the changing of the Federal Constitution, unless it's to loosen laws, is not worth debating as a practical policy. It's not going to happen.

Effectiveness of legislation doesn't seem to be a concern amongst conservatives when it comes to drug laws, and yet we are being told that gun registration should not even be attempted, because it isn't going to work? I have already said that there would be resistance to it, but that does not mean that such a thing is not necessary.

In relation to the amendment of amendments. Again, what you are saying is it is unlikely to happen, not that it cannot. And also suggesting that the inference is that it would be removed entirely. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that just because something is in the constitution does not guarantee that it is forever going to be this way. I have argued in this thread that gun ownership is fine, but that it should be controlled and regulated (as outlined in the constitution). I believe that the justification that people use as to what the 2A means, that guns are necessary to prevent a tyrannical takeover is completely redundant.

If you want to argue that a whole bunch of people are looking favorably upon gun ownership, then you have to accept that the majority of people favor more gun control. So, by all means lets here some suggestions as to what that control should look like to try to bring America statistics more in to line with comparable countries than what they currently are. In fact, I think anyone with a general desire to see a safe and unified society should see such increase in gun sales as you have outlined as massive red flags as to what it says about the country. I'd like to see a conservative argue that America is the greatest country in the world with a population so motivated to either commit or defend themselves from violent acts.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Thankfully your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.

On a discussion forum? Really?

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

The AR15 semi-automatic rifle is the most popular rifle used in target competitions in the US. Perfect for target shooting.

Sure, but you dont need a semi auto to hit a target.

BattleCorp wrote: »

So ban bump stocks. Either ways the firearm wasn't a fully auto firearm and fully auto firearms are hardly ever the cause of gun deaths in the US.

Its an example of how people will get around legislation.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Same could be said of fists. But I still think it's better to have a gun and not need one, than to need a gun and not have one.

But only someone pro-gun thinks in terms of "need a gun".

BattleCorp wrote: »

Funny enough, that's something that's illegal in Ireland. You can't go to a range and rent a semi-auto rifle and shoot. But you can use your own one (fully licenced) and bring it home with you.

Like I said earlier, and you can check this out if you don't believe me, semi-auto AR15's are the most popular target shooting rifle in the US. According to you all these law abiding target shooters should have their guns taken off them?

I doubt you've ever done target shooting. It's very technical. People need to customise their guns to suit themselves (buttstock placement, eye relief etc.). You can't go to a range and rent a gun and expect to do well in competitions.

I know that, but thats not a good enough reason imo. everyone can use the same stock gun, hell the most gun crazy parts of the US live and die Nascar.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Neither do I. I'm fine with the fact that we aren't allowed guns for self defence here in Ireland. That said, if I lived in the US, I'd have one for self defence. It wouldn't be my primary purpose for having one, I'd also use it for target shooting.

If you were being mugged and had a gun would you really pull it out? Stats show that all that will happen is that either you just get shot because you escalated the situation OR you get your gun taken from you and then get shot.

Rows Grower

Manic Moran wrote: »

Angry, yes. Ill, there are laws against it.

I was watching a documentary last night about a shooting in the US years ago, one of these FBI shows. They traced that the gun used to be an AK47. The first thing they did was trace all recent purchases as most multiple killings are carried out by someone who only recently purchased the gun.

Sure enough they traced your man, an angry man that purchased the rifle 3 days before murdering the innocent people outside the CIA offices. Crazy situation.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

Sure, but you dont need a semi auto to hit a target.

You don't even need a gun. You can throw stones at a target. I don't know what your point is though. You are allowed a semi-auto both here and in the US for target shooting. We don't need swimming pools yet they exist.

Semi-autos are totally suitable for target shooting.

Its an example of how people will get around legislation.

It's an example of how useless legislation can be in preventing gun violence if someone is intent on causing harm.

I know that, but thats not a good enough reason imo. everyone can use the same stock gun, hell the most gun crazy parts of the US live and die Nascar.

Would we ask Messi to play using someone else's football boots that were maybe a few sizes too big or small? Nope. Why? He wouldn't play as well using someone else's footwear that didn't fit him. Same principle for renting guns. You won't shoot as well with a gun that's configured for someone else. I'm small with short arms. Do you think a gun configured for Shaquille O'Neal would suit me? Or the fact that I'm right handed yet I'm left eye dominant.

If you were being mugged and had a gun would you really pull it out? Stats show that all that will happen is that either you just get shot because you escalated the situation OR you get your gun taken from you and then get shot.

That's a difficult question to answer without being in that situation.

I wouldn't be able to pull it out here in Ireland because I'm not allowed to carry my guns for self defence. If I was in the US, I don't know. If I thought I'd an opportunity to use the gun to defend myself, then I might use the gun. Impossible to know if I'd do that though if push came to shove.

If I saw someone breaking into my house, then yes, I'd possibly have more time to evaluate the situation and I'd more than likely pull out my gun.

Manic Moran

I know that, but thats not a good enough reason imo. everyone can use the same stock gun, hell the most gun crazy parts of the US live and die Nascar.

Interestingly, one of the features that the AR-15 (and related rifles) has is that everyone can use the same gun because of the adjustable stock, which is considered a defining characteristic in many "assault weapons bans". Not everyone has the same length of arm, so an adjustable stock means you only need the one rifle.

Another feature also is that you can change out the top half, so if you want your 12-year-old to shoot, pull the two pins, swap the upper for something like a .22, and slide the stock forward. You can then go to the long-distance-range next door, slide the stock out, swap the upper to .223 and shoot target. Then if your wife wants to go hunt deer, slide the stock back in a bit, swap the upper for a deer round like 6.8, and away you go. Semi-auto also provides less felt recoil.

This is partly why the AR is the most popularly sold rifle in the US and has been for years. It can do pretty much everything.

BattleCorp

Manic Moran wrote: »

Interestingly, one of the features that the AR-15 (and related rifles) has is that everyone can use the same gun because of the adjustable stock, which is considered a defining characteristic in many "assault weapons bans". Not everyone has the same length of arm, so an adjustable stock means you only need the one rifle.

With respect, because I know you know what you are talking about, but I disagree that everyone can use the same gun in competition and shoot to the best of their ability but I do take your point that the AR15 is very customisable and adaptable for people of all shapes and sizes.

Some people need different type scopes, different eye relief etc. To achieve excellence in competitions, guns need to be tuned to suit the shooter.

AbusesToilets

GreeBo wrote: »

On a discussion forum? Really?

You're hopelessly ignorant with respect to firearms, the technology, their uses and benefits. You frame your argument from a feeling, that you dislike their existence in society.

Debating with you is therefore rather pointless, as everything you put forward stems from a desire for eradication. So yes, irrelevant.

AbusesToilets

Kirby wrote: »

This is a massive obfuscation of the problem. Which is easy access to weapons of war.

If you follow your logic train through to its natural next stop....that the problem is mental illness....why are mass shootings so common in America and so rare everywhere else? Is the rest of the world a mental health utopia?

Mental illness will never go away. Disgruntled or angry people will never go away. And they exist everywhere in the world.

The difference is, that angry or ill person can go to a Walmart and buy a gun in America. Can't do that anywhere else. Those angry or ill people will have a knife everywhere else in the world, not an automatic weapon designed to kill people in a war.

How much damage do you think that guy with a "butter knife" can do? Is he going to kill dozens of people? No, he isn't. A butter knife is designed to butter your bread. A gun is designed to kill people. The guy going on a rampage with a butter knife is using something in an unintended way. The guy going on a rampage with a gun is using the gun for exactly what it was designed for. Thats why you don't ban butter knives, but DO ban guns.

The issue isn't mental illness. The issue is easy access to guns. Stop acting the maggot with this narrative. It's nonsense.

The main source of firearm deaths is suicide. Hardly obfuscation to focus on mental health if ones goal is a reduction in those cases.

Kirby

Manic Moran wrote: »

Angry, yes. Ill, there are laws against it.

Are you arguing that its not easy for a mental case to get a gun?

You think people who go on murder sprees are.....mentally stable?

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The main source of firearm deaths is suicide. Hardly obfuscation to focus on mental health if ones goal is a reduction in those cases.

In the BLM conversation it was argued by many that diverting public funds from militarised police forces towards mental health supporting initiatives was not appropriate.
Now, you are suggesting gun control is not necessary, mental health care is.

You have also said that a gun registry would fail, partly because of the expense involved.

How much do you envisage appropriate mental health initiatives would cost to significantly reduce the number of gun inflicted injuries, and where would the money come from?

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

In the BLM conversation it was argued by many that diverting public funds from militarised police forces towards mental health supporting initiatives was not appropriate.
Now, you are suggesting gun control is not necessary, mental health care is.

You have also said that a gun registry would fail, partly because of the expense involved.

How much do you envisage appropriate mental health initiatives would cost to significantly reduce the number of gun inflicted injuries, and where would the money come from?

I have no knowledge of your claim with respect to previous discussions in relation to BLM et al. Doesn't seem particularly pertainent.

I don't have any estimate as to what improvements with respect to mental health resources would cost. More than is currently allocated. Perhaps they could find the money by abolishing the ATF and DEA, two agencies that provide little benefit to the nation.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I have no knowledge of your claim with respect to previous discussions in relation to BLM et al. Doesn't seem particularly pertainent.

I don't have any estimate as to what improvements with respect to mental health resources would cost. More than is currently allocated. Perhaps they could find the money by abolishing the ATF and DEA, two agencies that provide little benefit to the nation.

So, what you are advocating for is no gun control and also to abolish the ATF and DEA? Is that the case?

Given that you want to abolish 2 of the biggest law enforcement agencies, is it fair to say you are ok with the concept of 'defunding the police' in that some funds currently going to police budgets would be put in to, amongst other things, funding mental health officials to deal with mental health issues?

Manic Moran

Kirby wrote: »

Are you arguing that its not easy for a mental case to get a gun?

You think people who go on murder sprees are.....mentally stable?

Not identifiably so at the time, at least. There's this bizarre concept going around that people can go to a psychiatrist for a clean bill of mental health, much like going to the GP for a physical. It can't be done. An assessment is never done on the basis of an interview, it's done on the basis of a period of time and multiple sources of information, except in the case of really obvious cases.

See this Parliamentary Report done for the UK
https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/98795/pn087.pdf . Section three is on psychological assessments. It concludes: "Most experts conclude, therefore, that the clinical approach to assessing dangerousness is a non-starter for
screening gun applicants."

This article by a psychiatrist also discusses the problem of defining "mentally ill" for the purposes of danger to others. https://theconversation.com/mental-illness-and-gun-laws-what-you-may-not-know-about-the-complexities-92337

There is a further problem which has been identified: It was proposed a while back that anyone seeking treatment for any mental health issues at all would be prohibited from access to firearms. The result was that people were disincentivised from obtaining the help that they needed for fear of losing their firearms. The end result, worse mental health.

For a case in point, go back to 2017. Remember all the headlines, "Trump makes it easier for the mentally ill to get guns?" If so, why did disability groups and the ACLU support the move? It's all in the details of identifying who is a risk. https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/06/politics/obama-trump-mental-illness-gun-rule-fact-check

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

So, what you are advocating for is no gun control and also to abolish the ATF and DEA? Is that the case?

Given that you want to abolish 2 of the biggest law enforcement agencies, is it fair to say you are ok with the concept of 'defunding the police' in that some funds currently going to police budgets would be put in to, amongst other things, funding mental health officials to deal with mental health issues?

Two agencies with a long history of infringement on personal freedoms, that serve mainly as outdated morality police. No great loss, and ones whose roles could be subsumed into the FBI and other agencies as necessary.

Kirby

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The main source of firearm deaths is suicide. Hardly obfuscation to focus on mental health if ones goal is a reduction in those cases.

If somebody wants to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it.

Suicide has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of mass shootings.

The only reason a person would want to focus on mental health instead of guns is because they want to divert attention away from guns.

People have mental issues everywhere else in the world. But they don't have mass shootings. They are exceedingly rare.

The difference is gun control. The rest of the civilized world has it. America doesn't. This isn't a complex issue. It might be complicated to solve.....but the problem itself is incredibly easy to identify.

AbusesToilets

Kirby wrote: »

If somebody wants to kill themselves, they don't need a gun to do it.

Suicide has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of mass shootings.

The only reason a person would want to focus on mental health instead of guns is because they want to divert attention away from guns.

People have mental issues everywhere else in the world. But they don't have mass shootings. They are exceedingly rare.

The difference is gun control. The rest of the civilized world has it. America doesn't. This isn't a complex issue. It might be complicated to solve.....but the problem itself is incredibly easy to identify.

So your interest isn't in reducing deaths, it's to get rid of guns. If you're main issue is mass shootings, then given the majority of those occur in the course of other criminal activity, using illegally held guns, how do you suggest "gun control" will impact that. Most violence occurs in black communities, using handguns, yet you'd push for banning rifles. Please explain that logic.

randd1

Am I the only one that's thinking the following;

- If nothing is going to change over there regarding guns, either in attitude or access, they deserve whatever shootings they get and need to just get on with it?
- That America in general is a mentally sick country, and that gun addiction is just one of their ailments?
- That the outside world simply sees them now not as the City on the Hill, but the open sewer at the bottom of it where all the shi* is?
- That some sort of minor armed conflict (race war/anti-government/violent government clampdown/poverty strikes) will occur in the US in the next 50 years before the Federal Government steps in to end it?

Tell me how

randd1 wrote: »

Am I the only one that's thinking the following;

- If nothing is going to change over there regarding guns, either in attitude or access, they deserve whatever shootings they get and need to just get on with it?

No. With that attitude, you'd never fix any issue in any society, just shrug your shoulders and say that it is what it is. America is in the middle of a conversation about guns, the fact that that is happening is better than if it wasn't even if it is taking a painfully long time.

- That America in general is a mentally sick country, and that gun addiction is just one of their ailments?

It's an over simplification. There are all sorts in every country. Selfish people, generous people, mentally ill people, criminals, socially minded people, religiously focused people. America maybe gives a platform to these people more so than what happens in other countries.

- That the outside world simply sees them now not as the City on the Hill, but the open sewer at the bottom of it where all the shi* is?

It's nowhere near being the 'greatest country in the world, that many within profess it to be, but its closer to being this than it is to being the open sewer you suggest might be the case.

- That some sort of minor armed conflict (race war/anti-government/violent government clampdown/poverty strikes) will occur in the US in the next 50 years before the Federal Government steps in to end it?

Unfortunately you might be on to something here. The 2 party political system is tailor made to sow division as it is too easy to categorise someone as 'the enemy'. The continued support for Trump, inspite of his complete ineptitude for a role as a politician nevermind President is evidence of this. It is now so expensive to run political campaigns that the idea of a meaningful 3rd party emerging on the national level, which is what is needed to influence meaningful change in how politics is carried out is completely unrealistic in the real world.
I certainly thought after Trumps insurrection attempt that the GOP would splinter with some hardcore right wing forming something to continue to support his brand of politics but that the saner heads in the GOP would prevail and cut them loose. What we saw was these 'saner' heads running after him. I think this indicates that they know that any splintering of the conservative vote will effectively hand power to the Democrats and so they are choosing this route. And, to bring it back to your point, I think a significant conflict or unrest is what it will take to significantly change things in this respect.

BattleCorp

Tell me how wrote: »

No. With that attitude, you'd never fix any issue in any society, just shrug your shoulders and say that it is what it is. America is in the middle of a conversation about guns, the fact that that is happening is better than if it wasn't even if it is taking a painfully long time.

I personally think that the coversation is pointed in the wrong direction. I know what I say next will make it seem like I don't care about mass shootings but that's couldn't be further from the truth. I'm as concerned about them as anybody else.

Ask most people what the biggest gun problem in the US is and they'll nearly always say AR15s and mass shootings.

But here are some interesting stats.

According to the link below, at least 15,292 people were fatally shot in the US in 2019. And that figure excludes suicides. https://www.thetrace.org/2020/01/gun-deaths-2019-increase/

There's disagreement regarding the number of people who need to be killed before it's called a mass shooting, but if we agree on a figure of 4, around 210 people were killed in these shootings (give or take a few as the article below says over 210 people). https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-mass-killings-hit-new-high-2019-most-were-n1106866

So, lets divide 210 by 15,292 = .01373 (x100) = 1.37% of people killed in shootings (that aren't suicide related) are as a result of mass shootings.

So, most of the focus is on something that accounts for 1.37% of gun deaths (excluding suicide). That sounds a bit misguided to me.

Focus on the 1.37% and sort of ignore 98.5% of the problem.

Like I've said before, I'm in favour of gun control, but not gun banning.

It's also strange that California, having some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, also have the most number of mass shootings.

Kirby

There is so much wrong with your post I had to split it up.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So your interest isn't in reducing deaths, it's to get rid of guns.

Says who? I never said anything of the sort. I simply corrected you that suicides have absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings and by trying to equate the two as having some sort of major link, you are trying a little "please look over here and not at the real problem!" razzle dazzle. It doesn't work.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

If you're main issue is mass shootings, then given the majority of those occur in the course of other criminal activity, using illegally held guns

This isn't true and a ludicrous statement. "occur in the course of other criminal activity?" Thats nonsense. You think these people are out shoplifting or holding up a store and just decide to knock out a mass murder at the same time? Utter nonsense.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Most violence occurs in black communities, using handguns, yet you'd push for banning rifles. Please explain that logic.

Again, where does this assumption come from? "You would push for banning rifles". I never said such a thing nor hinted at it. If you want to discuss this properly (I doubt you do) then you must resist the strawman.

We arent talking about "violence". We are talking about mass shootings which do NOT infact "mostly occur in black communities".

As for banning, I never suggested anything of the sort. My issue is which the ease every tom dick and harry can obtain a firearm because of their "rights" and the limits currently in place are woefully inadquate. You need a license to own a dog. You need a license to drive a car. Why not require a license to own a gun? There needs to be checks and balances for something as lethal as a firearm and at the moment they are laughable.

GreeBo

BattleCorp wrote: »

You don't even need a gun. You can throw stones at a target. I don't know what your point is though. You are allowed a semi-auto both here and in the US for target shooting. We don't need swimming pools yet they exist.

? Not sure I get the relevance, if you can cite some examples of where someone killed a bunch of people via a swimming pool I'm all ears.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Semi-autos are totally suitable for target shooting.

so are bazookas.

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's an example of how useless legislation can be in preventing gun violence if someone is intent on causing harm.

The point is that its much harder to do it if you dont have a thing thats specifically designed to kill lots of people.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would we ask Messi to play using someone else's football boots that were maybe a few sizes too big or small? Nope. Why? He wouldn't play as well using someone else's footwear that didn't fit him. Same principle for renting guns. You won't shoot as well with a gun that's configured for someone else. I'm small with short arms. Do you think a gun configured for Shaquille O'Neal would suit me? Or the fact that I'm right handed yet I'm left eye dominant.

Neither Messi nor Shaq play with things that are specifically designed to kill people.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I wouldn't be able to pull it out here in Ireland because I'm not allowed to carry my guns for self defence. If I was in the US, I don't know. If I thought I'd an opportunity to use the gun to defend myself, then I might use the gun. Impossible to know if I'd do that though if push came to shove.

Do you think having a gun on you in an altercation is likely is escalate or deescalate any situation?

BattleCorp wrote: »

If I saw someone breaking into my house, then yes, I'd possibly have more time to evaluate the situation and I'd more than likely pull out my gun.

Again though, in the US at least, the likelihood is that the other guy has a gun, do you think your showing a weapon is likely to make the situation better or worse?
Also, would you pull the gun expecting to kill the other guy or just to scare them off? Are you prepared to shoot and kill someone for B&E?

BattleCorp wrote: »

The AR15 semi-automatic rifle is the most popular rifle used in target competitions in the US. Perfect for target shooting.

Thats great, but there was target shooting before the AR15, there will be target shooting without it. And if not, I dont think its the end of the world?

BattleCorp wrote: »

So ban bump stocks. Either ways the firearm wasn't a fully auto firearm and fully auto firearms are hardly ever the cause of gun deaths in the US.

Ok so then is the argument not to ban semi-automatics?

BattleCorp wrote: »

Same could be said of fists. But I still think it's better to have a gun and not need one, than to need a gun and not have one.

I think its hard to quantify what "needing a gun" actually means?
You might consider needing a gun the possibility of being in a gun fight, others might think its the possibility of a bar fight.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Neither do I. I'm fine with the fact that we aren't allowed guns for self defence here in Ireland. That said, if I lived in the US, I'd have one for self defence. It wouldn't be my primary purpose for having one, I'd also use it for target shooting.

This is interesting to me, so it seems that the only reason you believe you need a gun is because other people have guns (US vs IRE)?
Isn't that just an argument for *more* gun control/restrictions?

biko

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's also strange that California, having some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, also have the most number of mass shootings.

This is strange. They are way ahead of everyone else and almost twice as many as the runner-up Florida.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/811541/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-state/

The worst mass shooting in the U.S. was the Nevada Las Vegas Strip massacre in 2017, which resulted in 58 deaths and 546 injuries.
We still don't know why he shot all those people.

Itssoeasy

There was another mass Shooting overnight in Orange County, California where four people including a child were killed at an office complex and the shooter was taken alive with injuries.

BattleCorp

GreeBo wrote: »

? Not sure I get the relevance, if you can cite some examples of where someone killed a bunch of people via a swimming pool I'm all ears.
so are bazookas.

There are lots of things that we have that we don't need. Cigarettes for example. The relevance is that an AR15 is very suitable for target shooting, and many other purposes for that matter.

You are being ridiculous with your bazookas comment. I'm sure you can hit a target with a bazooka but they aren't used in target shooting competitions. AR15's are used in target shooting competitions. They are the most common rifle used in target shooting competitions in the US.

Do you think having a gun on you in an altercation is likely is escalate or deescalate any situation?

Again though, in the US at least, the likelihood is that the other guy has a gun, do you think your showing a weapon is likely to make the situation better or worse?

Every situation is different. Yes, having a gun could escalate some situations. It could also conclude some situations too. It all depends on the situation.

Also, would you pull the gun expecting to kill the other guy or just to scare them off? Are you prepared to shoot and kill someone for B&E?

If you pull a gun, the hope is to scare the other person away but if you pull it, you better be prepared to use it. But that's the point of having a gun for self-defence.

Personally, I'd rather not shoot someone for B&E but if my life or the life of my family was in danger and I was allowed a gun for self-defence, I'd be prepared to use it. I'd like to think it would be a last resort though.

Thats great, but there was target shooting before the AR15, there will be target shooting without it. And if not, I dont think its the end of the world?

That's no reason to get rid of them. What you are suggesting is to get rid of the most popular rifle in the US when the vast majority of owners use them for lawful purposes. Hardly seems right.

Ok so then is the argument not to ban semi-automatics?

Same answer as above.

This is interesting to me, so it seems that the only reason you believe you need a gun is because other people have guns (US vs IRE)?
Isn't that just an argument for *more* gun control/restrictions?

Not quite. If the other guy didn't have a gun, then yes, you probably don't need a gun. But the fact that the other guy in the US more than likely has a gun means that if you want to give yourself a fighting chance, you also need a gun.

If yourself and myself were to have a fight and you had your fists and I had the gun, which one of us is more likely to win? Being unarmed is a disadvantage if an armed person is intent on causing you harm.

AbusesToilets

Kirby wrote: »

There is so much wrong with your post I had to split it up.



Says who? I never said anything of the sort. I simply corrected you that suicides have absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings and by trying to equate the two as having some sort of major link, you are trying a little "please look over here and not at the real problem!" razzle dazzle. It doesn't work.



This isn't true and a ludicrous statement. "occur in the course of other criminal activity?" Thats nonsense. You think these people are out shoplifting or holding up a store and just decide to knock out a mass murder at the same time? Utter nonsense.




Again, where does this assumption come from? "You would push for banning rifles". I never said such a thing nor hinted at it. If you want to discuss this properly (I doubt you do) then you must resist the strawman.

We arent talking about "violence". We are talking about mass shootings which do NOT infact "mostly occur in black communities".

As for banning, I never suggested anything of the sort. My issue is which the ease every tom dick and harry can obtain a firearm because of their "rights" and the limits currently in place are woefully inadquate. You need a license to own a dog. You need a license to drive a car. Why not require a license to own a gun? There needs to be checks and balances for something as lethal as a firearm and at the moment they are laughable.

Those aren't assumptions, they're straight facts. Look up FBI statistics for crime, it's all right there. You're focusing on "Spree shootings" such as Sandy Hook or the like I presume, which are themselves a fraction of a fraction of firearm related deaths. They quite rare, in course of things, and fairly impossible to legislate for.

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Those aren't assumptions, they're straight facts. Look up FBI statistics for crime, it's all right there. You're focusing on "Spree shootings" such as Sandy Hook or the like I presume, which are themselves a fraction of a fraction of firearm related deaths. They quite rare, in course of things, and fairly impossible to legislate for.

Except Canada, the UK and Australia all brought in legislation immediately after similar attacks and haven't had re-occurrence of them since.

AbusesToilets

Tell me how wrote: »

Except Canada, the UK and Australia all brought in legislation immediately after similar attacks and haven't had re-occurrence of them since.

Glossing over all those other mass attacks eh? London, Nice etc. Where there's a will, there's a way. Point being, legislation isn't going to prevent someone from carrying out a spectacular attack

Tell me how

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Glossing over all those over mass attacks eh? London, Nice etc. Where there's a will, there's a way. Point being, legislation isn't going to prevent someone from carrying out a spectacular attack

Yesterday you were talking about abolishing the DEA and ATF, today you're saying legislation doesn't work and when shown that it does work, you are effectively saying that there isn't much point to any legislation because people might do something else.

By all means offer a meaningful solution as to how America can mitigate the impact guns are having on its society or just admit your only view on this topic is trying to convince people guns should not be regulated any further, if at all.