Another mass shooting in the U.S

07Lapierre · 17-12-2012 03:25PM

Biggins wrote: »

No. Very unlikely that anything substantial will happen.
More window-dressing probably.
Why?
One clue for the reason for little change will come, is in my signature.

Maybe this guy has the answer?

suicide_circus · 17-12-2012 03:25PM

Sparks wrote: »

YOU COMPLETELY NAIVE IDIOT YOU CAN'T TEAR UP THE CONSTITUTION LIKE THAT.... well, you get the idea.

But that argument holds no water. The US constitution has been "torn up" (amended) 27 times so far and the "right to bear arms" bit is itself an amendment (2nd) to the original constitution.

Sparks · 17-12-2012 03:33PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

But that argument holds no water. The US constitution has been "torn up" (amended) 27 times so far and the "right to bear arms" bit is itself an amendment (2nd) to the original constitution.

Kindof missed the point there lad.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 03:55PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Whether weekend Rambo's want to admit it or not, easy access to weapons IS a factor and step one should be making it more difficult for mentally unstable people to get their hands on them.

Anything else is just talking bollocks.

What controls do you propose?

hooradiation wrote: »

Clearly at that point the unicorn task force would be unleashed. Cos fuck it, if we're going to get into what-if's then we should go straight to crazy bullshit central and not waste time.

He makes a valid point, you jump to mockery. Run out of ideas?

The argument being made is at the moment under most states laws it is a felony to bring a legally held weapon into a school. This means that even if the teacher (extreme example) is a former special ops highly trained veteran or retired police officer, they may not bring their own weapon which they may carry everywhere else in public under permit.

I think people in this thread forget that some 12% of Americans are military veterans, trained in firearm use and then question why they see guns as a way of protecting themselves and others.

The argument about relaxing the restriction on guns being carried in schools isn't "OMG, arm teachers now", it is questioning why it is OK for trained, fingerprinted, permit carrying gunowners to have them in the street outside a school, but not OK for them to have them inside the school in the possible event that they may be able to stop an active shooter.

I know a one church deacon here who brings his gun to church as part of (as he sees it) his calling to protect that congregation.

TeddyTedson wrote: »

They'll have to change their Constitution and every state Constitution now... Won't they!

FYP. Seems unlikely tbh.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 04:00PM

MadsL wrote: »

Would you like to explain why the Irish situation is not quite the same given similar controls? 2008 figures show Ireland has 5 times the UK rate of homicide by firearm per 100,000 and homicides by firearm account for 42% of homocides...that is approaching South African levels (45% in 2007)

In 2005 there were 22 murders with firearms, and only 18 with a knife or sharp object. If strong gun control prevents murders with firearms, why is the Irish rate so high? http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/statistics_cri_crime_murder.html#table6b

I see no-one wants to address the Irish situation with firearms. Is that because of who is getting killed?

Sparks · 17-12-2012 04:05PM

MadsL wrote: »

I see no-one wants to address the Irish situation with firearms. Is that because of who is getting killed?

I'm not commenting on your point (because frankly, I'm not qualified in criminology or sociology), but I'm not sure that "X times the rate in Y country" is the most accurate way to list the statistics when the numbers are that low; one bad year or one good year and you're seeing massive fluctuations in the numbers if expressed as multiples of some other country's rates even if the actual situation hasn't changed drasticly here (and it gets even more complicated if you look at different years, or whether it's absolute numbers or per-capita numbers, and then there's the whole point that the population densities and social norms and crime levels and sources are all different....).

None of which is to say you're correct or that you're incorrect, just commenting on the fact that "simple" statistics, in general, aren't.

Piliger · 17-12-2012 04:06PM

Sparks wrote: »

Some of the more extreme groups have made statements, but they're usually on the far side of ludicrous anyway. The NRA hadn't made a single statement last I looked, something about respect and the funerals not being over yet. Of course, if they'd made a statement they'd be bloodthirsty baby murderers and if they don't make a statment, everyone says they're cowards and are hiding away because they know they're baby murderers.

The only extreme groups are the gun lobby. And trying to claim that the NRA have been quiet is a joke. The NRA are one of the most powerful organisations in the US. They make quiet phone calls to the thousands of officials they help get elected and they do what they are told. That is well documented. The fact that they didn't spout their nonsense within 24 hours of this slaughter is a meaningless point.

I wonder if anyone ever twigs that that level of acrimony plays a huge role in preventing proper debate and ensuring that any one of these tragedies is immediately - usually before all the families have been notified - turned into a screaming match between the rabidly pro-ban on one side and the equally rabid anti-ban on the other side, while everyone who isn't in either extreme just shuts up because to have any opinion that's not on either extreme exposes you to the full ire of both extremes. Doesn't matter if it's online or on air, the pattern is the same.

The level of acrimony is an intentional strategy by the Gun Lobby. They know they are in a weak position and their attitudes are responsible for these deaths. They know they cannot rationalise their glorification and fetishisation of the Gun. Their solution is to escalate all discussion to the extreme as a defence strategy. Everyone knows it.

Hell, look at this thread. We're IRISH. We have no say and no vote in US domestic policy, and most of the people posting here - no offence meant - don't know very much about the technical aspects of what they want banned (and no, they do not "know enough to be getting on with"). But despite this, we have 20 pages or more of vitriol, of people saying "obviously, the US must do this immediately" and so forth... but not a whole lot of actual informed commentary.

People here know all there is to know about guns. This nonsense about 'technical' knowledge is a red herring. Guns kill. The US laws are insane. 20 toddlers are dead, each shot MULTIPLE times in front of each other. We know all there is to know and this and other threads have been extremely well informed and well argued. The only vitriol comes from the Pro Gun Lobby who lash out from their sad and guilt ridden corner.

Now you can say that that's just trolling...
...but if we're trolling (and putting up with trolling) on threads about a tragedy that saw twenty children shot dead by a mentally disturbed kid who'd just killed his own mother... what the hell does that say about us and whatever weight we think our opinions ought to have in any discussion on this?

The only trollers are the Gun Lobby trollers an flamers. This outrageous slaughter using weapons only needed in a war zone is the result of the Gun Lobby's glorification of the Gun. They don't give a damn about the victims. 1,000 toddlers can be killed, 10,000 students can be slaughtered but they will never accept that they are directly responsibly. They put the guns in the hands of these evil people. They make money from gun sales. They have the blood of each of these 20 angels on their hands.

That is the truth that they carry in their conscience.

Bruthal · 17-12-2012 04:10PM

MadsL wrote: »

I see no-one wants to address the Irish situation with firearms. Is that because of who is getting killed?

It looks like 2005 was probably a bad year to be a gangster or criminal.

Not so bad to be a school student though.

Rascasse · 17-12-2012 04:20PM

MadsL wrote: »

What controls do you propose?

Here's a few things that I think could reduce the numbers of deaths from firearms, yet protect 2nd amendment rights.

Reinstate assault rifle ban along with high capacity magazines

Mandatory licensing for firearms and ammunition.

Bar anyone that is being medicated for a mental illness or has a recent history of mental illness owning firearms. Further, bar anyone from keeping firearms at an address where a person above resides.

Bar anyone who has any violent convictions (including threats/intimidation/road rage)

Anyone that lives with children must keep any weapons unloaded in a locked cabinet/safe

Not in anyway exhaustive, but I think things like this could keep guns out of reach of the hands of those in which they do the most damage, i.e. those with mental illnesses, people with violent tendencies and children.

Lets face it, even if there were a few more elementary school shootings the US won't ever ban guns.

Sparks · 17-12-2012 04:22PM

Piliger wrote: »

...rant...

And that post is a pretty good example of why there's never any actual debate on this in the US.

Sparks · 17-12-2012 04:26PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Here's a few things that I think could reduce the numbers of deaths from firearms, yet protect 2nd amendment rights.

I'm pretty sure that most or all of these are currently part of US state laws on firearms in all but the most extreme of places (with the exception of the "assault weapons ban", which (a) didn't actually ban assault weapons, and (b) was in force during six mass shootings including Columbine, which claimed 57 lives in total).

Rascasse · 17-12-2012 04:41PM

Sparks wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that most or all of these are currently part of US state laws on firearms in all but the most extreme of places (with the exception of the "assault weapons ban", which (a) didn't actually ban assault weapons, and (b) was in force during six mass shootings including Columbine, which claimed 57 lives in total).

Of all the things I listed there that has some traction in the US is the convictions one (and that is spotty according to this).

Storage is a big one. So many kids die or are injured when they find legally held weapons about the house. A distant cousin of mine kept all his hunting gear in the spare bedroom closet (rifles, crossbow, longbow etc) and a previous boss kept a revolver from his National Guard days loaded in his bedside drawer. Absolutely mental.

Tony EH · 17-12-2012 04:45PM

Sparks wrote: »

I mean, seriously - does anyone actually think that the average ordinary member of the NRA wants to see kids dead?

I don't think anyone on either side of the matter would suggest that. But they certainly don't seem to caring too much about it. Not enough to actually admit that there's something terribly wrong with America's gun laws.

I wouldn't mind not being told I wanted to see dead kids myself, or that I'm one bad hair day away from shooting up a school myself, but that's just for me rather than a more general thing.

I don't see anybody doing this either.

And I suppose if some of the more extreme posters could remember that this is Ireland and we have different laws and different social norms and different crime patterns here, that'd be nice, but again, that's more specific to this country than to the debate in the US.

It wouldn't matter if everyone on the thread was living on the moon. The situation doesn't require that one lives in the States. It's a mater of common sense.

Nobody, in any so-called civilized country should be allowed to amass an arsenal fit enough to equip a military squad. It's absurd. I'll also go as far as to say that much more stringent background checks need to be performed on ANYONE who wants to by a gun, including a psych evaluation and medical background checks too. Not only that, I'd say check out their immediate family as well.

And, if anyone is amassing an personal arsenal, those people need to be especially watched.

There's just not excuse for it. None at all.

And hiding behind the 2nd amendment is frankly, a load of old bollocks.

But right now, especially if you go take a look on the US discussion sites (and "discussion" is currently a polite white lie at best), there's only one shouting match going on and its pro-ban -v- anti-ban. Despite there being no ban on the table. Despite a ban being politically awkward, legally very difficult if not impossible, and socially unacceptable for a lot of the population there.

Of course there is. Some people are still discussing the Holmes massacre, which was a mere six months ago. People are sick of this kind of news. They're sick of hearing about massacred innocents at the hands of nutters with stupidly easy access to weapons...

...and they're agog at America's lack of sense to try and do anything about it.

You stand up and say "well, perhaps some regulatory changes should be investigated, but we should also look into the mental healthcare issues this raises and perhaps also we should be looking into other aspects of this case" and you might as well turn off your internet now to save your own mental health, because both sides will turn on you like a honey badger in a bad mood. The pro-ban side will cite your openness to discussion of regulation as being a blatent and underhanded attempt to avoid a ban; the anti-ban side will call you a traitor to the constitution. And both sides will ignore the mental healthcare and other issues completely (they may pay a line's lipservice to acknowledging them as remotely secondary issues, maybe, but not worth looking into because BAN ALL GUNS NOW YOU MURDERING PRO-GUN SCUM/YOU COMPLETELY NAIVE IDIOT YOU CAN'T TEAR UP THE CONSTITUTION LIKE THAT.... well, you get the idea. It's like discussing abortion legislation in Ireland following the X case with someone from Youth Defence.

So, your solution is do nothing?

What's the point in that?

You're just marking time between massacres.

Until America acknowledges that it's approach to healthcare is rotten, then the first steps should be to try an limit the access to weapons. Limit the types of weapons Joe public can get hold of and vet the crap out of anyone who's looking to own weaponry, especially the likes of AR-15's and AK-47's etc.

The problem is, the same fools who are shaking their heads about weapons restrictions are also sticking their heads in the sand about the healthcare problem.

hooradiation · 17-12-2012 04:49PM

MadsL wrote: »

He makes a valid point, you jump to mockery. Run out of ideas?

Oh lord no, I have plenty of ways to mock his and your "points"

Iwannahurl · 17-12-2012 04:57PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Of all the things I listed there that has some traction in the US is the convictions one (and that is spotty according to this).

Storage is a big one. So many kids die or are injured when they find legally held weapons about the house. A distant cousin of mine kept all his hunting gear in the spare bedroom closet (rifles, crossbow, longbow etc) and a previous boss kept a revolver from his National Guard days loaded in his bedside drawer. Absolutely mental.

5,740 US children and teens were killed by guns in 2008 and 2009.

2,947 children and teens were killed by guns in 2008; another 2,793 were killed in 2009 -- one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 55 every week for two years.

Two-thirds were victims of homicide (3,892), one-quarter were suicide (1,548), and five percent were accidental or unknown (300) gun deaths.

Black children and teens were only 15 percent of the child population but were 45 percent of the total fatal gun deaths in 2008 and 2009.

The 5,740 children and teens killed by guns in 2008 and 2009 was greater than the number of U.S. military personnel killed in action in Iraq and
Afghanistan (5,013).

The most recent analysis of data from 23 industrialized nations shows that 87 percent of the children under age 15 killed by guns in these nations lived in the United States. The gun homicide rate in the United States for teens and young adults ages 15 to 24 was 42.7 times higher than the combined rate for the other nations.

Source: Children's Defence Fund, 2012.

"Bushmaster -- consider your man card reissued"

.

Sparks · 17-12-2012 05:05PM

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think anyone on either side of the matter would suggest that.

Think again, even if you're just counting trolls (and if the above posts aren't enough to illustrate that, check out the link to the journal.ie article I posted above).

I don't see anybody doing this either.

Sadly, again, see above

It wouldn't matter if everyone on the thread was living on the moon. The situation doesn't require that one lives in the States. It's a mater of common sense.

Technically, it's a matter of soverignity.
What common sense says about the matter is that we live here and they live there and we have this system of laws and governance and they have that system, and well, while we can sympathise and help if asked (like Irish firefighters did by flying to New York on their own time after the World Trade Center attacks), we don't really have much in the way of legs to be standing on if we want to point fingers at their firearms legislation or their history of protecting children.

There's just not excuse for it. None at all.

Well, you think that, and so do most of us, and that's the law throughout most of the EU...
...but they think otherwise and it's their country. We don't have to live there under their laws, so frankly, we don't really have a say in things. (And if we're going to natter about their laws, well, our firearms licencing legislation is a fecking shambles that's seen hundreds of District, High and Supreme court cases in the last decade, most of which stated that the Gardai - or in one case the Minister for Justice - were not acting within the law. We've had a call on the table from the Law Reform Commission since 2004 to rewrite the law - or at least to condense it into one Act instead of the 19 it's currently spread across (not counting SIs and EU regulations), a call echoed by more than one High Court Judge in recent years.
And as for protecting our kids... Ryan Report anyone?

They're sick of hearing about massacred innocents at the hands of nutters with stupidly easy access to weapons...
...and they're agog at America's lack of sense to try and do anything about it.

Less of the "they" and more of the "we" in that sentence, but you could swap out "American's gun laws" and swap in any number of things from "Islamic treatment of women citizens" to "Irish abortion legislation" (or "Irish banking madness" or ... well, our list is a bit long, but I'm sure you could draft it as well as I could). Sooner or later, you have to either let other people get on with it, or pick a side and start fighting. I elect not to start fighting because I know there's no "stop fighting" on the menu of options there.

So, your solution is do nothing?

No, my solution is to live somewhere other than America, and let the Americans figure it out for themselves because it's their country, not mine.
Sooner or later, they'll change things - they always have in the past. The price they pay for delays will be the price they pay for delays. Meanwhile, we have our own things to fix here.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 05:15PM

Sparks wrote: »

I'm not commenting on your point (because frankly, I'm not qualified in criminology or sociology), but I'm not sure that "X times the rate in Y country" is the most accurate way to list the statistics when the numbers are that low; one bad year or one good year and you're seeing massive fluctuations in the numbers if expressed as multiples of some other country's rates even if the actual situation hasn't changed drasticly here (and it gets even more complicated if you look at different years, or whether it's absolute numbers or per-capita numbers, and then there's the whole point that the population densities and social norms and crime levels and sources are all different....).

None of which is to say you're correct or that you're incorrect, just commenting on the fact that "simple" statistics, in general, aren't.

Yes. I completely take your point. Which is why "zomg. you are x times likely to be shot in the US" style posts are pretty pointless as so much depends on where you actually live. I'm trying to show that more gun control is not the instant answer most people here seem to think it is.

However the Irish statistics have been pretty consistant, with a drop in 2007, and back to 'normal' in 2008. (UNOCD figures - Percentage of homicides by firearm)

2003 46.7%
2004 30.0%
2005 42.3%
2006 43.5%
2007 23.4%
2008 42.0%

Compared that to the Czech Republic where handguns are legal and pretty much every taxi driver carries one.

'03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
19.8 13.7 12.4 14.3 16.3 16.8 11.0

Except just to muddy the waters we have Switzerland where guns are required.
'03 '04
64.4 72.2

However Switzerland has an homicide rate with guns similar to Ireland at 0.5 per 100,000.

So we have no real sense of a causal link between firearm availability and homicide by firearm rates. It would seem cultural factors are at play.

Piliger wrote: »

The only trollers are the Gun Lobby trollers an flamers. This outrageous slaughter using weapons only needed in a war zone is the result of the Gun Lobby's glorification of the Gun. They don't give a damn about the victims. 1,000 toddlers can be killed, 10,000 students can be slaughtered but they will never accept that they are directly responsibly. They put the guns in the hands of these evil people. They make money from gun sales. They have the blood of each of these 20 angels on their hands.

That is the truth that they carry in their conscience.

In other news, Bartenders/Restaurants blamed for 10,000 Drunk Driving deaths.

Rascasse wrote: »

Here's a few things that I think could reduce the numbers of deaths from firearms, yet protect 2nd amendment rights.
Reinstate assault rifle ban along with high capacity magazines

The majority of studies agree that the ban had little to no effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_and_Effect_on_Crime
Mandatory licensing for firearms and ammunition.

No issues with that except the cost of administration. How will licensing help after the fact of a rampage?
Bar anyone that is being medicated for a mental illness or has a recent history of mental illness owning firearms. Further, bar anyone from keeping firearms at an address where a person above resides.

This is already controlled by 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”
Bar anyone who has any violent convictions (including threats/intimidation/road rage)

Already covered. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/identify-prohibited-persons.html
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).
Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

Anyone that lives with children must keep any weapons unloaded in a locked cabinet/safe
One would hope this goes without saying, but I'd see no issue there.
Potentially one could be charged under "Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon".

Not in anyway exhaustive, but I think things like this could keep guns out of reach of the hands of those in which they do the most damage, i.e. those with mental illnesses, people with violent tendencies and children.

Lets face it, even if there were a few more elementary school shootings the US won't ever ban guns.

And I wish people would realise that many of the gun control measures that they are screaming for are already in place. It is simply not true that anyone can walk into a gun store, slap down $500 and walk out with a pistol. ID must be shown and a background check conducted. In many states there is a waiting period.

Then, you simply cannot have that gun anywhere but at home and in your own vehicle without a concealed carry class. Typical permit requirements include residency, minimum age, submitting fingerprints, passing a computerized instant background check (or a more comprehensive manual background check), attending a certified handgun/firearm safety class, passing a practical qualification demonstrating handgun proficiency, and paying a required fee.

Overheal · 17-12-2012 05:19PM

NIMAN wrote: »

Many will reply and say for protection. Well if it was legal in Ireland to shoot an intruder in my house, I still would not want a gun, as I would not ever want to kill someone

I don't want to kill someone either, but when someone breaks into a house and they hear a gun being fired in their direction, they infrequently loiter. Guns are designed with lethal stopping power and for most rational individuals, that thought alone is plenty deterrence. For the others, a gun is not always going to kill in one, two, or sometimes even a dozen hits; ballistic science is pretty involved.

Bruthal · 17-12-2012 05:20PM

MadsL wrote: »

In other news, Bartenders/Restaurants blamed for 10,000 Drunk Driving deaths.

A bit off there. No one is blaming gun shops, are they?

Overheal · 17-12-2012 05:22PM

FlawedGenius wrote: »

Amerdicans are mad, at times like this u can understand the terrorists a bit.

Yes, I can completely understand the rationale behind suicide bombing civilians because people go on their own suicidal killing sprees.you think terrorist attacks are somehow justified because someone decides to shoot up a school? Why don't you clarify this before I lose my patience for choice of words, please.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 05:45PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

A bit off there. No one is blaming gun shops, are they?

Oh, would they not be part of this nefarious "gun lobby" everyone is so exercised by?

In other news America fails to tackle the 100,000 people who die every year simply from medical error, Ireland fails to address the fact that every seven hours, someone in Ireland dies from an alcohol-related illness, and my head explodes from the lack of perspective being demonstrated in this thread.

Conmaicne Mara · 17-12-2012 06:04PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

A bit off there. No one is blaming gun shops, are they?

Are you blaming alcohol then, or the person who willingly consumed it?

MadsL · 17-12-2012 06:09PM

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Are you blaming alcohol then, or the person who willingly consumed it?

I don't know. Are posters here blaming gun-owners for the events in CT? You know, a few of them seem to be. Some even start talking about the blood of angels on their hands, and other non-emotive, non-confrontational language like that. :rolleyes: I bet they drink. Monsters.

CrazyRabbit · 17-12-2012 06:27PM

Unbelievable...

http://news.sky.com/story/1026461/us-school-shooting-sparks-rise-in-gun-sales

Parents of children at the Sandy Hook school have visited a gun store asking to buy weapons for protection in the wake of the shooting.
One gun shop owner in Newtown reported that a couple had been in his shop looking for something to help safeguard their family.
Sales of weapons have soared in the wake of Friday's shooting, according to anecdotal evidence from stores.
The same happened in July after the Colorado movie theatre massacre: the number of people getting approval to buy a guns increased by 43% in a week.
But at the same time there are widespread calls for the country's liberal gun control laws to be tightened.
It illustrates a complicated and often conflicting relationship with guns in a country where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the second amendment of the constitution.

Sky News Correspondent Tom Parmenter, in Newtown, said: "We spoke to the owner of one gun shop who told us that some parents from the school where the shooting took place on Friday had been into the gun shop to enquire about buying a weapon to allow them to defend themselves and their families."

================
Yeah...more guns. That'll solve everything.

Sorry if already posted...it's a long thread.

Tony EH · 17-12-2012 06:32PM

Sparks wrote: »

Think again, even if you're just counting trolls (and if the above posts aren't enough to illustrate that, check out the link to the journal.ie article I posted above).

Sadly, again, see above

Technically, it's a matter of soverignity.
What common sense says about the matter is that we live here and they live there and we have this system of laws and governance and they have that system, and well, while we can sympathise and help if asked (like Irish firefighters did by flying to New York on their own time after the World Trade Center attacks), we don't really have much in the way of legs to be standing on if we want to point fingers at their firearms legislation or their history of protecting children.

Well, you think that, and so do most of us, and that's the law throughout most of the EU...
...but they think otherwise and it's their country. We don't have to live there under their laws, so frankly, we don't really have a say in things. (And if we're going to natter about their laws, well, our firearms licencing legislation is a fecking shambles that's seen hundreds of District, High and Supreme court cases in the last decade, most of which stated that the Gardai - or in one case the Minister for Justice - were not acting within the law. We've had a call on the table from the Law Reform Commission since 2004 to rewrite the law - or at least to condense it into one Act instead of the 19 it's currently spread across (not counting SIs and EU regulations), a call echoed by more than one High Court Judge in recent years.
And as for protecting our kids... Ryan Report anyone?

Less of the "they" and more of the "we" in that sentence, but you could swap out "American's gun laws" and swap in any number of things from "Islamic treatment of women citizens" to "Irish abortion legislation" (or "Irish banking madness" or ... well, our list is a bit long, but I'm sure you could draft it as well as I could). Sooner or later, you have to either let other people get on with it, or pick a side and start fighting. I elect not to start fighting because I know there's no "stop fighting" on the menu of options there.

No, my solution is to live somewhere other than America, and let the Americans figure it out for themselves because it's their country, not mine.
Sooner or later, they'll change things - they always have in the past. The price they pay for delays will be the price they pay for delays. Meanwhile, we have our own things to fix here.

So your whole point here is we should't talk about it, because we don't live in America.

Right, you've said your piece.

We'll continue to discuss. Goodbye.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 06:32PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Unbelievable...

You might want to think about changing your avatar if you feel that way. What with it "glorifying" guns and all, you might get blamed for the next event.

Sparks · 17-12-2012 06:33PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Unbelievable...

Actually, very believable. They're terrified. Scared people do strange things, and it takes more time to sell your house and move than it does to buy a gun.

What's unbelievable is that people would openly criticise them for it, as if they'd do anything different themselves had the shooting had happened two miles away from them instead of two thousand miles away.

Those people need empathy from others, if not outright sympathy; not scorn.

Manic Moran · 17-12-2012 06:54PM

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

America's murder rate per capita is shockingly high for an affluent democracy. Let's say we accept that guns aren't the problem. If you are saying that guns actually lower the murder rate and that therefore America's murder rate with stricter gun control would actually be higher - then what is wrong with America??

Excellent question, and whoever manages to find a way to fix that will do far more to reduce the murder rate than any attempt to ban firearms will achieve. A very significant portion of the shooting rate in the US is criminal-on-criminal, pretty similar to Ireland today as I understand it, particularly related to gangs and drugs. Gangs such as MS-13 are absolutely ruthless where killing has become a rite of passage. If we could somehow find a way to stop kids from joining them we'd be a long way to both dropping the murder rate and increasing the overall productivity of society.

Using this logic - why shouldn't I be allowed to own a tank?

Actually, one can. I know a couple of people with fully functional privately owned tanks. One owns a few M5 Stuarts, the other an M18 Hellcat. (Granted, tank destroyer, not a tank, but the average person can't tell the difference). They follow all the applicable laws, including the stupid ones such as 'each high explosive round has a $200 tax and paperwork' (Means they generally fire AP and Cannister). Certainly there is no recognised -right- to own a tank as opposed to, say, a pistol, but there has never been any crime committed with a legally owned tank in the US that I am aware of. Which is only two less than legally-held machineguns.

What harm would limiting rifle sales to bolt action rifles and limiting sales pistols to ones with low capacity magazines (say less than 8 rounds). How could hunting or home defence needs not be taken care of under measures like that?

When under the stress of a real life-or-death situation, accuracy tends to be somewhat reduced. Go to Youtube and look for almost any police shoot-out video, even those at five yards or less. 8 rounds may be insufficient, especially if there's more than one intruder. And if you're worried about rampages, it doesn't take too long to change magazines.

Its just as likely that the gunman takes out the principal and continues killing people

So the -worst case- scenario is that they'd be no worse off then.

Maybe this guy has the answer?

Been tried. Courts shot it down, in Maryland, I believe. If you have a right to self defence, you have a right to -exercise- self defence. It is not a right which should be limited only to rich people.

5,740 US children and teens were killed by guns in 2008 and 2009.

Note the definition of child in that report is up to 19. It would be very interesting to see those figures broken down into gang violence and non-gang violence. If you're going to go around wailing 'remove guns to save the children', it would be a better argument, I think, to be able to speak about only those children who did not decide to undertake a life of violence.

nyone that lives with children must keep any weapons unloaded in a locked cabinet/safe
[One would hope this goes without saying, but I'd see no issue there.

I don't see that being mandated. The effect of the Heller decision is still being widely debated with a couple of Circuit Court splits resulting, but if it settled something, it settled the fact that there is a fundamental right to have a functioning, unlocked firearm in your home. Most rights are not dependant on if you have kids or not.

Leaving functional firearms around when you have a kid may be daft, (I no longer leave my pistol loaded in my bedroom, I've a three-year-old) but it doesn't seem possible to legislate against stupidity in this case.

Unbelievable...

Not really, it's a pretty common effect. The belief that 'it wouldn't happen here' gets rather rudely shattered. They then realise that it -can and does- happen here, with the logical conclusion that the only feasible response to a lethal threat is lethal force of your own.

NTM

Bruthal · 17-12-2012 06:57PM

MadsL wrote: »

Ireland fails to address the fact that every seven hours, someone in Ireland dies from an alcohol-related illness, and my head explodes from the lack of perspective being demonstrated in this thread.

Explain what you mean by perspective here?

More people die from alcohol abuse, than murdered by guns is it?

In a thread about a gun massacre, and in a country other than Ireland, don`t be surprised if guns related stuff to do with America comes up in the thread.

MadsL · 17-12-2012 07:29PM

robbie7730 wrote: »

Explain what you mean by perspective here?

More people die from alcohol abuse, than murdered by guns is it?

In a thread about a gun massacre, and in a country other than Ireland, don`t be surprised if guns related stuff to do with America comes up in the thread.

Not suprised, I'm just pointing out the apparent contradiction that whilst prohibition or draconian control and limits on numbers and types of guns owned is mentioned over and over as a solution for gun massacres, prohibition or rationing is almost never proposed as a solution to alcohol related deaths and drunk driving deaths.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments