Another mass shooting in the USA - 10 killed

banie01 wrote: »

Most of the guns in Mexico are imported illegally.
Funnily enough the majority of them from the US, cash and guns flow south for drugs.

Mexico, despite the ongoing cartel wars has very restrictive gun laws.
There's only 1 gun store in a country of a 130million.
So nope, it wouldn't suddenly turn into Mexico supplying arms to the 2a'rs.

The Mexicans will find a way to get guns and they'll send them northwards. Business is business.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure it's the guns. It's their attitude to resorting to any perceived slight with violence. It seems to be the first port of call.

Get dumped - kill your ex
Get in an argument - kill the other person
Get fired - kill your workmates
Have a sex addiction and a religious hang-up - kill massage workers.

But this is the point I made earlier - if there is something that develops an attitude that any perceived slight must be responded to with violence, then surely it makes sense to limit their access to weapons.

Whatever the reason that they want to kill people (mental health, attitudes developed by society, whatever), part of the solution is gun control.

When people say 'It's not a gun problem, it's X problem'...No, it's people with X problem who have easy access to guns. You can't separate the two.

ypres5 wrote: »

Another name incident of far right white nationalist terror in the space of a week. can we have a conversation on it now or will we stay in denial like so many on boards were with the atlanta shooting?

So quick to judge

BattleCorp wrote: »

How do you do that? It's an honest question.

If the law says you have a right to a gun, how do you stop someone from getting a gun? And then, how do you stop them getting it illegally if they can't get it legally?

And what do you do about the 500,000,000+ guns that are in the wild already?




What's your idea of gun control? What do you mean by gun control?



I've easy access to guns. So have approximately 100k people here in Ireland. yet we don't go bananas and shoot up massage parlours and supermarkets.

You cannot compare the ease that U.S. citizens have to firearms compared to us in Ireland. Guns are fooking everywhere in a America.

I wouldn’t have a clue about how to get my hands on a firearm here, and I’d argue the same for other persons living in Ireland

Plus, there are 330 million people in America; circa 250 million that could probably legally just buy guns?

The comparison makes no sense.

Tell me how wrote: »

You don't have easy access to assault rifles. The type of gun that was used in this shooting apparently and the one that was used in the Aurora movie theatre, Sandy Hook elementary, Parkland High School, Tree of Life Synagogue, Las Vegas shootings.

That's not exactly true though.
A lot of people in Ireland have centrefire semi automatic rifles in 5.56, 7.62 and a range of other military calibres.
There is a surprising number of high power rifles in the country.
But.
Because there is a fairly robust licensing regime there is no proliferation.

The folks that own such rifles have to jump through hoops, cross the t's and dot the i's.

Tell me how wrote: »

You don't have easy access to assault rifles. The type of gun that was used in this shooting apparently and the one that was used in the Aurora movie theatre, Sandy Hook elementary, Parkland High School, Tree of Life Synagogue, Las Vegas shootings.

The vast majority of death by firearms aren't caused by these types of guns. It seems to be handguns that are reached for first.

walshb wrote: »

You cannot compare the ease that U.S. citizens have to firearms compared to us in Ireland. Guns are fooking everywhere in a America.

I wouldn’t have a clue about how to get my hands on a firearm here, and I’d argue the same for other persons living in Ireland

Plus, there are 330 million people in America; circa 250 million that could probably legally just buy guns?

The comparison makes no sense.

Here's my take on things.

I personally don't believe everyone should have access to a firearm. Some people just wouldn't be responsible enough with one.

This causes conflict with the 2nd Amendment as that doesn't mention anything about people needing to be responsible.

So the first step is to go about changing 2A and also changing most of the individual State's Constitutions. This won't happen. At least it won't happen in my lifetime anyway because there isn't the demand for it to happen. It might happen at Federal level way down the line but I can't see it. And if it happens at Federal level, there will be resistance on a State level. It would be like trying to dance through the eye of a needle.

And even if that happens, it does nothing to address the 500m+ guns that are already out there. And there will be hundreds of millions more guns added to that figure before the laws are changed.

And many Americans won't give up those guns. And look what happens when you suggest a gun ban. Look at Sandy Hook. The US went on a gun buying splurge after that because there was a fear that certain guns would be prohibited.

So, how do you take the guns back by force? You can't.

My thinking is that slowly the Government might be able to bring in tighter background checks for gun sales to try stop the crazies and criminals from getting guns, but that won't stop those things happening. But again this doesn't stop more guns being bought.

My thinking is that the Government might be very slowly be able to ban certain types of guns but the US citizens will get around that by putting on a different stock etc.

Basically there's no easy fix or roadmap that can be followed.

The right to bear arms is ingrained in their culture and they ain't giving up that right any time soon.

banie01 wrote: »

That's not exactly true though.
A lot of people in Ireland have centrefire semi automatic rifles in 5.56, 7.62 and a range of other military calibres.
There is a surprising number of high power rifles in the country.
But.
Because there is a fairly robust licensing regime there is no proliferation.

The folks that own such rifles have to jump through hoops, cross the t's and dot the i's.

That's my point and what is missing in the US in many locations.

salmocab wrote: »

But all that said they need a start even if it means the beneficiaries are the children of people who aren’t born yet. It would obviously need baby steps but it being a tough long road is no reason to not start on it.

Supposing you are in charge.

What's the first step?

BattleCorp wrote: »

Supposing you are in charge.

What's the first step?

Well that’s a massive one but I suppose I’d start by getting guns and owners registered with rules on storage. Obviously different states already have different rules/laws. Then I’d get some proper classification of what guns are what. Now I know someone will come in with ‘but that won’t work’ or ‘that’s illegal’ but someone needs to start somewhere or at least someone should. If it was genuinely me in charge I’d look into getting rid of 2a but I know that that would start a civil war with morons running around the woods dressed up as trees.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210315/victory-in-colorado-preemption-case

A mere week before the mass shooting in Boulder, the NRA were bragging about how they'd prevented a ban on this type if weapon in Boulder. If only they had the capacity for shame

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's all very well starting somewhere, but starting somewhere which either won't work or is illegal is a very bad place to start, and merely re-entrenches opposition, as well as getting nothing actually done. You need to start somewhere which is both legal and makes practical sense. Oftentimes the latter is the realistic problem. Since anti-gun laws tend to be made by people who don't like guns, and thus don't take much of an interest in their technicalities, they very rarely have the desired effect. Assault weapons bans in the US are an excellent case in point.

For example, some storage laws will be legal. "Must have gun inaccessible if nobody is home" may pass muster. And, indeed, in some places like California, some form of lock must be sold with every gun. However, if you put forward something like "Guns must always be stored unloaded and securely", it will fail horribly because it defeats the purpose of a gun for defense.

And if things are legal and 'make sense', they still have to have a chance of working. Take your first suggestion of registration, then look to see how well that works in practice. Such registrations have failed in US states (https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html ) and abroad https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/?sh=562b4a545a1b

It just cost taxpayers money, and most people didn't register. And even if, in the unlikely event, such a registry existed, how would it help? What practical effect would it have on preventing an otherwise lawful gun owner from committing a crime with that gun? Knowing he had it is pretty pointless after the fact.

We all know nothing will happen anyway, people will keep dying and people will make any amount of excuses as to why nothing will work.

alchemist33 wrote: »

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210315/victory-in-colorado-preemption-case

A mere week before the mass shooting in Boulder, the NRA were bragging about how they'd prevented a ban on this type if weapon in Boulder. If only they had the capacity for shame

Read the article. The ban was illegal.

Another way of stating what you said could be 'NRA bragging about forcing authorities to obey the law'. We have had similar cases here where the Gardai/DOJ were making up the law, and they don't have the powers to do that.