10 people shot dead in Texas

greencap wrote: »

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.

Yours
Maude Flanders

greencap

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Yours
Maude Flanders

Cheers Arnold.

greencap wrote: »

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.

Actually, I can think of (and have in past threads) mentioned a number of changes I would make to firearms laws. Some you may approve of, some you may not.

The point is that the "assault weapon ban" law lauded a few posts back is demonstrably pointless. I am demonstrating it with the above images, a point which you seem to have completely missed in order to score a cheap ad hominem attack. Yet there are those who advocate for its renewal as if it did something. It does not do what its advocates claim, and achieves zilch towards public safety.

I may as well pass a law against spoilers on cars in order to increase traffic safety because spoilers on cars make them look like they go faster. There is that much effectiveness.

The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
I would be in favour that this should only be applied to weapons that are correct for the time period, i.e. flintlock rifles and muzzle loaders.
Because those laws were enacted in a time when you needed a gun to hunt or for self defense because life was tougher then.
No 300 pound yank needs a gun driving his 7 liter pickup truck to Walmart and later the drive-through.
It is come completely pointless to own an assault weapon nowadays. It is a devise that was designed with one and only one purpose.
To kill as many people as effectively as possible.
WTF does anyone need this for?
It's childish and immature, but then again this is America. Just look at their TV.
It's like arming a bunch of monkeys. With the inevitable outcome.
The gun lobby don't care, they are big and powerful enough that they can simply shout down any arguments. I don't buy this sh*t of civil militias starting a civil war if new laws were enacted.
It would simply be a few extremist gun nuts throwing a fit and those who don't immediately surrender, well what chance do a few nuts with guns stand against the US army?
The last skirmishes would be settled fairly quickly and easily. If the will was there, this could be done.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The constitution guarantees the right to bear arms.
I would be in favour that this should only be applied to weapons that are correct for the time period, i.e. flintlock rifles and muzzle loaders.

We'll also bring back slavery as they too were of that time period.

greencap

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I can think of (and have in past threads) mentioned a number of changes I would make to firearms laws. Some you may approve of, some you may not.

The point is that the "assault weapon ban" law lauded a few posts back is demonstrably pointless. I am demonstrating it with the above images, a point which you seem to have completely missed in order to score a cheap ad hominem attack. Yet there are those who advocate for its renewal as if it did something. It does not do what its advocates claim, and achieves zilch towards public safety.

I may as well pass a law against spoilers on cars in order to increase traffic safety because spoilers on cars make them look like they go faster. There is that much effectiveness.

A spoiler is a rather passive, irrelevant piece of kit.

Some kind of nitro booster would make for a more accurate analogy.

As in; why on earth do you want to own a nitro booster engine when our roads have a max 120kmph limit.

BattleCorp wrote: »

We'll also bring back slavery as they too were of that time period.

Another thing that was considered a right by people back then. If that can change so can attitudes to gun ownership.

BattleCorp wrote: »

We'll also bring back slavery as they too were of that time period.

Had slavery been within the remit of the NRA, you could be sure we'd still have it in the US today.
And they would argue that slavery had nothing to do with human rights abuses.
Alas the second amendment has nothing to do with slavery, so it's neither here nor there.
In fact you're making my argument for me.
You're arguing that slavery is abolished because it's an anachronism from centuries ago that is no longer relevant or valid today.
The same can be said about the 2nd.

jmayo

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.

I can only think of three major killing sprees in Aus.
One was the Port Arthur massacre that initiated the gun law changes. Another was a German visitor that went on shooting spree in Western Australia and to this day no one knows why.
And the last one is the killing of a family of 7 in Margaret River, WA this year.

So dragging in Australia and their guns if anything highlights how there can be high gun ownership, ban on certain categories such as semi auto, and low levels of mass shootings.

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

iving 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

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?

Well your one is probably US manufactured, is made of black polymer, rather than having wood or grey metal and is semi auto

Ah come on they are all offshoots of weapons that were designed primarily as military grade assault rifles.
The first Bushmaster thingy was originally meant to be Australian army weapon of choice, but lost out to the Steyr AUG, a variant of which you appear to have.
You also have what looks like a version of a FN FAL there as well.

Fecks sake people had access to weapons in the US back in the 30s, 40s, 50s and even into the 60s, but there weren't these mass shootings.
But I guess every fecking Tom, Dick and Manic didn't aspire to owning versions of the M1s, M14s, M16s, BARs, AK47s, Fn FAL, HK G3 in those days.

Even taking out the preponderance of military knock offs,
how come years ago you didn't have people going round with weapons shooting up schools and offices ?
How come you didn't have kids even taking their bolt actions to school to kill their schoolmates ?

Something is seriously sick about US society.

Hitman3000

Charge 10 dollars a bullet, sorted.

steddyeddy wrote: »

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.

I am guessing that you are talking about me? Am I correct?

You are seriously mistaken if you think that I don't care if lives are lost or saved. It is possible to care about peoples lives and enjoy shooting. They aren't mutually exclusive. In your book, is everybody who owns a gun an unfeeling person who doesn't care about human life?

Yes, I don't think I should lose my guns if there is a mass shooting. I didn't do the shooting. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic towards victims but what would be gained by me giving up my guns? Absolutely nothing - because I am not the type to go around shooting up schools. My guns are a danger to nobody. If they were, the Gardaí would take them off me. I wouldn't want to give up my guns because of the actions of someone else.

I don't believe I should feel guilty and give up my guns because I like to carry out a lawful activity such as target shooting. And just because I feel that way doesn't mean that I am unsympathetic towards the victims of gun violence. I don't see everybody calling for alcohol to be banned on account of the actions of drink drivers.

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.

No, the number of mass shootings increased following the ban lift on assault rifles. It doesn't automatically mean that the lifting of the ban caused the upward trend.

The trend was the same before the ban and during the ban. Why is that?

Any explanation why the figures (or trends or whatever you want to call them) are broadly the same before the ban as during the ban?

greencap wrote: »

A spoiler is a rather passive, irrelevant piece of kit.

Some kind of nitro booster would make for a more accurate analogy.

As in; why on earth do you want to own a nitro booster engine when our roads have a max 120kmph limit.

You see, this demonstrates the point entirely. The legislation did not do what many people (usually who do not know about the subject matter) think it did.

A nitro booster makes the car go faster (at the risk of damaging the engine, as I understand it). It may be of limited utility in Ireland (what if one wanted to track it?) but people drive to places like Germany on vacation. I was there last month, got a rented Ford Galaxy up to 160. (It was surprisingly capable at that speed)

If you look at the text of the legislation. Actually look at it, don't just go to some media website which says "Assault weapons were banned", you will see that the legislation was effectively based on accessories and aesthetics. The spoiler is, as you say, a basically irrelevant piece of kit. Probably has some effect at high speed, but not enough to make a practicable difference. Ditto the bayonet lug on the rifle.

Fast cars often come with bucket seats. They don't make the car go faster, but they do make them a bit more comfortable as you're going around corners. But since they are the sorts of things associated with fast driving, ban them, in the same manner that pistol grips make a rifle more ergonomic without actually making it shoot more.

Four-point harnesses? Typical sedans don't need those, only fast cars going at silly speeds need those. Despite the fact that they actually do have a practical use if used on track days etc. But the assault weapons ban affected collapsible stocks. They don't make the rifle shoot faster or further. They don't make them particularly concealable, they only knock a couple inches off the end. But they do allow one rifle to be used comfortably by multiple people with different arm lengths.

But we don't talk about banning spoilers, bucket seats, harnesses, carbon fibre hoods, etc under the guise of banning 'sporty cars' because cars are familiar to us and we all know that these features have all but zero effect on how a car actually performs.

This is why we get frustrated with talk about things like the assault weapons ban. They don't actually do anything.

Odhinn

Manic Moran wrote: »

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?

A fine collection sir.

A thread about mass shootings where people boast about how many guns they own. Says it all really.

steddyeddy wrote: »

A thread about mass shootings where people boast about how many guns they own. Says it all really.

I didn't show you the entire collection.

But, OK. Let's play it your way. Let's say I am insecure, sexually frustrated, don't care about children, have a small penis, and think that the only reason to own multiple rifles is that they look cool and my level of intelligence is on the level of "oooh...shiny" (plus any other insult/negativity you care to throw my way).

How does this in any way reflect on the realities of firearms legislation?'

Bottom line, I don't care about what you think of me. I do care about whether or not a practicable law can be passed, and how to stay within the law. By showing you some of my firearms I am very clearly demonstrating to you (as a group) that this law you (as a group) support is useless. Since folks seem not to listen to verbal argument, I thought a visual one may be a little more effective.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I didn't show you the entire collection.

But, OK. Let's play it your way. Let's say I am insecure, sexually frustrated, don't care about children, have a small penis, and think that the only reason to own multiple rifles is that they look cool and my level of intelligence is on the level of "oooh...shiny" (plus any other insult/negativity you care to throw my way).

How does this in any way reflect on the realities of firearms legislation?'

Bottom line, I don't care about what you think of me. I do care about whether or not a practicable law can be passed, and how to stay within the law. By showing you some of my firearms I am very clearly demonstrating to you (as a group) that this law you (as a group) support is useless. Since folks seem not to listen to verbal argument, I thought a visual one may be a little more effective.

Bottom line is that it's crass to show a gun collection off in a thread about mass shootings. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but it doesn't sit easy with me.

If Americans need to ban guns, then perhaps Europeans should ban trucks and vans since so many Muslims have been misusing them in recent years?

rossie1977

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

If Americans need to ban guns, then perhaps Europeans should ban trucks and vans since so many Muslims have been misusing them in recent years?

Since July 2016 approximately 130 people have been killed in truck/van attacks in Europe

More than 38,000 people were killed by guns in the USA in 2016 and almost 40,000 in 2017.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Since July 2016 approximately 130 people have been killed in truck/van attacks in Europe

More than 38,000 people were killed by guns in the USA in 2016 and almost 40,000 in 2017.

Vast majority of gun deaths in the US would be gangbangers killing fellow scum

BabyCheeses

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

If Americans need to ban guns, then perhaps Europeans should ban trucks and vans since so many Muslims have been misusing them in recent years?

What country in the world has banned vans and trucks while keeping a high standard of living?

BabyCheeses

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

They would prbobanly ironically call themselves law abiding and responsible gun owners too.

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Vast majority of gun deaths in the US would be gangbangers killing fellow scum

Oh yes, that makes it so much better. :rolleyes:
Case in point.

rossie1977 wrote: »

Since July 2016 approximately 130 people have been killed in truck/van attacks in Europe

More than 38,000 people were killed by guns in the USA in 2016 and almost 40,000 in 2017.

It takes a very, very special mind to ignore this point.
At this stage the gun nuts are just jamming their fingers in their ears, going LALALALALAAAAAA!!!!! I CAN'T HEEAAAAAR YOUUU!!!!!
'Murica!

You can't argue, so you can just point and laugh.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It takes a very, very special mind to ignore this point.
At this stage the gun nuts are just jamming their fingers in their ears, going LALALALALAAAAAA!!!!! I CAN'T HEEAAAAAR YOUUU!!!!!
'Murica!

You can't argue, so you can just point and laugh.

You don't think guns can be owned safely?

Overheal

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Vast majority of gun deaths in the US would be gangbangers killing fellow scum

Source?

He's incorrect, it's the second-most common situation. The most common is suicide. The most common gun homicide is people with criminal records shooting other folks with criminal records. Politifact example. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/mar/19/edward-flynn/85-percent-shooting-suspects-and-victims-milwaukee/

Overheal wrote: »

Source?

Who do you think is doing the killing in the slums of Chicago, LA, Detroit etc?

Why punish decent people for the actions of scum?