nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Another mass shooting in the U.S

dd972

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-respond-us-school-shooting-reports-153441807.html

condolences to those affected, wonder though if these will go on indefinately and the gun culture of the U.S is set in stone

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sparks

FatherTed wrote: »

1 musket per person would be fine

I hate it when people say things like that with no idea what they mean.

"Shotguns are grand, they can't shoot past a hundred yards" - well, yes, but inside that hundred yards they're a .78 calibre firearm that can fire everything from a solid slug to 10-12 pellets the size of 9mm pistol bullets, to smaller stuff... but inside 10 yards, it doesn't matter what they shoot, it won't have spread out by the time it hits you and you might as well have been shot with a single .78 calibre bullet.

"Muskets are fine" - er, no, they're 50-calibre rifles with a low rate of fire and rounds which behave like dum-dum bullets because of their shape (bullets that were banned for military use before the Geneva Convention by the Hague Convention because they were too awful to be used on humans).

Seriously, if your solution to gun violence is to only arm criminals with firearms that are more lethal than the ones they have now, you need a better solution.

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

So go vote on it.

I don't really care what Clinton said. I'm neither a democrat or republican.

You don't really care that both sides of the political divide are and have been recommending the same solution to the problem for over a decade - the solution you're happily holding up as sufficient criteria to declare a person insane?

As for social issues, that is deflecting away from the gun control issue.

And that, right there, is why you don't see the NRA sit down at the table to talk about firearms control legislation. Because the only point of the discussion you want to have is how to take away firearms from lawabiding people. I'd add "in the hope of solving the gun violence problem" but you've just pointed out that that end result would be incidental at best.

Why would anyone agree to such a conversation? It's not about fixing a problem, it's just about punishing people who've done nothing wrong, and not even for a reason.

Why cant we have sensible gun laws like the rest of the civilised world?

Define "sensible".

Do you think the current gun laws are perfectly fine? What would you change?

What, Irish gun laws?

clairefontaine

Manic Moran wrote: »

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

Statistically guns in the home are the number one killer of women, including suicides.

That article made the rounds because it stood out, if it were the norm, people would take it for granted and it wouldn't make the news.

Guns are central to American life because Americans are created equal. Unlike other constitutions, American equality is not a gift from the government, it is inherent in being, born into blood and skin. American citizens can have guns because the cops do and the government does, and that is equality. When the cops and the government are willing to give them up, that is the day the people might, and we know that day will never come because that is the day equality dies.

So the solution is not a ban, the solution is to do a real evaluation of why people have gotten so trigger happy. Both the pro gun and anti gun side are avoiding all the other painful recourses by focusing on the gun argument.

BattleCorp

clairefontaine wrote: »

So the solution is not a ban, the solution is to do a real evaluation of why people have gotten so trigger happy. Both the pro gun and anti gun side are avoiding all the other painful recourses by focusing on the gun argument.

The only reason the pro gun side are focusing on guns is that they want to keep what they have. As soon as they mention the possibility of it being the fault of the internet for possibly de-sensitising a generation, the media for pretty much glorifying these tragedies etc etc, they are lampooned for trying to deflect attention away from guns.

[Deleted User]

Yet another US school shooting

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20975608

10 January 2013 Last updated at 20:15 GMT

Shooting at Taft High School in California injures one

A pupil at a high school in the Californian town of Taft has been shot and wounded, police say.
The suspected gunman, also a student, was taken into custody, said Ray Pruitt, spokesman for the Kern County Sheriff's Department.
The victim was taken to hospital in an air ambulance, he said.
Early reports suggested that a second person had been wounded, but Mr Pruitt told CNN that this appeared not to be true.

clairefontaine

BattleCorp wrote: »

The only reason the pro gun side are focusing on guns is that they want to keep what they have. As soon as they mention the possibility of it being the fault of the internet for possibly de-sensitising a generation, the media for pretty much glorifying these tragedies etc etc, they are lampooned for trying to deflect attention away from guns.

That's because they don't acknowledge that guns are part of it at all, not even 2% culpability, not even that access to them is part of the problem, so they lose credibility via that deflection and it just looks like scapegoating.

Witcher

Serious run on guns in the US at the moment..I'm subbed to these guys on YT and they've sold nearly everything they have in the way of AR15's etc. Usually have several racks of them. People are even stocking up on shotguns..not even sure they will be hit by the restrictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IXXtKm7Kp8

pabloh999

Blay wrote: »

Serious run on guns in the US at the moment..I'm subbed to these guys on YT and they've sold nearly everything they have in the way of AR15's etc. Usually have several racks of them. People are even stocking up on shotguns..not even sure they will be hit by the restrictions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IXXtKm7Kp8

Thats just nuts!
Being able to stroll in and buy something like that, in a non warzone situation.

-Massive amount of gun deaths
-Massive amount of guns
No connection ?

To anyone gun "lover" who does not see the connection they are either dumb or selfish?
Which is it?

Manic Moran

clairefontaine wrote: »

Statistically guns in the home are the number one killer of women, including suicides.

What is the number 1 effective defence tool of women in the home?

What if you're a paraplaegic in a wheelchair?
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/07/23/man-pulls-gun-kills-armed-intruder.html
Or a 12-year-old girl?
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbc-news/49478604#49478604

"God made all men," the saying goes, "And Sam Colt made them all equal."

For all the harm that can be done with firearms, one cannot deny that they provide a worthy and desireable function which cannot be replicated by other means and which should be within the purview of every person just trying to get on with life.

That article made the rounds because it stood out, if it were the norm, people would take it for granted and it wouldn't make the news.

With respect, it is the norm. Just the norm doesn't make the news unless people specifically look for it and cross-post, like the cinema shooting two days after Newton. It took over a week for that one to filter over to me, and I routinely frequent websites which are liable to advertise those events. Even the pro-ban people acknowledge over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year in the US. One need not actually kill the opposition to get the desired effect. Mom got posted probably because it happened that day and in very dramatic fashion. Here's one published today.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Resident-Shoots-Kills-Intruder-186295092.html

And it may seem a little heartless, but I will trade five or ten firearm sucides for a single case of legitimate self defence like this one. All are the conscious actions of people taking control of their own destinies and unlike most suicides, self defence cases tend to be instantaneous matters.

-Massive amount of gun deaths
-Massive amount of guns
No connection ?

To anyone gun "lover" who does not see the connection they are either dumb or selfish?
Which is it?

Whose gun deaths? Who was it that said nothing wrong with killing as long as the right people get killed?
How many of those deaths are the result of urban violence? (i.e gang warfare). How many of them have anything to do with people like you or I who are normal, law abiding people just getting on with our days? Of those who are not, how many are the result of disarmament regulations, and counter that by how many who didn't become statistics because they had a firearm?

NTM

Sparks

pabloh999 wrote: »

To anyone gun "lover" who does not see the connection they are either dumb or selfish?
Which is it?

You forgot option number three - that the connection isn't there or at least is not as simple as you're making it out to be. Because if it was, then we wouldn't see the disparate ratios of firearms in private hands to gun violence that we do when we look at every nation. We'd be hearing of spree shootings in Switzerland every other week, we'd be seeing violence rates directly correlating across the US to firearms ownership levels and laws... and we see none of that.

BattleCorp

pabloh999 wrote: »

To anyone gun "lover" who does not see the connection they are either dumb or selfish?
Which is it?

I do target shooting as part of my sport, so yes, I like guns. You could say that I'm a gun lover because I really enjoy my sport. Just like a person who enjoys football could probably be termed a footie lover.

I'm in favour of access to guns based on strict criteria, not guns for everybody as there are people who are mentally incapable or too irresponsible to be allowed firearms.

People like me who enjoy guns for sport and recreation, and use them responsibly get frustrated because we are deemed to be unsympathetic when tragedies occur just because we enjoy using guns.

I'm not unsympathetic to victims of gun tragedy. But equally, it's not fair that someone would want to take away my guns because of the actions of somebody else.

pabloh999

Sparks wrote: »

You forgot option number three - that the connection isn't there or at least is not as simple as you're making it out to be. Because if it was, then we wouldn't see the disparate ratios of firearms in private hands to gun violence that we do when we look at every nation. We'd be hearing of spree shootings in Switzerland every other week, we'd be seeing violence rates directly correlating across the US to firearms ownership levels and laws... and we see none of that.

If you are comparing Switzerland to the US, then its maybe the Swiss can handle all the weapons?

Its not just guns, media and Hollywood have a part to play also.
Anyone in America right now, just flick around the tv, how many violent movies(R rated) are on during the daytime.
Bad language and any hint of sex is removed or dubbed(comically, you motha-humper), but all the violence remains. The likes of Terminator on basic cable at midday, shouldnt really be allowed.

Im not blaming movies but when you are surrounded by violence 24/7 it certainly does not help
Meanwhile the carnage train rolls on, about 700 murders since Sandyhook

pabloh999

BattleCorp wrote: »

I do target shooting as part of my sport, so yes, I like guns. You could say that I'm a gun lover because I really enjoy my sport. Just like a person who enjoys football could probably be termed a footie lover.

I'm in favour of access to guns based on strict criteria, not guns for everybody as there are people who are mentally incapable or too irresponsible to be allowed firearms.

People like me who enjoy guns for sport and recreation, and use them responsibly get frustrated because we are deemed to be unsympathetic when tragedies occur just because we enjoy using guns.

I'm not unsympathetic to victims of gun tragedy. But equally, it's not fair that someone would want to take away my guns because of the actions of somebody else.

I dont know where you live. But if its in Ireland we dont really have a gun problem, so no one wants to restrict your gun ownership.

deandean

At this stage I have a problem with the title of this thread "Another mass shooting in the U.S".

Since the thread started on December 14 last, there have now been (correct me if I am wrong) five mass shootings in the U.S.

We need to come up with a system for identifying which mass shooting a poster is talking about. It might be one for the mods, perhaps we should start a new thread for each mass shooting with the date of the shooting in the thread title. That would make sense.

And also, we could have a central thread for the overall issue of mass shootings & gun ownership, maybe make that one a sticky? :mad:

HHobo

UrbanSea wrote: »

Can't believe the stupidity of a huge number of Americans defending the gun laws over there. It seems no matter how many of these mass shootings occur they'll still defend it

It really isn't as simple as just banning guns. Some of those who defend the status quo are morons not all of them. There are reasonable arguments to be made.

InTheTrees

pabloh999 wrote: »

Its not just guns, media and Hollywood have a part to play also.
Anyone in America right now, just flick around the tv, how many violent movies(R rated) are on during the daytime.
Bad language and any hint of sex is removed or dubbed(comically, you motha-humper), but all the violence remains.
Meanwhile the carnage train rolls on, about 700 murders since Sandyhook

Yup. Comparisons dont help much except to underscore that America is a violent place. There's an undercurrent of it in most aspects of life.

And as far as guns are concerned the genie is out of the bottle and they can possibly ban high capacity magazines for what thats worth (not much) but there'll still be handguns and shotguns and scary looking guns, and there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that any of those will be banned.

pabloh999

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yup. Comparisons dont help much except to underscore that America is a violent place. There's an undercurrent of it in most aspects of life.

And as far as guns are concerned the genie is out of the bottle and they can possibly ban high capacity magazines for what thats worth (not much) but there'll still be handguns and shotguns and scary looking guns, and there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that any of those will be banned.

Maybe the sale of bullets could be restricted?
For home protection you are "allowed" a small amount , max 30 bullets?
Is 30 bullets enough to kill your home invasion bogeyman?
If you like to shoot at a range then all the ammo could be locked away at the range.Focus on the ammo not the guns
No sale of ammo online or gun fares.
Keep your guns
Win win?

Witcher

People load their own ammo in the US, plus the taxes lost from the sale of it would be massive to the gov, they wouldnt do it for that reason alone.

BattleCorp

pabloh999 wrote: »

I dont know where you live. But if its in Ireland we dont really have a gun problem, so no one wants to restrict your gun ownership.

I live in Ireland. And yes, I believe the authorities here would like to restrict public access to firearms further.

There's one example below.

A certain Minister banned new licences for centrefire handguns on the mistaken belief that banning licenced centrefire handguns would cut down on gun crime. How can banning licenced guns that have never been used to commit a crime cut down on gun crime. It's the unlicenced guns that are being used to commit crimes.

I've said it before but it's worth repeating. A licenced centrefire handgun has never ever been recorded as being used to commit a crime in the Republic of Ireland.

It didn't stop one single crime from happening but the general public think "fair play to him for taking guns off the streets". He took fcukall guns off the streets except for the guns that were being used safely (and not on the streets for that matter).

Every time there is a tragedy like this in America or elsewhere, the authorities mention these tragedies in an attempt to paint a dim picture of the shooting community and thus make it easier to ban certain types of firearms.

yoyo

Blay wrote: »

People load their own ammo in the US, plus the taxes lost from the sale of it would be massive to the gov, they wouldnt do it for that reason alone.

They could make it illegal to sell bullet components or heavily restrict that market also. The fact is that if ammo is expensive and hard to stockpile then the possibility of of a person using a firearm in a massacre is lessened.
There are gangs in Dublin with AKs and other similar rifles, but you don't see these rifles are used in shootings often as it's easier for criminals to get their hands on handgun ammo.

And as far as guns are concerned the genie is out of the bottle and they can possibly ban high capacity magazines for what thats worth (not much) but there'll still be handguns and shotguns and scary looking guns, and there isnt a snowball's chance in hell that any of those will be banned.

Leaving looks of the guns aside, Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles were designed with the sole purpose for killing humans on the battlefield, and as such they are weapons which are quite well suited for mass killings due to the nature of their design. Leaving the whole FA/SA debate out if it, it is quite easy to fire off these rifles accurately in quick succession without any need for FA. A 30+ round mag also helps as the shooter doesn't need to reload as often so as capable of inflicting more damage.
The AR 15 was designed at the request of the US army by Armalite for their military use, not as a weapon for hunting deer but for killing humans effectively in a battlezone. The same goes with the invention of the AK47. The fact civilians have access to these firearms, and at such low costs is mind boggling.
Sure why not legalize RPGs, Grenades, Dynamite, TNT while your at it. Some of these have possible legitimate use for some people, that doesn't mean they should be legal.

Nick

InTheTrees

pabloh999 wrote: »

Maybe the sale of bullets could be restricted?
For home protection you are "allowed" a small amount , max 30 bullets?
Is 30 bullets enough to kill your home invasion bogeyman?
If you like to shoot at a range then all the ammo could be locked away at the range.Focus on the ammo not the guns
No sale of ammo online or gun fares.
Keep your guns
Win win?

Theoretically. But impractical. 30 bullets? A month?

Bullets can be home made. And shotguns dont use bullets anyway.

And anyway it just isnt going to happen that congress sits down together and bans bullets.

Nice idea though. There was a comedian (chris rock) who had a routine along those lines but he suggested no limit on the amounts but you could tax them so each bullet cost $1000.

InTheTrees

Its a lot easier to ban stuff in Ireland. Its a small place.

If the government doesnt want you to have cold decongestant then you cant have it.

The USA is a far bigger place with a more diverse population governed by a mish mash of Federal law and State law that are constantly at odds with each other.

InTheTrees

yoyo wrote: »

Leaving looks of the guns aside, Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles were designed with the sole purpose for killing humans on the battlefield, and as such they are weapons which are quite well suited for mass killings due to the nature of their design.

Well thats good because Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles that are designed with the sole purpose for killing humans on the battlefield are illegal in the USA.

If you buy a kit that bolts on to your .22 that makes it look like a M16 then it doesnt mean that it IS a M16. Right?

Hence my comment about "scary looking" guns.

You have to differentiate between what is a "military" weapon and what isnt, it goes beyond looks. Using the incorrect terminology is one of the major impediments to anything getting done about the issue in the US, because a lot of people are not making sense.

When the hysterics cry "ban the machine guns" the pro-gun folks can respond "Well, they are".

...just to cloud the issue further!

yoyo

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well thats good because Kalashnikov and AR-15 rifles that are designed with the sole purpose for killing humans on the battlefield are illegal in the USA.

If you buy a kit that bolts on to your .22 that makes it look like a M16 then it doesnt mean that it IS a M16. Right?

Hence my comment about "scary looking" guns.

You have to differentiate between what is a "military" weapon and what isnt, it goes beyond looks. Using the incorrect terminology is one of the major impediments to anything getting done about the issue in the US, because a lot of people are not making sense.

When the hysterics cry "ban the machine guns" the pro-gun folks can respond "Well, they are".

...just to cloud the issue further!

You didn't really read my post. Yes the civilian version of the weapons don't do full auto, but that doesn't mean they are not as lethal. You can get AK47 rifles legally in the US, 7.62x39 ammo for them and also 30+ round magazines for them, just they don't do full auto... It is still the same gun at the end of the day. You are also able to buy an unlimited amount of ammo for these guns for little or nothing with no questions asked.
My point is that traditional hunting rifles do not need high capacity magazines, designed to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute and fire rounds designed for killing humans, with little purpose for hunting.
I am not completely "anti-gun" (although I think Ireland and other parts of Europe has sensible restrictions regarding firearms which shows when you look at gun crime stats) but I think certain weapons should be banned, and close that "semi auto" loophole for rifles that is currently in place.

Nick

Witcher

yoyo wrote: »

You didn't really read my post. Yes the civilian version of the weapons don't do full auto, but that doesn't mean they are not as lethal. You can get AK47 rifles legally in the US, 7.62x39 ammo for them and also 30+ round magazines for them, just they don't do full auto... It is still the same gun at the end of the day. You are also able to buy an unlimited amount of ammo for these guns for little or nothing with no questions asked.
My point is that traditional hunting rifles do not need high capacity magazines, designed to shoot hundreds of rounds a minute and fire rounds designed for killing humans, with little purpose for hunting.
I am not completely "anti-gun" (although I think Ireland and other parts of Europe has sensible restrictions regarding firearms which shows when you look at gun crime stats) but I think certain weapons should be banned, and close that "semi auto" loophole for rifles that is currently in place.

Nick

You can get S/A rifles here and put a 100rnd drum mag on them..no restriction on mag size for centrefire rifles here and there's little control over the purchase of ammunition, you could go to 10 different dealers and each time buy whatever your licence limit is and then do the cycle again and stock up to your hearts content.

StinkyMunkey

Seen an interview with the father of a guy who had been killed in a mass shooting. He said "it's a shame people's passion for guns is more than their passion for others lives".

NRA said America needs more guns, is that not like throwing petrol on a fire you are trying to put out???

InTheTrees

yoyo wrote: »

You didn't really read my post. Yes the civilian version of the weapons don't do full auto, but that doesn't mean they are not as lethal. You can get AK47 rifles legally in the US, 7.62x39 ammo for them and also 30+ round magazines for them, just they don't do full auto... It is still the same gun at the end of the day. You are also able to buy an unlimited amount of ammo for these guns for little or nothing with no questions asked.

No. There is a very big difference between semi and full auto. I mean face it even full auto in the US is banned so that tells you something about its lethality right? Even the gun crazy yanks feel that full auto is a little over done.

So its all about magazine capacity then right?

Because a Semi auto ak47 using 7.62 functions in exactly the same way as a semi auto hunting rifle using 7.62. So banning the AK would be based entirely on looks.

And thats what the US congress will come up with because thats pretty much all they can do. Lower capacity magazines.

pabloh999

InTheTrees wrote: »

Theoretically. But impractical. 30 bullets? A month?

.

Not a month. You get a small amount for home protection
If you need to use them, i.e someone breaks into your home and you have shot them, then you walk into the local police station fill out a report explaining where your bullets went and apply for a new supply

Highly regulated, policed and enforced with harsh penalties for missing bullets.

clairefontaine

The other thing they can do is make a public database where records of gun ownership are public and accessible. In other words citizens can know how many guns and how much ammunition their neighbours have stashed in their basements.

This is helpful so that you know if someone you are dating keeps a weapon in the home or if someone with whom your small child or teenager has contact with or who visits has personal weapons in the home.

Witcher

pabloh999 wrote: »

Not a month. You get a small amount for home protection
If you need to use them, i.e someone breaks into your home and you have shot them, then you walk into the local police station fill out a report explaining where your bullets went and apply for a new supply

Highly regulated, policed and enforced with harsh penalties for missing bullets.

The naivety:pac:

Witcher

clairefontaine wrote: »

The other thing they can do is make a public database where records of gun ownership are public and accessible. In other words citizens can know how many guns and how much ammunition their neighbours have stashed in their basements.

You must be joking? What would stop criminals looking at it and going 'yeah I'l take this guy's firearms, then this guy's' and so on? The firearms you own are nobody else's business..the only people that know I have them is the Gardai and my close family...neither I nor any other firearms owner in Ireland would want a database of our firearms so sure as fcuk nobody in the US will accept it.