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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Gun control in the USA

  • 15-12-2012 02:48PM
    #1
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Following yesterday's massacre of children in the USA and the predictable response from the pro-lethal-weapon lobby, not to mention various religious men, the The New Yorker's Adam Gopnik comes closest to expressing my feelings:
    After the mass gun murders at Virginia Tech, I wrote about the unfathomable image of cell phones ringing in the pockets of the dead kids, and of the parents trying desperately to reach them. And I said (as did many others), This will go on, if no one stops it, in this manner and to this degree in this country alone—alone among all the industrialized, wealthy, and so-called civilized countries in the world. There would be another, for certain.

    Then there were—many more, in fact—and when the latest and worst one happened, in Aurora, I (and many others) said, this time in a tone of despair, that nothing had changed. And I (and many others) predicted that it would happen again, soon. And that once again, the same twisted voices would say, Oh, this had nothing to do with gun laws or the misuse of the Second Amendment or anything except some singular madman, of whom America for some reason seems to have a particularly dense sample.

    And now it has happened again, bang, like clockwork, one might say: Twenty dead children—babies, really—in a kindergarten in a prosperous town in Connecticut. And a mother screaming. And twenty families told that their grade-schooler had died. After the Aurora killings, I did a few debates with advocates for the child-killing lobby—sorry, the gun lobby—and, without exception and with a mad vehemence, they told the same old lies: it doesn’t happen here more often than elsewhere (yes, it does); more people are protected by guns than killed by them (no, they aren’t—that’s a flat-out fabrication); guns don’t kill people, people do; and all the other perverted lies that people who can only be called knowing accessories to murder continue to repeat, people who are in their own way every bit as twisted and crazy as the killers whom they defend. (That they are often the same people who pretend outrage at the loss of a single embryo only makes the craziness still crazier.)

    So let’s state the plain facts one more time, so that they can’t be mistaken: Gun massacres have happened many times in many countries, and in every other country, gun laws have been tightened to reflect the tragedy and the tragic knowledge of its citizens afterward. In every other country, gun massacres have subsequently become rare. In America alone, gun massacres, most often of children, happen with hideous regularity, and they happen with hideous regularity because guns are hideously and regularly available.

    The people who fight and lobby and legislate to make guns regularly available are complicit in the murder of those children. They have made a clear moral choice: that the comfort and emotional reassurance they take from the possession of guns, placed in the balance even against the routine murder of innocent children, is of supreme value. Whatever satisfaction gun owners take from their guns—we know for certain that there is no prudential value in them—is more important than children’s lives. Give them credit: life is making moral choices, and that’s a moral choice, clearly made.

    All of that is a truth, plain and simple, and recognized throughout the world. At some point, this truth may become so bloody obvious that we will know it, too. Meanwhile, congratulate yourself on living in the child-gun-massacre capital of the known universe.
    I'd imagine that most boardsies and A+A posters would have similar views to Gopnik's on tightening up on access to guns, but is that really the case? An ongoing thejournal poll suggests that, at the time of writing, a majority believe that guns are not the problem, even allowing for the presence of the many shinnerbots who seem to come out in force for any poll there. And Obama hinted at taking steps at an emotional news conference yesterday, but will he be able to? Or will it, like just almost every other attempt to control the spread of lethal weaponry, end up being shot down like the doomed kids who'll die at the next school massacre?


«13456734

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

    Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

    Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,555 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    so is this the atheism and agnosticism forum or the general left wing collective forum?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    so is this the atheism and agnosticism forum or the general left wing collective forum?

    Do you actually have anything constructive to say?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blowfish wrote: »
    Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

    Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

    Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.

    On the same day a crazy went on the rampage in china with only a knife. Nobody died though 22 were injured.

    Of course the mental health issue needs tackled. But a.crazy with no gun is safer than a crazy armed to the teeth


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Blowfish wrote: »
    Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

    Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

    Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.

    Mental health issues exist in every country - is this why every country has these kind of mass murders on a regular basis? Oh wait...they don't.

    High powered, military grade, automatic and semi-automatic pistols and rifles are ridiculously easy to get in many parts of the U.S..
    These weapons have one purpose and one purpose only - to quickly and efficiently kill many people from a distance. To say that severely restricting the availability of these weapons will not tackle the problem of people using guns to commit mass murder is, imho, a singularly stupid statement.

    10,728 deaths due to handguns alone in the US last year -Coincidence? I don't think so....

    72316_10151146554085872_516093712_n.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    Rodin wrote: »
    On the same day a crazy went on the rampage in china with only a knife. Nobody died though 22 were injured.
    Indeed. 22 kids were attacked with a knife. The reaction to this shouldn't be 'it could have been worse if he'd had a gun' it should be 'how the fúck do we stop this from happening in the first place?'

    It just seems a little off kilter to me that as soon as an incident like this happens the focus immediately turns to the gun laws, rather than to the fact that the mental health system, though being aware that these people had major issues, failed to deal with them adequately in any way.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    The type of person who would massacre 20 innocent children in their classroom isn't going to be detered by firearms laws.. others such as Anders Breivik weren't. A person with a desire for violence like that isn't going to wake up and say 'oh..firearms are hard to get..I think I'll become a doctor and have a family'...like Timothy McVeigh they'll make a bomb and blow a building up. Finding the cause is the key, other nations have liberal firearms laws and no school shootings...there's something different in the US..why do some of those with mental disorders there resort to shooting children..why does it not happen in other countries where there are open firearms laws and people with mental illness?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Blowfish wrote: »
    Indeed. 22 kids were attacked with a knife. The reaction to this shouldn't be 'it could have been worse if he'd had a gun' it should be 'how the fúck do we stop this from happening in the first place?'

    It just seems a little off kilter to me that as soon as an incident like this happens the focus immediately turns to the gun laws, rather than to the fact that the mental health system, though being aware that these people had major issues, failed to deal with them adequately in any way.

    Suppose suitcase nukes were freely and legally available. We're not going to be able to stop every crime and some people will always find a way to obtain their means but we do need to ensure that mass killings are quite hard to do. As it stands in the U.S once your conscience is compromised carrying out a mass killing is ridiculously easy. I say if the Gun Control lobby really believe in their principles then every citizen should be able to carry suitcase nukes. Couple of nukes detonated in a desert never did any harm . . .


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Blay wrote: »
    The type of person who would massacre 20 innocent children in their classroom isn't going to be detered by firearms laws..

    Well, if the firearm laws are actually any use, then they won't have a choice about being deterred.

    If I woke up in the morning and decided I wanted to masacre a few dozen people with a handgun, then I immediate run into a problem with, you know, not having a handgun and having no possible way of getting one.

    Yes, crazy people will do crazy things, but why make it so much easier for them to do crazy shít?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blowfish wrote: »
    Indeed. 22 kids were attacked with a knife. The reaction to this shouldn't be 'it could have been worse if he'd had a gun' it should be 'how the fúck do we stop this from happening in the first place?'

    It just seems a little off kilter to me that as soon as an incident like this happens the focus immediately turns to the gun laws, rather than to the fact that the mental health system, though being aware that these people had major issues, failed to deal with them adequately in any way.

    Of course the mental health issues should be addressed.

    But why is nobody running around Irish schools with a Sig, Glock and M4 killing the kids? Because nobody in Ireland has mental health issues?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Well, if the firearm laws are actually any use, then they won't have a choice about being deterred.

    If I woke up in the morning and decided I wanted to masacre a few dozen people with a handgun, then I immediate run into a problem with, you know, not having a handgun and having no possible way of getting one.

    Yes, crazy people will do crazy things, but why make it so much easier for them to do crazy shít?

    These killings aren't spur of the moment, the person has normally put some amount of planning into it and acquired the firearms specfically for it. Few, if any of them are established firearms owners who flip out and go to a school armed. There's nothing to stop them playing along with the laws and getting what they need anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blay wrote: »
    These killings aren't spur of the moment, the person has normally put some amount of planning into it and acquired the firearms specfically for it. Few, if any of them are established firearms owners who flip out and go to a school armed. There's nothing to stop them playing along with the laws and getting what they need anyway.

    The same person could not easily get their hands on those weapons here, no matter how planned they are.

    Over there, you can buy ammunition online. Things must simply be made much more difficult for these things to happen. Eradication is the aim, but anything better than the current situation would be great.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Rodin wrote: »
    The same person could not easily get their hands on those weapons here, no matter how planned they are.

    Over there, you can buy ammunition online. Things must simply be made much more difficult for these things to happen. Eradication is the aim, but anything better than the current situation would be great.

    They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun. The system here or in any other country with licencing is not foolproof.

    You can buy ammunition online here if you have a licence too.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blay wrote: »
    They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun.

    You can buy ammunition online here if you have a licence too.

    Then their own gun laws need to change!! what use does a just out of school lad need for 2 handguns and an M4 carbine? Apart from shooting up a school?

    Why SHOULDN'T there be gun restrictions in the US?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    Blowfish wrote: »
    Gopnik etc. are missing the one consistent fact with all mass killings (both shootings and others), namely the fact that the killers consistently have a history of mental health issues.

    Tightening the gun laws isn't going to stop this from happening as the undelying issues will still be there. All it'll do is drive the killers to either obtaining the weapons illegally or using other methods (home made bombs etc) instead.

    Tackle the mental health issues and you tackle the real problem. Tackle guns and you don't.

    Does America have much higher rates of mental illness than most countries?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Rodin wrote: »
    Then their own gun laws need to change!! what use does a just out of school lad need for 2 handguns and an M4 carbine? Apart from shooting up a school?

    Why SHOULDN'T there be gun restrictions in the US?

    They weren't even his guns..they were his mothers. He was under 21 so couldn't have purchased a pistol.

    Didn't say there shouldnt be change but it's not going to solve the problem straight away...firearms will still be available and even if Obama signs a 10 year assault weapons ban then all the semi auto rifles out there now will still be legal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blay wrote: »
    They weren't even his guns..they were his mothers. He was under 21 so couldn't have purchased a pistol.

    Why did she need those weapons?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blay wrote: »
    They weren't even his guns..they were his mothers. He was under 21 so couldn't have purchased a pistol.

    Didn't say there shouldnt be change but it's not going to solve the problem straight away...firearms will still be available and even if Obama signs a 10 year assault weapons ban then all the semi auto rifles out there now will still be legal.

    Problems are never solved straight away. But one must start somewhere to fix them. Even though it will take time to change.


  • Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jernal wrote: »
    Suppose suitcase nukes were freely and legally available. We're not going to be able to stop every crime and some people will always find a way to obtain their means but we do need to ensure that mass killings are quite hard to do. As it stands in the U.S once your conscience is compromised carrying out a mass killing is ridiculously easy. I say if the Gun Control lobby really believe in their principles then every citizen should be able to carry suitcase nukes. Couple of nukes detonated in a desert never did any harm . . .

    At the time that the Constitution of the U.S. was written, and in the following century and beyond, good reason for an armed citizenry existed. I'm sure most people can still appreciate why the Constitution's Second Amendment grants, as a fundamental right, the right for the people to keep and bear arms; an armed citizenry was, and, to a far lesser degree, still is, a form of protection against the possibility of a despotic, authoritarian federal government. It's a good concept, in principle, though in modern times it seems less necessary, given how the federal military has evolved. This concept, of an armed citizenry being a protection against an overly powerful government, doesn't extend by analogy to the holding of nuclear weapons by the people.

    In any case, prohibition should be the final solution — though, in my own view, it is never really a solution, because the rights of the individual should not be limited as a result of the actions of another. As others have said, tackling the effect is little good while ignoring the root cause. Tackle whatever it is that's evidently immanent in pockets of the American psyche that, all too frequently, results in a tragic shooting. Make guns more difficult to get, by all means, but that action, in and of itself, is not enough to curb tragedies such as this one.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Blay wrote: »
    They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun.

    So why don't they? Are Americans just more crazy?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blay wrote: »
    Why are you asking me? I don't have answers for you..I'm just stating that firearms laws won't stop events like this in the uS.

    I disagree.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Rodin wrote: »
    Why did she need those weapons?

    Why are you asking me? I don't have answers for you..I'm just stating that firearms laws won't stop events like this in the US.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Rodin wrote: »
    I disagree.

    Disagree agree all you want, the evidence says otherwise.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blay wrote: »
    Disagree agree all you want, the evidence says otherwise.

    what evidence is that?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Rodin wrote: »
    what evidence is that?

    Anders Breivik, Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird..look these people up..firearms laws were no barrier to them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,856 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Blay wrote: »
    They could just join a range and apply for a licence, once you're not a known criminal and have a use for it you'll likely get the gun. The system here or in any other country with licencing is not foolproof.

    You can buy ammunition online here if you have a licence too.

    Drink driving laws aren't full proof, does that mean we should abandon them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭ezra_pound


    No guns= no shooting

    Crazies with guns= innocents shot dead

    Crazies without guns= crazies without guns


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    Blay wrote: »
    Anders Breivik, Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird..look these people up..firearms laws were no barrier to them.

    That's your evidence?

    4 people managed to get hold of guns, and that's evidence that taking guns away won't save lives??

    Is that genuinely your evidence or have I missed something?

    By the way, Derek Bird was not in possession of any handguns. Any idea why?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,482 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Drink driving laws aren't full proof, does that mean we should abandon them?

    I'm not getting into this with ya, a similar moronic argument was brought up in After Hours. We're not discussing driving laws, we're talking about firearms here. I'm not saying everyone should have access to firearms, but clamping down on them will not solve this in the US, it may help yes but these shootings will continue. They happened under the last assault weapons ban and will happen under the next one, the issue is within US society, countries with similar laws have no such issues.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 1,178 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Blay wrote: »
    Anders Breivik, Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird..look these people up..firearms laws were no barrier to them.

    In those countries these events are far more rare than in the US, the reason being that it's a lot more difficult to get hold of a gun.

    You've mentioned three major gun attacks which took place in the UK over the course of 23 years. How many massacres of this scale took place in the US in that time?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement