Another mass shooting in the U.S

aaakev · 09-01-2013 04:42PM

FatherTed wrote: »

However, MOST parents are not responsible with such a dangerous weapon in the house. As a society we have failed miserably to demonstrate the responsibility and maturity required to justify private gun ownership.

i take it from society you include us in that? explain how we have failed exactly. My guns are all locked in a safe and stripped down, i have the keys with me all the time and a spare set in a safe in another house, componant parts and ammo are in a seperate small safe. If you look on the shooting forum you will see many threads about correct storage and every single shooter i know practices safe storage. it is infact a requirement of your licence in this country that you comply with this.

My 5 year old has a great interest in shooting, he has for the passed 2 or more years helped me clean my guns after iv been out and was thought from the get go safe handling and the dangers, i also showed him how to use them properly and safely. I brought him shooting for the first time a couple of weeks ago and he got on great.

A gun is an inamate object that CAN be used as a weapon, just like a knife, a car. A hurly, walking stick, baseballbat, a dumbell, a beer bottle.... Should i go on?

We (irish sociaty at least) have not failed in anything

MadsL · 09-01-2013 04:56PM

FatherTed wrote: »

However, MOST parents are not responsible with such a dangerous weapon in the house. As a society we have failed miserably to demonstrate the responsibility and maturity required to justify private gun ownership.

Sorry, what? Where are you getting that from. The vast vast majority of parents who own guns both are responsible in their use and in teaching their kids how to responsibly handle a firearm. Learning to shoot with your father is a well established tradition in the US, and some firearms have a heirloom sentimental value passed down through families.

In my own case I made sure my daughter received professional firearms instruction, not so much that she learns to shoot, but as are so many firearms in the US that she understand how to unload one safely and make the gun safe. That I felt is an important life skill and one that should be taught in schools along the line of here's how you disarm and make safe a revolver, a semi-auto pistol, a rifle and a shotgun. Along with the fundamental gun safety rules.

You claim that MOST parents are not being responsible, yet there is no evidence for that, in 2008 there were 680 negligent deaths, of which 160 were hunting accidents. source I'm not denying that is a problem, all of those deaths are preventable, yet put that in the context of 39000 deaths by poisoning per year and your 'MOST' comment really is an exaggeration.

Sparks · 09-01-2013 06:42PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Let's say you have a child or teenager with invisible mental illness or just pissed off one day, or depressed one day or he or she has a friend who comes over one day. If they want that gun, they will get that gun. And in these cases, how far will "personal responsibility" get you? Will you have legal culpability if anything happens to your child with the gun you keep in the house or if you child has access to the gun and harms someone else? Kills someone else? Will you have to pay for that crime?

To answer the last part first, yes. That's the whole point of personal responsibility. It's your firearm, it's your responsibility. You're worried your kid will abuse it? Lock it up. Worried they'll find the key? Get a combination lock. Worried they'll get the combination? Get a biometric lock. Worried they'll rip the eyeball out of your head? Call the police. And possibly see a shrink yourself or at least stop watching bad Stallone films. (Oh, and legally as opposed to ethically? It's still your liability here and in the US and in Europe. It's pretty universal)

Example: the Winnenden school shooting in Germany. The shooter stole his father's 9mm pistol and used it to shoot 15 people and himself. The police raided the family home, it was found that the father had left the pistol unsecured in the bedroom (which was illegal under German law), and he was subsequently arrested, charged and convicted of fifteen counts of involuntary manslaughter, bodily harm through negligence, negligent abandonment of a firearm and breaking the local German firearms legislation by not locking up the pistol.

As to the first part, if your child has a mental health problem that makes them suicidally depressed and your solution is to lock away one tool they could abuse to commit suicide, I would suggest that your parenting skills are in need of work (at the very least, you have the problem that all the research shows that the method used in suicides is interchangable - take away a gun, they use pills or a rope or a knife or just walk into the sea). And you might want to spend more time with them if you're worried they might become that depressed without you noticing anything. But again, that's personal responsibility for you - your kid, your responsibility. If you can't handle that, that's fine too - just don't have kids.

BattleCorp · 09-01-2013 07:19PM

FatherTed wrote: »

However, MOST parents are not responsible with such a dangerous weapon in the house. As a society we have failed miserably to demonstrate the responsibility and maturity required to justify private gun ownership.

I'm sorry but how have I demonstrated that I don't have the responsibility and maturity required to justify my gun ownership?

My guns are securely stored. My guns are partially disassembled and stored in two seperate safes. Rifle in one, bolt in another etc. The ammo is then stored in a seperate lock box inside one of the safes. And just to be extra careful, the magazines are kept in a hidden lockbox well out of sight.

Oh yeah, I'm the only person with keys to either of the safes and lock boxes.

How is doing this irresponsible?

araic88 · 09-01-2013 08:05PM

Sparks wrote: »

As to the first part, if your child has a mental health problem that makes them suicidally depressed and your solution is to lock away one tool they could abuse to commit suicide, I would suggest that your parenting skills are in need of work (at the very least, you have the problem that all the research shows that the method used in suicides is interchangable - take away a gun, they use pills or a rope or a knife or just walk into the sea).
And you might want to spend more time with them if you're worried they might become that depressed without you noticing anything. But again, that's personal responsibility for you - your kid, your responsibility. If you can't handle that, that's fine too - just don't have kids.

... using pills, a rope, a knife etc. probably won't kill dozens of others.
Your post seems to almost suggest a parent who loses a child through suicide should have noticed/predicted it. Not much use to the 1000's of good parents who have suffered this dreadful loss.

Sparks · 09-01-2013 08:37PM

araic88 wrote: »

... using pills, a rope, a knife etc. probably won't kill dozens of others.

Were you worried about suicide or a mass shooting?

Your post seems to almost suggest a parent who loses a child through suicide should have noticed/predicted it. Not much use to the 1000's of good parents who have suffered this dreadful loss.

Correct. Welcome to every parent's nightmare. (Or did you think those thousands of good parents thought it was someone else's fault?)

Piliger · 09-01-2013 08:38PM

haydar wrote: »

I probably will go some time. It just scares me to see people like him and other lunatics freely able to go and buy automatic weapons etc

And he is one of the moderates ........... What a dysfunctional country :rolleyes:

MadsL · 09-01-2013 08:40PM

Piliger wrote: »

And he is one of the moderates ........... What a dysfunctional country :rolleyes:

Oh ffs. More 'merica bashing. Every five minutes on AH.

dlofnep · 09-01-2013 08:43PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

There are extremists on both sides of the debate. A lot of people on his pro gun side of the debate are going "for fcuk sake" when they hear him speak. He isn't really doing them any favours. Just to make it clear, I'm on the pro gun side of the debate myself. I don't think that guns should be banned, I think they should just be in the hands of sensible people who will use them properly.

That is not the pro-gun side. The pro-gun side want an unregulated gun market, opponents want tighter gun regulation. You are an opponent of the "pro-gun" side, and you don't even know it.

Piliger · 09-01-2013 08:44PM

MadsL wrote: »

Oh ffs. More 'merica bashing. Every five minutes on AH.

Jeez what are you whinging about ? "america bashing" ? You have 300m people, the biggest military, the biggest economy, armies all around the world, american movies playing in every country.

What is it about you that you can't take a bit of criticism ? :rolleyes:

MadsL · 09-01-2013 08:47PM

dlofnep wrote: »

That is not the pro-gun side. The pro-gun side want an unregulated gun market, opponents want tighter gun regulation. You are an opponent of the "pro-gun" side, and you don't even know it.

"Pro-gun" is as useful a label in this debate as "Pro-life" is in an abortion debate. Could we deal with facts rather than cartoonish representations of viewpoints.

As a liberal who likes shooting I find the words "pro-gun" absurd, like claiming someone who likes to cook as "pro-food".

MadsL · 09-01-2013 08:48PM

Piliger wrote: »

Jeez what are you whinging about ? "america bashing" ? You have 300m people, the biggest military, the biggest economy, armies all around the world, american movies playing in every country.

What is it about you that you can't take a bit of criticism ? :rolleyes:

What is it about you that thinks that all 300m of those people have the same viewpoint?

Example: Jeez, those Irish - bunch o'drunks. :rolleyes:

And if the US is as successful according to those criteria you mention, it is hardly dysfunctional now is it?

Sparks · 09-01-2013 08:49PM

Piliger wrote: »

And he is one of the moderates ........... What a dysfunctional country :rolleyes:

They definitely have problems...
...but look at our history of TDs, Ministers and NGOs and we're just as bad...

Sparks · 09-01-2013 08:53PM

dlofnep wrote: »

That is not the pro-gun side. The pro-gun side want an unregulated gun market, opponents want tighter gun regulation. You are an opponent of the "pro-gun" side, and you don't even know it.

