10 people shot dead in Texas

sarcasticus magnificus · 20-05-2018 08:29PM

2011 wrote: »

I will ask the same question again:
How do you "remove the gun" ???

You start a civil war. With guns.

BeerFarts · 20-05-2018 08:38PM

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Remove the gun, and they get a truck or a knife or a homemade bomb or any other way you can think of to kill people. Poison in the school cafeteria during lunch? Locking school doors from the outside and lighting a fire?
Endless ways, some much more discrete and unstoppable and damaging than someone with a gun who can be stopped by someone else with a gun and training.

Ah shure next t'will be planes flying into schools and atomic bombs, these kids know no bounds.

sarcasticus magnificus · 20-05-2018 09:01PM

BeerFarts wrote: »

Ah shure next t'will be planes flying into schools and atomic bombs, these kids know no bounds.

A car bomb is more than enough, and can be easily done with just a little bit of thinking and a little bit of knowledge in electronics and an alarm clock.
Tough, but that's life - where there's a will there's a way.

steddyeddy · 20-05-2018 09:35PM

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

Remove the gun, and they get a truck or a knife or a homemade bomb or any other way you can think of to kill people. Poison in the school cafeteria during lunch? Locking school doors from the outside and lighting a fire?
Endless ways, some much more discrete and unstoppable and damaging than someone with a gun who can be stopped by someone else with a gun and training.

Fortunately we don't have a problem with the other methods you mentioned. We have a problem with mass shootings. Put away the crystal ball and stop predicted what students would do in the absence of guns. We know what would happen because Australia made a move to reduce gun ownership which resulted in less mass shootings.

In other words it's been tried and it works.

steddyeddy · 20-05-2018 09:40PM

2011 wrote: »

I will ask the same question again:
How do you "remove the gun" ???

Facilitate a change of culture. One of my colleagues in the states a 26 year old girl in Colorado has two assault rifles and 3 handguns. She bought more after the last mass shooting out of fear they may be banned.

People like her need to feel ashamed for promoting this level of gun nut.

BattleCorp · 20-05-2018 09:47PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Fortunately we don't have a problem with the other methods you mentioned. We have a problem with mass shootings. Put away the crystal ball and stop predicted what students would do in the absence of guns. We know what would happen because Australia made a move to reduce gun ownership which resulted in less mass shootings.

In other words it's been tried and it works.

The Americans won't give up their guns like the Aussies. Won't happen.

steddyeddy · 20-05-2018 09:49PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Americans won't give up their guns like the Aussies. Won't happen.

Again more mystic meg fortune telling.

BattleCorp · 20-05-2018 09:49PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

People like her need to feel ashamed for promoting this level of gun nut.

Ashamed for exercising her constitutional right to own firearms?

If she is a law abiding citizen, then I see no problem.

BattleCorp · 20-05-2018 09:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Again more mystic meg fortune telling.

Heard you the first time. ðŸ€£

Seriously though, the US army wouldn't be able to take back all the guns. It's mission impossible.

steddyeddy · 20-05-2018 09:55PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ashamed for exercising her constitutional right to own firearms?

If she is a law abiding citizen, then I see no problem.

Yes she should be. A mass shooting happens and her first thought is that her assault rifles will be taken. She's deranged.

steddyeddy · 20-05-2018 09:56PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Heard you the first time. ðŸ€£

Seriously though, the US army wouldn't be able to take back all the guns. It's mission impossible.

Not all of them. Just promote a culture where gun ownership isn't as sacred as it is now.

jmayo · 20-05-2018 10:01PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I have 7 guns here in Ireland, 3 of which are semi automatic. All are fully licensed. I don't have 30 round magazines but I do have 10 round magazines. I have 2 .357 calibre guns. I don't carry any of them around. My guns are used at the range only.

I would say you are very much in the minority in this country owning 10 round semi autos, which btw I assume are something like .22, and especially a .357.
The vast majority of firearms in this country are single, double barrel, over and under shotguns, .22 rifles with just maybe a 5 round magazine.

And what hoops did you have to jump through to get the licenses for those firearms ?
You didn't just go to a gun show and walk out with them there and then.
You can't carry them, well apart from to range or competition, and they have to be stored in gun safes.
We have one of the most tightest control regimes in the world.
And it is tightened everytime some numpty of a politician wants to be seeing doing something about drug gangs killing each other with unlicensed glocks or AKs.

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

It's very difficult to argue a point on these threads with people who have no lived experience or cop on of situation. Saying our healthcare is better than America. I mean that's just embarrassing.

No our healthcare is shyte, but it is also very shyte in the US if you don't have the dosh or the health insurance.
And speaking of nurses in the US, I knew an Irish nurse that had to return home to get healthcare after an injury because her heath insurance would not cover part of the treatment.

kildare lad wrote: »

Its just a vicious cycle, it'll never change. Imagine having to worry about your kids getting shot going to school, and their politicians doing nothing about it. Ive said it before , America has some of the most dumbest, ignorant, backward people in the developed world. They even elected two of the last three presidents who'd fit into that category. You only have to watch Donald Trump speak at a rally, and all the idiots hollering and cheering at every incoherent, bumbling statement he comes out with.

It really is a nation of contrasts.
Very rich and very poor.
Very educated and very uneducated.
Very smart and complete thickos.

Btw the thickos are not necessarily poor and uneducated as indeed the last
two republican presidents have proven.
One has to say it does show how money can buy one an education, but sadly can't do much for intelligence.

2011 wrote: »

Great idea.
One question though: How??

I'm afraid that is like locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.
There are simply too many guns in circulation in the US.

Every time there is a shooting incident such as this guns sales soar because people worry that certain types of firearms will be banned so they want to stock up just in case.

Speaking as a keen target shooter, I don't agree with many aspects of gun laws in the US. However I don't think that the issues they have are simply due to the availability of firearms. Many other countries have high gun ownership and don't have these issues. These countries include Norway, Switzerland and Canada. I don't know what the solution is, but removing guns from the equation with the best will in the world simply isn't an option.

Many would be surprised what can be legally owned by civilians in many countries, for example I know of more than one AR15 licensed in the Republic of Ireland.

Some people have access to some serious firearms in the likes of Serbia, Switzerland, Israel and yet they are no mass shootings every other week.
There just is something in the America psyche.
There is just a paranoid being fed by vested interests and the muppets are buying into it.

BattleCorp · 20-05-2018 10:25PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not all of them. Just promote a culture where gun ownership isn't as sacred as it is now.

You'd have to get rid of the 2nd Amendment first. Then get rid of similar rights in State constitutions too. And once that starts, watch how many millions of guns extra will be sold.

And even if that worked, crazies will still get guns if they want them.

I think the improvements in 3d printing technology will make it even easier to access firearms in the not too distant future.

dr.fuzzenstein · 20-05-2018 10:29PM

sarcasticus magnificus wrote: »

A car bomb is more than enough, and can be easily done with just a little bit of thinking and a little bit of knowledge in electronics and an alarm clock.
Tough, but that's life - where there's a will there's a way.

Yeah, you've tried nothing and you're all out of ideas.

artvanderlay · 20-05-2018 10:53PM

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yeah, you've tried nothing and you're all out of ideas.

Off topic, but that's one of my fav Simpsons quotes. Used it last week on myself!

21-05-2018 07:25AM

jmayo wrote: »

Some people have access to some serious firearms in the likes of Serbia, Switzerland, Israel and yet they are no mass shootings every other week.
There just is something in the America psyche.
There is just a paranoid being fed by vested interests and the muppets are buying into it.

Agreed. That is exactly, the point I was making. This issue is not simply the ease of access to firearms.

Guns can't simply be removed from the equation, for a start nobody knows how many are in circulation and who has what. Somebody could surrender 10 and still have another 50.

Manic Moran · 21-05-2018 08:51AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

The Americans won't give up their guns like the Aussies. Won't happen.

The Aussies didn't do it either. It is estimated that over 2/3 of the weapons which were supposed to be turned in for buyback were not. http://www.foaa.com.au/buy-back-statistics-and-australia-stock-of-firearms-compiled-in-1998/ (Actually, they believe compliance to have been about 20%)

They now have more guns than they did before the 1996 buyback. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360

It is the sixth-largest importer of small arms in the world.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/australia-ranked-as-one-of-the-worlds-major-small-arm-importers-and-exporters-20170918-gyjqvt.html

There is an overall increase in lawful firearms ownership nationally.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/gun-data-shows-extent-of-private-arsenals-in-suburban-australia/9038350

It is true that semi-auto rifles are now much harder to obtain if you don't already have one in the family. On the other hand, weapons such as those used this week in Santa Fe, or by someone like Cho in Virginia Tech are still obtainable there.

Guns can't simply be removed from the equation, for a start nobody knows how many are in circulation and who has what. Somebody could surrender 10 and still have another 50.

There is a phrase in the US... "I went out into the country, and lost my firearm overboard in a tragic boating accident...". Prohibitions, even if they could be legally enacted, and I don't believe they can be, are practicably unenforceable.

dr.fuzzenstein · 21-05-2018 03:15PM

Well, so nothing will change.
This has been entertaining, think we can put this one to bed and I'll see ye all next week in the next thread.

Billy86 · 21-05-2018 04:38PM

The fact that mass shootings have skyrocketed since the assault weapons ban was done away with in 2004 and yet not apparent effort has been made across the two parties to reintroduce it or something similar shows just blatantly in the pockets of the terrorism advocating NRA a lot of American politicians are - and they're not even trying to hide it. Some are playing up to it even, mocking dead teenagers and the survivors because their money-masters tell them to. It's beyond pathetic, and it's not that "there is no answer" - it's simply that a lot of Americans and their politicians have no interest in even looking for the answer. That's as definitively not caring as one can be.

Total_US_deaths_by_year_in_spree_shootings_1982%E2%80%932018_%28ongoing%29.svg

Total_US_deaths_by_year_in_spree_shootings_1982%E2%80%932018_%28ongoing%29.svg

BattleCorp · 21-05-2018 04:47PM

Billy86 wrote: »

The fact that mass shootings have skyrocketed since the assault weapons ban was done away with in 2004 and yet not apparent effort has been made across the two parties to reintroduce it or something similar shows just blatantly in the pockets of the terrorism advocating NRA a lot of American politicians are - and they're not even trying to hide it. Some are playing up to it even, mocking dead teenagers and the survivors because their money-masters tell them to. It's beyond pathetic, and it's not that "there is no answer" - it's simply that a lot of Americans and their politicians have no interest in even looking for the answer. That's as definitively not caring as one can be.

I'm not saying you are wrong but there are two ways to look at it.

The number of casualties from mass shootings has certainly increased but is it correct to blame the rescinding of the assault rifle ban?

The above chart shows that the number of mass shootings was pretty similar before and during the ban. Why was there not more mass shootings before the ban when there was no assault rifle ban in place?

You would imagine that if the problem was assault rifles, then the period before the ban would match the period following the ban, but it doesn't.

TeaBagMania · 21-05-2018 05:02PM

Well said

is it the lack of an AR ban or sh**y parenting of the snowflake generation?

Greysquirel09 · 21-05-2018 05:07PM

The American culture of glorifying these people doesn't help. The shooter will have every major American news network queuing up to interview them and will be allowed to. The jurors get famous talking to the media afterwards. It's madness.

greencap · 21-05-2018 05:08PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Well said

is it the lack of an AR ban or sh**y parenting of the snowflake generation?

Which to implement: a shtty parenting/snowflake generation ban? OR a ban on certain varieties of weapons*.

Neither seem very easy to implement.

But one sure seems more feasible than the other.

(*which serve no purpose other than acting the dick, or very briefly fighting US govt forces who are armed with satellite guided munitions in a fictional war that only exists in the minds of morons)

steddyeddy · 21-05-2018 06:16PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The Aussies didn't do it either. It is estimated that over 2/3 of the weapons which were supposed to be turned in for buyback were not. http://www.foaa.com.au/buy-back-statistics-and-australia-stock-of-firearms-compiled-in-1998/ (Actually, they believe compliance to have been about 20%)

They now have more guns than they did before the 1996 buyback. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-28/australia-has-more-guns-than-before-port-arthur-massacre/7366360

It is the sixth-largest importer of small arms in the world.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/australia-ranked-as-one-of-the-worlds-major-small-arm-importers-and-exporters-20170918-gyjqvt.html

There is an overall increase in lawful firearms ownership nationally.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-11/gun-data-shows-extent-of-private-arsenals-in-suburban-australia/9038350

It is true that semi-auto rifles are now much harder to obtain if you don't already have one in the family. On the other hand, weapons such as those used this week in Santa Fe, or by someone like Cho in Virginia Tech are still obtainable there.

There is a phrase in the US... "I went out into the country, and lost my firearm overboard in a tragic boating accident...". Prohibitions, even if they could be legally enacted, and I don't believe they can be, are practicably unenforceable.

I've heard this trotted out repeatedly. While there's a reduction in the amount of assault rifles and shotguns in private ownership there's been an increase in handgun ownership.

What's conveniently being ignored is the fact that following the law there was a significant reduction mass shootings and also a reduction in homicides and murder suicides. It involved a change in gun culture and resulted in less murders every year, but something tells me if similar measures were brought in and 100 lives were saved every year in the US gun nuts would fight it.

steddyeddy · 21-05-2018 06:24PM

Once or twice the people in mass shooting threads reveal their true colors. They're usually the ones who don't issue a word of sympathy for the victims, but instead voice concern that someone might reduce gun ownership.

On previous threads and others a contributor here basically let the mask slip and implied they didn't think they should be lose a gun because someone goes on a killing spree.

Be honest guys when you throw out arguments saying why gun ownership restriction wouldn't work, you basically mean you don't care if lives are saved you won't part with your gun.

steddyeddy · 21-05-2018 06:28PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not saying you are wrong but there are two ways to look at it.

The number of casualties from mass shootings has certainly increased but is it correct to blame the rescinding of the assault rifle ban?

The above chart shows that the number of mass shootings was pretty similar before and during the ban. Why was there not more mass shootings before the ban when there was no assault rifle ban in place?

You would imagine that if the problem was assault rifles, then the period before the ban would match the period following the ban, but it doesn't.

The ban lift on assault rifles resulted in an upwards trend in mass shootings. Don't look exclusively at figures, in research we look at trends, I.E is it going up or down.

evolving_doors · 21-05-2018 06:46PM

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Well said

is it the lack of an AR ban or sh**y parenting of the snowflake generation?

Naw, just easy access to guns.
Guns kill people... dead.

Manic Moran · 21-05-2018 06:56PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The ban lift on assault rifles resulted in an upwards trend in mass shootings. Don't look exclusively at figures, in research we look at trends, I.E is it going up or down.

Yes, but it proves nothing about causation which, as a researcher, I'm sure you also look at. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that the Federal "Assault Weapons Ban" was nothing of the sort, no matter what the politicians said. During the period of this Federal ban, I first purchased one of these.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M17S#/media/File:Bushmaster_M17S_right.jpg

I later sold it, replaced it with one of these. https://www.spectergear.com/v/vspfiles/photos/553-2.jpg

There is absolutely no, zero, zilch change in the operational characteristics of a 'banned' weapon vs a non-banned weapon during the 1994-2004 period. Again. Nothing. Absolutely, functionally, practicably, identical in mechanical operation, rate of fire, lethality.... The ban was based on aesthetic characteristics. Note how none of them have a bayonet lug? That's because it was banned. The world was safer for ten years from mass bayonettings. Fantastic. That sort of thing.

California has an assault weapons ban since 1989, and has had one even stricter than the one the Federals used. It is still in place.

Living in California, I also own this... https://i.imgur.com/PkrTCLf.jpg
this... https://i.imgur.com/gTwrASj.jpg
this.. https://i.imgur.com/eCbBSZP.jpg
and this. https://i.imgur.com/jcTBQXW.jpg

(In addition to less controversial things like bolt action rifle, pistols)

Again. These are owned, lawfully, in the State which has historically had the strictest prohibitions on 'assault weapons' for decades. Can you tell the difference between my AK-74 which isn't an assault weapon and one which is?

Neither can politicians writing the bans, which is why the ban had zero practical effect (Except to piss off us owners). Sales of AR-type rifles increased during the ban period.

So whilst people like to say that the weapons were banned, these people don't actually look into what happened. "Assault weapon" is a made-up political term for something which has no definition in the industry. There is no wonder that banning something which doesn't really exist didn't really have an effect.

Is there a similar correlation chart with the rise of both the 24-hour news media cycle and social media, perchance?

TeaBagMania · 21-05-2018 06:59PM

guns don't kill people, people kill people

Stated a few pages back that gun owners need to be held more responsible for what happens when their guns are accessed, especially by kids

I like Irelands idea that all guns must be locked up in a state approved safe and that the guards need to visit the residence and inspect said safe and installation

greencap · 22-05-2018 12:53AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Living in California, I also own this... https://i.imgur.com/PkrTCLf.jpg
this... https://i.imgur.com/gTwrASj.jpg
this.. https://i.imgur.com/eCbBSZP.jpg
and this. https://i.imgur.com/jcTBQXW.jpg

And those are owned for some kind of childish self image or for clowning around with.

Buying and owning an item isn't an achievement.

And as for the clowning, its just a thing that goes bang and spits out a piece of metal. And it takes little in the way of skill.

Weapon fetishes should be grown out of in adolescence.

All your purchases really mean in real world terms is that theres widespread availability of pointless things which can shoot up many people quickly.

And that you're in the vicinity of this availability.

I know you think the gun laws are to your liking, but if you'd be an adult about it you'd probably realize its quite the opposite.

10 people shot dead in Texas

Comments