Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Gun control in the USA

1…1112141617…34

Comments

  • #392
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Dunblane guns were legally held
    Nope, sorry, they weren't (the licences were renewed after he'd been kicked out of the gun club, which was illegal then and now)
    Columbine guns were legally held
    Not by the shooters, who were prohibited from owning them by law.
    And you can't have a legal bomb....
    Sandy Hook guns were legally held
    Not by the shooter, who was prohibited from owning them by law.


  • #393
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Sparks wrote: »
    Nope, sorry, they weren't (the licences were renewed after he'd been kicked out of the gun club, which was illegal then and now)

    Link?
    Sparks wrote: »
    Not by the shooters, who were prohibited from owning them by law.
    And you can't have a legal bomb....

    The shooters had 4 guns, only the handgun was illegal.

    The 2 shotguns and the rifle were bought at a gun show, essentially a legal gun flea market with private sellers and no background checks. The guns were bought legally by the girlfriend of one of the shooters. Normally it's illegal for a person to buy a gun for someone else who can't buy one themselves, but this only applies when buying from a licensed retailer, not a private sale. None the less, according to Mark Paulter, a Jefferson County chief deputy district attorney..
    If you provide a handgun to a person under 18, that's a violation of the statute. If you provide a shotgun or a rifle, that's not a violation.''

    Why do you think the person who bought the guns was never prosecuted?

    This is the perfect example of why people in the thread are calling for tougher restrictions on gun ownership. As for the bombs, none of them actually detonated.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Not by the shooter, who was prohibited from owning them by law.

    Adam Lanza is not prohibited by law from owning the semi-auto rifle he used. He could purchase it from a licensed dealer and jump through all the hoops, or he could just buy from a private seller.

    The guns this guy used were legally obtained by his mother, no 'outlaws' were involved, and from what I've read about this quaint little town, pop. 28,000 with only a single homicide in the last decade, and the fact that this guy was a loner, it sounds like it would have been hard for him to acquire these firearms by other means without raising any red flags, especially the one he used to kill most of the victims.....

    bushmaster_ar15_carbine.jpg

    And imo, any parent who allows easy access to a semi-automatic rifle, 2 hand guns and a shotgun is not a safe user of a firearm imo, not to mention the 3 other rifles he left at home. Why does any household need so many firearms? This seems like something that could be addressed when thinking of possible future restrictions.


  • #394
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Link?
    http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Police-lost-key-files-on-Dunblane-killer-106099/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/oct/04/ukcrime.ukguns

    Frankly, renewing his licences with that number of complaints against him (and with the renewals officer's serious reservations about the man) was reprehensible.
    The shooters had 4 guns, only the handgun was illegal.
    So possession of an illegally-held firearm. Dunno about the US, but in Ireland, that's 15 years to life in prison if you were going to use it on someone. Trivial it ain't.
    Adam Lanza is not prohibited by law from owning the semi-auto rifle he used.
    Federal law prohibits the selling or gifting or loaning of a firearm or ammunition to someone who's mentally ill; and reports are now saying his mother attempted to have him committed, so there would have been a record - which would explain the reports of him trying to buy a rifle a few days earlier but giving up on hearing there would be a background check.
    And imo, any parent who allows easy access to a semi-automatic rifle, 2 hand guns and a shotgun is not a safe user of a firearm imo, not to mention the 3 other rifles he left at home.
    I agree.

    Oddly - and it gets little mention - so does the NRA, who've had proper storage on their safe gun handling rules since before I started shooting 15 years ago.



    Lets consider another example to try to highlight one problem with the discussion of regulation; Hungerford. In the days and weeks leading up to the shooting there, Ryan was reprimanded at work for coming to work armed; he was shooting at his neighbours with an airgun; and his mental state was deteriorating at home.

    And not one person reported any of this to the police who would have had the authority on the basis of those complaints to confiscate Ryan's firearms, preventing the subsequent sixteen deaths.

    So is the fault with the firearms being available under controlled licencing conditions; or with the people who didn't report repeated breaches of those conditions by someone whose mental state was deteriorating?


  • #395
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    In addition to ALL of the calls to ban guns and the rest - none of which addresses the actual issues at hand. Rob, you started out with a prejudice and you (et al) have continued down this same line of thought without actually looking at the facts.
    You're correct to say that I've started out with a prejudice -- a strong one -- in favour of doing as much as reasonably possible to ensure that a nation's citizens, especially children, are as safe as possible from mass-murder by nutters carrying military-grade weapons.

    If that means that people who enjoy shooting airborne plastic or killing animals and birds for pleasure have to practice their hobby under controlled conditions -- or perhaps even suspend it altogether and hand their weapons into a permanent storage or destruction facility -- then it would be an honorable act of selfless decency for them to volunteer to do so.

    I simply have no idea how anybody who holds these military-grade weapons, can continue to do so with an apparently clean conscience after the events of last Friday morning.
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    edit: In case people need MORE clarification - "magical thinking" refers to the penchant shown in this thread for strategies like "legislation" and "assault weapons bans" - non-concrete measures that folks want to believe will protect them, regardless of evidence or experience.
    On the contrary. I don't believe there's anything "magical" about the belief that if there hadn't been a gun apparently easily available, then the massacre-by-gun of twenty innocent children may have happened with a far-reduced severity (as it did in China on the same day), or perhaps may not have happened at all. Are you really suggesting, as somebody else did up above somewhere, that guns had nothing to do with this massacre?
    Hivemind187 wrote: »
    heh, as an aside, how many of you screaming for the total ban on all guns have considered how close your thought processes are to those of a racist?
    I'm racist because I don't want me or my child murdered by somebody with a gun?

    </gun-lobby> :)

    .


  • #396
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    robindch wrote: »
    If that means that people who enjoy shooting airborne plastic or killing animals and birds for pleasure have to practice their hobby under controlled conditions -- or perhaps even suspend it altogether and hand their weapons into a permanent storage or destruction facility -- then it would be an honorable act of selfless decency for them to volunteer freely to do so.
    Robin, if it was the people who would voluntarily give up their sport for the common good were who you had to worry about, this measure would work.
    But they aren't.
    So now you're down to being unsafe despite punishing people who had nothing to do with the crime.
    I simply have no idea how anybody who holds these military-grade weapons, can continue to do so with an apparently clean conscience after the events of last Friday morning.
    It's pretty simple really - they don't feel guilty because they didn't break the law and basic human morality and murder 20 children.
    I'm racist because I don't want me or my child murdered?
    You would be like one if you advocated unfair legislation for one section of the population based on a criteria that had no bearing in fact...
    (and btw, try to remember that shooters love their kids too, would you?)


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Sparks wrote: »
    http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Police-lost-key-files-on-Dunblane-killer-106099/
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/oct/04/ukcrime.ukguns

    Frankly, renewing his licences with that number of complaints against him (and with the renewals officer's serious reservations about the man) was reprehensible.

    Agreed, serious failure on the part of the police there. But it's not clear from those links that he held the firearms illegally.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Federal law prohibits the selling or gifting or loaning of a firearm or ammunition to someone who's mentally ill; and reports are now saying his mother attempted to have him committed, so there would have been a record - which would explain the reports of him trying to buy a rifle a few days earlier but giving up on hearing there would be a background check.

    He still could have bought one privately, no private seller is going to be prosecuted for selling to a mentally ill person when they're not legally required to perform a background check in the first place, unless it can be proven the seller knew of the mental illness.

    The fact his mother didn't take extra care concerning his access to guns after trying to have him committed is even more shocking tbh.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Lets consider another example to try to highlight one problem with the discussion of regulation; Hungerford. In the days and weeks leading up to the shooting there, Ryan was reprimanded at work for coming to work armed; he was shooting at his neighbours with an airgun; and his mental state was deteriorating at home.

    And not one person reported any of this to the police who would have had the authority on the basis of those complaints to confiscate Ryan's firearms, preventing the subsequent sixteen deaths.

    So is the fault with the firearms being available under controlled licencing conditions; or with the people who didn't report repeated breaches of those conditions by someone whose mental state was deteriorating?

    Certainly the people should have reported that incident, I wouldn't go so far as to say they're responsible for what he went on to do.

    As for the 'controlled licensing conditions', in what way are they controlled? Is just applying for a gun license good enough? According to wiki he first was issued a shotgun certificate in 1978, then in the eight month period between December '86 & July '87 he applied for a certificate covering two pistols, another certificate for a third pistol, and then applied for a certificate to cover 2 semi-automatic rifles just 2 months before the massacre. That doesn't sound like it's controlled at all, red flags should have been waving at some point there.

    Apparently, it was thought that he was schizophrenic and psychotic. Had he been required to attend a psychological evaluation before being licensed to use 2 semi-automatic rifles, then maybe it could have been detected that he was possibly dangerous, and all his firearms could have been confiscated and the licenses revoked.


  • #398
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Household doesn't eliminate multiple ownership. Just do what I do and use the direct per 100 numbers for gun ownership, and per 100,000 for deaths. Much easier to compare, as no population differences or undefined "households" to worry about.
    Doing that we see a factor of 1:5 between guns and deaths. The US has 8 times more guns, but 40 (8*5) times more deaths. Might that have something to do the UKs more stringent gun controls, do you wonder?


    Please note that this exactly what I explained in my last post.


    It might do is exactly my point. It might not.
    To look at the overall homicide rate, the US has 5.9 homicides per 100,000. Liechtenstein 2.9, Scotland 2.6, Czech Republic 2.2.

    Do you see the anomaly? Two of these countries have liberal gun ownership laws, and two have restrictive gun laws.


  • #399
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    And if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today.

    Or is this fact disputed too?

    You disputed it yourself. You said perhaps. He was looking for a rifle earlier this much we know, possible his mother did restrict his use and he got access or found a safe combination.


  • #400
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sparks wrote: »
    It's pretty simple really - they don't feel guilty because they didn't break the law and basic human morality and murder 20 children.
    And if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today.

    Or is this fact disputed too?
    Sparks wrote: »
    You would be like one if you advocated unfair legislation for one section of the population based on a criteria that had no bearing in fact.
    Again, can you tell me exactly how "racism" is connected to my belief that guns have no place in a civilized society?


  • #401
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    And if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today. Or is this fact disputed too?
    You disputed it yourself. You said perhaps.
    Just out of interest -- do you believe that guns were involved in this massacre?

    Or do you reckon that the murderer, I don't know, just threw custard pies at the kids?


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    Just out of interest -- do you believe that guns were involved in this massacre?

    Or do you reckon that the murderer, I don't know, just threw custard pies at the kids?

    My point is very clear, there is no need for silliness. Had he not got the guns from his mother he would have found some other avenue for his rage. A gallon of gas and a match could have killed as many.


  • #403
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    PM box is full but I hear ya Robin...deleted my earlier post.

    at least I tried to. Jesus you are making my head spin.


  • #404
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    My point is very clear, there is no need for silliness.
    There appears to be.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Had he not got the guns from his mother he would have found some other avenue for his rage.
    How exactly do you know this?

    In any case, to summarize, you reckon that guns had nothing to do with this massacre?


  • #405
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    Jesus you are making my head spin.
    Here to help :)


  • #406
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    There appears to be.How exactly do you know this?

    In any case, to summarize, you reckon that guns had nothing to do with this massacre?

    Where did I say that. :mad: You hypothesize that had his mother not had guns, this wouldn't have happened. Do I really need to explain the logic fail to you?


  • #407
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MadsL wrote: »
    Where did I say that. :mad: You hypothesize that had his mother not had guns, this wouldn't have happened. Do I really need to explain the logic fail to you?
    He didn't say that, he said perhaps it may not have happened.


  • #408
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    He said.
    robindch wrote: »
    And if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today.

    Or is this fact disputed too?


    I wouldn't say that is a fact at all.

    If JFK had not been in Dallas, perhaps he would not have been assassinated.

    It is meaningless to describe this as a "fact". It is pure conjecture.


  • #409
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    Where did I say that. :mad: You hypothesize that had his mother not had guns, this wouldn't have happened. Do I really need to explain the logic fail to you?
    You even highlighted the word yourself:
    robindch wrote: »
    And if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today. Or is this fact disputed too?


  • #410
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Yes it is a 'fact' that if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today.

    It is also a 'fact' that if a drunk driver had hit his car on the way way there perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today. Or if an aeroplane engine had fallen on his bed perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today.

    You were right earlier, it is time for silliness. Have you been drinking?


  • #411
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MadsL wrote: »
    Yes it is a 'fact' that if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today.

    Grand, you agree with us so.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    It is meaningless to describe this as a "fact". It is pure conjecture.
    You can call it what you like, but it would be interesting to hear you reply to the point. I'll attempt to rephrase the question so that it has a single, highly specific meaning.

    If the murder didn't have access to a gun, then is it reasonable to think that some or all of those kids would be alive today?


  • #413
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    Yes it is a 'fact' that if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today.
    Ah, the dangers of quick posters and switching back and forth from long compiles...

    Well, I think that admission is a good step forward, so let's park this conversation here for the evening and perhaps we can continue tomorrow.


  • #414
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Grand, you agree with us so.

    Oh ffs. I can't believe a mod on this forum is playing silly word games.

    Describing conjecture as fact must be a new low for A&A.

    Ask yourself what would happen if you asked the following question of a witness in a court of law.

    "Is it not a fact that if the gun hadn't been sitting back in the mother's house, then perhaps some or all of those kids would be alive today. "

    Objection. Conjecture!

    Sustained!


  • #415
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Sparks wrote: »
    I'm not sure you can stand over that claim, especially in regard to the UK, where the root causes of the shootings in Hungerford were ignored in favour of a simplistic gun ban; which led to Dunblane. After Dunblane, the root causes of the shootings were ignored in favour of a simplistic gun ban; which led to Cumbria.

    There's a nasty pattern there of seizing on the policy most easily expressed in soundbite form and then ignoring any other possible contributory or causative factors; and it's a pattern with a heavy price so far.


    Even if you could prove that a simplistic gun ban "led" to further tragedies in the UK, it's worth noting the following.

    Hungerford 1987
    Dunblane 1996
    Cumbria 2010

    The reactionary nature of changes in the laws on guns may not have worked fully but they did result in 9 year and 14 year gaps between mass-murders. Or perhaps they did work very well and there would be more of these happening regularly other than for lawmakers regulating guns.


    On the other hand, the complete lack of reactionary changes on gun control in America:

    Virginia Tech 2007
    Westroads Mall Shooting, Nebraska 2007
    Covina Massacre, CA 2008
    Northern Illinois University Massacre, 2008
    Binghampton, 2009
    Fort Hood 2009
    Geneva County, Alabama 2010
    Seal Beach, CA 2011
    Tucson Shooting, 2011,
    Aurora 2012
    Sandy Hook 2012
    Okios University 2012

    And that's only the past 6 years. If i got back as far as Hungerford, i'll be here all day.

    It's dangerous to suggest any law "leads" to a tragedy - i hope that was just a poor word choice, but is it non-action not worse? Seems to me to be worse.
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Dunblane guns were legally held
    Columbine guns were legally held
    Sandy Hook guns were legally held

    If all of the above is true, it shows one thing alone:

    Gun enthusiasts may argue that Adam Lanza did NOT own a legal weapon. This is probably correct.

    However, sadly i am back living with my mother due to economic times. She legally owns a lot of things. And to be perfectly frank if i wanted to use any of them, hoover, iron , kettle, i can do so. With our without her permission.

    The mother having legal ownership of an assault rifle and handguns, by extrapolation meant her son pretty much had the run of them too. Saying he didn't legally own them is facetious.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Nope, sorry, they weren't (the licences were renewed after he'd been kicked out of the gun club, which was illegal then and now)

    Not by the shooters, who were prohibited from owning them by law.
    And you can't have a legal bomb....

    Not by the shooter, who was prohibited from owning them by law.

    As above, there's law and there's common sense.

    My point is this : If the reports are true that Adam Lanza was refused a rifle on mental grounds, surely there is an onus on the authorities to remove the assault rifles from his mother or to ensure impossible access to them.

    I know punishment by-proxy may seem harsh, but bottom line if your son is mentally disturbed and you have assault rifles, handguns around AND bring him to shooting ranges, there's questions need to be asked over how and why this was allowed to happen.


  • #416
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    Ah, the dangers of quick posters and switching back and forth from long compiles...

    Well, I think that admission is a good step forward, so let's park this conversation here for the evening and perhaps we can continue tomorrow.

    Please don't quote me out of context. Your logic stinks and you know it.


  • #417
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    MadsL wrote: »
    Please don't quote me out of context. Your logic stinks and you know it.
    Didn't quote you out of context at all.

    In any case, my logic is fine. Seems that you may not like where it leads :)

    Nighty night!


  • #418
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    It's not silly word games, it's coming a reasonable conclusion based on available information. You've already agreed about this "conjecture", but allow me to demonstrate none the less...

    a) Adam Lanza may not have committed this crime if he did not have any access to guns = a reasonable assumption.

    b) Adam Lanza may not have killed as many children had he not had access to any guns, forcing him to use alternative means = a reasonable assumption.

    c) Adam Lanza may have killed less children had he had access to more guns = an unreasonable assumption.


  • #419
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Agreed, serious failure on the part of the police there. But it's not clear from those links that he held the firearms illegally.
    Sorry MM, it's so familiar to me at this point that it jumps out and I forget that it's not obvious if you haven't had your head buried in legislation for a few years.
    He got his licence originally in '77 and renewed it up until '95.
    However, his licence was predicated on his being a member of his local target shooting club (Callander Rifle & Pistol club) (see 6.3 in that link) and as their secretary testified in the Cullen report, he was never a member, not in '77 and not at any time after that; he didn't even approach them until '96. (transcript is here, read Reid's testimony).

    All of which means he lied about his membership on the renewal form;, which means the licence was void, so the firearms were held illegally, and had the police done the background checks (ie. called the club up for a 1-minute phone call), then the whole mess might have been averted. (In Ireland, if you were caught lying on your application form that you're facing up to €20k in fines and 5 years in prison).

    Or he might have just built a bomb and blown the school up; but that's another point of contention alltogether.
    He still could have bought one privately, no private seller is going to be prosecuted for selling to a mentally ill person when they're not legally required to perform a background check in the first place, unless it can be proven the seller knew of the mental illness.
    The phrase in federal law is "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe" that there's a mental health issue. Not to cause offence, but if the reports are correct and the shooter had autism or aspbergers which was sufficently serious that his mother would seek committal, then there's no way that anyone is going to not have "reasonable cause", those syndromes are too obvious.
    The fact his mother didn't take extra care concerning his access to guns after trying to have him committed is even more shocking tbh.
    That's probably the thing about this case that I really have the hardest time understanding. The idea of having firearms in the house and not having them in the gunsafe is just completely alien to me; but to not have them in a gunsafe when you know your child has a mental health problem? That's... I don't have words to describe how wrong that is.

    Certainly the people should have reported that incident, I wouldn't go so far as to say they're responsible for what he went on to do.
    I wouldn't say they were solely responsible, obviously; but I wouldn't agree that their consciences should be clear.
    As for the 'controlled licensing conditions', in what way are they controlled? Is just applying for a gun license good enough?
    If the checks described in the firearms legislation are carried out, yes; but words on paper in a statute book somewhere without enforcement are, as we've learnt at great human cost, worse than useless. (Worse because they give the illusion of safety instead of alerting you to a potential problem while you can still avert it).
    Apparently, it was thought that he was schizophrenic and psychotic. Had he been required to attend a psychological evaluation before being licensed to use 2 semi-automatic rifles, then maybe it could have been detected that he was possibly dangerous, and all his firearms could have been confiscated and the licenses revoked.
    There's very little "could" about it.
    The firearms laws we have and that the UK had were perfectly able to prevent Hungerford and Dunblane; but in the former case, the police got no warning and in the latter, they didn't act on the warnings they got.

    Given those details, I can't really accept the assertion that a ban on guns is necessary is valid (and neither could Cullen in his inquiry in to Dunblane from what I read).


  • #420
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    robindch wrote: »
    Didn't quote you out of context at all.

    In any case, my logic is fine. Seems that you may not like where it leads :)

    Nighty night!

    In that case please don't quote me at all in future. Disgraceful behaviour on a forum you mod.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    It's not silly word games, it's coming a reasonable conclusion based on available information. You've already agreed about this "conjecture", but allow me to demonstrate none the less...

    a) Adam Lanza may not have committed this crime if he did not have any access to guns = a reasonable assumption.

    b) Adam Lanza may not have killed as many children had he not had access to any guns, forcing him to use alternative means = a reasonable assumption.

    c) Adam Lanza may have killed less children had he had access to more guns = an unreasonable assumption.

    Let me try this...

    Would you agree that

    a) Adam Lanza may have committed multiple murders equal to this massacre if he did not have any access to guns = a reasonable assumption.

    b) Adam Lanza may have killed as many children with alternative means = a reasonable assumption.

    and finally

    c) Adam Lanza may have killed more children had he had access to less guns = a reasonable assumption. (He had multiple guns, and may have been more effective without the rifle - wielding two pistols for instance.

    I'm sorry, there is a big leap you are making in calling pure conjecture "a reasonable assumption" as there are no grounds for the assumption to be made.

    I'm amazing you are defending this nonsense.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement