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
-
Tell me how wrote: »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.
First of all,. I must have missed where you or anyone else demonstrated an example of effective gun control.
I've laid out measures that I think would be of value in previous threads on this topic.
To summarize:
Addressing suicides, increase investment in mental health care resources.
Accidents, require training for purchases. Difficulty would be ensured it wasn't used as a barrier to access.
Crime, increased policing, ending war on drugs.0 -
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.
No, they've just had different attacks. Derrick Bird killed 12 and wounded eleven with a .22 bolt-action rifle and a double-barreled shotgun in the UK in 2010. Benn Hoffman killed four and wounded one with an unlawfully held shotgun in Darwin in 2019. Canada's new law hasn't taken effect yet, so the lack of a mass shooting since the last one (A guy with four guns unlawfully held, and going around in a replica police car) can't really be traced to the gun law change.
Bascially they weren't really countries prone to mass shootings in the first place. And given that two of the three did not involve weapons which are receiving attention, and two of the three involved illegally held weapons, I'm not sure where the real level of effect can be demonstrated.0 -
But that argument makes no sense!BattleCorp wrote: »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.
You are basically saying that you need guns because they are needed for your gun competition! The problem is that a gun owner, you can't even conceive the idea of no guns and no gun competitions. As i said earlier, there is no right to item a gun or have a gun competition, you can't use one as a reason for the other.
Do you not see having the gun is putting your family in danger? If you pull a gun on an armed robber the chances are a shootout is next. How you think this is safer than just letting then take your stuff is beyond me.BattleCorp wrote: »
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.
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.
And again, who cares if it's the most popular Gun on the planet?BattleCorp wrote: »
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.BattleCorp wrote: »
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.
This is exactly the point. You think you need a gun for self defense because the other guy has one... Can you not see how neither of you having one is far safer for everyone?
MAD doesn't work with guns.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »First of all,. I must have missed where you or anyone else demonstrated an example of effective gun control.
I've laid out measures that I think would be of value in previous threads on this topic.
To summarize:
Addressing suicides, increase investment in mental health care resources.
Accidents, require training for purchases. Difficulty would be ensured it wasn't used as a barrier to access.
Crime, increased policing, ending war on drugs.
So blame everything but the gun?:rolleyes:
It's fierce hard to shoot someone without a gun.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
But that argument makes no sense!
You are basically saying that you need guns because they are needed for your gun competition! The problem is that a gun owner, you can't even conceive the idea of no guns and no gun competitions. As i said earlier, there is no right to item a gun or have a gun competition, you can't use one as a reason for the other.
I think you'll find that the populations of some states believe there is a right to have a gun for a gun competition, assuming you would consider a gun competition to be recreational. See the Constitutions of Delaware, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and, arguably Utah, though there's a provision in the Utah constitution that the legislature gets a say in that one.Do you not see having the gun is putting your family in danger? If you pull a gun on an armed robber the chances are a shootout is next. How you think this is safer than just letting then take your stuff is beyond me.
Are you not taking a risk that compliance places you at the mercy of a person who has demonstrated his good faith to the extent that they have just robbed you or broken into your house? Remember all those guys protesting against the execution of Tookie Williams a few years back? Remember why he was sentenced in the first place? Compliance is no guarantee of safety.
A lovely example from the UK a few years back... https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/tragedy-of-woman-83-left-to-die-in-cold-after-being-tied-up-by-burglars-6409974.html
A spinster aged 83 died a long, cold, agonising death after being tied up and gagged in her own home by serial burglars, the Old Bailey was told.
A few weeks ago in New York...
https://www.audacy.com/1010wins/news/local/2-charged-with-murder-after-aide-finds-man-tied-up-dead-in-brooklyn
Two people were arrested and charged with murder after a 46-year-old man was found tied up and dead in his Brooklyn apartment last week, the NYPD said Monday.
Amanda Sylvester, 35, of Crown Heights, and Sean Idlet, 49, of Prospect Heights, were arrested and charged with murder, robbery and burglary in connection with Malcolm Holder’s death on Monday, the department said.
At least I get a vote if I resist. And that's assuming that the intent was robbery. There are other reasons to break into a house. Ever hear of the Petit murders in Connecticut? Do you suggest asking nicely about intentions before deciding whether or not to use force against an intruder? What if he's stronger than you? Of course not, it's daft.
So here's the thing about typical burglars. They have absolutely no desire to get into a gunfight with homeowners either. There are plenty of videos on the web from home security cameras of armed home intrusions (or store robberies) met with armed resistance. Guess how many of them show the intruder(s) running away vs shooting back? They're out to get an easy buck for a low-priority, low-detection-rate crime, not to find themselves the target of a homicide investigation, and not to get themselves killed.And again, who cares if it's the most popular Gun on the planet?
The apparently large number of people who have them. If it's the most popular gun, one must ask the question 'why'? What is it about the gun that lawful people are choosing it, and is the desired effect of your policy proposal worth the detrimental effect upon those lawful people?This is exactly the point. You think you need a gun for self defense because the other guy has one... Can you not see how neither of you having one is far safer for everyone?
MAD doesn't work with guns.
No. I want a gun for self defense because it is proven as the most effective defensive tool in existence, no matter what the level of opposition, the nature of which I don't plan on asking about first. It is effective if I have one arm or am in a wheelchair. It will be effective when I'm sixty-five. It is effective against three persons or one. It is effective against someone armed with a syringe, a knife, a gun, or a wiffle bat. It is not my responsibility to 'play fair' or 'meet equal force' when it comes to my home and my family, if I'm better armed than the intruder, great, the absolute worst case is that we're on equal terms, for which I'll take my chances. It wouldn't be my first gunfight. There is no tool on the planet as it currently stands which can perform the same function as easily, cheaply and reliably as a firearm.0 -
But that argument makes no sense!
You are basically saying that you need guns because they are needed for your gun competition! The problem is that a gun owner, you can't even conceive the idea of no guns and no gun competitions. As i said earlier, there is no right to item a gun or have a gun competition, you can't use one as a reason for the other.
To me it makes sense. Of course as a gun owner and a competitive target shooter (well I was until COVID) I don't want to see my guns banned. Do you think smokers want cigarettes banned or drinkers want alcohol banned? After all, smoking and drinking kills far more people than guns each year in the US.
I assume when you say there is no right to item a gun or have a gun competition you mean that there's no right to have a gun. There is in the US.
Even in a very restrictive country like Ireland you are allowed guns for target shooting competitions (and other reasons). It's even an Olympic sport.
Just because you don't like guns doesn't mean that the whole world has to bow to your will and get rid of what you don't like.Do you not see having the gun is putting your family in danger? If you pull a gun on an armed robber the chances are a shootout is next. How you think this is safer than just letting then take your stuff is beyond me.
Suppose they aren't coming to take my stuff. Supposing they want to rape my wife or child? You keep ignoring the fact that I said every situation is different. There will be circumstances that make pulling a gun could lead to your death and there will be circumstances where pulling a gun could save your life. Like I said already, reaching for a gun is the absolute last resort.And again, who cares if it's the most popular Gun on the planet?
I'd say the millions of gun owners who have them don't want them banned.This is exactly the point. You think you need a gun for self defense because the other guy has one... Can you not see how neither of you having one is far safer for everyone?
MAD doesn't work with guns.
Look, supposing I have a gun for self defence. But you are in charge and I have to give up my guns. Being a law abiding citizen I comply. I am now unarmed. Do you think the criminals are going to hand over their guns? Absolutely not. So now you have a situation where armed criminals can go on a crime spree safe in the knowledge that everybody else is unarmed and unlikely to be able to stop them.
Yes, I agree that neither person having a gun makes the likelihood of either person getting shot very unlikey. But that's not the reality of the world we live in. So, in a world where criminals are armed, it seems logical that homeowners should be allowed to be armed if they want to be.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Last time I checked, guns don't shoot themselves. It's fierce hard for a gun to shoot someone without a person .
Last time I checked, Tanks don't shoot themselves. It's fierce hard for a tank to shoot someone without a person.
So.....tanks for everyone, yeah? :rolleyes:
Your argument is spurious. You can replace the word "gun" with a number of other lethal objects that the public, rightfully, don't have access to for good reason. The average joe does not need a weapon of war, which is what a gun is, in their everyday life. I'm sure you could HIT TARGETS and have COMPETITIONS with a tank and it would be great fun but there are a dozen reasons why you can't buy one.
The mental gymnastics to blame ANYTHING else but guns is ridiculous.
And to be the pedantic sod I am, you are wrong anyway. There are plenty of guns that can fire themselves. But as the gun aficionado you are, I'm sure you knew that.0 -
According to this data https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
there have been 103 shooting with 4 or more victims since 1982.
In 51% of the cases the gun(s) was bought legally.
In 42% of the cases the shooter was white.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »No, they've just had different attacks. Derrick Bird killed 12 and wounded eleven with a .22 bolt-action rifle and a double-barreled shotgun in the UK in 2010. Benn Hoffman killed four and wounded one with an unlawfully held shotgun in Darwin in 2019. Canada's new law hasn't taken effect yet, so the lack of a mass shooting since the last one (A guy with four guns unlawfully held, and going around in a replica police car) can't really be traced to the gun law change.
Bascially they weren't really countries prone to mass shootings in the first place. And given that two of the three did not involve weapons which are receiving attention, and two of the three involved illegally held weapons, I'm not sure where the real level of effect can be demonstrated.
The point still stands that they took action on particular guns, and those guns no longer were used on such attacks. It was probably argued by some against legislation at the time that people would still find illegal guns in circulation and yet it looks like that didn't happen.
That is an argument for legislation.0 -
Advertisement
-
According to this data https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
there have been 103 shooting with 4 or more victims since 1982.
In 51% of the cases the gun(s) was bought legally.
In 42% of the cases the shooter was white.
This is from motherjones as well.361 Voter Suppression Bills Have Already Been Introduced This Year
At 2 a.m on Thursday morning, the Texas Senate passed a sweeping bill that bans extended voting hours, prohibits drive-thru voting, closes polling places in minority neighborhoods, and allows partisan poll watchers to record voters who receive help filling out their ballots, greatly increasing the prospect of voter intimidation. The bill is widely viewed as targeting the voting methods used by large Democratic areas like Houston’s Harris County to increase voter turnout in 2020. Lawmakers in Texas (49 bills), Georgia (25 bills), and Arizona (23 bills) have introduced the largest number of restrictive measures this year.
Isn't this why the 2A defenders say that it is necessary for the populace to be armed? Is so methodically changing the voting opportunities so soon after losing an election not a tyrannical act?
According to a simple Google definition on what is a tyrannical government; "Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their positions by resorting to repressive means.", that seems to be the case.
It seems extra bizarre, but not surprising that another gun control debate is going on and part of the argument is that they are necessary to prevent such things happening and yet, such things are happening, by the people who are saying that no gun control is necessary to prevent such things happening.
America has more access to guns than comparable countries and also has more incidents, deaths and injuries through gun use, than these other countries. There is a direct link between the lack of gun control and these events happening. Yes other weapons could be used, means of attack could happen and do, but much less frequently it seems than they do in America.
Functioning societies and systems of governance since day dot have recognized a danger to the safety of their people and have introduced laws to mitigate against such dangers. It's why we have speed limits, mandatory safety belt wearing, food standards, smoking bans and thousands of other laws.
If conservatives are going to insist that none of this overrides the need for guns in order to stop tyrannical government subverting the democratic principles laid out in the constitution, maybe they should stop doing things that have this impact. Or just flat out admit that they aren't interested in stopping tyranny, if it is their brand of tyranny and that their desire to have access to arms overrides most other peoples desire to not feel they may be targeted by random shootings.0 -
Government tyranny is ok when it only affects those who are on the opposite side of the political divide to me0
-
Last time I checked, Tanks don't shoot themselves. It's fierce hard for a tank to shoot someone without a person.
So.....tanks for everyone, yeah? :rolleyes:
Your argument is spurious. You can replace the word "gun" with a number of other lethal objects that the public, rightfully, don't have access to for good reason. The average joe does not need a weapon of war, which is what a gun is, in their everyday life. I'm sure you could HIT TARGETS and have COMPETITIONS with a tank and it would be great fun but there are a dozen reasons why you can't buy one.
The mental gymnastics to blame ANYTHING else but guns is ridiculous.
And to be the pedantic sod I am, you are wrong anyway. There are plenty of guns that can fire themselves. But as the gun aficionado you are, I'm sure you knew that.
A specious argument, your entire premise hinges on your belief as that guns are bad and people don't need them in any circumstance.
You talk about mental gymnastics, but you want to blame guns for peoples choices and actions, instead of examining the actual issues. Guns don't cause suicides, make people commit crimes. They don't act autonomously, they don't control people. More people die from hammer attacks than rifles every year, yet you aren't making a case for their banning.0 -
Last time I checked, Tanks don't shoot themselves. It's fierce hard for a tank to shoot someone without a person.
So.....tanks for everyone, yeah? :rolleyes:
Legal in the US, complete with operating cannons and machineguns. I am unaware of a single criminal act conducted with one's legally owned tank or APC in the US. Two stolen Army vehicles, one construction bulldozer converted into a tank, but nothing by the tank-owning citizenry. Evidence indicates that private tank ownership isn't an issue in the US.Tell me how wrote: »The point still stands that they took action on particular guns, and those guns no longer were used on such attacks
I am unsure how it is a consolation to anyone that the victims were killed by a gun other than a banned type.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »More people die from hammer attacks than rifles every year, yet you aren't making a case for their banning.
Ah, this old chestnut. We've seen this one before. Usually, you folks go with the "cars kill more people than guns!" You see this argument and those like it fall apart quicker than you can blink.
A hammer is a tool. Used to build. Too construct. You can use it to kill a man but by doing so you are using it in a manner it was not designed.
A cars function is transport. Using it to mow people down in a crowd is using it in a manner it was not designed for.
Oh, and you need a license to operate a car by the way.....something that should be in place for guns.
A gun's function is to kill. That is what it was designed for and it's function. You can use it for something else, like say hitting a paper target, but by doing so you are using it in a manner it was not designed.AbusesToilets wrote: »your entire premise hinges on your belief as that guns are bad and people don't need them in any circumstance.
You talk about mental gymnastics, but you want to blame guns for peoples choices and actions, instead of examining the actual issues. Guns don't cause suicides, make people commit crimes. They don't act autonomously, they don't control people.
As I've already demonstrated in my previous post, every single time you post something like this.....you can replace the word "gun" with "tank" or "nuclear bomb" and your so-called logic doesn't change.
No guns arent "bad". They are inanimate objects. DANGEROUS inanimate objects. Dangerous enough that they should be regulated and controlled. For the same reason dangerous drugs are controlled. Morphine is useful. But it is dangerous which is why you can't walk into a pharmacy and buy a sh*t load of it.
The difference between a hammer and a gun is blindingly obvious to anyone who isn't deranged. A lunatic goes on a rampage with a hammer, he might hurt or kill one or two people before he gets tackled. A lunatic goes on a rampage with a weapon of war.....the sky is the limit.0 -
Ah, this old chestnut. We've seen this one before. Usually, you folks go with the "cars kill more people than guns!" You see this argument and those like it fall apart quicker than you can blink.
A hammer is a tool. Used to build. Too construct. You can use it to kill a man but by doing so you are using it in a manner it was not designed.
A cars function is transport. Using it to mow people down in a crowd is using it in a manner it was not designed for.
Oh, and you need a license to operate a car by the way.....something that should be in place for guns.
A gun's function is to kill. That is what it was designed for and it's function. You can use it for something else, like say hitting a paper target, but by doing so you are using it in a manner it was not designed.
As I've already demonstrated in my previous post, every single time you post something like this.....you can replace the word "gun" with "tank" or "nuclear bomb" and your so-called logic doesn't change.
No guns arent "bad". They are inanimate objects. DANGEROUS inanimate objects. Dangerous enough that they should be regulated and controlled. For the same reason dangerous drugs are controlled. Morphine is useful. But it is dangerous which is why you can't walk into a pharmacy and buy a sh*t load of it.
The difference between a hammer and a gun is blindingly obvious to anyone who isn't deranged. A lunatic goes on a rampage with a hammer, he might hurt or kill one or two people before he gets tackled. A lunatic goes on a rampage with a weapon of war.....the sky is the limit.
Faced with facts, you resort to emotional, fear based arguments. Guns are as much of a tool as anything else, as susceptible to misuse as a knife or truck.0 -
I suggest all Dems hand in their guns. Be the change you want to see in the world.0
-
AbusesToilets wrote: »Faced with facts, you resort to emotional, fear based arguments. Guns are as much of a tool as anything else, as susceptible to misuse as a knife or truck.
Shooting people isn’t misuse of an object designed for that, running over people in a truck is.0 -
-
I suggest all Dems hand in their guns. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Can we suggest conservatives do some things?
A - Could they decide are the in favour of the constitution or against it? I know they say they are in favour, see their defense of the 2A, but maybe then they could stop instigating insurrections and enacting legislation to prevent people from voting.
B - Could they please make some suggestions on how to reduce the negative impact of gun ownership in the US0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »Can we suggest conservatives do some things?
A - Could they decide are the in favour of the constitution or against it? I know they say they are in favour, see their defense of the 2A, but maybe then they could stop instigating insurrections and enacting legislation to prevent people from voting.
B - Could they please make some suggestions on how to reduce the negative impact of gun ownership in the US
The issue with guns isn't their ownership, it's their illegal possession and misuse.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »A gun is designed to fire a projectile. The user chooses the target. Just as a hammer is designed to hit an object, or a knife to cut.
You're coming across more as a US style libertarian than even a conservative at this point.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »The issue with guns isn't their ownership, it's their illegal possession and misuse.
Cool. So lets regulate against that.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Cool. So lets regulate against that.
If only we could law harder, surely we'd find the answer. Brilliant.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Can we suggest conservatives do some things?
A - Could they decide are the in favour of the constitution or against it? I know they say they are in favour, see their defense of the 2A, but maybe then they could stop instigating insurrections and enacting legislation to prevent people from voting.
B - Could they please make some suggestions on how to reduce the negative impact of gun ownership in the US
If you were in charge in the US and had carte blanche to change things, what would you do to tackle gun violence?0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »If only we could law harder, surely we'd find the answer. Brilliant.
So not even a hint of a solution then?
I'm not surprised, earlier in the week you suggested disbanding the DEA and ATF, today you are seeing illegal gun possession and misuse is the problem.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »A gun is designed to fire a projectile. The user chooses the target. Just as a hammer is designed to hit an object, or a knife to cut.
The hammer is primarily a tool designed to hammer things in comparing it and a gun is absolutely ridiculous.0 -
-
BattleCorp wrote: »If you were in charge in the US and had carte blanche to change things, what would you do to tackle gun violence?
I would enforce the implementation of a gun registry for every gun sold in any location/venue. I would force the gun industry to pay for the set up and running of it and if they refused to do so, I would take away their license to produce/sell weapons. Hell, even let the NRA administer it, as long as it functions correctly and is auditable. Any existing state registers would be amalgamated in to the national register.
I would suggest that no gun can change hands until the new owner has been entered on the registry.
I would limit the sale of assault rifles to only those who can show themselves to be long term responsible gun owners or long term members of approved gun clubs.
I would have mandatory wait periods for all gun sales.
Some of these might be in place in specific states, to a lesser or greater degree. I would make it federal policy. I know it wouldn't change things over night, I know there would still be x number of guns in circulation, but this has been a growing problem for decades.
What would you do, if you were in the same position?0 -
Advertisement
-
BattleCorp wrote: »Most gun owners consider their firarms to be tools too.
For example my guns are tools for target shooting and vermin control, nothing more, nothing less.
It was designed to shoot things primarily living things, yes call it a tool if you want but comparing it to somebody misusing a car or a hammer is stupid. Knives as I’ve said before here is a bit different as some are designed for combat but some for cooking.0
Advertisement