Another mass shooting in the U.S

MadsL · 19-12-2012 11:54PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You know exactly what I mean

No I don't. If you are going to accuse someone of something at least show the evidence.

I find there is too much banana in your posts of late. You know exactly what I mean.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 11:59PM

By the way Mads here's one of your "Veterans" you want around protecting your home:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20791191

Seems like gun mass-murders by Americans not limited to U.S. soil either. Sad.

bajer100 · 20-12-2012 12:01AM

Wibbs wrote: »

OK but riddle me this WL; it was far easier to get guns including fully automatic weapons in America 50 years ago, even 30 years ago, yet none of these type of spree shootings were going on, yet in the last decade we've had nearly one a year. What has changed? The guns? No. Something else is going on.

Now if they restrict access to firearms they'll get votes(from some), but America will still have a lot of guns of various types in circulation. The genie is long outa the bottle, so it seems far more logical to me to look at what may have changed in the environment and look at tackling that, rather than go for the obvious and headline grabbing.

Just look at this thread. Look at the lack of knowledge on display. Even in gun totin Amerikay they have similar, especially in urban centres. So they ban "assault weapons" and people will go off happier that they're doing something and I guarantee you, I'll even lay a macabre bet that the year after that they;ll have another shooting spree and then they'll blame something else. Easy answers to complex questions are attractive, but they're rarely the right answers.

They weren't as prolific - or actually as readily available. Of course there is more going on - but the first, obvious step is to restrict the availability of these weapons. To argue otherwise is selfish.

A Dub in Glasgo · 20-12-2012 12:01AM

MadsL wrote: »

If you are going to accuse someone of something

I did not accuse anyone

MadsL · 20-12-2012 12:03AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I did not accuse anyone

Couldn't read. Too much banana.

MadsL · 20-12-2012 12:06AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

By the way Mads here's one of your "Veterans" you want around protecting your home:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20791191

Seems like gun mass-murders by Americans not limited to U.S. soil either. Sad.

I was referring specifically to an individual poster. You seem to be finding any way you can to needle individual posters, we have a word for that around here, tip of my tongue...tr...something..

Nah, it's gone.

Sparks · 20-12-2012 12:08AM

MadsL wrote: »

I was referring specifically to an individual poster. You seem to be finding any way you can to needle individual posters, we have a word for that around here, tip of my tongue...tr...something..

Technically, it's called defamation...

bajer100 · 20-12-2012 12:09AM

Overheal wrote: »

I would argue that if he didn't have the guns he'd have built pipebombs. Throw a couple into a few classrooms and the bodycount would have been a lot higher.

Well then your argument is nonsense. I will ask again - of the last 20 massacres that occurred that in the U.S. that were carried out with guns - are you arguing that if all of the perpetrators were unable to access guns - they would have built bombs? Are you really arguing that?

Sparks · 20-12-2012 12:11AM

bajer100 wrote: »

Well then your argument is nonsense. I will ask again - of the last 20 massacres that occurred that in the U.S. that were carried out with guns - are you arguing that if all of the perpetrators were unable to access guns - they would have built bombs? Are you really arguing that?

You know that it's already been pointed out that some did, right?

wonderfullife · 20-12-2012 12:20AM

MadsL wrote: »

I was referring specifically to an individual poster. You seem to be finding any way you can to needle individual posters, we have a word for that around here, tip of my tongue...tr...something..

Nah, it's gone.

Sparks wrote: »

Technically, it's called defamation...

stick to your shooting Sparks i did Law in University i'm fine on this ground thanks!!

Anyway can't "win" a debate with entrenched views but here's my final suggestion on steps to help:

1. More focus on mental health. A multi-layered bi-partisan American taskforce to look at the front-line and support mental health services in the USA and see what can be changed and improved upon.

2. Nationwide amnesty or buy-back scheme on existing assault rifles. It's tough economic times out there, if people won't give them away then perhaps make a few quid returning them.

3. Prospective ban on assault rifles. Retrospective is impossible, but the amnesty would help.

4. Strict limits on legal attainment of ammunition.

5. Mandatory gun-safes in homes.

6. Strict ban on any gun with large magazines.

7. More thorough background checks on any legal purchase of handguns.

8. Stricter supervision and control of out-of-town gun fairs/sales.

9. Removing ammunition and guns from regular stores.

10. Lastly, and probably more important than any of the above, steps to make dis-enfranchised young men inclusive in the community. More back-to-work schemes, more re-training initiatives, more facilities and amenities. It's beyond co-incidence that the demographics of most of these mass-murders are committed by problematic young white men.

Removing the obsession with guns on the American psyche is an impossible task. It would be like trying to remove drink from our culture. But more can be done, both with guns and drink, to minimise risks posed by either of them.

hedzball · 20-12-2012 12:26AM

WL just from a curious point of view not taking any calibre into account..

How much do you reckon a limit on ammo would you put down..

Say a shotgun and rifle for sake..

'hdz

wonderfullife · 20-12-2012 12:31AM

hedzball wrote: »

WL just from a curious point of view not taking any calibre into account..

How much do you reckon a limit on ammo would you put down..

Say a shotgun and rifle for sake..

'hdz

That would depend on lawmakers and the taskforce. A teacher in Rhode Island would probably require less ammunition to a farmer or hunter in Texas. A unilateral limit would be neither practical nor fair. But it would be possible to frame the laws so that the licenses are similar to driving licenses with different categories within them and a limit to the ammunition apply to each category. Target shooters i'm sure could get ammunition at the shooting ranges under my proposals. A golfer going to a golf range usually buys a bucket of balls to whack out 200 yards. They don't need to bring hundreds of balls home (and neither do target shooters with bullets).

MadsL · 20-12-2012 12:34AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

That would depend on lawmakers and the taskforce. A teacher in Rhode Island would probably require less ammunition to a farmer or hunter in Texas. A unilateral limit would be neither practical nor fair. But it would be possible to frame the laws so that the licenses are similar to driving licenses with different categories within them and a limit to the ammunition apply to each category. Target shooters i'm sure could get ammunition at the shooting ranges under my proposals. A golfer going to a golf range usually buys a bucket of balls to whack out 200 yards. They don't need to bring hundreds of balls home (and neither do target shooters with bullets).

Well done. You have just created a black market in ammo.

wonderfullife · 20-12-2012 12:38AM

MadsL wrote: »

Well done. You have just created a black market in ammo.

It's harder to get things from a black market than legalised routes. If they sold marijuana in Boots on Grafton Street it'd be easier for me to get it there than to find a dealer somewhere at a cut-down price. And even at that you have law enforcement who generally try to bust drug dealers.

It's fine though no suggestion other than more guns will satiate you. My 10-point suggestion list covered a lot more than just gun control.

MadsL · 20-12-2012 12:49AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

1. More focus on mental health. A multi-layered bi-partisan American taskforce to look at the front-line and support mental health services in the USA and see what can be changed and improved upon.

Agree.

2. Nationwide amnesty or buy-back scheme on existing assault rifles. It's tough economic times out there, if people won't give them away then perhaps make a few quid returning them.

Definition of "assault rifle" please.

3. Prospective ban on assault rifles. Retrospective is impossible, but the amnesty would help.

Definition of "assault rifle" please.

4. Strict limits on legal attainment of ammunition.

See my blackmarket comment

5. Mandatory gun-safes in homes.

Agree, so does the NRA incidentally.

6. Strict ban on any gun with large magazines.

Pointless, you can reload with spare magazines in under a second.

7. More thorough background checks on any legal purchase of handguns.

There are already background checks, what do you propose?

8. Stricter supervision and control of out-of-town gun fairs/sales.

Removing the Legal loophole on the bg check is all that is required.

9. Removing ammunition and guns from regular stores.

Why? Many rural areas have no gun store but do have a Walmart. The same controls apply to Walmart on gun sales.

10. Lastly, and probably more important than any of the above, steps to make dis-enfranchised young men inclusive in the community. More back-to-work schemes, more re-training initiatives, more facilities and amenities. It's beyond co-incidence that the demographics of most of these mass-murders are committed by problematic young white men.

Agree.

Removing the obsession with guns on the American psyche is an impossible task. It would be like trying to remove drink from our culture. But more can be done, both with guns and drink, to minimise risks posed by either of them.

Glad to hear you say it, many here would not recommend such controls.

So. Let's apply some US-style controls on drink to Ireland.

1. 21 to buy alcohol.
2. Card everyone.
3. Prison for DUI
4. Alcoholic beverage control, the State to take over the wholesale distribution of alcohol
5. Remove hard liquor from supermarkets
6. 3 drink limit in bars.
7. No open containers in cars
8. Alcohol locks on cars for DUI offenders

Agree?

Sparks · 20-12-2012 12:50AM

hedzball wrote: »

How much do you reckon a limit on ammo would you put down..
Say a shotgun and rifle for sake..

That's very dependent on what you are going to use them for...

MadsL · 20-12-2012 12:56AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's harder to get things from a black market than legalised routes. If they sold marijuana in Boots on Grafton Street it'd be easier for me to get it there than to find a dealer somewhere at a cut-down price. And even at that you have law enforcement who generally try to bust drug dealers.

But why create a blackmarket in the first place???

It's fine though no suggestion other than more guns will satiate you. My 10-point suggestion list covered a lot more than just gun control.

Where have I argued for "more guns"? Please do not misrepresent my position.

Heckler · 20-12-2012 12:56AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

That would depend on lawmakers and the taskforce. A teacher in Rhode Island would probably require less ammunition to a farmer or hunter in Texas. A unilateral limit would be neither practical nor fair. But it would be possible to frame the laws so that the licenses are similar to driving licenses with different categories within them and a limit to the ammunition apply to each category. Target shooters i'm sure could get ammunition at the shooting ranges under my proposals. A golfer going to a golf range usually buys a bucket of balls to whack out 200 yards. They don't need to bring hundreds of balls home (and neither do target shooters with bullets).

Wrong. I'm a target shooter with limited experience but I know that competitive shooters buy different brands of bullets (batches) to ensure consistency which is the backbone of successful competitive target shooting.

This could entail many hundreds of rounds to see what suits each shooter and their rifle.

I'm enjoy recreational target shooting and am by no means a gun nut but the disinformation spread by non-shooters in these kinds of threads is woeful.

Most can't even discern the difference between a semi and full automatic firearm.

I even heard Tom Clonan (military expert) talk about automatic pistols when he should have said semi-automatic. May not mean much to some but there is a world of difference.

I take my .22 rifle out of its gunsafe of a morning, shoot holes in paper and put it back till the following week. I've been vetted by the Guards as to being suitable to own this firearm. Do I need to have it ? No.

Since when did want become need ?

What happened in America was tragic and I think their gun laws are crazy for the most part but to argue that no-one should have a gun ever for whatever reason (the "guns are only made to kill" arguement, (not as suggested by you wonderfulife) but others isn't the answer either.

yammycat · 20-12-2012 12:57AM

paperclip2 wrote: »

In the days after my brother was killed in a road accident there was a lot of laughter in our house. Remembering the things he'd said and done. Speculating about what he would think of the goings-on and imagining his take on the things people were saying about him. At his funeral quite a few priests officiated. My sister turned to me and whispered 'Its like being at a KKK rally.' Sitting in the front pew of the church I seriously got the giggles.

It wasn't that I didn't care he was gone or that I didn't cry my eyes out when I was alone.
You cant predict grief. You cant reason with shock. When something overwhelms you so completely your mind will do its best to protect you. That includes humour. It can insulate you from the agony for a while. But it doesn't last. The pain is real and will be felt.
Those parents and families in Newtown are in agony and will be for years. I don't presume to judge how they choose or need to deal with a loss so crippling. Neither should anyone else.

Yes, people laugh and smile over fond memories of love ones when they have passed, in private among friends and family, what they don't do is laugh and smile with a camera man and then ask is the camera ready, are we on, oh we are on, deep breaths ima gonna get emotional now, the camera is on, deeep breaths , deeep breaths, oh the camera is on, now im all upset

there is only two explanations for that behaviour

1. he is an actor and his child didn't just get shot in the face a few hours ago (most likely)
2. he is happy she is dead, possible divorce incoming and didn't want to pay child support.

No father who just lost a child hours ago is all hella jolly with random camera men and after getting told he is on air has to work himself into an emotional state

MadsL · 20-12-2012 12:59AM

yammycat wrote: »

1. he is an actor and his child didn't just get shot in the face a few hours ago (most likely)
2. he is happy she is dead, possible divorce incoming and didn't want to pay child support.

You think #1 is the most likely explanation of those two???

Jesus.

hedzball · 20-12-2012 12:59AM

Sparks wrote: »

That's very dependent on what you are going to use them for...

well.. Over 3 calibres.. I have 2500.. the father has 3k.

So legally (you and I both know how that goes)

I can have 5500 rounds in my house. Father could shoot 300 in a day.. I might shoot 1. you can figure from that what type of shooters we are..

Just wanted to know to a non shooter what is excessive?.

'hdz

wonderfullife · 20-12-2012 01:03AM

MadsL wrote: »

Agree.

Definition of "assault rifle" please.

Definition of "assault rifle" please.

See my blackmarket comment

Agree, so does the NRA incidentally.

Pointless, you can reload with spare magazines in under a second.

There are already background checks, what do you propose?

Removing the Legal loophole on the bg check is all that is required.

Why? Many rural areas have no gun store but do have a Walmart. The same controls apply to Walmart on gun sales.

Agree.

Glad to hear you say it, many here would not recommend such controls.

So. Let's apply some US-style controls on drink to Ireland.

1. 21 to buy alcohol.
2. Card everyone.
3. Prison for DUI
4. Alcoholic beverage control, the State to take over the wholesale distribution of alcohol
5. Remove hard liquor from supermarkets
6. 3 drink limit in bars.
7. No open containers in cars
8. Alcohol locks on cars for DUI offenders

Agree?

ummm

1. If you are of sound mind to vote and marry at 18, you can drink at 18.
2. Ridiculous. A friends parent in San Diego was carded going into a pub. She's 57 years old. The point of "carding" is to establish someone is legal age. Carding everyone is stupidity personified.
3. Too vague. Taking the car off them on the spot, as happens, is enough to prevent accidents. We don't want a draconian system of chucking everyone in prison. You can keep that. Stronger fines/deterrents open to.
4. Fatty foods are dangerous too. It's a slippery slope for State Intervention in these things.
5. No, it's your right to buy any of those things if you are legal age.
6. Straw man nonsense argument, unenforcable and basically stupid.
7. Yeah i don't think anybody should be drinking in cars, passengers or drivers.
8. Everybody is entitled to make a mistake. If they make repeated mistakes, i.e. repeated drink driving offences then yeah maybe.

Sparks · 20-12-2012 01:05AM

Heckler wrote: »

Wrong. I'm a target shooter with limited experience but I know that competitive shooters buy different brands of bullets (batches) to ensure consistency which is the backbone of successful competitive target shooting.
This could entail many hundreds of rounds to see what suits each shooter and their rifle.

It's a lot more than that at the higher levels. The Irish Olympic and other international-level shooters could have allowances on their licences for tens of thousands of rounds; it's not different brands of rounds we buy; we batch-test rifles to match a particular batch to a particular barrel - a batch in this case meaning that the machine that makes the round is set up with a full hopper of the various metals and chemicals used, and is run in one go producing as identical a group of rounds as it is possible to make. We go to the factory, the barrel is strapped into a test rig, and 10-20 rounds from different batches are fired through it. Group sizes are compared, the best match found and then you buy ammo. Most companies have a minimum size for that purchase order, of around 10,000 rounds.
This is all .22lr ammunition btw.
For airgun, the same process is done, and the quantities are similar if not larger.

MadsL · 20-12-2012 01:19AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

1. If you are of sound mind to vote and marry at 18, you can drink at 18.
2. Ridiculous. A friends parent in San Diego was carded going into a pub. She's 57 years old. The point of "carding" is to establish someone is legal age. Carding everyone is stupidity personified.
3. Too vague. Taking the car off them on the spot, as happens, is enough to prevent accidents. We don't want a draconian system of chucking everyone in prison. You can keep that. Stronger fines/deterrents open to.
4. Fatty foods are dangerous too. It's a slippery slope for State Intervention in these things.
5. No, it's your right to buy any of those things if you are legal age.
6. Straw man nonsense argument, unenforcable and basically stupid.
7. Yeah i don't think anybody should be drinking in cars, passengers or drivers.
8. Everybody is entitled to make a mistake. If they make repeated mistakes, i.e. repeated drink driving offences then yeah maybe.

So you want the US to adopt Irish gun licensing, but don't like the US approach to alcohol licensing?

Number 6 is very real and by no means a strawman - here is a review of my local Irish bar.

Two Fools also does not serve shots of any kind. If you ask nicely they might serve you a glass of whisky but will watch you to make sure youre not drinking it too quickly. Dont know of any other Irish bars in this country that do that. Also, if you are having too good of a time, like laughing aloud or being boistorous they will cut you off and kick you out. Even if youve only had 1 beer. On Saint Patricks Day they stamp your hand each time you order a drink and after your 3th stamp you are automatically cut off.

Manic Moran · 20-12-2012 01:21AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

1. More focus on mental health. A multi-layered bi-partisan American taskforce to look at the front-line and support mental health services in the USA and see what can be changed and improved upon.

Fair enough.

2. Nationwide amnesty or buy-back scheme on existing assault rifles. It's tough economic times out there, if people won't give them away then perhaps make a few quid returning them.

Won't make much difference. More often than not buybacks tend to bring in antiques or inoperative weapons. But if an agency wants to run one, more power to them.

3. Prospective ban on assault rifles. Retrospective is impossible, but the amnesty would help.

I would be curious to see the legal definition you propose for this, and the rational basis for that definition.

4. Strict limits on legal attainment of ammunition.

Given that reloading is a popular activity amongst recreational shooters, how would this be enforced? That's before you get to the question of 'what's a reasonable number?'

5. Mandatory gun-safes in homes.

Subject to two caveats. Firstly, though you can mandate that every house have a safe, you cannot mandate that it be used. This was the question specifically addressed in DC vs Heller. Secondly, it is unConstitutional to place an excessive cost on the exercise of a Constitutional right. Mandating the sale of trigger locks on guns such as happens in California is OK as they're only $10 or so. (Here in CA, they have to be sold, but not necessarily used) But a $700 safe is a bit more than would likely pass muster, so the government is going to be buying a lot of safes.

6. Strict ban on any gun with large magazines.

How does that affect firearms with detachable magazines?

7. More thorough background checks on any legal purchase of handguns.

There is currently a criminal check and a mental illness check. What more would you suggest, bearing in mind that it cannot be so invasive as to unnecessarily restrict the Constitutional right?

8. Stricter supervision and control of out-of-town gun fairs/sales.

Fair enough.

9. Removing ammunition and guns from regular stores.

Why?

10. Lastly, and probably more important than any of the above, steps to make dis-enfranchised young men inclusive in the community. More back-to-work schemes, more re-training initiatives, more facilities and amenities. It's beyond co-incidence that the demographics of most of these mass-murders are committed by problematic young white men.

Agreed, with a caveat. Mass murders are not a significant problem in the big scheme of things. We could have a Newton every week of the year, and still only be a blip on the number of murders in the US. If we really want to make a dent in murders, we need to go after all those who take up a life of criminal violence, who are as often black and hispanic.

NTM

wonderfullife · 20-12-2012 01:26AM

MadsL wrote: »

So you want the US to adopt Irish gun licensing, but don't like the US approach to alcohol licensing?

Number 6 is very real and by no means a strawman - here is a review of my local Irish bar.

That bar sounds about as much craic as Herpes.

Look i really don't give a crap what the US does, in general, but as a human being with a 5 year old nephew i would like to see less of these mass-murders in schools which have become endemic.

If drink was a cause of mass-murders in Ireland i would welcome draconian US laws here. Drink is a major long term societal problem which can lead to organ-failure and drink related illnesses will cost a lot of money to address in future. But it won't see kids mass-murdered and schools attacked with the regularity you have in the USA.

To be honest, if there was a solution that didn't involve gun control of any form, i'm all for that too.

Fact is, there is no single problem that needs fixing. It's a multi-faceted problem and guns are part of that problem. That's an opinion - and you disagree - that's fine.

It actually staggers me that US laws to gun licensing and other products is so much more stringent than to guns. You can't buy a Kinder Egg legally but can buy a Bushmaster .223...... look i'm exhausted trying to rationalise with the gun lobby in here. I just want less of these mass-murders and i'm sure you all agree with me on that. Good luck, i'm out.

yammycat · 20-12-2012 01:27AM

MadsL wrote: »

Number 6 is very real and by no means a strawman - here is a review of my local Irish bar.

thats what i love about the USA , you can't buy a shot while pissed but you can buy an assault rifle while pissed.

Christianity at it's finest.

MadsL · 20-12-2012 01:29AM

yammycat wrote: »

thats what i love about the USA , you can't buy a shot while pissed but you can buy an assault rifle while pissed.

I suggest you try that sometime. :rolleyes:

Heckler · 20-12-2012 01:29AM

Sparks wrote: »

It's a lot more than that at the higher levels. The Irish Olympic and other international-level shooters could have allowances on their licences for tens of thousands of rounds; it's not different brands of rounds we buy; we batch-test rifles to match a particular batch to a particular barrel - a batch in this case meaning that the machine that makes the round is set up with a full hopper of the various metals and chemicals used, and is run in one go producing as identical a group of rounds as it is possible to make. We go to the factory, the barrel is strapped into a test rig, and 10-20 rounds from different batches are fired through it. Group sizes are compared, the best match found and then you buy ammo. Most companies have a minimum size for that purchase order, of around 10,000 rounds.
This is all .22lr ammunition btw.
For airgun, the same process is done, and the quantities are similar if not larger.

Like I said limited experience but thanks for the clarification. I figured i was in the ballpark anyway with what I said re ammunition limits. I have a vague knowledge of what you said and what it entails but I figure it must be a million miles away from what someone who doesn't shoot can get their head around.

Sparks · 20-12-2012 01:29AM

yammycat wrote: »

thats what i love about the USA , you can't buy a shot while pissed but you can buy an assault rifle while pissed.

...except that you can't.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments