Another mass shooting in the U.S

jesse pinkman · 23-12-2012 06:14PM

MagicSean wrote: »

For the record, I'm in favour of responsible gun ownership. I think the rules in Ireland is quite good. There's plenty of checks in it. So for example someone with obvious self control and anger issues would be refused a firearm

Actually Sean, you could even take that a step further & say Ireland's gun control laws are something we've gotten just about perfectly right & could be used as a model in other countries.

BattleCorp · 23-12-2012 09:32PM

jesse pinkman wrote: »

Actually Sean, you could even take that a step further & say Ireland's gun control laws are something we've gotten just about perfectly right & could be used as a model in other countries.

Believe it or not but most shooters here in Ireland are probably in favour of gun control. Speaking for myself, I know I definately am. Unfortunately a lot of people seem to think that gun control means banning all guns.

I pretty much agree that we have a sensible enough system.......with a few anomalies. One that bugs me is the restriction on the licencing of centrefire pistols. There are plenty of competitions that I can't compete in because of this ban. Minister Aherne pretty much banned them in order to cut down on gun crime. Kind of draconian seeing as no legally held handguns are being used to commit crimes. It's the illegal ones doing the gang shootings and robberies. All that ban did was punish the law abiding licenced pistol holders and it did sweet fanny adams to reduce gun crime.

There are several other anomalies that I won't go ranting and raving about but, in general, our firearm laws aren't the worst.

I do agree in principal that gun ownership should be a privelege, not a right. They shouldn't go handing out guns to just about anybody. The American system is way too loose and our system is just a teensy weensy bit too restrictive.

Manic Moran · 24-12-2012 12:32AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I tried to come up with some explanation to understand why she would teach him how to use guns and why she would let him have access to guns.

CNN article addressing this exact point today.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/living/guns-children-home/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

For my perspective, it's like sex. We can teach our kids how to be responsible with their sex lives, or we can pretend it doesn't exist, and let them figure things out themselves behind the bike sheds. This means that once my daughter is old enough to understand consequences, she's coming to the range with me, so I can be sure she knows the things aren't toys, and how to avoid shooting herself or someone else (unintentionally) when she comes across one. Not if, but when.

clairefontaine · 24-12-2012 01:34AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

CNN article addressing this exact point today.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/living/guns-children-home/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

For my perspective, it's like sex. We can teach our kids how to be responsible with their sex lives, or we can pretend it doesn't exist, and let them figure things out themselves behind the bike sheds. This means that once my daughter is old enough to understand consequences, she's coming to the range with me, so I can be sure she knows the things aren't toys, and how to avoid shooting herself or someone else (unintentionally) when she comes across one. Not if, but when.

While that may sound responsible, despite the false analogy comparing it to safe sex, you can't shoot your mother in the face with a condom, let's face it, how reasonable is it to assume that coming across a gun is an inevitability? Isn't the better thing to do just not to touch it or handle it?

And of course you hold the same assumption that Nancy Lanza did, that every parent holds, the "it won't happen to me and no chance the monster would be my child." But statistically, it has to be someone's and it will more likely be someone's who has access to gun and who knows how to use them. Maybe they need tamper proof guns, something along the lines of what they do with medicine bottles and bleach.

Sparks · 24-12-2012 02:27AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Its funny to think that the NRA might suggest that Nancy Lanza should have had a gun to protect herself and none of this would have happenned. It's their kind of logic.

To be fair, they've also been calling for proper secure storage for at least 15 years (it was in their 'rules for safe gun handling' before I started shooting back then, so it could easily have been longer) -- and if she'd had those firearms in a proper gunsafe where he could't have gotten to them...

Sparks · 24-12-2012 02:35AM

jesse pinkman wrote: »

Actually Sean, you could even take that a step further & say Ireland's gun control laws are something we've gotten just about perfectly right & could be used as a model in other countries.

Gosh no.
Look, after spending six years hip-deep in the Irish firearms legisation, it's not perfect by any means.
For a start, it's spread across 19 Acts, I don't know how many SIs (but it's north of 30), and at least two EU regulations. The Law Reform Commission and at least one High Court Justice have been calling for it to be at least restated into one Act so it's usable for several years now (the LRC's been calling for that since 2004, and there have been two major acts since that have completely rewritten 80% of the law, and a dozen or so SIs and an EU regulation change).
The bones of it are pretty good. The basic requirements, the general ethos of it, they're okay. But there are a lot of problems too:

Usability (as mentioned above)
They make paintball strictly illegal to host or partake in, with major fines and jail time for anyone doing so, and that's a purely accidental byproduct. And it's not the only accidental ban in there.
They don't have a high enough minimum threshold for what is considered a firearm, so Olympic airguns and paintball guns are considered firearms here, but nowhere else in the EU.
The legislation heavily regulates target shooting, up to and including appointing a Firearms Range Inspector who can enter any home, business, vehicle, hovercraft or anywhere else to search for evidence of illegal target shooting... but nowhere in the act is there a legal definition of what target shooting is.

I could go on. Hell, I could write a book. Suffice to say that while we have a good idea, we need a lot of detail work. And there's no sign that's going to happen anytime soon.

Sparks · 24-12-2012 02:44AM

MagicSean wrote: »

I never tarred anyone with any brush. I simply said guns are designed for killing. There is absolutely no denying that fact

FFS.
It's not a fact. I've explained why it's not a fact already.
Just because you don't accept it, doesn't mean your assertion is correct.
And you have just tarred every target shooter in Ireland with that brush at least.

Manic Moran · 24-12-2012 03:28AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

While that may sound responsible, despite the false analogy comparing it to safe sex, you can't shoot your mother in the face with a condom, let's face it, how reasonable is it to assume that coming across a gun is an inevitability? Isn't the better thing to do just not to touch it or handle it?.

This is the US. There are almost as many guns as people. I strongly doubt that there is any significant percentage of people who make it to old age without exposure to a firearm.

Like every thing else, better safe than sorry. Would you not agree that it is my obligation to teach her things which will keep her safe, from safe driving to safe sex to safe firearm handling? If I (or mom) don't, who will?

clairefontaine · 24-12-2012 11:56AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is the US. There are almost as many guns as people. I strongly doubt that there is any significant percentage of people who make it to old age without exposure to a firearm.

Like every thing else, better safe than sorry. Would you not agree that it is my obligation to teach her things which will keep her safe, from safe driving to safe sex to safe firearm handling? If I (or mom) don't, who will?

I dont know what the "significant" numbers are, but I know plenty of people in the US who never have had exposure to a fire arm aside from seeing the cops wearing them, which I don't count as direct exposure.

Personally I know of one person who did. He was in college at the time and another student pointed a gun to his head. Retrospect makes it look like a suicide by homicide. But the person I knew was skilled enough to be able to turn the gun on the person who was holding it. I dont know of may people who would have had that skill He was ex military though. Obviously the other guy had exposure and training with guns too, do you think Mom and or Dad taught him? The cops were called by bystanders [in the computer room where this all took place], and the rest was history, but that could have turned out very badly.

Saying that, from what I can see, this is not just a gun issue, but other forces at work too.

Gavin De Becker in "Protecting the Gift" has a lot of interesting information on this, guns, gun safety, young boys and guns, protest masculinity, broken homes, bullying in the context of school shootings more than I could write or do justice to here. [He covers a lot of other kinds of violence too.] De Becker runs a threat assessment firm which consults government and private firms and has written alot about predicting violence so he knows what he is talking about. It's an enlightening read and I'd recommend it anyone.

This is his website but you can get his books on amazon.
http://gavindebecker.com/

Why Lanza chose the victims he did is still a mystery to me. Probably will remain one. It is so sickening, I felt sick for days. Maybe that's what he wanted, the whole world to feel sick for days.

Piliger · 24-12-2012 04:43PM

Sparks wrote: »

To be fair, they've also been calling for proper secure storage for at least 15 years (it was in their 'rules for safe gun handling' before I started shooting back then, so it could easily have been longer) -- and if she'd had those firearms in a proper gunsafe where he could't have gotten to them...

To be fair they have been waging a campaign for decades in support of US citizen' right to carry a concealed weapon, which is now legal in over a dozen Sates.

Not exactly an effort to promote safe storage ...... :rolleyes:

Sparks · 24-12-2012 04:46PM

Piliger wrote: »

To be fair they have been waging a campaign for decades in support of US citizen' right to carry a concealed weapon, which is now legal in over a dozen Sates.
Not exactly an effort to promote safe storage ...... :rolleyes:

They've been lobbying for concealed carry permits. In other words, a licencing system where the applicant has to be given a background check, training and pass a shooting test to get the licence.

I thought you were in favour of more gun control?

Rascasse · 24-12-2012 05:18PM

Sparks wrote: »

To be fair, they've also been calling for proper secure storage for at least 15 years (it was in their 'rules for safe gun handling' before I started shooting back then, so it could easily have been longer) -- and if she'd had those firearms in a proper gunsafe where he could't have gotten to them...

Interesting that if they are so concerned about "proper secure storage" of weapons they sell this fetching clock for concealing your piston on your mantle piece. Or how about these "books" with fun titles like "Rendezvous with Destiny". And for the family member with extreme paranoia, there is the Holster Mate allowing you to affix a holster to the side of your bed. None of those look terribly secure to me.

And to show how the NRA are (to bastardise Lincoln) an association of nutters, by nutters, for nutters, they publish articles (quite seriously) advising people on "prepping". Examples are "Gone in 90 seconds", "Para Bellum - Are you prepared, gun-wise, for a societal breakdown?" and "ICE Pack Exodus - Whether because of a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, there may come a day when you have to bug out—and fast.". I do love how the articles are tagged "apocalypse".

I'm not sure if the NRA are, as you seem to be suggesting, part of the solution, or part of the problem.

Manic Moran · 24-12-2012 06:53PM

Piliger wrote: »

To be fair they have been waging a campaign for decades in support of US citizen' right to carry a concealed weapon, which is now legal in over a dozen Sates.

Not exactly an effort to promote safe storage ...... :rolleyes:

Carrying isn't storage. It's unlikely that a worn weapon will be used by unauthorized persons without that knowledge of the owner.

It's slightly over a dozen. Actually, 49 of the 50 States permit the carriage of firearms by citizens to some extent (some 40 of which must, by law, Grant the permit to carry concealed to those who meet requirements), number 50 (Illinois) has about 170 days by court order to catch up with the rest of the country. There has been no correlation shown that the increase in legally carried firearms has had a resulting decrease in public safety.

aloyisious · 24-12-2012 07:33PM

From today's Irish Examiner..... The photo image at the bottom is part of the article.

Gun lovers pack shows to stock up on weapons

By Dave Warner, Pennsylvania Monday, December 24, 2012

Gun enthusiasts thronged to shows around the United States over the weekend to buy assault weapons they fear will soon be outlawed after a massacre of school children in Connecticut prompted calls for tighter controls on firearms.

Gun shows in Pennsylvania, Missouri and Texas saw long lines to get in the door, crowds around the dealer booths, and a rush to buy assault weapons even at higher prices and some dealers selling out.

The busiest table at the RK Gun & Knife show at an exposition centre near the Kansas City, Missouri airport was offering assault weapons near the entrance.

West Plains, Missouri dealer Keith’s Guns sold out of about 20 AR-15 style assault rifles in a little over an hour, owner Keith Gray said. An AR-15 type assault weapon was among the guns authorities believe suspect Adam Lanza stole from his mother to use in the massacre of 20 school children and six adults at a Newtown, Connecticut elementary school on Dec 14.

The killing of innocent children at the school shocked the nation and prompted a number of politicians including President Barack Obama to call for a ban on assault weapons and ammunition clips that allow the rapid firing of multiple bullets. Rather than tighten gun ownership restrictions, the powerful lobby for gun rights, the National Rifle Association, has called for armed guards at every school.

DR Woody was one of those able to purchase an assault weapon at the Kansas City show. He bought the gun for target practice because he is concerned they soon will be banned. "I didn’t expect to find one. No gun stores have them," said Woody of the AR-15 type of gun.

The story was the same in Allentown, Pennsylvania, where Shirley Donley, a gun shop owner from nearby Quakertown, had an endless stream of customers. "Everybody wants assault weapons," she said, adding that she had sold more than 100 of that type of gun since the Connecticut tragedy. "I’m sold out."

Assault weapon is a broad term commonly used to refer to semi-automatic or automatic weapons that can fire multiple bullets rapidly. From 1994 to 2004 certain assault weapons and ammunition clips of more than 10 bullets were illegal.

The ban was allowed expire when George W. Bush was in the White House.

Prices for assault weapons have surged since the Connecticut shooting. At the Kansas City show, Jerome Ratliff bought an AR-15 for target practice, paying $925. The same model would have cost only about $400 a year ago, he said. Most models were selling for $1,500 or more.

Bob Hofmeister, whose wife owns Xtreme Sports, a gun dealer with a table at the Kansas city show, said the business sold 15 to 20 AR-15s in the past week.

"Some of these people just want to show their rights to own guns," Hofmeister said.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and most gun enthusiasts at the shows said more restrictions on guns would not stop mass killings such as Connecticut.

Adam Ouart of Mansfield, Texas stood in a line with about another dozen people at the Lone Star show in Forth Worth, Texas, in hopes of buying a gun. "The answer is not to limit people having guns. If someone wants to hurt somebody they are going to find a way to do it," Ouart said. Several dealers and buyers interviewed at the shows supported the NRA proposal to put armed guards in schools.

More than 200 people lined up at each of three entrances to pay the $8 entrance fee to the Will Rogers Memorial Centre in Fort Worth, which has an exhibit hall spanning 25 acres. They crowded the aisles of the show and stood two-deep at booths for assault weapons and ammunition clips.

At all three shows the attendees were overwhelmingly white men, with some women and very few ethnic minorities.

Thousands of guns shows are held in the United States every year. Under federal law, licensed dealers must conduct a background check before selling to a buyer at a gun show.

But in what critics call a "loophole," which some gun control advocates hope to close, unlicensed collectors and other private sales do not require a background check.

Manic Moran · 24-12-2012 08:01PM

aloyisious wrote: »

From today's Irish Examiner..... The photo image at the bottom is part of the article.

Interesting choice for that picture. The M82 looks impressive, (1.2m long and 14kg) but costs $8,500 plus tax without including the sights. It's not a significant problem, and I don't believe a rifle of that sort has ever been used in a crime in the US, barring one incident when a guy shooting into a tree started a forest fire. (They have been in N Ireland, though)

mike65 · 24-12-2012 08:02PM

Gun shop owners and fair organisers must love times like these.

Another multiple murder by gunfire in Rochester New York state today - fireman apparently lured to a trap.

FISMA · 25-12-2012 06:47AM

mike65 wrote: »

Gun shop owners and fair organisers must love times like these.

Why? When the ban comes, they'll lose far more business than they gained over a few weeks.

Once they're out of stock, they probably will not be able to restock until after the ban.

My name is URL · 05-01-2013 06:51PM

There's been another mass shooting. 4 confirmed dead after a shooting in Aurora, Colorado (same place as the cinema shooting)

http://www.thejournal.ie/shooting-hostages-aurora-colorado-742219-Jan2013/

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 05-01-2013 06:53PM

4 people is not a mass shooting...

My name is URL · 05-01-2013 06:54PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

4 people is not a mass shooting...

What is it then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_murder

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 05-01-2013 06:58PM

This list shall contain every case with at least one of the following features:
Mass murder cases with six or more dead (excluding the perpetrator)
Mass murder cases with a double digit number of victims (dead plus injured)
Mass murders by intention with at least a dozen victims (dead plus injured)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

4 people is a shooting

My name is URL · 05-01-2013 07:02PM

When 4 or more people are killed, it's generally considered a mass murder.

Anyway, semantics are not exactly important, what's important is 4 people have been shot dead.

Killer Wench · 05-01-2013 08:41PM

Is every gun death in the US going to be highlighted? That will become tedious. The reason
this particular story has national or international coverage is the location of the shooting - Aurora, CO.

BobbyPropane · 06-01-2013 12:40AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Is every gun death in Ireland going to be highlighted? That will become tedious. The reason
this particular story has national or international coverage is the location of the shooting - Aurora, CO.

Every gun death in Ireland is highlighted....

Killer Wench · 06-01-2013 12:42AM

BobbyPropane wrote: »

Every gun death in Ireland is highlighted....

Dang. Posted from my phone. I meant every gun death in the US. Let me edit.

Piliger · 06-01-2013 02:54AM

Killer Wench wrote: »

Dang. Posted from my phone. I meant every gun death in the US. Let me edit.

It's not every gun death. It's another mass killing.

Killer Wench · 06-01-2013 03:19AM

Piliger wrote: »

It's not every gun death. It's another mass killing.

It was 4 people in a townhome. One of the people who died was the shooter. The probability is that this was a domestic crime scene and the shooter knew the victims personally.

Sorry, but trying to equate this event to the Newtown shooting or the Aurora Theater shooting (again, this is why this shooting has gained attention) is wrong.

Killer Wench · 06-01-2013 03:29AM

I mean if that's a mass shooting then let's add this one to the list.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/03/us-swiss-shooting-idUSBRE90202Z20130103

FISMA · 06-01-2013 03:39AM

InTheTrees wrote: »

The thing is that the basic staples of american gun ownership, handguns, shotguns and rifles will never be banned. The most we can expect is rifle magazines that hold less bullets...

According to the FBI, more people die in the States because of hammers and clubs than rifles.

In 2005
murders by rifle was 445,
murders by hammers and clubs was 605.

In 2006
murders by rifle was 438
murders by hammers and clubs was 618.

In 2011
murders by rifle was 323
murders by hammers and clubs was 496

Also, 100% more people are killed by hands and fists than by rifles.

Royal Irish · 06-01-2013 03:43AM

But someone couldn't kill 20+ school children with a hammer or a club could they?

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments