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…1415171920…34

Comments

  • #482
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Sparks wrote: »
    But isn't that what you were talking about?
    No. The gun the guy used in Sandy Hook wasn't a machine gun, in fact I don't think machine guns were used in any of the massacres in the US, but I could be wrong. Maybe that's a result of those kinds of weapons being highly regulated?

    But seriously, does it matter? Doesn't the fact that pretty much anyone can buy a gun freely and legally without any background check not kinda speak for itself when it comes to gun control in the U.S?


  • #483
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    No. The gun the guy used in Sandy Hook wasn't a machine gun
    This is why terminology matters - you genuinely confused me there because what you said was:
    MagicMarker wrote: »
    any 18 year old in America can buy an assault rifle ... in a private sale


  • #484
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Sparks wrote: »
    This is why terminology matters - you genuinely confused me there because what you said was:
    Sorry, I'm not used to gun talk. I mean semi-automatic weapons.

    Although the Bushmaster XM-15 the Sandy Hook killer used is listed as an assault rifle, even though it doesn't have a fully automatic option. But meh, no matter.


  • #485
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not used to gun talk. I mean semi-automatic weapons.
    Like I said, that's where confusion arises.
    Although the Bushmaster XM-15 the Sandy Hook killer used is listed as an assault rifle,
    And my razor is listed as a stealth power whatsit.
    Means we shouldn't let marketers near the public, not that my razor vanishes into thin air if I plug it into the wall :D


  • #486
    Sertus
    Site Banned Posts: 180 ✭✭Sertus


    The US is a lost cause when it comes to gun control.

    I don't think firearms belong in any family home.
    Criminals are not in the least intimidated by guns, so the home defence thing is bull.
    If there were guns allowed in every house in Ireland, the Guards would have to be armed to the teeth to deal with even a simple domestic / drunk and disorderly here.


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    fisgon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    The NRA are truly living in opposite land. Their predictable response to the shootings was to advocate for more guns.

    "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    This is the kind of simplistic, twisted nonsense that has fundamentally contributed to the series of mass murders in the US. They are jaw dropping in their obtuseness.


  • #488
    Sertus
    Site Banned Posts: 180 ✭✭Sertus


    fisgon wrote: »

    "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    Problem with that yarn is, when some vigilante picks up a gun they rarely stay a good guy.

    And what about a kid with a gun ?


  • #489
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Sertus wrote: »
    Problem with that yarn is, when some vigilante picks up a gun they rarely stay a good guy.
    You know he was talking about security guards, right?
    I mean, in terms of batpoop-insane plans... that's not actually that wacky. They already have armed guards in banks and malls and airports (and if you ever go around mainland Europe, they have armed police and security guards in similar places); why not schools, even if only as an interim measure until they fix the real problem?
    Surely kids are as worthy of protection as the contents of a mall?

    It's not like he was suggesting that everyone should order a punisher T-shirt, a high-calibre firearm and head to the local school...


  • #490
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    With respect, you missed out a few qualifiers. I am a part of a culture of responsible gun approval, in that my firearms are used for legal purposes only, and used in accordance with standard best practices of firearm safety. I like a drink as well, but am not responsible for domestic violence caused in drunken stupors, or drink driving accidents.

    I'm sure that Ms Lanza also considered herself a responsible gun owner.

    Your drink analogy is a complete fail. Guns are designed to kill and maim - that is what they do. Sure drink kills and damages and there are important issues to debate about our culture of drunkenness. However, that is not analogous to the gun culture in the US. Guns have no purpose other than violence (I include violence against animals in that statement). I don't care whether you think you are a responsible gun owner or not. In a civilised society most people should not be allowed to decide whether or not they are fit to own a gun. If that offends your over inflated sense of entitlement or 'personal liberty' or whatever you want to call it, tough.


  • #491
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    equivariant wrote: »
    I'm sure that Ms Lanza also considered herself a responsible gun owner.
    How come you're sure?
    Guns are designed to kill and maim - that is what they do.
    /sigh
    Sparks wrote: »
    Mine aren't. Therefore not all guns are, and your statement is no longer a black and white absolute.
    Y'know, this point keeps coming up and it's still not correct...
    Guns have no purpose other than violence
    /sigh
    Sparks wrote: »
    /sigh.
    Mine do.
    And since mine do, the black and white absolute statement that guns are only designed to kill is incorrect, and now we're back to a complex problem that requires more than just a simple soundbite-optimised approach.

    Y'know, I seem to recall saying that already in this thread...

    I don't care whether you think you are a responsible gun owner or not. In a civilised society most people should not be allowed to decide whether or not they are fit to own a gun.
    They're not. Not in this society, not in MM's.
    If that offends your over inflated sense of entitlement or 'personal liberty' or whatever you want to call it, tough.
    Speaking of egos, why do you think you can tell anyone that they're irresponsible? I don't recall getting the memo that appointed equivariant as arbiter of responsibleness...


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robindch wrote: »
    However, I've yet to hear any gun owner voice an opinion which is different in any significant way from NRA policy. Do any of the gun-owners here have opinions that do differ in any significant way?
    robindch wrote: »
    What I am trying to find out is whether your opinion differs in any significant way from NRA policy
    MadsL wrote: »
    I'm not going to trawl through lengthy NRA policy documents in order to satisfy your curiosity. If you would like to post a set of NRA policy positions, I'll tell you if I agree with them or not.
    Fair enough -- you don't want to answer.
    Sparks wrote: »
    Most of the gun-owners here are probably Irish, which would rather skew the results. Perhaps if you narrowed the pool to American gun-owners here?
    Fair enough -- you don't want to answer.


  • #493
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    robindch wrote: »
    Fair enough -- you don't want to answer.
    That's not what either of us said, and it's a tad disingenuous to assume it is.

    But I'll tell you what, I can point to a group of gun owners who disagree with NRA policies. Thing is, it's not just one group. Everyone assumes there's just the NRA in the US doing lobbying - but the NRA is just the largest and most conservative of the groups - of which there are 145 registered. Most of them would differ from NRA policies in one way or another (or they'd be in the NRA). So putting together a comprehensive answer for your question would be a major piece of work, you're probably looking at a good week of full-time work right there for someone.


  • #494
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Sparks wrote: »
    How come you're sure?


    /sigh

    Y'know, this point keeps coming up and it's still not correct...


    /sigh




    They're not. Not in this society, not in MM's.


    Speaking of egos, why do you think you can tell anyone that they're irresponsible? I don't recall getting the memo that appointed equivariant as arbiter of responsibleness...


    "/sigh" is not a response to anything. The overwhelming majority of guns are instruments of violence.

    Also descending to baseless ad hominems is not really an argument. I never once accused anyone of irresponsibility in my previous post nor did I suggest that I should be an 'arbiter' of any type. I did suggest that MM may have an over developed sense of entitlement, but that is an entirely different charge


  • #495
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    robindch,
    Do you support an Obama gun ban on assault weapons in the US?

    If so, how do you feel about Fast & Furious, the Obama administration's gunwalking program?

    Under the President, the government's ATF funneled thousands of assault weapons to criminal Mexican gangs.

    Since that time. Three firearms have been recovered at murder scenes. The most recent, a shootout between the Mexican army and a drug gang.

    Not only did the United States Government allow weapons to illegally be exported to violent, para-military criminals, but now, George Gillett, the former assistant special agent in charge of the ATF's personally purchased assault weapon (in 2010) has been found at the scene of killings in Mexico. When asked how it arrived at another Fast & Furious murder scene, he said he sold it online!

    Additionally, Mr Gillett falsified form 4473 when instead of using his home address, he used that of the ATF. Albet a felony, I doubt he'll have any hassle.

    I am just looking for a logical argument to support a President that can illegally gunwalk assault weapons to murderous criminal gangs and then decide to ban them from law abiding citizens, who did complete form 4473 truthfully.


  • #496
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    equivariant wrote: »
    "/sigh" is not a response to anything.
    Yes it is. It's a perfectly normal response to hearing the same incorrect statement for the fourth time despite the preceeding four back-and-forth sessions pointing out why the statement was too simplistic to be correct.
    The overwhelming majority of guns are instruments of violence.
    Well, that's true if you're a rabbit or a pheasant. The overwhelming majority of firearms are shotguns (used on the pheasant) and .22lr rifles (used on the rabbit). From the point of view of the rabbit world, yes, the majority of firearms are genocidal instruments of death and pie.
    For us humans, not so much.

    Also descending to baseless ad hominems is not really an argument
    I don't care whether you think you are a responsible gun owner or not ... your over inflated sense of entitlement ...

    IronyMeter1.gif


  • #497
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,139 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Sertus wrote: »
    Criminals are not in the least intimidated by guns, so the home defence thing is bull.

    You've made this claim on two threads.

    In 1966, in response to a wave of crimes against women, Orlando police department ran a heavily publicised campaign in which they trained some 3,000 women in the defensive use of handguns. Rapes in 1967 dropped 88% on the previous year. After the program ended, the rape figure began to increase before returning to the previous levels about six years later.

    In 1982 the town of Kennesaw, GA (near Atlanta) passed an ordnance mandating that every home keep a firearm. Burglary rates dropped from 55 the previous year to 26 by 1983 to 11 in 1985. It wasn't even an enforced ordnance, but the reputation of the town was good enough. There were no accidental deaths or injuries in that time period. The trend was different from the neighbouring towns.

    There wasn an FBI survey, and though I can't find a link to the source document, a quick Googling can find references to it, in which the result was that criminals said they feared armed homeowners more than police. Reason being that armed homeowners don't feel as restrained on the use of force: The burglar is more likely to get shot in an encounter.

    Criminals are definitely intimidated by guns. Almost every video on youtube in which a robbery is thwarted by an armed storeowner or patron shows that the criminal doesn't even try to stand his ground and shoot back. Once faced with even equal force, they are running for the door. Put another way: They know they cannot enjoy their ill-gotten gains anywhere near as well when properly ventilated.

    NTM


  • #498
    Headshot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 56,043 ✭✭✭✭Headshot


    Sparks wrote: »
    You know he was talking about security guards, right?
    I mean, in terms of batpoop-insane plans... that's not actually that wacky. They already have armed guards in banks and malls and airports (and if you ever go around mainland Europe, they have armed police and security guards in similar places); why not schools, even if only as an interim measure until they fix the real problem?
    Surely kids are as worthy of protection as the contents of a mall?

    It's not like he was suggesting that everyone should order a punisher T-shirt, a high-calibre firearm and head to the local school...

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html


  • #499
    joseph brand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,540 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    You've made this claim on two threads.

    In 1966, in response to a wave of crimes against women, Orlando police department ran a heavily publicised campaign in which they trained some 3,000 women in the defensive use of handguns. Rapes in 1967 dropped 88% on the previous year. After the program ended, the rape figure began to increase before returning to the previous levels about six years later.

    In 1982 the town of Kennesaw, GA (near Atlanta) passed an ordnance mandating that every home keep a firearm. Burglary rates dropped from 55 the previous year to 26 by 1983 to 11 in 1985. It wasn't even an enforced ordnance, but the reputation of the town was good enough. There were no accidental deaths or injuries in that time period. The trend was different from the neighbouring towns.

    There wasn an FBI survey, and though I can't find a link to the source document, a quick Googling can find references to it, in which the result was that criminals said they feared armed homeowners more than police. Reason being that armed homeowners don't feel as restrained on the use of force: The burglar is more likely to get shot in an encounter.

    Criminals are definitely intimidated by guns. Almost every video on youtube in which a robbery is thwarted by an armed storeowner or patron shows that the criminal doesn't even try to stand his ground and shoot back. Once faced with even equal force, they are running for the door. Put another way: They know they cannot enjoy their ill-gotten gains anywhere near as well when properly ventilated.

    NTM

    Seriously, what are you on about?
    First you went back ~ 46 years, then ~30 years, to find a couple of cases that fit your view. You haven't a hope.

    Pro-gun advocates have blood on their hands. No two ways about it. They can think of themselves as on a par with the:
    Pro-god bunch,
    Pro-psychics crowd
    Pro-Leprechauns gang,
    Pro-Fairies loonies,
    And the
    Flat-Earth society.
    Only, far more dangerous.

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the homeopathy morons and the 'dream-catcher' crackpots.



    This whole 'gun debate' is farcical.

    PS: I was informed today, that you are a curator in a gun museum. Is this true?


  • #500
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Seriously, what are you on about?

    What he is doing is citing empircal data to demonstrate that most criminals do indeed prefer to rob people that cannot defend themselves. Especially, with a gun. Hence, refuting the asinine assertion of the OP.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Pro-gun advocates have blood on their hands.
    Like the blood on the hands of Obama and his administration that allowed assault weapons to be illegally exported to criminal gangs in Mexico which have been found at the scene of murders?


  • #501
    Sparks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,038 ✭✭✭✭Sparks


    Headshot wrote: »
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html
    Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office
    Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket.
    Not security guards, not there before the shooting started, one only there by random chance, neither would have been assigned to the school permanently.
    Security guards would be there during all school hours, which would be a markedly different scenario.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,139 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Seriously, what are you on about?
    First you went back ~ 46 years, then ~30 years, to find a couple of cases that fit your view. You haven't a hope.

    Because the figures are definite and valid. After a little searching, it was pretty difficult to find anything directly on topic at all, these were pretty strong despite the age. The original claim had no figures at all to substantiate it. If you can help him out, maybe he would appreciate it.

    Certainly I can point to something more recent, like this article from about three weeks ago:

    http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/local/central-virginia/gun-related-violent-crimes-drop-as-gun-sales-soar-in/article_54cca13a-35ee-11e2-83f0-0019bb30f31a.html
    Gun-related violent crime in Virginia has dropped steadily over the past six years as the sale of firearms has soared to a new record, according to an analysis of state crime data with state records of gun sales.

    The total number of firearms purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent from 2006 to 2011. When state population increases are factored in, gun purchases per 100,000 Virginians rose 63 percent.

    But the total number of gun-related violent crimes fell 24 percent over that period, and when adjusted for population, gun-related offenses dropped more than 27 percent, from 79 crimes per 100,000 in 2006 to 57 crimes in 2011.

    The numbers appear to contradict a long-running popular narrative that more guns cause more violent crime, said Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker, who compared Virginia crime data for those years with gun-dealer sales estimates obtained by the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

    Now, as the article points out, there is no necessary correlation. Crime may be going down for all sorts of reasons, but one possible reason is that there are a lot more legally held firearms out there.

    It appears that the Dept of Justice suvery I referred to was done in the 1980s as well, but I would presume that criminal motivation hasn't changed much since. http://books.google.com/books/about/Armed_and_Considered_Dangerous.html?id=kqm8QxE45X0C

    Quoting from a website:
    In a survey of criminals (FELONS IN PRISON), Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi of the Social and Demographic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts conducted a study in 1982 and 1983 paid for by the U.S. Department of Justice. (Professor Rossi was a former President of the American Sociological Association.) The researchers interviewed 1,874 imprisoned felons in ten states.

    88% of the criminals surveyed by Wright and Rossi agreed with the statement that, “A criminal who wants a handgun is going to get one.”
    81% of interviewees agreed that a “smart criminal” will try to determine if a potential victim is armed.
    74% indicated that burglars avoided occupied dwellings, because of fear of being shot.
    57% said that most criminals feared armed citizens more than the police.
    40% of the felons said that they had been deterred from committing a particular crime, because they believed that the potential victim was armed.
    57% of the felons who had used guns themselves said that they had encountered potential victims who were armed.
    34% of the criminal respondents said that they had been scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed citizen.
    PS: I was informed today, that you are a curator in a gun museum. Is this true?

    You might wish to query your informant. I work for a company which publicises and supports computer games. Sadly, this means that I don't have quite the level of authority as I might have when it came to firearms: I'm just another common or garden citizen, just one with sufficient interest in the subject to have read up on it for years.

    If you have a lot of time, for it is not short, this guy is far more qualified than I to speak on the subject and addresses pretty much every argument I've heard in the last couple of days.
    http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/


    NTM


  • #503
    equivariant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Sparks wrote: »
    Yes it is. It's a perfectly normal response to hearing the same incorrect statement for the fourth time despite the preceeding four back-and-forth sessions pointing out why the statement was too simplistic to be correct.


    Well, that's true if you're a rabbit or a pheasant. The overwhelming majority of firearms are shotguns (used on the pheasant) and .22lr rifles (used on the rabbit). From the point of view of the rabbit world, yes, the majority of firearms are genocidal instruments of death and pie.
    For us humans, not so much.


    I specifically indicated in my earlier post that I included animals when I talked of guns as instruments of violence. Obviously you missed that with all your sighing

    Anyway, my point is that the overwhelming majority of guns are designed as instruments of violence. If you want a culture in which such things are widely possessed you can't expect the violence to always be directed at 'legitimate' targets.

    IronyMeter1.gif

    Very fond of your little Internet memes, aren't you. The difference of course is in the word "baseless". I believe that you demonstrated your sense of entitlement clearly on this thread whereas I don't think that I ever once accused anyone of irresponsibility.


    This is really like talking to young earth creationists. The whole black is white, denial of obvious reality and cheap point scoring is remarkably similar. That madman from the NRA press conference could have been ken ham or one of those loons in a different context. I am thoroughly glad that I almost certainly will never have to live in that country

    Ps to answer your question about ms Lanza. The reason that am reasonably sure she considered herself a responsible gun owner is that she reportedly was one of these so called doomsday preppers and that she reportedly also made sure that her children were well trained in the use of firearms. Now where is your little irony meter?


  • #504
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    equivariant wrote: »
    I specifically indicated in my earlier post that I included animals when I talked of guns as instruments of violence. Obviously you missed that with all your sighing

    Anyway, my point is that the overwhelming majority of guns are designed as instruments of violence. If you want a culture in which such things are widely possessed you can't expect the violence to always be directed at 'legitimate' targets.



    Very fond of your little Internet memes, aren't you. The difference of course is in the word "baseless". I believe that you demonstrated your sense of entitlement clearly on this thread whereas I don't think that I ever once accused anyone of irresponsibility.


    This is really like talking to young earth creationists. The whole black is white, denial of obvious reality and cheap point scoring is remarkably similar. That madman from the NRA press conference could have been ken ham or one of those loons in a different context. I am thoroughly glad that I almost certainly will never have to live in that country

    Ps to answer your question about ms Lanza. The reason that am reasonably sure she considered herself a responsible gun owner is that she reportedly was one of these so called doomsday preppers and that she reportedly also made sure that her children were well trained in the use of firearms. Now where is your little irony meter?
    Have to agree with you here, that press conference made me feel queasy.

    A theoretical question was raised elsewhere (can't recall where) which asked:

    How safe would he feel conducting the press conference if every journalist was carrying a gun?

    The premise that you can separate "good guys" and "bad guys" in a linear, black and white, clear cut fashion is almost nauseating.

    Let's say you have 50 journalists in the room all carrying guns and the speaker of the conference is carrying a gun. Everybody has a weapon so by the NRA spokesmans logic, everyone is safer - not to mention the assumption that all journalists at the event are 'good guys'.

    To me, it's more likely to add nerves and an under-current of fear. All it takes is 1 of the 'good guys' to have an axe to grind with the NRA and the speaker ends up shot, the shooter ends up shot and god knows what else.

    My problem with the theory that arming teachers is an answer - well i have so many problems with it - but chief amongst them are the fact it promotes a sense of fear within children. That they come to school to learn but that it's not a safe environment as even the teachers have weapons just in case.

    I don't agree that arming a teacher promotes a sense of safety amongst children. It's telling them "not even your school is safe". That just encourages and promotes the cycle of fear. They already (mostly) live with guns at the home, if there are guns at the school where does it actually stop in the name of 'security'? Arm all lifeguards at beaches, arm cinema ushers, arm your average door-man in a nightclub,.....

    Even if i accepted a gun in the hands of a teacher is a better last-ditch-defence it's still expecting the people we entrust to educate kids with being both educator and protector - and by protector i don't mean the traditional responsibility of ensuring the kids under their care are safe on their watch. Quite a big difference in ensuring a child doesn't choke on a pencil parer and in being discharged with the responsibility of taking down a heavily arms shooter and saving their lives. I could see thousands upon thousands reconsidering a career in teaching if the ultimate responsibility was for them to carry a weapon to school every day and someday be faced with using it at work. They'll just go work for Google or a bank or as a lawyer or somewhere else.


  • #505
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    The premise that you can separate "good guys" and "bad guys" in a linear, black and white, clear cut fashion is almost nauseating.

    Seperating the good guys from the bad guys is not the issue. It's the mentally ill that is the problem.

    In almost every recent mass shooting: the school, the mall, the theatre, ... The shooter was known to be a psychotic or a psychopath.

    But those that scream the loudest to take away gun rights from millions of law abiding citizens are the same that would scream foul if you tried anything get those with mental illness off of the street.


  • #506
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FISMA wrote: »
    In almost every recent mass shooting: the school, the mall, the theatre, ... The shooter was known to be a psychotic or a psychopath.
    And how -- in a country with 300 million guns -- do you guarantee that none of these psychos gets his/her hands on a gun?


  • #507
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    robindch wrote: »
    Ah, here we go. The NRA wants lethal weapons to be deployed at every school in the country.

    What about Mexican schools?

    I think they need them just as much in order to protect themselves from the assault weapons that the Obama administration ilegally passed along to criminal gangs.

    If the President allows illegal assault weapons to go to criminals, why should I suffer a ban?
    robindch wrote: »
    And how -- in a country with 300 million guns -- do you guarantee that none of these psychos gets his/her hands on a gun?

    Well, for starts, when your medicated, confirmed psychotic son, whom you "shouldn't turn your back on," begins to burn himself, you put your guns out of reach, like in a safe, like mine.

    No laws required, just a bit of common sense and personal responsibility.


  • #508
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Sparks wrote: »
    That's not what either of us said, and it's a tad disingenuous to assume it is.
    I didn't assume it -- I claimed it, since I've asked a very simple question perhaps four or five times at this point and none of the pro-gun side has yet answered it:
    robindch wrote:
    (with respect to the NRA's policies) Do any of the gun-owners here have opinions that do differ in any significant way?
    Sparks wrote: »
    So putting together a comprehensive answer for your question would be a major piece of work, you're probably looking at a good week of full-time work right there for someone.
    I'd have thought that a moderator of the boardsie shooting forum would know enough about the largest and most massively funded gun-lobbyists in the USA to be able to answer that without needing to take a week for research. Do you really know that little about them?


  • #509
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FISMA wrote: »
    Well, for starts, when your medicated, confirmed psychotic son, whom you "shouldn't turn your back on," begins to burn himself, you put your guns out of reach, like in a safe, like mine. No laws required, just a bit of common sense and personal responsibility.
    And how do you deal with your psychotic sun pulls a carving knife out of the drawer and threatens to murder you unless you open the safe?

    Or is it safer that the guns aren't there in the first place?


  • #510
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    robindch wrote: »
    Or is it safer that the guns aren't there in the first place?

    I wonder what William Petit, a Cheshire, Conecticut homeowner would have to reply?
    petit-family.jpg

    As his 11 year old daughter was sexually assaulted and her mother raped, Petit was able to get free after being beaten and bound, escaping his house from home invaders.

    Upon learning of his escape, the criminals mudered his wife by strangling, then doused the wife, 17 year old Haley, and 11 year old Michaela with gasoline, burning the children alive.

    Prior to the murders and rapes, the criminals took the mother to the bank where she alerted tellers via note to the robbery. A 911 call was made and police alerted. The criminals were said to have been "being nice" and probably only wanting money.

    Rather than spending 30 seconds to obtain the address of the Pettits, police took 30 minutes to set up a perimeter. During this time, the criminals carried out their rapes and murder.

    What would have been the outcome if Mr Petit had a gun? Who knows? Maybe he would have saved the day? Maybe it would have been used against him, but again, the criminals already had guns. What is definitive, is that your way, no guns in the home, the outcome remains the same.

    Going to the knife drawer wasn't much of an option for Mr Petit either.

    Chesire Home Invasions

    Were the police liable? No.

    Were the police negligent.? No.

    Again, in the United States, the individual has no guarantee or expectation that the Police are there to protect them [individually]. Rather, the purpose of the police is to safeguard and protect the public, in a general sense.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    FISMA wrote: »
    I wonder what William Petit, a Cheshire, Conecticut homeowner would have to reply?
    I didn't ask William Petit, I asked you.

    BTW, including the pictures of murdered people in your post, as well as a graphic account of what happened, is tasteless in the extreme.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement