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
-
AbusesToilets wrote: »To your question, they do so to play to their base. Is that meant to be some sort of gotcha? In the same manner as Democrats parrot empty identity politics slogans.
Given the details of how the Canadian system failed, how do you envision a federal one in the US would work.
How do you think it will prevent firearms related deaths?
Equating what the GOP are doing with party slogans is ridiculous. One is enacted legislation, the other is a marketing thing. Would slogans like 'Lock Her Up' 'Build the wall' 'Drain the swamp' and 'MAGA' not be the epitome of 'empty identity politics slogans' given that none of them were done within 4 years of a Presidency?
Which Democrat slogans in particular do you think are similar to a law to prevent giving food or water to someone standing in line to vote?
As for your last sentence in terms of a gun registry preventing fire alarm related deaths.
Less guns on black market and less legally bought guns being resold to nefarious characters, meaning less guns being available meaning less use of them in emotive circumstances.
As I also said, mandatory waiting periods and background checks should be in place as well.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »Equating what the GOP are doing with party slogans is ridiculous. One is enacted legislation, the other is a marketing thing. Would slogans like 'Lock Her Up' 'Build the wall' 'Drain the swamp' and 'MAGA' not be the epitome of 'empty identity politics slogans' given that none of them were done within 4 years of a Presidency?
Which Democrat slogans in particular do you think are similar to a law to prevent giving food or water to someone standing in line to vote?
Those are all playing to their base, pretty clear cut. Republicans protect gun rights in the same manner as Democrats protect abortion rights, and for much the same reason. Death by a thousand cuts is the approach of those who oppose both matters, and compromise only goes in one direction. As someone in favor of both, I support such obstinacy.As for your last sentence in terms of a gun registry preventing fire alarm related deaths.
Less guns on black market and less legally bought guns being resold to nefarious characters, meaning less guns being available meaning less use of them in emotive circumstances.
As I also said, mandatory waiting periods and background checks should be in place as well.
How is a registry going to reduce the number of guns in circulation? Given the generally observed low levels of compliance across the various examples of failed efforts, which was among legally owned guns, why would you expect the numbers of illegal guns to diminish? Hope doesn't make for good strategy.
Waiting periods and background checks exist now. What leads you to feel they accomplish anything to reduce deaths?0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »How is a registry going to reduce the number of guns in circulation? Given the generally observed low levels of compliance across the various examples of failed efforts, which was among legally owned guns, why would you expect the numbers of illegal guns to diminish? Hope doesn't make for good strategy.
Waiting periods and background checks exist now. What leads you to feel they accomplish anything to reduce deaths?
An active and accurate registry will mean that they likelihood of guns being available to people who would not pass a check to own one would be much less. Knowing that a particular gun is assigned to them on a database and that they are responsible for ensuring that it is not used in a crime through their negligence will mean that more people will keep their guns safe, or will not sell them to people who might not register them. I don't buy that because it hasn't worked thus far, that it can't or won't work.
Over 20% of gun sales are done outside of licensed sellers, these do not require checks. I'm saying get to a place where this number is much closer, aiming for 0%.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »An active and accurate registry will mean that they likelihood of guns being available to people who would not pass a check to own one would be much less. Knowing that a particular gun is assigned to them on a database and that they are responsible for ensuring that it is not used in a crime through their negligence will mean that more people will keep their guns safe, or will not sell them to people who might not register them. I don't buy that because it hasn't worked thus far, that it can't or won't work.
Over 20% of gun sales are done outside of licensed sellers, these do not require checks. I'm saying get to a place where this number is much closer, aiming for 0%.
Having presumably read the article I linked, how do you anticipate such an effort would play out? What gives you reason to think it could manage to account for 500+million firearms in circulation.0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Having presumably read the article I linked, how do you anticipate such an effort would play out? What gives you reason to think it could manage to account for 500+million firearms in circulation.
I think it would play out in the same way other legislation works out. Gradual uptake, the application of penalties for non compliance and eventually it becomes normal.
That is how society and laws work. Do you think people would freely buy a car, get a drivers license, complete an annual check on it, drive within speed limits, wear safety bels etc if they didn't have to?
Hell, in a perfect world, put it on the gun companies to roll out such a system and make it a condition of their being able to operate that they do so and that every gun has several unique identifiers stamped/laser cut in to them.
It won't happen/change anything overnight, but gun violence has been a big issue in US for decades, what's another ten years if it is moving in the right direction. Gun enthusiasts those who want them for self defense etc can still have their guns, just it is traceable where that gun has been or who is responsible for it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Tell me how wrote: »I think it would play out in the same way other legislation works out. Gradual uptake, the application of penalties for non compliance and eventually it becomes normal.
That is how society and laws work. Do you think people would freely buy a car, get a drivers license, complete an annual check on it, drive within speed limits, wear safety bels etc if they didn't have to?
Hell, in a perfect world, put it on the gun companies to roll out such a system and make it a condition of their being able to operate that they do so and that every gun has several unique identifiers stamped/laser cut in to them.
It won't happen/change anything overnight, but gun violence has been a big issue in US for decades, what's another ten years if it is moving in the right direction. Gun enthusiasts those who want them for self defense etc can still have their guns, just it is traceable where that gun has been or who is responsible for it.
So taking multiple real world examples of such efforts, at much smaller scale, failing to simply function, you expect an exponentially larger system to work and also reduce crime. You're comparing safety design features, to a massive data storage effort that's beyond anything ever attempted previously. One that's meant to be live and responsive to daily changes. All without actually articulating how that will make any impact on the suicides, murders and accidents that account for the deaths per annum.
That's not even broaching the issue of privacy invasion. Something that Americans reject strongly enough that the Biden administration had to quickly walk back the suggestion of a vaccine passport this past week.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »So you don't want to hypothesize on why 8 people at Asian businesses might have been shot but are sure that other attacks are definitively motivated by a hatred of whites?
It's fairly clear you want to talk about anything except 10 white people being murdered by a non-white with a history of violence and rhetoric against white people.That aside, why is it you think that having better gun control will not influence the ability of people, irrespective of their motivation from carrying out attacks?
The attacks against the white 12 year old didn't require a gun. Neither did the murder of of that white man who was doused in flammable liquid and set on fire. That 5 year old getting tossed over a balcony didn't require a gun. And while Cannon Hinnant was shot dead, if a black man is intent on killing a 5 year old white boy, guns really aren't a factor.
The issue is these attacks are happening and their is a pattern of sadistic violence against white people. The weapons used are just details.There are people motivated against others in every other country and society, we don't see the same levels of attacks or deaths in many comparable ones as what we see in the US, there is only a singular difference....
We're discussing a Syrian immigrant with a history of anti-white resentment murdering 10 white people. The how is a detail.0 -
It's fairly clear you want to talk about anything except 10 white people being murdered by a non-white with a history of violence and rhetoric against white people.
The attacks against the white 12 year old didn't require a gun. Neither did the murder of of that white man who was doused in flammable liquid and set on fire. That 5 year old getting tossed over a balcony didn't require a gun. And while Cannon Hinnant was shot dead, if a black man is intent on killing a 5 year old white boy, guns really aren't a factor.
The issue is these attacks are happening and their is a pattern of sadistic violence against white people. The weapons used are just details.
We're discussing a Syrian immigrant with a history of anti-white resentment murdering 10 white people. The how is a detail.
In a location which is 90% white. But go on.
What history is there of anti-white sentiment? I haven't seen evidence of this, can you link please.
This is on the wikipedia page about the attack.Al-Issa expressed on his now-deleted Facebook page and to his high school wrestling teammates that he believed he was being targeted for harassment due to racism and Islamophobia. According to SITE Intelligence Group, "there was no indication on his Facebook account that suggested radical views of any kind, whether it be Islamist, anti-Trump, or anything else." His brother said the shootings were not a political statement0 -
Correct, they would likely be blowing them up, thats what escalating situations does.BattleCorp wrote: »If the Government are acting the boll1x such as the military are doing in Burma, then yes.
If every single person in Burma was armed, I doubt the Burmese army would be shooting protesters so flippantly.
So arm everyone, just in case? Meanwhile thousands dies every year due to this policy?BattleCorp wrote: »
Nope, I don't believe it. But that's not to say it's an impossibility. Who knows what could happen in the future.
so I need a gun in case the other guy has a gun? Every occur to you that the other guy has a gun in case you have a gun?BattleCorp wrote: »Not quite. Armed civilians in the US might sometimes have to defend themselves from armed criminals.
Can you see the logic failure here?
So what? Again, what do you think gives you the right to own a gun? If the gov and the people decide that they dont want you to have a gun, then you dont have a gun. Move somewhere that does allow it.BattleCorp wrote: »
Yep, I don't want to cede any ground because here in Ireland I've witnessed law abiding shooters have their sport/hobby/lifestyle chipped away at constantly. Give an inch and the authorities take a mile. There are constant hurdles thrown in the way either by the Irish Government or the EU. Every few years we lose something we had.BattleCorp wrote: »Show me a poll where the majority of Americans favour the banning of guns?
I didnt mention "banning" but anyway, the majority want stricter gun controls
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Correct, they would likely be blowing them up, thats what escalating situations does.
Not necessarily. The British Government didn't start blowing up Irish citizens when the IRA were engaged in a guerilla war with them.So arm everyone, just in case? Meanwhile thousands dies every year due to this policy?
Nope. I never said arm everyone. If you look at my previous posts I have said multiple times that not everyone should have a gun.
If someone is of sound mind and are well behaved, then yes, if they want a gun they should be allowed to have one. But by no means would I like to see a society where everyone is armed.so I need a gun in case the other guy has a gun? Every occur to you that the other guy has a gun in case you have a gun?
Can you see the logic failure here?
Can you see the logic failure if a law abiding citizen gives up his gun but the criminal trying to rob him doesn't give up theirs?
In an ideal world there would be no need to have a gun for self defence but it's nice to have that option.So what? Again, what do you think gives you the right to own a gun? If the gov and the people decide that they dont want you to have a gun, then you dont have a gun. Move somewhere that does allow it.
Once again, I've previously said I've no right to have a gun as I live in Ireland. I'm allowed to own guns here because I'm not crazy, obey the laws and don't have any addiction habits etc. If the Irish Government changed the laws and banned guns, then I'd have to give up my guns.
I don't know why you mentioned the people don't want me to have a gun. They've no say in the matter, not unless they lobby their politicians to get the law changed.
But the problem here in banning guns is that banning guns only takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens because the criminals won't give up their guns.I didnt mention "banning" but anyway, the majority want stricter gun controls
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
I'm actually in favour of gun controls. I think it's sensible to have a database so that all guns can be traced back to an owner. I think all gun sales should be recorded, and all sales should be done through an official dealer.
But here's some of the problems with that.
1. There are probably 300+ million unregistered guns in the US that will not be included in any database.
2. We're at the stage where guns can be 3d printed and they'll never be included in any database.
3. I don't necessarily agree with this point but many of the 2A guys believe that since the Constitution gives them a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.............then where's the sense in the government having a list of who has all the guns.
Bottom line. I'm in favour of some gun control but absolutely not in favour of banning guns or banning certain types of guns.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »But here's some of the problems with that.
1. There are probably 300+ million unregistered guns in the US that will not be included in any database.
2. We're at the stage where guns can be 3d printed and they'll never be included in any database.
3. I don't necessarily agree with this point but many of the 2A guys believe that since the Constitution gives them a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.............then where's the sense in the government having a list of who has all the guns.
Bottom line. I'm in favour of some gun control but absolutely not in favour of banning guns or banning certain types of guns.
1 - Bring in legislation to say that people have to register their guns, or if they don't they face stiff penalties and them confiscated if it is uncovered they had them.
2 - The number of 3D printed guns is tiny by comparison. This alone is not a reason to not register them.
3 - Point 3 falls apart for a number of reasons A - it's no longer relevant in todays society to need all citizens to rise up to defend democracy. B - the weaponry that would be available to a tyrannical government vastly overpowers even the most ambitious of privately available guns. C - The tyrants who have come closest to overpowering democracy were the same people who want to have the guns without meaningful regulation.0 -
Well not all Irish citizens were armed so...BattleCorp wrote: »Not necessarily. The British Government didn't start blowing up Irish citizens when the IRA were engaged in a guerilla war with them.
So gun crime and gun accidental deaths are only by people are of unsound mind and/or badly behaved?BattleCorp wrote: »Nope. I never said arm everyone. If you look at my previous posts I have said multiple times that not everyone should have a gun.
If someone is of sound mind and are well behaved, then yes, if they want a gun they should be allowed to have one. But by no means would I like to see a society where everyone is armed.
You mean the current situation in pretty much every country in the world other than USA? If the criminals had Anthrax would you want that too?BattleCorp wrote: »Can you see the logic failure if a law abiding citizen gives up his gun but the criminal trying to rob him doesn't give up theirs?
Do I have to remind you of that stats around injury/death from the owners own gun? Not to mention the injury and death for family/others?BattleCorp wrote: »In an ideal world there would be no need to have a gun for self defence but it's nice to have that option.
Yep, thats why I said it, being a democracy 'n all.BattleCorp wrote: »They've no say in the matter, not unless they lobby their politicians to get the law changed.
And in so doing it removes a huge number of guns from the populace, reduces the numbers of guns being produced, oh and also has the benefit of preventing accidental gun deaths.BattleCorp wrote: »But the problem here in banning guns is that banning guns only takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens because the criminals won't give up their guns.
That doesnt prevent anything though?BattleCorp wrote: »I'm actually in favour of gun controls. I think it's sensible to have a database so that all guns can be traced back to an owner. I think all gun sales should be recorded, and all sales should be done through an official dealer.
It worked in Australia.BattleCorp wrote: »But here's some of the problems with that.
1. There are probably 300+ million unregistered guns in the US that will not be included in any database.
Ah come on.BattleCorp wrote: »2. We're at the stage where guns can be 3d printed and they'll never be included in any database.
Well if everyone owns a gun whats the problem with tracking who owns what?BattleCorp wrote: »3. I don't necessarily agree with this point but many of the 2A guys believe that since the Constitution gives them a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.............then where's the sense in the government having a list of who has all the guns.
Why do you need to own an automatic ?BattleCorp wrote: »Bottom line. I'm in favour of some gun control but absolutely not in favour of banning guns or banning certain types of guns.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »1 - Bring in legislation to say that people have to register their guns, or if they don't they face stiff penalties and them confiscated if it is uncovered they had them.
I'd be fine with that. But you won't get compliance from a large number of American citizens though. And you'd probably have difficulty bringing in that law eitherways.2 - The number of 3D printed guns is tiny by comparison. This alone is not a reason to not register them.
The technology is new but it will become more popular. I agree with you on this point. But as I said, you won't get compliance from a large number of US gun owners.3 - Point 3 falls apart for a number of reasons A - it's no longer relevant in todays society to need all citizens to rise up to defend democracy. B - the weaponry that would be available to a tyrannical government vastly overpowers even the most ambitious of privately available guns. C - The tyrants who have come closest to overpowering democracy were the same people who want to have the guns without meaningful regulation.
Relevant or not, the US Constitution says differently.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »I'd be fine with that. But you won't get compliance from a large number of American citizens though. And you'd probably have difficulty bringing in that law eitherways.
The technology is new but it will become more popular. I agree with you on this point. But as I said, you won't get compliance from a large number of US gun owners.
Relevant or not, the US Constitution says differently.
By virtue of an amendment, which can, of course, be amended.
I'm not suggesting that any of the things I have suggested are straightforward and the biggest stumbling block will be the resistance of many to support any such law but there should still be steps taken to reduce the number of violent incidents which occur in America with guns involved. If people don't comply, they should be penalised for not doing so. That's how the law works.
When you have sitting members of congress who still say that Sandy Hook was a false flag event, you could say that there should be people on the other side who push actively for draconian change in the hope of even seeing some meaningful progress.0 -
So gun crime and gun accidental deaths are only by people are of unsound mind and/or badly behaved?
Nope. But most gun crime is. It's more often than not a gang member, or someone with a drug problem, or someone with mental health problems or someone prone to violence who reaches for a gun and does something stupid.
You get the odd accidental shooting by someone who is careless with a gun, leaving it lying around where a child can access it, but this is a crime in the US too.
Ban the people who are of unsound mind or badly behaved from accessing guns and you'll reduce a lot of the gun deaths.
Suicide is a different matter. Good people can get depressed and take their lives with a gun. Unfortunate but I think if someone is intent on killing themselves, then it's hard to stop them.You mean the current situation in pretty much every country in the world other than USA? If the criminals had Anthrax would you want that too?
We are both in favour of some form of gun control. I'm not sure if we agree exactly on what that is. Anthrax can't really be used for self defence, a gun can.
Guns for self-defence are allowed in some countries, the US isn't the only country that allows guns for self-defence.Do I have to remind you of that stats around injury/death from the owners own gun? Not to mention the injury and death for family/others?
What would reminding me of the stats do? The law in the US allows a gun for self defence. It's a totally legal thing to do.And in so doing it removes a huge number of guns from the populace, reduces the numbers of guns being produced, oh and also has the benefit of preventing accidental gun deaths.
So, it's not gun control you want, it's the banning of guns?That doesnt prevent anything though?
If gun control doesn't prevent anything, why are you looking for gun control? Or once again, you are talking about banning guns?It worked in Australia.
Yes, the restriction of certain types of guns might have made a difference to the number of gun deaths. But there are many other factors at play.
1. The guns were bought back by the Australian Government. How much would it cost to buy back the guns in the US?
2. The Aussies aren't nearly as attached to their guns as the US citizens are. Gun ownership isn't as ingrained in the culture as it is in the US.
3. Aussies didn't have a constitutional right to bear arms so they weren't losing rights.
4. There is still gun crime in Australia.
5. Gun deaths were already reducing significantly in Australia before guns were restricted.
https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths
6. New rules were brought in, it just wasn't the removal of certain types of guns. People had to have a genuine reason for having a gun. Self-defence isn't one of those reasons.
7. Complete a mandatory safety course. This surely would reduce accidental gun deaths.Well if everyone owns a gun whats the problem with tracking who owns what?
I'm actually fine with that requirement.Why do you need to own an automatic ?
I don't need to own an automatic. I'd like to own one though. Even in the US, automatic firearms are very heavily restricted. It's very expensive to get a permit for one.0 -
By virtue of an amendment, which can, of course, be amended.
True, but I can't see the US citizens voting to get rid of their right to bear arms both in the Bill of Rights and in their State Constitutions. Not any time soon anyway.I'm not suggesting that any of the things I have suggested are straightforward and the biggest stumbling block will be the resistance of many to support any such law but there should still be steps taken to reduce the number of violent incidents which occur in America with guns involved. If people don't comply, they should be penalised for not doing so. That's how the law works.
Agreed.When you have sitting members of congress who still say that Sandy Hook was a false flag event, you could say that there should be people on the other side who push actively for draconian change in the hope of even seeing some meaningful progress.
Sandy Hook was a tragedy but it was carried out by a mentally deranged kid who murdered his mother and stole her rifle. Current gun laws can't prevent that kind of thing from happening 100% of the time. No gun laws can.
Like I said many times already, stop the crazies and criminals from accessing guns and gun deaths will reduce.
By the way, suggest any draconian changes to gun legislation and guess what will happen in the US...................gun sales will go through the roof. That's what happened post Sandy Hook and it's what will happen again when the next round of legislation is proposed.0 -
Sounds easy, but actually insanely difficult.BattleCorp wrote: »Like I said many times already, stop the crazies and criminals from accessing guns and gun deaths will reduce.
The vast majority of mass shootings in the US are carried out with people who have no priors and no official history of mental illness.
They love to carry out profiles of these people and paint them as individuals with difficult backgrounds, trouble socialising, crazy posts on 4chan and other white supremacy sites, personal conflicts up the swannee. But none of this will ever appear on any background check.
And if you start denying weapons to people who have prescriptions or diagnoses for mental illnesses, then people will avoid going to the doctor lest their gun be taken from them.
It's a total clusterfvck tbh. It requires propaganda. The US needs to stamp heavily on the "home protection" or "personal protection" narrative. Make it illegal to advertise weapons for any reason other than hunting or sports shooting.
Push it consistently, push it constantly; guns are niche tools that "normal" people use for hunting and target shooting. Only criminals and lunatics buy weapons to use against other people.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »I don't need to own an automatic. I'd like to own one though.
I guess this is the biggest point where we differ.
I don't care whether or not you are of sound mind or happy or whatever, I don't want you or anyone owning an automatic anymore than I want them owning a grenade or Anthrax.
I think the self defence argument is a red herring also, how many times does having a gun save you rather than cause more harm?
In any case, I dunno what self defence would need an automatic, zombie apocalypse?0 -
Sounds easy, but actually insanely difficult.
The vast majority of mass shootings in the US are carried out with people who have no priors and no official history of mental illness.
They love to carry out profiles of these people and paint them as individuals with difficult backgrounds, trouble socialising, crazy posts on 4chan and other white supremacy sites, personal conflicts up the swannee. But none of this will ever appear on any background check.
And if you start denying weapons to people who have prescriptions or diagnoses for mental illnesses, then people will avoid going to the doctor lest their gun be taken from them.
It's a total clusterfvck tbh. It requires propaganda. The US needs to stamp heavily on the "home protection" or "personal protection" narrative. Make it illegal to advertise weapons for any reason other than hunting or sports shooting.
Push it consistently, push it constantly; guns are niche tools that "normal" people use for hunting and target shooting. Only criminals and lunatics buy weapons to use against other people.
I agree with you but having a gun for self-defence is legal in the US. Plus looking out for oneself is much more ingrained in the US psyche than it is here in Ireland. I never wake up and think I gotta protect my family etc. I know some US citizens who think like that.
Agreed on the propaganda, but you are talking generations before it starts to change. And by that time there will probably be a billion guns in the wild in the US.
One other point. Mass shootings are only a fraction of shootings that happen in the US.0 -
Advertisement
-
I guess this is the biggest point where we differ.
I don't care whether or not you are of sound mind or happy or whatever, I don't want you or anyone owning an automatic anymore than I want them owning a grenade or Anthrax.
I think the self defence argument is a red herring also, how many times does having a gun save you rather than cause more harm?
In any case, I dunno what self defence would need an automatic, zombie apocalypse?
How about a semi-automatic rifle then. Would you be ok with me having one of them?
By the way, how often has a fully automatic firearm been used in a murder in the US?
No idea if the link below is true but it seems to say that fully automatic rifles are very rarely used in fatal shootings.
https://eu.clarionledger.com/story/news/2019/09/11/canton-ms-shooting-fully-automatic-rifles-brad-sullivan-edgar-egbert/2262741001/
Regarding your self defence point, I suppose the better you are trained with a firearm, the more likely you are able to protect yourself with it.
By the way, I'm not advocating a fully automatic rifle for self defence. I was think of sport shooting such as target shooting. For fun basically.0 -
Fully automatic rifles are extremely expensive and regulated, costing 10s of thousands of dollars, with additional onerous registration requirements.
Complete non issue0 -
AbusesToilets wrote: »Fully automatic rifles are extremely expensive and regulated, costing 10s of thousands of dollars, with additional onerous registration requirements.
Complete non issue
Or you just lash on a bump stock?0 -
No, I don't see why you would need one for target shooting?BattleCorp wrote: »How about a semi-automatic rifle then. Would you be ok with me having one of them?BattleCorp wrote: »By the way, how often has a fully automatic firearm been used in a murder in the US?
No idea if the link below is true but it seems to say that fully automatic rifles are very rarely used in fatal shootings.
https://eu.clarionledger.com/story/news/2019/09/11/canton-ms-shooting-fully-automatic-rifles-brad-sullivan-edgar-egbert/2262741001/
Well 60 people were killed in Vegas by a bump stock, so I guess its a moot point to anyone but a gun afficionado?
Unless the other guy is better trained, or surprises you, or just plain old shoots first?BattleCorp wrote: »Regarding your self defence point, I suppose the better you are trained with a firearm, the more likely you are able to protect yourself with it.BattleCorp wrote: »By the way, I'm not advocating a fully automatic rifle for self defence. I was think of sport shooting such as target shooting. For fun basically.
But there are lots of things that are fun that we don't allow, typically because they are dangerous.
I'd be ok with you going to a range and using their, licensed equipment (still not auto or semi-auto).
I don't agree that 99% of people who own a gun actually need it for self defence or anything similar.0 -
-
No, I don't see why you would need one for target shooting?
Well 60 people were killed in Vegas by a bump stock, so I guess its a moot point to anyone but a gun afficionado?
Unless the other guy is better trained, or surprises you, or just plain old shoots first?
But there are lots of things that are fun that we don't allow, typically because they are dangerous.
I'd be ok with you going to a range and using their, licensed equipment (still not auto or semi-auto).
I don't agree that 99% of people who own a gun actually need it for self defence or anything similar.
Thankfully your feelings on the matter are irrelevant.0 -
Tell me how wrote: »1 - Bring in legislation to say that people have to register their guns, or if they don't they face stiff penalties and them confiscated if it is uncovered they had them.
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.2 - The number of 3D printed guns is tiny by comparison. This alone is not a reason to not register them.
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 of that stats around injury/death from the owners own gun? Not to mention the injury and death for family/others?
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.It worked in Australia.
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.By virtue of an amendment, which can, of course, be amended
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.I think the self defence argument is a red herring also, how many times does having a gun save you rather than cause more harm?
There is a wide range of opinions on that. Going to the CDC.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html#:~:text=Estimates%20of%20defensive%20gun%20use,defensive%20gun%20uses%20each%20year.
Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
After Sandy Hook, the CDC commissioned that report. Two quotes.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/priorities-research-reduce-threat-firearm-related-violence
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)
(Note the figure is a bit different from that quoted above from the same report. It's the difference between 'almost all' and 'all')
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies0 -
No, I don't see why you would need one for target shooting?
The AR15 semi-automatic rifle is the most popular rifle used in target competitions in the US. Perfect for target shooting.Well 60 people were killed in Vegas by a bump stock, so I guess its a moot point to anyone but a gun afficionado?
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.Unless the other guy is better trained, or surprises you, or just plain old shoots first?
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'd be ok with you going to a range and using their, licensed equipment (still not auto or semi-auto).
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 don't agree that 99% of people who own a gun actually need it for self defence or anything similar.
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.0 -
BattleCorp wrote: »T
So ban bump stocks.
By happenstance, the 6th Circuit court of Appeals published an opinion on that last week. https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0070p-06.pdf
Our holding that a bump stock does not fall within the statutory definition of a machine gun because a bump stock does not cause a firearm to fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger is sufficient to resolve this appeal
It may be possible to draft legislation to ban them (For whatever good it does: As the court observed, bump firing as a technique does not actually require a bump stock (Demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe9hg817weE ), but the ban ordered by Trump was just torpedoed.0 -
Advertisement
-
Mass shooting in America .
Reasons ; Trump , guns , far right , IRA ( lol ) etc etc .
No mention that the perp might have had some sort of MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES .
Not so long ago in Ireland , a guy with a " butter knife" , attacked some folk . He had mental health issues . Was this Trump's fault , far right , IRA etc ? Ban all butter knives ?
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.0
Advertisement