Gun control in the USA

MUSEIST · 16-12-2012 05:09AM

nagirrac wrote: »

Except for the fact that the evidence is the opposite of what you are suggesting. The most frequent and brutal mass killings in the 20th century, which are orders of magnitude over killings in previous centuries, were perpetrated by atheist-inspired regimes. There have been 28 Marxist-atheist inspired regimes since 1917 and between them they have slaughtered well over 100M of their own people (not wars between countries). As for the typical atheist response "it was not because they were atheist", well, that's about as valid as slaughters perpetrated by religions were "not because they were religious". The evidence is that atheist inspired regimes are far more efficient in barbarity, and clearly it wasn't Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot carrying out the killing but those that were convinced by their leaders that their was no God. Whether atheists like it or not, take belief in God out of the human equation and carnage appears to follow.

The main issue in the US relating to rampage killings is mental health and a complete lack of moral compass. Regardless of the lunatic fringe minority of religious fanatics the pursuit of the almighty $ has replaced God for the majority. Kids are the victims as in the insane drive for material gain, kids are the ones to lose out.

It is absurd to suggest that the main issue is gun control. It is more correct to say it is the exact same issue as increasing suicide rates among the young in Ireland i.e. a complete breakdown of mental health. It also appears once you make the decision that you hate yourself enough to end your life, the US experience is the decision to take lots of people with you becomes an easier step. It's absolutely true that easy access to guns is a factor in carrying out the rampage, but the poster you reponded to is also absolutely correct, if the will to carry out mass killing is there, the means will be found.

Put simply, greater gun control will ensure a safer society and reduce the chances of these type of events from happening. Nobody is silly enough to believe that tight gun control would stop this (people will often find a way) but having a gun culture and so many unnecessary guns in the public domain (like in the US) will increase the likelihood of such events from happening and puts many innocent people (like the kids at the school) at risks of some crazy with his mothers gun. It has very little to do with mental health IMO, if you put dangerous weapons in peoples hands then tragic events like this WILL happen. Taking away the guns will reduce this (not eliminate it, nothing will eliminate such tragedies).

nagirrac · 16-12-2012 06:44AM

MUSEIST wrote: »

Put simply, greater gun control will ensure a safer society and reduce the chances of these type of events from happening. Nobody is silly enough to believe that tight gun control would stop this (people will often find a way) but having a gun culture and so many unnecessary guns in the public domain (like in the US) will increase the likelihood of such events from happening and puts many innocent people (like the kids at the school) at risks of some crazy with his mothers gun. It has very little to do with mental health IMO, if you put dangerous weapons in peoples hands then tragic events like this WILL happen. Taking away the guns will reduce this (not eliminate it, nothing will eliminate such tragedies).

I agree that access to guns increase the potential severity of the rampage. However the root cause is absolutely mental health, unless you believe that this was a random act and he just happened to pick up a few guns that were lying around. There is nothing random about these acts, they are carefully and meticulously planned and executed. If you do not believe someone cafeully planning an event like this and carrying it out with military style precision is a mental health issue, then what is it? What state do you think a mind is in to dress in combat gear for the event you have carefully planned, blow a hole through your mother's face, then drive to a school and blow the heads off a classroom of 6 year olds before taking your own life? Little to do with mental health? really?

SeanW · 16-12-2012 06:46AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you actually have anything constructive to say?

It's a legitimate question - why does one assume that atheists and agnostics must be overwhelmingly in favour of strong gun control?

I am agnostic, as non-religious as it is possible to be, yet I am in favour of allowing reasonable people reasonable flexibility to acquire weapons for their self defense needs.

Switzerland has gun laws that make the U.S. look lefty-liberal, yet the place isn't drowing in childrens blood. Why is that? I'm not sure of the answer, it may have to do with mental health care or something, but tightening gun laws isn't the solution here. Criminals and whackjobs will still always get guns somewhere, but law abiding citizens would be disarmed and defenseless. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Evade · 16-12-2012 08:20AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Talk to Richard Branson - he is the one who Twitted it.

Would you care to find me a year- just one single year - when the combined deaths by handguns in the countries listed (feel free to include the unified Germany) amounted to half or more of those in the US alone?

When you do I will see your comment as more than a mere quibble.

I doubt there is such a year but violent crime in the US was much higher in the 80s and 90s than it is now so the image seems a little biased.

MUSEIST · 16-12-2012 09:42AM

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree that access to guns increase the potential severity of the rampage. However the root cause is absolutely mental health, unless you believe that this was a random act and he just happened to pick up a few guns that were lying around. There is nothing random about these acts, they are carefully and meticulously planned and executed. If you do not believe someone cafeully planning an event like this and carrying it out with military style precision is a mental health issue, then what is it? What state do you think a mind is in to dress in combat gear for the event you have carefully planned, blow a hole through your mother's face, then drive to a school and blow the heads off a classroom of 6 year olds before taking your own life? Little to do with mental health? really?

I'm really not sure what this has to do with mental health. People do horrible things, just look through human history. Things as horrific as this happen over and over again. I don't like the suggestion that only a mentally ill person could do something like this because I think thats a misunderstanding about mental health and this type of thinking is part of what creates a stigma around mental health.

sephir0th · 16-12-2012 11:32AM

Guns have one purpose - to cause harm. Nukes have one purpose - to cause harm. I doubt anyone would argue for the legality of a person to carry a nuke around, why are guns any different?

The primary purpose of a knife is not to cause harm. However, any weapon built specifically for this purpose should be illegal.

We can't wipe out homicide incidents , but surely the goal is to make it significantly more difficult for a deranged individual to do so?

And for those that advocate dealing with the mental health issues instead - you are presenting a false dichotomy. Both should be addressed.

Sycopat · 16-12-2012 11:47AM

SeanW wrote: »

Switzerland has gun laws that make the U.S. look lefty-liberal, yet the place isn't drowing in childrens blood. Why is that?

Mandatory military service for males.
Need a permit to buy guns.
Need a police permit and check to buy heavier weaponry.
Private sales are recorded.

Also the swiss military is actually a militia so a lot of its civilian weaponry has a military purpose, which skews their numbers.

Switzerland are liberal about guns.

They are not as liberal as is often made out though. Or certain parts of the US.

Sin City · 16-12-2012 12:09PM

A total re education about guns is needed in the States.
Total restriction of sale or preferbaly total ban on guns at all. Why is it so important that every citizen be armed? For protection? A gun owner is more lileky to accidently shoot someone who didnt mean them anyharm, (or in this case have their child gain access to a gun.)

I heard that a bill was passed in the states a few years ago where it is now legal to bring a fire arm into a licenced premises? (Not very smart)

If they are so determined to be armed, then surely non fatal fire arms should be all that should be availiable and legal for everyone

cnocbui · 16-12-2012 01:09PM

Take away guns and they will only use a different weapon. The age old rally cry of the gun nut.

A man in China entered a school and stabbed 22 children and one adult. Death toll – 0

In 2010, there were similar incidents in China. In one, 28 children, one teacher and a security guard were stabbed. Death toll – 0

24 hours earlier, there was an incident where 18 children and a teacher were slashed. Death toll – 0

There were other incidents where children actually died. For similar incidents that year (2010) as a whole, 21 children and adults died and 90 were injured.

So given the use of guns, lanza has managed to kill more children and adults in one incident than the multiple perpetrators of such crimes managed in China in one very bad year.

So yes, other weapons can and are used, but the outcomes are not even close to those involving guns.

The other brilliant argument is to quote incidents where people circumvent gun controls and go on a killing spree, and then claim gun control doesn't work. The trouble with that is the other side of the coin is hidden. How many mass shootings might have happened, but didn't, because the potential perpetrators couldn't readily equip themselves while they were experiencing a mental rage?

We can't know, but assuming that mental illness is probably fairly consistent in a given population, one can compare the death tolls for countries where guns are freely available - like the US - to others where they are not - like China.

In this Wikipedia article on school attacks in China in 2010. There were 18 attackers with a death toll of 21 and 90 injured.

As I said, lanza killed 28 in one incident - that's 7 more than 18 people managed in a whole year in China - a country with 1,347 million people, versus the 315 million in the US.

What would the death toll have been in China if those people had easy access to guns, 504?

Personally I don't think there is any valid case for handguns. They have only one real purpose, and that is to kill people. The biggest problem seems to be rate of fire and ammunition, rather than weapon type.

While channel surfing last night, I watched part of a gruesome interview with the chief medical officer unfortunate enough to be dealing with the Newtown victims. He said a rifle was the principle weapon and intimated that the ammunition used was designed to do maximum tissue damage.

Given witness reports, the rate of fire was prodigious.

When the US constitution was drafted. Arms were mostly single shot, muzzle loading. The rate of fire possible was limited. If the US were to abide by the spirit of the constitution and limit civilian gun ownership along the lines as was envisaged by the drafters of the constitution, things might be a lot better all round. Bolt action rifles with 5 shot magazines.

People wonder what else about the US is different to other countries. One thing is Hollywood. What do you suppose would be the average bullet count for an American movie? Mr and Mrs Smith was on the other night. While much of it was amusing, the number of rounds fired insane.

Apart from glorifying guns, many American movies seem to promote them as a universal and ultimate solution for every problem. Your character has a problem that needs solving? Give him/her a gun and lots of ammunition. Got a cat stuck up a tree? - bang - problem solved.

Bloodwing · 16-12-2012 01:13PM

sephir0th wrote: »

Guns have one purpose - to cause harm. Nukes have one purpose - to cause harm. I doubt anyone would argue for the legality of a person to carry a nuke around, why are guns any different?

The primary purpose of a knife is not to cause harm. However, any weapon built specifically for this purpose should be illegal.

We can't wipe out homicide incidents , but surely the goal is to make it significantly more difficult for a deranged individual to do so?

And for those that advocate dealing with the mental health issues instead - you are presenting a false dichotomy. Both should be addressed.

I'm not a gun owner myself but to claim the only purpose of guns is to cause harm is not true and comparing them to nukes is beyond words.

Gun control in America plays a big part in these incidents but there is an entire culture that also needs adjusting. I know a lot of people in Ireland that own handguns, shotguns and rifles yet shootings involving licenced firearms in Ireland are minimal.

Most countries citizens see firearms ownership as a privilege, Americans see it as a right and treat it as such. Restriction of calibre is not going to solve things, an Olympic .22 pistol will kill a child just as easily as a rifle if it's in the hands of a mad man.

sephir0th · 16-12-2012 01:20PM

Bloodwing wrote: »

I'm not a gun owner myself but to claim the only purpose of guns is to cause harm is not true and comparing them to nukes is beyond words.

What other purpose can a firearm held by a person have? I think you're missing the point, I only used the nuke analogy to try make it. I'm not saying the person has an intention to cause harm, I'm saying that harm is the only purpose of a gun. The sole purpose of a kitchen knife for example if not to cause harm.

HemmingSay · 16-12-2012 01:28PM

I'm not well read on the subject and to be honest my eyes glazed over at some of the maths involved - but this article covers the effects of Australian gun reform following a massacre in 1996.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

Seems to strongly suggest gun control works.

Bloodwing · 16-12-2012 01:31PM

sephir0th wrote: »

What other purpose can a firearm held by a person have? I think you're missing the point, I only used the nuke analogy to try make it. I'm not saying the person has an intention to cause harm, I'm saying that harm is the only purpose of a gun. The sole purpose of a kitchen knife for example if not to cause harm.

Clay pigeon shooting which is an Olympic sport and a lot of fun on something like a stag. Pistol target shooting which is again an Olympic sport and takes a huge amount of skill. Rifle target shooting which is again an Olympic sport and requires a lot of skill.

Rifles and shotguns are also used in the control of vermin in situations where other methods are unsuitable. Again I'm not a gun nut but to say the only purpose of a gun is to cause harm is unfair to those who use them safely in their sports.

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 01:49PM

Bloodwing wrote: »

Clay pigeon shooting which is an Olympic sport and a lot of fun on something like a stag. Pistol target shooting which is again an Olympic sport and takes a huge amount of skill. Rifle target shooting which is again an Olympic sport and requires a lot of skill.

Rifles and shotguns are also used in the control of vermin in situations where other methods are unsuitable. Again I'm not a gun nut but to say the only purpose of a gun is to cause harm is unfair to those who use them safely in their sports.

Is the Stag harmed? Is it having fun?
Are the rodents harmed?

Clay pigeon shooting is a (pardon the pun) off-shoot of actual real live bird shooting - I imagine people would get quite upset if actual birds were blasted out of the sky during the Olympics.

The sole purpose of a gun is to shoot something. How often does the average person actually need to shoot something?

A crossbow is also quite an effective weapon yet we don't see any clamour for people to be allowed to use them- but then they are difficult to load and are not known for their semi auto or auto capabilities.

Now the Welsh longbow - those proficient in that can fire quickly and with astounding accuracy. Their range is quite long and with the right tip can pierce metal but you do need to start training at about the age of 10 and practice every single day. Archery is an Olympic sport - should we all go and get bows and arrows? A compound bow would suffice as few of us have the required training in the long bow.

Mark Hamill · 16-12-2012 02:04PM

SeanW wrote: »

It's a legitimate question - why does one assume that atheists and agnostics must be overwhelmingly in favour of strong gun control?

Did you read the OP? Particularly this bit:

robindch wrote: »

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?

This thread was not set up to reinforce your proposed assumption, it was set up to question it.

SeanW wrote: »

Switzerland has gun laws that make the U.S. look lefty-liberal, yet the place isn't drowing in childrens blood. Why is that? I'm not sure of the answer, it may have to do with mental health care or something, but tightening gun laws isn't the solution here.

Why not? I think you are looking at it the wrong way around. Switzerland's loose gun control is justified by its lack of mass shootings. America has mass shootings with alarming regularity. The environments are different, the gun cultures are different, so the laws must be different to account for that.

SeanW wrote: »

Criminals and whackjobs will still always get guns somewhere, but law abiding citizens would be disarmed and defenseless. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Do you have any stats to back up the implied claim here? How many people have been saved because they have a legal gun? Also, do you feel insecure in Ireland, where you don't have a gun?

Bloodwing · 16-12-2012 02:20PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Is the Stag harmed? Is it having fun?
Are the rodents harmed?

Clay pigeon shooting is a (pardon the pun) off-shoot of actual real live bird shooting - I imagine people would get quite upset if actual birds were blasted out of the sky during the Olympics.

The sole purpose of a gun is to shoot something. How often does the average person actually need to shoot something?

A crossbow is also quite an effective weapon yet we don't see any clamour for people to be allowed to use them- but then they are difficult to load and are not known for their semi auto or auto capabilities.

Now the Welsh longbow - those proficient in that can fire quickly and with astounding accuracy. Their range is quite long and with the right tip can pierce metal but you do need to start training at about the age of 10 and practice every single day. Archery is an Olympic sport - should we all go and get bows and arrows? A compound bow would suffice as few of us have the required training in the long bow.

By stag I meant a stag before a wedding. I'm sure rodents don't enjoy being shot but it is still necessary regardless of your personal opinion of it and at times it does more good than harm, but that all depends on your personal opinion of what harm is.

I never said people need to shoot but wanting to shoot doesn't make it any less enjoyable for them. The sole purpose is to shoot something, but just because you''re shooting something doesn't mean you're doing harm. I don't know why you're asking if we should all go and buy bows and arrows just because it's an Olympic sport. Nowhere did I say everyone should buy a firearm.

The fact remains that for farmers and others firearms are necessary. For those involved in target shooting they are necessary and just because some people don't like the idea of firearms isn't grounds to state firearms do nothing but harm.

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 02:25PM

SeanW wrote: »

It's a legitimate question - why does one assume that atheists and agnostics must be overwhelmingly in favour of strong gun control?

Criminals and whackjobs will still always get guns somewhere, but law abiding citizens would be disarmed and defenseless. That doesn't make much sense to me.

It was not a legitimate questions - it was a pointless sneer at people whom he assumes are left-wing.
Because of course only loonie leftys would want to infringe on a persons right to have as many high powered, military grade, semi auto and auto guns as they wish. :rolleyes:

Did you miss this?:

There have been at least 62 in the last 30 years—and most of the killers got their guns legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 02:31PM

Bloodwing wrote: »

By stag I meant a stag before a wedding. I'm sure rodents don't enjoy being shot but it is still necessary regardless of your personal opinion of it and at times it does more good than harm, but that all depends on your personal opinion of what harm is.

I never said people need to shoot but wanting to shoot doesn't make it any less enjoyable for them. The sole purpose is to shoot something, but just because you''re shooting something doesn't mean you're doing harm. I don't know why you're asking if we should all go and buy bows and arrows just because it's an Olympic sport. Nowhere did I say everyone should buy a firearm.

The fact remains that for farmers and others firearms are necessary. For those involved in target shooting they are necessary and just because some people don't like the idea of firearms isn't grounds to state firearms do nothing but harm.

What the hell do shotguns have to do with a group of lad going on the piss before one of them gets married?

I gave no opinion about shooting vermin - I simply pointed out that shooting something that is living is by any definition causing it 'harm'.

Since you are all caught up in the notion of shooting as a sport - can you give me one good reason why the guns used for sport need to be kept in the home?

What sport requires rapid fire semis and auto btw?

Bloodwing · 16-12-2012 02:49PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What the hell do shotguns have to do with a group of lad going on the piss before one of them gets married?

I gave no opinion about shooting vermin - I simply pointed out that shooting something that is living is by any definition causing it 'harm'.

Since you are all caught up in the notion of shooting as a sport - can you give me one good reason why the guns used for sport need to be kept in the home?

What sport requires rapid fire semis and auto btw?

I've gone clay shooting on a number of stags and it is a lot of fun. It brings out the competitive edge in people and can be a good laugh in the same way go karting is. It's always done before you go anywhere near a pub.

You seem to be misinterpreting my position here. I agree that American gun legislation needs to be looked at but that is just one part of a much bigger picture. My response was to someone who said the only purpose of guns is to do harm, the reason I've mentioned sports is because it's an example of guns being used without causing harm.

Semi autos are required for pistol shooting as you are timed and have 6 seconds to fire ten rounds in some competitions. I don't think full autos are required in any form of sports, they are impossible to keep on target to the extent required in competition and therefore I don't think any civilian should be allowed to keep them. I also don't think "home defense" is a good reason to own a firearm.

If the owners aren't keeping the gun at home then where will they keep them?

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 02:52PM

Bloodwing wrote: »

I've gone clay shooting on a number of stags and it is a lot of fun. It brings out the competitive edge in people and can be a good laugh in the same way go karting is. It's always done before you go anywhere near a pub.

You seem to be misinterpreting my position here. I agree that American gun legislation needs to be looked at but that is just one part of a much bigger picture. My response was to someone who said the only purpose of guns is to do harm, the reason I've mentioned sports is because it's an example of guns being used without causing harm.

Semi autos are required for pistol shooting as you are timed and have 6 seconds to fire ten rounds in some competitions. I don't think full autos are required in any form of sports, they are impossible to keep on target to the extent required in competition and therefore I don't think any civilian should be allowed to keep them. I also don't think "home defense" is a good reason to own a firearm.

If the owners aren't keeping the gun at home then where will they keep them?

Gun clubs with secure lock - ups.

Bloodwing · 16-12-2012 03:29PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gun clubs with secure lock - ups.

Competitions take place all over the country and internationally at all different times of the day. Putting that restriction on law abiding people is unfair and entirely un-policeable.

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 03:38PM

Bloodwing wrote: »

Competitions take place all over the country and internationally at all different times of the day. Putting that restriction on law abiding people is unfair and entirely un-policeable.

Not at all - very policable if the will is there.

I know people who are serious competitors in international shooting competitions. They are extremely careful about their guns and always store them in locked vaults usually in their gun club but (rarely) in specially built safes at home.
When travelling they always dismantle them and store firing pins separately. They also have strong boxes bolted into their cars/jeeps. On airlines they carry them as hand luggage in a locked metal case handcuffed to their wrist and have full documentation including licences and permits with them at all times.

(Will never forget the 'incident' in Tokyo when friend didn't have a chance to show documents before guns showed on the scanner - never had so many weapons pointed at me and I was only standing behind him).

We are not talking about bloody golf clubs here - we are talking about lethal weapons!

fitz0 · 16-12-2012 03:42PM

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

Witcher · 16-12-2012 04:05PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not at all - very policable if the will is there.

I know people who are serious competitors in international shooting competitions. They are extremely careful about their guns and always store them in locked vaults usually in their gun club but (rarely) in specially built safes at home.
When travelling they always dismantle them and store firing pins separately. They also have strong boxes bolted into their cars/jeeps. On airlines they carry them as hand luggage in a locked metal case handcuffed to their wrist and have full documentation including licences and permits with them at all times.

(Will never forget the 'incident' in Tokyo when friend didn't have a chance to show documents before guns showed on the scanner - never had so many weapons pointed at me and I was only standing behind him).

We are not talking about bloody golf clubs here - we are talking about lethal weapons!

Where do these serious shooters of yours live and what do they shoot? You know that firearms are taken off you in the airport by security and brought straight to the baggage hold...you have to arrange this before hand..theres no airline on Earth that lets you have them in the cabin.

Bloodwing · 16-12-2012 04:14PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not at all - very policable if the will is there.

I know people who are serious competitors in international shooting competitions. They are extremely careful about their guns and always store them in locked vaults usually in their gun club but (rarely) in specially built safes at home.
When travelling they always dismantle them and store firing pins separately. They also have strong boxes bolted into their cars/jeeps. On airlines they carry them as hand luggage in a locked metal case handcuffed to their wrist and have full documentation including licences and permits with them at all times.

(Will never forget the 'incident' in Tokyo when friend didn't have a chance to show documents before guns showed on the scanner - never had so many weapons pointed at me and I was only standing behind him).

We are not talking about bloody golf clubs here - we are talking about lethal weapons!

But they do that by choice, the "rare" times they store them at home they obviously have reason to do that. If you legislate that they must store them at the gun club you're removing that option from them.

What use is a gun to a farmer if it's locked in the gun club and there's a dog attacking his sheep or a fox going at his chickens? What happens when someone has to be in the airport for 4 in the morning and the gun club is in the back arse of Donegal? It's unworkable and as far as I can see it cannot be policed effectively. If the Guards stop someone at 8 on a Sunday morning and they have a rifle in the car how does the Guard confirm he's going to a competition? What constitutes a competition that will allow you to take the gun out of the club? Is it a few lads getting together or does there have to be prize money involved.

I'm all for legislation when it comes to firearms, so much so that I'd like to see legislation brought in surrounding replicas too, but it must be fair and it must be workable. We already have enough unworkable legislation.

Wibbs · 16-12-2012 04:20PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We haven't had numerous mass murders in Ireland either.

There have been at least 62 in the last 30 years in the U.S. —and most of the killers got their guns legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

It is absurd that greater restrictions are placed on driving then gun ownership.

True, however it raises another interesting(to me anyway) thing; this shooting spree by lone nutcase is a relatively new thing. It didn't happen 50 years ago in the US to nearly the same degree yet 50 years ago in the US guns were far easier to own in most states. What has changed in the environment that it's now more likely? Big question that doubtless has many complex answers. Even the rolling mass media has a part to play IMH. Your disenfranchised nutter sees the huge attention he'll get when something like this goes off. He'll be "famous" and "that'll show them". I'm sure that's a large part of, that and the copycat stuff. The apparent rise in young male mental illness and the seeming lack of facilities to catch it in time another.

Nodin · 16-12-2012 04:27PM

Bloodwing wrote: »

...........

Semi autos are required for pistol shooting as you are timed and have 6 seconds to fire ten rounds in some competitions. I don't think full autos are required in any form of sports, they are impossible to keep on target to the extent required in competition..........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_shooting

http://www.ipsc.org/

Bloodwing · 16-12-2012 04:41PM

Nodin wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_shooting

http://www.ipsc.org/

I can't say I've seen that type of competition before. Do they use fully automatic firearms in it? I'd imagine it's extremely difficult to keep a full auto on target if you're firing a long burst.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers here. I'm all for control and legislation, I know firearms are dangerous. My issue is with people declaring that firearms do nothing but harm when that just isn't the case.

Cork24 · 16-12-2012 05:35PM

fitz0 wrote: »

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

When it comes to Shooting up some School in your local area, i would say their has being very little in Europe as to what we see in America. it is getting very common to the amount we see. here in Ireland we have seen Zero! thankful to the lengths it takes to get a gun in Ireland

Bannasidhe · 16-12-2012 06:49PM

Blay wrote: »

Where do these serious shooters of yours live and what do they shoot? You know that firearms are taken off you in the airport by security and brought straight to the baggage hold...you have to arrange this before hand..theres no airline on Earth that lets you have them in the cabin.

This happened ironically enough on 9/11 - airline was JAL.

Gun control in the USA

Comments