Gun control in the USA

robindch · 17-12-2012 02:10PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am not saying that the type of gun is not an issue but that stopping the purchase of that gun will not make a difference. If they can not purchase a gun, that will cause enough damage, they will just fill a rucksack with home made explosives.

Last month, an autistic guy showed up outside my daughter's school in South Dublin wielding a knife and threatening people, including one parent and child from my daughter's class. A group of parents approached and subdued the guy and while people were shaken, nobody got hurt.

If that had been America, it seems plausible that at least the autistic guy would have been shot by some vigilante parent, quite apart from whatever the autistic guy would have been able to do, had guns been as freely available as they are in the America.

Your claim that lacking access to a gun, he would have fabricated explosives it -- I'm trying hard to find a polite way of saying this -- not supported by any evidence.

Thank fuck I'm living in a country which views guns as lethal weaponry and treats them, at state level, as such.

robindch · 17-12-2012 02:22PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i may have this arseways, but isn't the swiss militia concept about protecting switzerland from invaders, but the american militia concept about protecting america from its own government?

No. At the time the US Constitution was drafted, nations were concerned about the power that the military had to overthrow national authorities to invade other countries. So the drafters of the constitution didn't specify a national army, but instead left it up to the individual states to organize state-level militias that could be called upon in times of national need. At the time, this was fairly revolutionary and, all things considered, still is a pretty good idea. Hence the relatively-rarely quoted preamble to the second amendment to the Constitution which says that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State " which pauses for a comma, then proceeds with the bit that the gun-lobby disingenuously quotes on its own, namely "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

BTW, if you speak with the NRA or most of the pro-gun lobby, you'll hear that the meaning of the word "militia" has changed between the time of drafting and now, but as with much of what the NRA says, that's simply false.

Dave! · 17-12-2012 02:44PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am not saying that the type of gun is not an issue but that stopping the purchase of that gun will not make a difference.

If they can not purchase a gun, that will cause enough damage, they will just fill a rucksack with home made explosives.

Who knows how to make homemade explosives?! They'll probably follow a tutorial on the internet, half the explosives will be duds, the other half will explode prematurely and kill the person themselves.

Or maybe they'll jump in a car and try to mow people down, or try to stab people, or push people onto roads, or somethin...

You should try and tackle the underlying problems, but guns are uniquely efficient and easy to use weapons, hence why they're used by law enforcement, etc. If you make it more difficult for people to get guns, then when someone does go on a rampage, less people are likely to die, and this is a good thing, right?

Bannasidhe · 17-12-2012 02:57PM

robindch wrote: »

No. At the time the US Constitution was drafted, nations were concerned about the power that the military had to overthrow national authorities to invade other countries. So the drafters of the constitution didn't specify a national army, but instead left it up to the individual states to organize state-level militias that could be called upon in times of national need. At the time, this was fairly revolutionary and, all things considered, still is a pretty good idea. Hence the relatively-rarely quoted preamble to the second amendment to the Constitution which says that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State " which pauses for a comma, then proceeds with the bit that the gun-lobby disingenuously quotes on its own, namely "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

BTW, if you speak with the NRA or most of the pro-gun lobby, you'll hear that the meaning of the word "militia" has changed between the time of drafting and now, but as with much of what the NRA says, that's simply false.

The Founding Father's desired a country composed of stout yeoman farmers who were self sufficient and committed to a common sense of purpose and community in which each man (and it was just men) had an equal say in how his community was run and a shared responsibility in both running it and protecting it. They did not envisage a situation where a large Federal government would have a huge military force at it's disposal but one of local militias who would come together at time of need to protest their community. The wanted a locally based defensive force - not a Federal offensive one.

The 'arms' they referred to were muskets, axes, pikes, knives and even bows and arrows (communities may have purchased cannon but that was up to the community) - they did not foresee a situation where high powered weapons capable of rapid fire are freely available.

aidan24326 · 17-12-2012 02:59PM

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?'

But it WOULD have been worse if he had a gun!! We'd presumably have a pile of dead bodies now rather than just some injured people.

The gun culture in the US is insane. It's mind-boggling that in many states you can walk into a store and legally buy what would be classed as military-grade weapons. The sort of guns that would be necessary if you're on combat duty in Afghanistan but have absolutely no business being in the possession of an ordinary citizen.

It's been reported that the guy who carried out this shooting was so heavily armed he could have taken out the whole school if given enough time. Why was anyone allowed buy so much ammunition?

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 03:05PM

Dave! wrote: »

Who knows how to make homemade explosives?! They'll probably follow a tutorial on the internet, half the explosives will be duds, the other half will explode prematurely and kill the person themselves.

I know how to!Like Ireland has had no issues in the past and very recently with Homemade Pipebombs etc.
Simple black powder is extremely easy to make and the purchase of the constituents is not that much of a flag. Fertiliser bombs are not that much harder.

So you restrict guns, all guns of just certain types? What is the cut off?

Do you go by loading mechanism or calibure or capacity or barrell length or accuracy or rate of fire?
Do you restrict it in all states? Do you ban hunting, with high powered rifles (big game requirements)

What I am saying is that people seem to think that gun control is the answer. It is not (not really even partially) as the crazies will just use other methods.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 03:08PM

aidan24326 wrote: »

But it WOULD have been worse if he had a gun!! We'd presumably have a pile of dead bodies now rather than just some injured people.

The gun culture in the US is insane. It's mind-boggling that in many states you can walk into a store and legally buy what would be classed as military-grade weapons. The sort of guns that would be necessary if you're on combat duty in Afghanistan but have absolutely no business being in the possession of an ordinary citizen.

It's been reported that the guy who carried out this shooting was so heavily armed he could have taken out the whole school if given enough time. Why was anyone allowed buy so much ammunition?

The guy in China was stopped because of school security. He slashed the kids, instead of thrust stabbed.
His knife had no ammo to run out, he could have kept going and killed several had he not been stopped.

kippy · 17-12-2012 03:49PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

The guy in China was stopped because of school security. He slashed the kids, instead of thrust stabbed.
His knife had no ammo to run out, he could have kept going and killed several had he not been stopped.

Honestly, I really don't understand the logic you possess.

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 03:52PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

I know how to!Like Ireland has had no issues in the past and very recently with Homemade Pipebombs etc.
Simple black powder is extremely easy to make and the purchase of the constituents is not that much of a flag. Fertiliser bombs are not that much harder.

So you restrict guns, all guns of just certain types? What is the cut off?

Do you go by loading mechanism or calibure or capacity or barrell length or accuracy or rate of fire?
Do you restrict it in all states? Do you ban hunting, with high powered rifles (big game requirements)

What I am saying is that people seem to think that gun control is the answer. It is not (not really even partially) as the crazies will just use other methods.

An example of what could be done(Although it requires getting the gun lobby to the table first, which they really seem disinterested in doing.) Not necessarily a recommendation. Really just repurposed from irish motor law.

You restrict the ability to purchase by licensing. License based on two things. firearm classification and designation. (Designation examples: Civilian, Hunting, Military). Some guns can be restricted from public sale entirely. (Thinking GPMG's, sniper rifles etc.)

You restrict license based on doctors evaluation and safety courses. As the type of gun gets more dangerous, you need to do more safety courses, register with police

You make it illegal to sell a gun, or require registration of private sales.

And to pay for all this: Tax guns and ammunition or charge people for the licenses. (And here we have the real thing some Americans will object to... Paying for the safety of themselves and others from the risk posed by them...)

All of this, including the medical, is based on a system similar to what I'm used to for cars.

It's not the best system, it's not even a good system, it's a quick and dirty example to represent that your complaints are completely baseless, it is entirely possible to come up with a system for gun control. If people would engage instead of making excuses and misdirecting the discussion it might even be possible to come up with a good system.

norrie rugger wrote: »

The guy in China was stopped because of school security. He slashed the kids, instead of thrust stabbed.
His knife had no ammo to run out, he could have kept going and killed several had he not been stopped.

Your right! If he'd had a gun he would have been better at killing, and school security wouldn't have been able to stop him! What an amateur!

:mad:

I'm not even sure what your trying to argue here.

[-0-] · 17-12-2012 04:06PM

Using the car restrictions is a really bad way of looking at this. Despite the restrictions on cars, how many people die each year from car related deaths in Ireland?

Restrictions won't matter much. Automatic & semi-automatic weapons removed - the guy will just bring 8 handguns with him.

It is a mental health issue and needs to be treated as such. The only way to make this work is to flag kids with mental health issues at a very early age and ensure they can never own a gun legally, or have access to one in their home by ensuring there can be no guns allowed in his/her house.

I've heard some crazy suggestions on the way to work this morning, such as arming teachers. I can see it now... "teacher with possible mental health issue kills class after being armed to protect them".

Witcher · 17-12-2012 04:11PM

Sycopat wrote: »

(Thinking GPMG's, sniper rifles etc.)

What do you understand a 'sniper rifle' to be? Any rifle with a scope on it?

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 04:14PM

[-0-] wrote: »

Using the car restrictions is a really bad way of looking at this. Despite the restrictions on cars, how many people die each year from car related deaths in Ireland?

Restrictions won't matter much. Automatic & semi-automatic weapons removed - the guy will just bring 8 handguns with him.

It is a mental health issue and needs to be treated as such. The only way to make this work is to flag kids with mental health issues at a very early age and ensure they can never own a gun legally, or have access to one in their home by ensuring there can be no guns allowed in his/her house.

I've heard some crazy suggestions on the way to work this morning, such as arming teachers. I can see it now... "teacher with possible mental health issue kills class after being armed to protect them".

This is what people here seem to not get at all.

Put a restriction in place and the person will

A) Find a way around said restriction

Or

Just use some other method

Let's just go with "Guns are evil" though, because that stops us having to tackle the actual problem, in America, of very little mental health care/treatment.
I can really see that making it harder to get guns will totally stop a mentally unwell person from doing what they want to do. I mean there would be no way for them to get a weapon at all at all. Totally impossible to hurt/kill people, without a gun.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 04:15PM

Blay wrote: »

What do you understand a 'sniper rifle' to be? Any rifle with a scope on it?

Considering that there were snipers in WW2 without scopes? Probably any rifle

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 04:28PM

Blay wrote: »

What do you understand a 'sniper rifle' to be? Any rifle with a scope on it?

The large scale military ones for blowing the engines out of trucks. With the really high calibres. I can't remember the name of my usual example atm, I'll check and get back to you.

Honestly I'm not sure they're currently publically available in the US, but seriously, you think I'm going to put 'sniper rifle' beside 'GPMG' and accidentally mean a hunting rifle? No.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 04:35PM

Sycopat wrote: »

The large scale military ones for blowing the engines out of trucks. With the really high calibres. I can't remember the name of my usual example atm, I'll check and get back to you.

Honestly I'm not sure they're currently publically available in the US, but seriously, you think I'm going to put 'sniper rifle' beside 'GPMG' and accidentally mean a hunting rifle? No.

Something like a Barrett .50cal?
That is some frikken machine

MagicMarker · 17-12-2012 04:36PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

I can really see that making it harder to get guns will totally stop a mentally unwell person from doing what they want to do. I mean there would be no way for them to get a weapon at all at all. Totally impossible to hurt/kill people, without a gun.

That's a great strawman ya got going there.

Tell me, are you in favour of having guns completely legalized here, with no restrictions in place at all? Should someone be able to buy a gun in the local spar, for instance?

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 04:43PM

[-0-] wrote: »

Using the car restrictions is a really bad way of looking at this. Despite the restrictions on cars, how many people die each year from car related deaths in Ireland?

I'm pretty sure I flagged the inadequacy of the example myself, it's an example with little effort put in to show that norrie's being disingenuous when he tries to imply that gun control would be too difficult to be feasible.

Also, those car deaths are more analogous to accidental firearms deaths than massacres.

Also also, do people suggesting 'more health care' approach realise that one of the fundamental flaws with that argument is that it relies on it eventually becoming cheaper and easier for a poor person to treat their mental issues than to get their hands on a ridiculous amount of weaponry and go out guns blazing? And that the same people who want cheap, ridiculous guns are often the same people campaigning against health care?

Personally I'd like to see more health care and better gun control in america. It's not an 'either or' issue for me, it's both.

[-0-] · 17-12-2012 04:49PM

Sycopat wrote: »

Personally I'd like to see more health care and better gun control in america. It's not an 'either or' issue for me, it's both.

That's why I gave a suggestion which involved both working together.

robindch · 17-12-2012 04:51PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

The guy in China was stopped because of school security. He slashed the kids, instead of thrust stabbed.
His knife had no ammo to run out, he could have kept going and killed several had he not been stopped.

Do you understand why the world's armies use guns to murder people?

oldrnwisr · 17-12-2012 04:54PM

Sycopat wrote: »

The large scale military ones for blowing the engines out of trucks. With the really high calibres. I can't remember the name of my usual example atm, I'll check and get back to you.

Honestly I'm not sure they're currently publically available in the US, but seriously, you think I'm going to put 'sniper rifle' beside 'GPMG' and accidentally mean a hunting rifle? No.

You mean something like this MacMillan Tac-50:

The thing is though that a lot of modern sniper rifles were developed from hunting rifles or are heavily adapted versions of hunting rifles such as the M40 sniper rifle used by the USMC which was developed from the Remington Model 700. Also, many other military weapons from submachine guns to assault rifles have been adapted for use in sniping such as the Knight Armament SR-25 which was developed from the M16 and in use by the US Navy Seals.
Ultimately it would be difficult to establish a set of criteria to allow for legal ownership of hunting rifles and exclude sniper rifles because the border between them is blurred owing to their evolution, so to speak.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 04:54PM

Tell me how it is a strawman?
People claim that gun control will prevent crazy people doing horrible things. Please prove that?
I do not believe that the level of gun control mentioned will do anything.

The vast majority of gun owners, in America, are law abiding. It is not, generally, these people that do these actions.

There are cooling periods, in the states, for gun purchase. It is not that hard to aquire one here.
I don't mind gun control, as such. What I mean by that is that you are assessed and, once passed that, you get your gun. What people are calling for, however, is the banning of particular types, which I can not understand. So they ban assault rifles? fine they bring several semi-auto handguns (which are a lot worse up close), ban handguns and they bring automatic shotguns.
Ban guns and they bring arrows, knives, swords etc

It is a case of "don't stop the gun, stop the person".
If I want to buy something to take to a range or secure location and shoot targets, why not (Once I have been deemed fit enough), regardless of the type of firearm that I wish to use?

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 05:00PM

robindch wrote: »

Do you understand why the world's armies use guns to murder people?

And knives/explosives/chemials/bio-agents/radiation?

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 05:01PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

Something like a Barrett .50cal?
That is some frikken machine

I was actually thinking an AW50, but close enough, the Barrett is an amazing gun, but it's not a hunting weapon, it's a 'kills sh*t dead' weapon.

I mean what would you hunt with it? Pretty sure it's illegal to hunt elephants...

MagicMarker · 17-12-2012 05:02PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

Tell me how it is a strawman?
People claim that gun control will prevent crazy people doing horrible things. Please prove that?

What people are claiming this?

norrie rugger wrote: »

The vast majority of gun owners, in America, are law abiding. It is not, generally, these people that do these actions.

There are cooling periods, in the states, for gun purchase. It is not that hard to aquire one here.
I don't mind gun control, as such. What I mean by that is that you are assessed and, once passed that, you get your gun. What people are calling for, however, is the banning of particular types, which I can not understand. So they ban assault rifles? fine they bring several semi-auto handguns (which are a lot worse up close), ban handguns and they bring automatic shotguns.
Ban guns and they bring arrows, knives, swords etc

It is a case of "don't stop the gun, stop the person".
If I want to buy something to take to a range or secure location and shoot targets, why not (Once I have been deemed fit enough), regardless of the type of firearm that I wish to use?

Again, do you think guns, any type of guns, should be available in Ireland and should be easily accessible?

robindch · 17-12-2012 05:03PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Do you understand why the world's armies use guns to murder people?

And knives/explosives/chemials/bio-agents/radiation?

Possibly the dumbest response I've ever seen in this forum, and by god, that's saying something.

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 05:03PM

Sycopat wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I flagged the inadequacy of the example myself, it's an example with little effort put in to show that norrie's being disingenuous when he tries to imply that gun control would be too difficult to be feasible.

I never said too difficult to implement, it is quite easy; I said that it is not the answer as it is too easily circumvented.
Gun control will not prevent these actions and, untill America deals with the underlying causes of this, they will keep happening one way or another (hence the car example, as there have been a few examples of people using cars as indiscriminate weapons recently)

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 05:07PM

robindch wrote: »

Possibly the dumbest response I've ever seen in this forum, and by god, that's saying something.

Really? First you asked why they use guns? Because they are efficient at the objective of killing people.

Why do armed forces use the others articles mentioned?
Because they are equally proficient at killing people. In fact long range explosive ordinance is preferrable to sending your troops into harms way

I mentioned the incident in China as an example of the fact that crazy people will use any weapon that they can get and not just a gun.

I came to this thread because the idea that gun control will stop mass killings in America is stupid in the extreme. The people commiting these acts will just use other methods.

Edit: Pretty inflammatory comment regarding armies murdering people. Armies tend to kill yes but "murder" in the legal sense??

norrie rugger · 17-12-2012 05:09PM

Sycopat wrote: »

I was actually thinking an AW50, but close enough, the Barrett is an amazing gun, but it's not a hunting weapon, it's a 'kills sh*t dead' weapon.

I mean what would you hunt with it? Pretty sure it's illegal to hunt elephants...

To be fair, it is a vehicle killer.
I would not hunt with it (nor would I buy one honestly) but I would love to shoot some metal targets with it at long range.
I prefer shooting targets myself

oldrnwisr · 17-12-2012 05:40PM

norrie rugger wrote: »

People claim that gun control will prevent crazy people doing horrible things. Please prove that?
I do not believe that the level of gun control mentioned will do anything.

I know I'm late to this dance but all the same, here's my 2c.

Gun control may not be able to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things but it's sure as hell a step in the right direction.

The thing is that this issue is far more complex than some people would like to make out. There are several factors contributing to gun violence in the United States but overall the gun laws in the USA do put it out of step with other Western countries:

List of countries by firearm-related death rate

The USA has a homicide rate of 2.98 per 100,000 compared with Canada, the next highest western country with a homicide rate of just 0.76 while the UK has a rate of just 0.04 per 100,000.

When we look at a map of the US we see that some of the states with concealed carry and open carry laws are among the highest in terms of death rates but that there is no consistent correlation between homicide rate and gun control.

However when a number of different variables are considered we can start to see the different factors which influence firearm-related homicides in the USA:

While there are almost certainly some spurious correlations (where's a funnel plot when you need one), we can see that economic factors rank very high as both positive and negative correlates as do gun controls (negative only).

In the end the conclusion we can draw from the data available is that solving America's gun crime problem is not going to be a quick or easy fix but that more stringent gun controls are a big step in the right direction and in light of last weekend's tragedy one that should be taken sooner rather than later (instead of wasting everyone's time faffing on about the 2nd amendment).

Sycopat · 17-12-2012 05:40PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You mean something like this MacMillan Tac-50:

The thing is though that a lot of modern sniper rifles were developed from hunting rifles or are heavily adapted versions of hunting rifles such as the M40 sniper rifle used by the USMC which was developed from the Remington Model 700. Also, many other military weapons from submachine guns to assault rifles have been adapted for use in sniping such as the Knight Armament SR-25 which was developed from the M16 and in use by the US Navy Seals.
Ultimately it would be difficult to establish a set of criteria to allow for legal ownership of hunting rifles and exclude sniper rifles because the border between them is blurred owing to their evolution, so to speak.

Difficult sure but I doubt it would be impossible, and okay, I'll concede maybe not making them totally illegal, but these are not weapons I think everybody should have access to. Not least because they are incapable of treating them the way they deserve to be.

norrie rugger wrote: »

To be fair, it is a vehicle killer.
I would not hunt with it (nor would I buy one honestly) but I would love to shoot some metal targets with it at long range.
I prefer shooting targets myself

Mmm I probably am stuck a bit on the hunting perspective. Not because I dislike target shooting, but just because it's what I do most of(And even then, just rabbits). Anyway, shooting one would be great craic, I'll not deny that I'd jump at the chance, but given the requirements even for shooting targets safely I'd be pretty nervous if the village (rich) idiot could get his hands on one.

Although that may be a hold over from having grown up near a guy who took potshots at kids on the street with an air rifle...

Gun control in the USA

Comments