Eh, no. That's the "Anti-ban" side, not the "pro-gun" side. I'm pro-gun (can you tell?) but I have no problem with sensible firearms regulations (and since I spent the guts of eight years working on the Irish firearms acts, I might know one or two things about what's sensible and what's a sham). And FYI - the NRA is of the same mind, they just have a different line in mind between what's sensible and what's a sham -- but they live in a different jurisdiction and different circumstances so fair enough.

up for anything · 09-01-2013 09:02PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think they should just be in the hands of sensible people who will use them properly.

Who gets to decide who are sensible people and what criteria are used? Also if I am judged a sensible person and buy a gun, is there somebody who will monitor my mental or emotional state and then when I lose my job, my husband leaves me and takes my kids, I get booted out of my home onto to the street and I start losing it, will there be someone who says we'd better take the gun from her until she's sensible again?

MadsL · 09-01-2013 09:05PM

up for anything wrote: »

Who gets to decide who are sensible people and what criteria are used? Also if I am judged a sensible person and buy a gun, is there somebody who will monitor my mental or emotional state and then when I lose my job, my husband leaves me and takes my kids, I get booted out of my home onto to the street and I start losing it, will there be someone who says we'd better take the gun from her until she's sensible again?

Is there someone who will assess your emotional state at the moment when you buy a gallon of petrol and a box of matches?

Sparks · 09-01-2013 09:22PM

up for anything wrote: »

Who gets to decide who are sensible people and what criteria are used?

In Ireland, the Gardai, your GP,and any medical professional who's treating you.

BattleCorp · 09-01-2013 11:49PM

MadsL wrote: »

"Pro-gun" is as useful a label in this debate as "Pro-life" is in an abortion debate. Could we deal with facts rather than cartoonish representations of viewpoints.

As a liberal who likes shooting I find the words "pro-gun" absurd, like claiming someone who likes to cook as "pro-food".

dlofnep wrote: »

That is not the pro-gun side. The pro-gun side want an unregulated gun market, opponents want tighter gun regulation. You are an opponent of the "pro-gun" side, and you don't even know it.

Just to clarify what I meant by saying pro-gun. I say I'm pro gun because I am not in favour of having them banned. I am in favour of responsible members of the public having access to firearms once they fulfil all the requirements laid down by law.

I don't think that there should be a free for all when it comes to guns. Access should be regulated to ensure as best as possible that the guns are in safe hands.

Because this debate has become so emotional, both sides of the divide have become polarised. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground. It seems to be that the anti-gun side want every sort of gun banned and this has left the NRA and other gun lobby groups with no alternative but to come out fighting in order to ensure that their guns aren't taken away.

By taking away guns, you would be punishing 99.99% of people who use their guns safely and responsibly.

BattleCorp · 09-01-2013 11:55PM

Sparks wrote: »

They definitely have problems...
...but look at our history of TDs, Ministers and NGOs and we're just as bad...

We had a Minister for Justice who banned new licences for centrefire handguns in 2009 in order to cut down on handgun crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EVEN THOUGH NO LEGALLY HELD CENTREFIRE HANDGUN HAS BEEN RECORDED AS BEING USED TO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE STATE.

Things are bad when a Minister for Justice can't tell the difference between legally held handguns in responsible hands and illegal guns in the hands of crooks.

Sparks · 10-01-2013 12:35AM

BattleCorp wrote: »

We had a Minister for Justice who banned new licences for centrefire handguns in 2009 in order to cut down on handgun crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EVEN THOUGH NO LEGALLY HELD CENTREFIRE HANDGUN HAS BEEN RECORDED AS BEING USED TO COMMIT A CRIME IN THE STATE.

Things are bad when a Minister for Justice can't tell the difference between legally held handguns in responsible hands and illegal guns in the hands of crooks.

...and then there was the Act that almost banned .22lr rifles because someone in the Oireachtas had been reading The Day of the Jackal and thought that all .22lr rounds had exploding tips...

...and then there is the ongoing point that target shooting outside of an authorised range in Ireland is a serious offence with jail time for those caught doing it, and a firearms range inspector post was created with the power to enter and search without a warrant any vehicle, aircraft, ship, hovercraft, domicile, building or place to search for evidence of this crime... but nowhere in law is "target shooting" defined which means that when a hunter zeros his rifle with one or two shots before heading into the field to shoot game for the pot, he's breaking the law unless he's on a target shooting range (of which there are very few, unequally distributed)...

...and then there's the point that strictly speaking, paintball in Ireland is highly illegal, whether you're running a paintball field as a business, or you're an employee in such a company (even if you're just hired as a cleaner to sweep the office floor once a week), or you're some punter having a go on a stag night -- and when I say highly illegal, I mean up to €20,000 in fines and seven years in jail -- and this is purely by accident, not design...

...and there's the point that there are maybe two or three dozen people in the entire state (solicitors, barristers and legislators included) who have a working knowledge of the Firearms Act, because while it's called "the Firearms Act", it's actually 19 Acts (ranging from Firearms Acts to Road Traffic Acts), more Statutory Instruments than I've ever successfully counted (but it's somewhere north of 60), and several EU regulations. The Law Reform Commission has been calling for a restatement (ie. legislators merging all these sources into a single document which then becomes the new Firearms Act) since 2004 (since when we've seen six or seven more Acts added, dozens of SIs, and about 80% of the pre-2004 law rewritten in a patchwork that's really hard to figure out), and High Court Justices have called for it several times as well.

*ahem*
Like I said, I've been looking at this for a while

But it does highlight an important point - our system has reasonably good foundations. I don't think I'd make very many fundamental changes to how our system is set up (maybe one or two, but mostly I'd tune if that was possible, rather than throw it out and start over). But the implementation of that design, the details on top of the foundations? Utterly horrible.

tl;dr - in this topic, details matter and you should put a lot of effort into getting them right or it'll bite you.

MadsL · 10-01-2013 02:04AM

Sparks, I'm not sure if I have mentioned this before, but I would like to tip my hat to you for the absolutely tireless work you have done for the sport of shooting in Ireland. Well done, I hope your work to try and simplify things comes to fruition.

FatherTed · 10-01-2013 02:19AM

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, what? Where are you getting that from. The vast vast majority of parents who own guns both are responsible in their use and in teaching their kids how to responsibly handle a firearm. Learning to shoot with your father is a well established tradition in the US, and some firearms have a heirloom sentimental value passed down through families.

In my own case I made sure my daughter received professional firearms instruction, not so much that she learns to shoot, but as are so many firearms in the US that she understand how to unload one safely and make the gun safe. That I felt is an important life skill and one that should be taught in schools along the line of here's how you disarm and make safe a revolver, a semi-auto pistol, a rifle and a shotgun. Along with the fundamental gun safety rules.

You claim that MOST parents are not being responsible, yet there is no evidence for that, in 2008 there were 680 negligent deaths, of which 160 were hunting accidents. source I'm not denying that is a problem, all of those deaths are preventable, yet put that in the context of 39000 deaths by poisoning per year and your 'MOST' comment really is an exaggeration.

680 deaths exactly proves my point. Why does there have to be 680 deaths anyway? Where did Lanza get his guns? Took them from his mother. There are too many guns in this country. Sure you and MadsL are law abiding wonderful gun owners and nothing would ever happen. I used to see tragedies like Aurora and Virginia Tech and say that would never happen near me but then Sandy Hook happened less than 30 miles away.

But don't fret, you'll get to keep your precious guns because the crazies in the NRA and the republican party will cry and cry and cry and nothing will ever change.

Sparks · 10-01-2013 02:21AM

MadsL wrote: »

Sparks, I'm not sure if I have mentioned this before, but I would like to tip my hat to you

Ah, pfft. I just didn't step back fast enough when they were asking for volunteers

Sparks · 10-01-2013 02:29AM

FatherTed wrote: »

But don't fret, you'll get to keep your precious guns because the crazies in the NRA and the republican party will cry and cry and cry and nothing will ever change.

Did you watch The Daily Show tonight perchance? (If not, do).
That was a decent enough attempt to start a conversation - yes, Stewart is a comedian by profession so there were jokes, and yes there were factual errors and old memes that don't hold up when you think about them, but he actually nailed it at certain points - talk about the violence, talk about all the ideas to address it, make it a "safe space" discussion and so on - all things that haven't been done yet in the US.

And which you're not doing here. "The crazies"? There are 4 million people in the NRA and tens of millions more who own firearms but aren't members, but you just lump them in as "the crazies". Lots of them have their firearms for good reasons, and aren't a danger to anyone with them bar in self-defence, but faced with a major social problem (which is not gun violence, but just violence), you want to have a debate about how to enact gun bans instead of a debate about what the causes of the problem are and how to address them - and anyone who objects to the foregone conclusion and the missing debate is denigrated or defamed.

Until that approach is dropped, until what Stewart was talking about happens, you're probably going to continue to see mass killings in the US. So when you think that demonising even the extremists who you don't agree with is fair or victimless, pause for a moment and think again.

FatherTed · 10-01-2013 02:50AM

I'm saying Crazies because all I've seen so far from the leaders of the NRA are the comments from LaPierre saying the solution is to provide armed guards at all schools and also some other ridiculous suggestions from members of the Republican party. These guys are utterly useless so yes I am calling these leaders crazy. The issue is not drugs or movies or video games or alcohol or Marilyn Manson or religion or no religion or pills or parenting or poor schools. There are simply too many guns in this country and it is way too easy to get them.

MadsL · 10-01-2013 03:01AM

FatherTed wrote: »

I'm saying Crazies because all I've seen so far from the leaders of the NRA are the comments from LaPierre saying the solution is to provide armed guards at all schools and also some other ridiculous suggestions from members of the Republican party. These guys are utterly useless so yes I am calling these leaders crazy. The issue is not drugs or movies or video games or alcohol or Marilyn Manson or religion or no religion or pills or parenting or poor schools. There are simply too many guns in this country and it is way too easy to get them.

How many should there be? And who gets to decide who has them? My State constitution is pretty clear on the issue.

Sparks · 10-01-2013 03:05AM

FatherTed wrote: »

I'm saying Crazies because all I've seen so far from the leaders of the NRA are the comments from LaPierre saying the solution is to provide armed guards at all schools

That's enough to make you declare him crazy?
Quick US politics question - the NRA are known predominantly for being Republican supporters, right? And they're suggesting armed guards in schools? Who else did that there a few years ago after a school shooting?
...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUBSE4KFQ1c

The issue is not drugs or movies or video games or alcohol or Marilyn Manson or religion or no religion or pills or parenting or poor schools.

How do you know?
The NAS and CDC have both said this is not a simple problem. It's just not. You can't look at a complex social issue, do a DeValera on it, looking into your heart and declaring you know what's best for the country.

Look at it this way - if you were sick, you'd want a doctor to examine you, maybe run some tests and determine what was wrong with you and then treat that illness, right? And they'd use the best methods, as determined by evidence-based medicine, right?

So why doesn't that hold for social issues? Why do you want to skip the examination, the tests and the evidence-based research into cures and jump right to one hypothesised treatment?

FatherTed · 10-01-2013 04:47AM

MadsL wrote: »

How many should there be? And who gets to decide who has them? My State constitution is pretty clear on the issue.

1 musket per person would be fine

I don't believe in the second amendment and in my opinion should be throw out.

Sparks wrote: »

That's enough to make you declare him crazy?
Quick US politics question - the NRA are known predominantly for being Republican supporters, right? And they're suggesting armed guards in schools? Who else did that there a few years ago after a school shooting?
...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUBSE4KFQ1c

How do you know?
The NAS and CDC have both said this is not a simple problem. It's just not. You can't look at a complex social issue, do a DeValera on it, looking into your heart and declaring you know what's best for the country.

Look at it this way - if you were sick, you'd want a doctor to examine you, maybe run some tests and determine what was wrong with you and then treat that illness, right? And they'd use the best methods, as determined by evidence-based medicine, right?

So why doesn't that hold for social issues? Why do you want to skip the examination, the tests and the evidence-based research into cures and jump right to one hypothesised treatment?

I don't really care what Clinton said. I'm neither a democrat or republican.
As for social issues, that is deflecting away from the gun control issue. Simply less guns= less innocent deaths. Why cant we have sensible gun laws like the rest of the civilised world? Do you think the current gun laws are perfectly fine? What would you change?

Manic Moran · 10-01-2013 07:26AM

FatherTed wrote: »

Simply less guns= less innocent deaths.

We don't know that.

Really.

Sure, it would mean fewer kids would find dad's gun and shoot themselves (Bad dad for doing something stupid.) It also means that fewer moms can defend themsevles and their kids like that woman yesterday (Good mom for doing something right).

Which innocent life is more important? Why should mom in one family be sacrificed because dad in another family was wrong?

NTM

aaakev · 10-01-2013 09:42AM

FatherTed wrote: »

Why cant we have sensible gun laws like the rest of the civilised world? Do you think the current gun laws are perfectly fine? What would you change?

That i would agree with, i dont agree with anyone being able to walk into a walmart and and buy a gun while doing they'er shopping. I think somewhere between our system and the one they have would be a happy medium... I waited 8 minths for my first licence, 5 weeks for my second 2 weeks for my 3rd and 10 days for a 4th, the 2 quick ones were swaping one gun for another but they still had to go through the checks.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments