Another mass shooting in the U.S

Bruthal · 16-12-2012 09:08PM

Piliger wrote: »

He's just flaming in my view ..

Or has the gun culture embedded.

books4sale · 16-12-2012 09:15PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

A guns main purpose is to kill animals and to shoot targets not to kill people.

....the sickness inside!

Laneyh · 16-12-2012 09:16PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

So in other words, if you want a gun in Ireland you have to jump through a bunch of pointless hoops to get one. Unless of course you are a criminal, then you can easily get one. Our gun laws are stupidly strict and they deny hundreds of thousands the ability to defend themselves and to engage in recreational activities such as hunting or target shooting.

If you give people the right to own a gun, less crimes are committed because criminals are too afraid of getting shot to commit crimes.

Do you have any statistics to back that statement up? Americans have the right to bear arms and the death penalty. Despite these factors I would think they have a high crime rate. Can you cite any examples of where people defending themselves / property with guns has worked out well?

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 09:21PM

Laneyh wrote: »

Do you have any statistics to back that statement up? Americans have the right to bear arms and the death penalty. Despite these factors I would think they have a high crime rate. Can you cite any examples of where people defending themselves / property with guns has worked out well?

Time and time again I have linked to evidence of guns lowering crime. I really have more important things to be doing than continuing to do this.

Bruthal · 16-12-2012 09:25PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you give people the right to own a gun, less crimes are committed because criminals are too afraid of getting shot to commit crimes.

Not our criminals. They are shooting each other for years.

cartell_best · 16-12-2012 09:27PM

I was watching Sky news when they went live to the Coroner's briefing and he was asked a question by a journalist (I couldn't hear it) and his reply was, something in the lines of "if you sit down and cry after what you've seen, what I see, then, you shouldn't be in the job". That led me, just me and my own personal interpretation, to believe that he didn't allow his emotions to come into the equation. Then, seconds later, he started to talk about his Grandad and a name he used to call him. I realised then, that my feelings of complete and utter shock and complete sadness of what had transpired, is nothing compared to what a professional such as this gentleman experienced, in that he had to possibly use his coping mechanism by talking about something completely off subject.

Twenty babies, and six selfless guides taken from this earth by what I can only describe as an absolute monster, a person in which I will willingly go against my own train of thought and personal belief that there is no such thing as hell, and say YES, I hope there is a hell and that that monster feels and suffers the pain he caused to those involved, magnified to infinity. Even then, it's too good for the evil ba*tard.

Boombastic · 16-12-2012 09:27PM

Laneyh wrote: »

..... Can you cite any examples of where people defending themselves / property with guns has worked out well?

Padraig Nally

Laneyh · 16-12-2012 09:28PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Time and time again I have linked to evidence of guns lowering crime. I really have more important things to be doing than continuing to do this.

Fair enough. I've only seen your link to a book which isn't really irrefutable evidence / example but if you have provided other links to back up your stance I wouldn't want you to waste your time rehashing it.

kincsem · 16-12-2012 09:31PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you give people the right to own a gun, less crimes are committed because criminals are too afraid of getting shot to commit crimes.

I see. :rolleyes:

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-12-2012 09:40PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

So in other words, if you want a gun in Ireland you have to jump through a bunch of pointless hoops to get one

The only pointless thing is your lust for guns

wonderfullife · 16-12-2012 09:53PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Fair enough on the money front, but it owuld take you less time and with no knowledge to assemble a bomb? Maybe in the US where you have easy enough access to gunpowder for reloading purposes. In Ireland it would be a lot harder and you would definitely need some expertise.

In this case the bastard used two handguns. "Automatics" yes, so ban them? OK then you have the good old six shooter revolver that can fire just as fast and with reloaders are nearly as fast to get rounds in the chamber. OK so ban them? Then you've got legit hunting rifles and there are enough folks living in the middle of nowhere who would have a legit reason to own one, never mind sporting shooters. Shotguns would be about the last to get the chop in gun control measures. You can get them here and we've got very restrictive(and often well daft) gun control. If I was given the choice that I could only have one firearm for hunting for the table, home defence, even offence in close quarters? I'd pick a shotgun in a heartbeat.

according to the medical examiner nearly all victims were shot by a semi-automatic Bushmaster.....some victims had 11 bullet wounds. So yes very much the focus should be on those type of weapons and gun law overall.

donvito99 wrote: »

Lets not forget that it can happen on these islands.

Dunblane

They can happen anywhere. But they happen in USA a lot.

The UK and Australia both acted quickly after the 2 massacres and tightened gun laws and major mass-murders since have been few and far between.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It's interesting to note that there hasn't been a mass shooting in Australia since they reformed their gun laws in 1996. The rate of gun-related homicides has dropped too.

yup!

Blay wrote: »

At the time the 2nd Amendment was made, a flintlock was the height of weapons technology. It was the HK416 of the day and those writing it saw fit to allow their citizens to hold them, people are looking back on it through modern eyes at a time when we have assault rifles and mocking the flintlock but back then someone with one of them was well armed and people with them succeeded in driving out British forces..no mean feat.

That theory has been trotted out many times and if it held any water then it would be acted on. The 2nd Amendment was designed to arm the citizenry in order to ensure a 'free state'...to be in line with that the citizenry have to be as well armed as those they might be opposing. That is what firearms owners in America live by.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong but that's how it is if one is to keep in line with the ideals of the second amendment.

So tell me, if that is the basis for ownership, what are the threats to the "Free State" in the 21st century? Apart from complete kooks who watch too much X-Files, does any sane person believe there will be an invasion by the Government or army? Even if so what good would guns do against an army?

Name a threat to the American free-state from within the country?

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 09:55PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The only pointless thing is your lust for guns

So being passionate about peoples rights is pointless :rolleyes: you had better go back to 1775 and tell all those people not to bother fighting the Revolutionary War.

the_syco · 16-12-2012 09:56PM

jack presley wrote: »

The mentality over there is if more people had guns and were armed, the shooter would have been stopped before he killed so many. Sad, but that's the way gun activists think over there.

Well, thank **** no-one shoots each other up north since it's hard to get a gun license in norn iron.

Oh, wait, I forgot; if you don't mind breaking a few laws, anyone can get a gun :pac:

BlaasForRafa · 16-12-2012 10:01PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

A guns main purpose is to kill animals and to shoot targets not to kill people.

If thats the case then why not limit the sale of rifles to bolt-action rifles which would be perfectly fine for hunting. Plus it'd be a lot harder to massacre a class full of little children with a lee-enfield than with an AR-15.

the_syco · 16-12-2012 10:01PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

So tell me, if that is the basis for ownership, what are the threats to the "Free State" in the 21st century? Apart from complete kooks who watch too much X-Files, does any sane person believe there will be an invasion by the Government or army? Even if so what good would guns do against an army?

Name a threat to the American free-state from within the country?

I think removing guns in the USA is probably seen as political suicide, as crime would probably just go up, as only the criminals would have lots of guns.

Witcher · 16-12-2012 10:10PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

So tell me, if that is the basis for ownership, what are the threats to the "Free State" in the 21st century? Apart from complete kooks who watch too much X-Files, does any sane person believe there will be an invasion by the Government or army? Even if so what good would guns do against an army?

Name a threat to the American free-state from within the country?

You're wasting your time asking me, I didn't say I supported it, I'm explaining how Americans see it. Just because someone posts info. doesn't mean they subscibe it to.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-12-2012 10:11PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

So being passionate about peoples rights is pointless :rolleyes: you had better go back to 1775 and tell all those people not to bother fighting the Revolutionary War.

You are passionate about guns, don't try and dress it up as something noble

crazygeryy · 16-12-2012 10:16PM

why is it when i watch the likes of cnn the reporters sincerity makes me want to puke?

COH · 16-12-2012 10:26PM

Not sure if its been posted already but these guys plan on picketing the funerals of the kids...

http://www.examiner.com/article/connecticut-school-shooting-westboro-baptist-church-planning-to-picket

Fcuking CÚNTS

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 10:27PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You are passionate about guns, don't try and dress it up as something noble

I'd hardly consider myself passionate about guns. I'm just passionate about peoples right to own them. My real life experience with guns is going paint balling once and seeing other people shoot guns. I've had the chance to shoot a gun before but decided not to take it because I had no real interest in doing so. If Ireland had similar gun laws to America I'd probably have a gun at home for piece of mind purposes but I wouldn't have a collection or go hunting. I also might go to a firing range occasionally, the same way I go to the driving range occasionally to hit some golf balls.

I don't really see how that could be defined as passionate about guns, much like going to a driving range a few times or playing a couple of rounds of pitch & putt every summer wouldn't be described as being passionate about golf.

Bruthal · 16-12-2012 10:36PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

So being passionate about peoples rights is pointless :rolleyes: you had better go back to 1775 and tell all those people not to bother fighting the Revolutionary War.

You are sounding more and more like a gun mad american yourself with every post.

Piliger · 16-12-2012 10:36PM

crazygeryy wrote: »

why is it when i watch the likes of cnn the reporters sincerity makes me want to puke?

Maybe you have a problem with sincerity ?

Remmy · 16-12-2012 10:38PM

I do a bit of hunting and target shooting so I know the ins and outs of how difficult it is to possess a firearm in this country. When these horrible incidents happen I am glad that our licensing system is much more strict when compared to other countries. I know that bad people can do bad things regardless of gun laws but imo it lessens the potential scale of violence that a nutjob can bring to bear against innocent people.

EmptyTree · 16-12-2012 10:54PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'm fairly sure Harald Shipman's murders aren't included in this graph. this graph includes Shipman's in 2003 and the number of homicide's are still up 30% by 2002. That graph gives total homicides as opposed to the rate so it doesn't account for changes in population.

Homicide's are up by 30% when 97 is compared to 02, it could be argued that the homicide rate is 9% higher in 95 (before the ban) compared to 97, it depends on how you look at the figures. Again, these are overall homicide figures, so there is no breakdown of gun related homicide.

According to the UN, the UK has infact got one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world. http://http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unodc.org%2Fdocuments%2Fdata-and-analysis%2Fstatistics%2FHomicide%2FGloba_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf&ei=AE3OUKvnBM2KhQeBm4DADw&usg=AFQjCNGYxfFm92qhZoXtQkm7rVun49XVEQ&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.ZG4

Seems to me their ban is working.....

Suryavarman wrote: »

Ireland and Jamaica

Washington D.C.

Again the figures you show relate to overall murder rate, not necessarily as a result of guns. Between 1969 and 2001 there was 113 murders in the ROI as a result of the troubles in N.Ire, this may account for some of the increase in deaths in Ireland. More recent deaths as a result of gun crime are too far removed from the introduction of the gun ban to really establish a link.

I'm not familiar with the history of Jamica, so I can't comment.

Washington D.C.???? This graph illustrates my point perfectly, murder (again, not necessarily gun related) increases 10 years after the ban is put in place. The decline in the murder rate is nearly over by the time the restrictions on guns are removed.

Bruthal · 16-12-2012 11:12PM

Remmy wrote: »

I do a bit of hunting and target shooting so I know the ins and outs of how difficult it is to possess a firearm in this country. When these horrible incidents happen I am glad that our licensing system is much more strict when compared to other countries. I know that bad people can do bad things regardless of gun laws but imo it lessens the potential scale of violence that a nutjob can bring to bear against innocent people.

I think the likes of the pro gun arguments we seen in this thread, say a little about the gun culture mentality. Its ingrained into the psyche that they have the right to bear arms. And that right is above all else. And so ingrained is it, that they will put forward every type of argument to counter every gun atrocity`s negatives that gives the automatic rights to gun ownership a bad light.

We seen examples already. 27 killed in Fridays terrible event. But more are killed every year in swimming pools was one reply, and in cars was another. That in itself, says it all imo. To compare deaths in accidents with those of a deranged gunman assisted by the ease of obtaining guns, as a way of protecting the gun culture, is probably the result of an ingrained and cultured belief rather than as a result of reasoned conclusions.

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 11:23PM

EmptyTree wrote: »

Homicide's are up by 30% when 97 is compared to 02, it could be argued that the homicide rate is 9% higher in 95 (before the ban) compared to 97, it depends on how you look at the figures. Again, these are overall homicide figures, so there is no breakdown of gun related homicide.

So the homicide rate was falling, the handgun ban was enacted and then homicides increased by 30% over the next 5 years. Thanks for making an even stronger argument in favour of gun ownership.

According to the UN, the UK has infact got one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world. http://http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unodc.org%2Fdocuments%2Fdata-and-analysis%2Fstatistics%2FHomicide%2FGloba_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf&ei=AE3OUKvnBM2KhQeBm4DADw&usg=AFQjCNGYxfFm92qhZoXtQkm7rVun49XVEQ&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.ZG4

Seems to me their ban is working.....

I don't see how increasing the homicide rate could be called working. Apart from increasing the homicide rate, the gun ban caused people to commit murders using weapons other than guns. So apparently gun control laws should be judged by whether they stop people from using their weapon of choice rather than whether they actually have an effect on the homicide rate. Sounds like an unbelievably moronic way of measuring results.

Again the figures you show relate to overall murder rate, not necessarily as a result of guns. Between 1969 and 2001 there was 113 murders in the ROI as a result of the troubles in N.Ire, this may account for some of the increase in deaths in Ireland. More recent deaths as a result of gun crime are too far removed from the introduction of the gun ban to really establish a link.

I'm not familiar with the history of Jamica, so I can't comment.

Right now in Ireland, with the Troubles over the murder rate is 4-5 times higher than it was when the handgun ban was enacted. Whereas over that same period the US homicide rate has declined even though its handgun laws are far more liberal than they were 40 years ago.

What has the level of murders committed with guns got to do with anything? Surely the purpose of gun control should be to lower the actual murder rate? You are just revealing yourself to be anti-gun as opposed to being in favour of reducing murder or crime in general.

Washington D.C.???? This graph illustrates my point perfectly, murder (again, not necessarily gun related) increases 10 years after the ban is put in place. The decline in the murder rate is nearly over by the time the restrictions on guns are removed.

If by 10 years later you mean straight away. While the handgun was in place, the homicide rate was less than the 1976 level for one year, whereas for America as a whole, the homicide rate was only above the '76 level for 1 or 2 years by the look of it.

bajer100 · 16-12-2012 11:42PM

Suryavarman wrote: »

I'd hardly consider myself passionate about guns. I'm just passionate about peoples right to own them. My real life experience with guns is going paint balling once and seeing other people shoot guns. I've had the chance to shoot a gun before but decided not to take it because I had no real interest in doing so. If Ireland had similar gun laws to America I'd probably have a gun at home for piece of mind purposes but I wouldn't have a collection or go hunting. I also might go to a firing range occasionally, the same way I go to the driving range occasionally to hit some golf balls.

I don't really see how that could be defined as passionate about guns, much like going to a driving range a few times or playing a couple of rounds of pitch & putt every summer wouldn't be described as being passionate about golf.

And if Ireland had the same liberal gun laws as America that allowed you to own one - your life expectancy would lower. You would be more likely to be killed by a gun. You would be more likely to die by accidental gun fire. And that's just you! The rest of Irish society would also suffer. No one would be safer. Murders would increase. Gun crime would increase. The population as a whole would be a lot less safe - not safer. Your selfish desire to own a gun (in the false belief that it would increase your safety), would result in a lowering of safety for society as a whole. This is all proven is respectable, peer reviewed studies. But hey - keep referring to nonsensical, biased pseudo studies and ignore the wealth of real scientific evidence.

Suryavarman · 16-12-2012 11:45PM

bajer100 wrote: »

And if Ireland had the same liberal gun laws as America that allowed you to own one - your life expectancy would lower. You would be more likely to be killed by a gun. You would be more likely to die by accidental gun fire. And that's just you! The rest of Irish society would also suffer. No one would be safer. Murders would increase. Gun crime would increase. The population as a whole would be a lot less safe - not safer. Your selfish desire to own a gun (in the false belief that it would increase your safety), would result in a lowering of safety for society as a whole. This is all proven is respectable, peer reviewed studies. But hey - keep referring to nonsensical, biased pseudo studies and ignore the wealth of real scientific evidence.

Care to link to one of those studies then?

bajer100 · 17-12-2012 12:03AM

Suryavarman wrote: »

Care to link to one of those studies then?

I did already.

Here's the thing that has been grating on my mind over the last couple of days. People like you are indirectly responsible for the deaths of those children - and you just don't see it. If semi-automatic handguns were banned - those children would not have been murdered. After the previous mass murder, you were probably defending the ability of people to own these weapons. If after the Batman shootings - everyone said, "NO! That is enough", and banned these weapons. This shooter's mother would have had to hand in her guns. Her son wouldn't have been able to get his hands on them. Those kids would be alive today. Remember this the at the next mass murder with semi-autos. People like you are keeping them legal and making them easier to access for lunatics.

Just to re-iterate how simple this is. Ban all semi-autos tomorrow and less people will die.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 17-12-2012 12:05AM

ban all peanuts tomorrow and less people will die
ban all cars tomorrow and less people will die
ban islam tomorrow and less people will die

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments