Another mass shooting in the U.S

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 09:14PM

Blay wrote: »

You can have any calibre rifle, even a .50 if you had a reason for it.

So I can own a:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82

Btw, where can I buy one, ill just tell the guards I think china is gonna invade!

InTheTrees · 11-01-2013 09:16PM

pabloh999 wrote: »

This is not about Ireland ,this is about America.

Except that you're projecting your narrow experience of Ireland on to America.

Its like the wild west out here. Seriously. Guns are a way of life for these people. 30 bullets doesn't even make sense.

So I'm just trying to inject some realism into these airy fairy "oh just ban everything..." arguments. It isnt that easy.

So we need practical, workable solutions. And it needs to be in small steps as well.

Witcher · 11-01-2013 09:17PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

So I can own a:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M82

Btw, where can I buy one, ill just tell the guards I think china is gonna invade!

Yeah, if you had a reason for it..there's no bar on any calibre here. There are guys with .338LM licenced for target shooting.

clairefontaine · 11-01-2013 09:33PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Except that you're projecting your narrow experience of Ireland on to America.

Its like the wild west out here. Seriously. Guns are a way of life for these people. 30 bullets doesn't even make sense.

So I'm just trying to inject some realism into these airy fairy "oh just ban everything..." arguments. It isnt that easy.

So we need practical, workable solutions. And it needs to be in small steps as well.

It's true. It would be like banning booze in Ireland as a response to all the drunk driving and suicides.

Just won't work.

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 09:53PM

Blay wrote: »

Yeah, if you had a reason for it..there's no bar on any calibre here. There are guys with .338LM licenced for target shooting.

As I'm not a member of any rifle club I have limited knowledge regarding firearms in Ireland.

People who own firearms for competition purposes will have access to ammunition and guns that the general public will not have id imagine. But to my limited knowledge the guards would not permit you to own an AR-15 no matter what reason you give.

MadsL · 11-01-2013 09:55PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Its like the wild west out here. Seriously. Guns are a way of life for these people. 30 bullets doesn't even make sense.

So I'm just trying to inject some realism into these airy fairy "oh just ban everything..." arguments. It isnt that easy.

So we need practical, workable solutions. And it needs to be in small steps as well.

yes, if you replace "wld west" with a "tradition of self-reliance" and "way of life" for everday tool, I'd agree with you.
The roots of gun control in the west are very much rooted in the fact that sheriffs faced choices, either ban guns from town or ban guns from certain places ie:saloons. Hence the root of most ordinances banning weapons from bars.

In fact, the gunfight at the OK Corral was a shootout over law enforcement attempting to disarm the Clantons and the McLaurys.

The fact that I could if I wished, walk about my downtown with a pistol strapped to my leg dates back to such times when law enforcement around here was by election of the people and funded by the people. Oh, wait. We still elect and fund our sheriff. So why would we change out gun laws? If our sheriff gets out of hand it was always the people's right to remove the sheriff - by force if necessary. Disarming the people by the sheriff was viewed with great suspicion, equally any sheriff running for office in these counties who argues for disarming the people who elect him will get few votes.

Now I'm not arguing that 1880's gun laws are appropriate for the 21st century, jst giving some context for how local gun laws are set and decided upon. After all the US is a federal republic not a democratic republic like Ireland. There are layers upon layers of legislation that in some cases filter to the county level.

Each state also has state constitutions that enshrine the right not just to bear arms but also explicit purposes as described here. in some cases they give further rights. My own state regulates concealed weapons (can you see the historical reason why it was presumed that it was suspect to conceal a weapon rather than carry it openly like an honest citizen) but also enshrines the right to own and carry a gun.

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

MadsL · 11-01-2013 10:04PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

to my limited knowledge the guards would not permit you to own an AR-15 no matter what reason you give.

They use this handy field guide for reference I believe.

http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/AR15.jpg

Witcher · 11-01-2013 10:06PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

But to my limited knowledge the guards would not permit you to own an AR-15 no matter what reason you give.

Yes they will, people have them licenced here along with other models, Grizzly45 over on the shooting forum has a Remington R25 in .243...the rifle is based on an AR10 which in turn basically a higher calibre AR15.

Then there are other semi autos people here have; M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, Springfield M1A's etc.

aaakev · 11-01-2013 10:07PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As I'm not a member of any rifle club I have limited knowledge regarding firearms in Ireland.

People who own firearms for competition purposes will have access to ammunition and guns that the general public will not have id imagine. But to my limited knowledge the guards would not permit you to own an AR-15 no matter what reason you give.

Wrong, there are plenty of semi auto centre fire rifles licenced in this country that are very similar to an ar15, below is an mke t 43 the same cal as an AR15 and semi auto

MadsL · 11-01-2013 10:17PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

My choice of words was a little off, but people got the gist. Thanks for being pedantic.

If we are proposing legislation, choice of words is pretty important wouldn't you say?

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 10:19PM

Firearms policy in Ireland:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

As this policy states semi automatic firearms are restricted, while like you guys have said they do exist, they are restricted and I'm sure not anyone can gain access to one.

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 10:22PM

MadsL wrote: »

If we are proposing legislation, choice of words is pretty important wouldn't you say?

I wasn't proposing any legislation, I simply was trying to state you don't need an semi automatic rifle to defend your home.

I said a shotgun or handgun should do the job 0.o

Witcher · 11-01-2013 10:27PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Firearms policy in Ireland:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

As this policy states semi automatic firearms are restricted, while like you guys have said they do exist, they are restricted and I'm sure not anyone can gain access to one.

You need a 'restricted' licence for one. You need reason for one like ya do for any firearm here but they're still available.

aaakev · 11-01-2013 10:28PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Firearms policy in Ireland:

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

As this policy states semi automatic firearms are restricted, while like you guys have said they do exist, they are restricted and I'm sure not anyone can gain access to one.

Restricted meaning you need to apply to the cheif super instead of just the super, anyone can still get one as long as you have a good reason

MadsL · 11-01-2013 10:32PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I wasn't proposing any legislation, I simply was trying to state you don't need an semi automatic rifle to defend your home.

I said a shotgun or handgun should do the job 0.o

So I should be forced to buy a weapon I am less comfortable with? My nephew's 95lb girlfriend could not pull the trigger on a S&W .357 revolver (DA, not cocked) last time we were at the range. If you allow self-defence as a reason to own a gun, as my State allows, should she be prevented from her choice of the most suitable gun for her needs?

Just because you feel a shotgun is adequate for you, doesn't mean a 95lb young girl could handle a 12 gauge comfortably.

Fallschirmjager · 11-01-2013 10:39PM

well i could not read 100 pages but it seems some people dont understand what the right to bear arms is about...
the right to bear arms is nothing to do with hunting, home protection or liking guns...the sole reason is to protect yourself from a corrupt government. there is a comment from the movie V for Vendetta 'a governemnt should be afraid of its people'. what most do not realise is that a modern update to a very old comment from Thomas Jefferson 'A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny'.

a case in point every single dictator that has existed (well at least all the current ones) have always done the same thing...they have banned guns. thats almost the first thing they do ranging from Hitler to Stalin to Mao.

a gun in just a tool, a weapon, it needs someone to use it.

as for banning weapons here is some real facts you are unlikely to hear on the news.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun-violence/

since 1992 to 2011 the amount of violent crime has bee cut in half in the US. thats from the FBI database. Some of the initial posters on this very thread seem to think the US is dangerous. I have some news for you, its far safer then most of Europe. why is that figure interesting? well that when the US started to reduce the bans that were illegally in place. it also marked the rise in concealed carry permits. the other issue the stats prove is that urban areas are more violent, this is primarily related to gang crime and i might add takes place in cities like LA and Chicago. There is a reason why i mention these as an example...guns are banned in these locations. Also schools are gun free zones in the US? i know that sound ridiculous but its only exceeded in my mind that some people really believe banning guns on a wider scale will work. So if they are banned in these cities how come criminals have them?

now to the UK who banned guns. violent crime is 5 times higher then the US. the Uk is now the most violent place in Europe, dont believe me, goto their stats database. The UK also has a huge illegal weapons issue.

i totally agree that gun deaths are higher in the US but almost 50% of the figure is suicide (that sad statistic is from memory). Also the vast vast majority of those deaths occur in cities and are gang related. also included in these figures is cases that are completely legitimate, someone protecting their family for example.

the problem with banning guns is it wont affect people who decide to ignore the laws. Its illegal to kill, that didnt stop the shooter in the school -- so why do you think banning guns will? and before you say there has not been a rampage shooting in the Uk since the banning, well you have managed to forget about that nutter driving around the countryside from village to village shooting unarmed villagers. he only killed himself when the armed police showed up, which is again interesting.

its easy to pick on a gun as the issue. they are big and scary..but they are just metal and plastic until someone decided to use them for good or ill.

the harsh reality of the world is there are a lot of people who are not very nice. they are not like you. they mean you harm. they dont behave like you - they dont think like you. now you can go and say ban the big scary gun, but you are not facing the real problem. the UK has shown that -- they have had a massive increase in violent crime since the gun bans. in a dangerous situation between you and a criminal, only one of you is unarmed, only one of you is breaking the law. sorry but in a situation like that, i want the ability to equalise the playing field so i have a chance. we have been programmed to believe its guns that is the issue, it isnt. i know its easy to snap at something like that and say it all will go away but the harsh reality and the facts dont back that up. the psycho who shot the kids in norway and as for the bombing, well thats illegal ...guns are illegal there, guns are illegal in Mexico. honestly, do you really believe the cartels would get away with beheadings and murder if honest people at least had a chance of fighting for their lives? here in ireland we also have proof...although we have very limited access here and very restrictive access, who has guns and who does not? the crime families, the RIRA..they have them but you do not. if you believe they wont shoot you in a crossfire or mixup-- you are sadly mistaken.

the stats on guns is complex. beware people with simple solutions, they are neither simple or solutions. banning guns will be like banning drugs or alcohol. America has a current issue with a drugs war and disastrous one with alcohol banning. Again i might add it is worth reading the thought process behind the Volstead act. It was based on the crime stats, drink fuelled violence and violence against women. the unintended consequences of that are all too plain to see. the violence in Mexico is a direct result of the drugs war in the US. Guns will follow exactly the same path if banned.

America has a gun culture due to where it came from. to any who dont understand that may i politely suggest you read the second amendment and for those who believe that is not clear and wish to try and displace a comma to get a different meaning...read the federalist papers, the founders were very clear on why the population should have access. is there a cost to this, yes there is. the idea behind the second amendment is that it is there to enforce the first. it is interesting to me that the the very amendment the press survives under is the very press now fighting with dodgy statistics on gun crime. the bill of rights in the states is probably one of the most important documents in the history of man. it states that man has rights that do not come from government but your God (whoever that maybe). these rights cannot be taken away by government -- you have them the second you are created. yet here we are now, with a president who is going to use executive order to ban guns. an executive order from a single person, this is why the original founders created the amendment for in the first place. if it wasnt so sad it would actually be funny.

this issue is one of those where people are in one camp or another. having a logical conversation is nigh on impossible. for me, i truly wish it were as simple as ban this and it will go away. Honestly, if that were so, i would support it but history and information and facts show us otherwise. like all issues there is a cost to either decision. its slick to use the one liner, its slick to even use the death of these kids in this nightmarish shooting and they are been used, sadly by both sides both now and in the past. i have 2 kids so i truly cannot imagine the pain and hurt of this on those families. but the sad horrible fact is a psychopath killed their kids. the gun was nothing more than a tool. if history has shown us anything, it is that banning anything never works the way you expect..

i dont expect people to be converted but i would ask this one favour. if you are pro choice, think why? think does banning abortion work? if you are pro legalisation of drugs for example, think why? does the banning of drugs work, after all they are dangerous are they not? hopefully you may at least realise this is not as clear cut as sky news would like you to think. also i would ask this one small favour, do not listen to inept, idiotic hollywood or politicians as a leader on this, people whose job is to pretend to be someone else and another group who are in politics because they are to ugly for hollywood. the hilarity of the biggest hollywood names talking of banning guns who appear in the most violent movies in history or a slick politician simply telling you what you want to hear to get elected...both of which i might add will have armed guards regardless of a ban or not... i could call that cynical but honestly that does not do it justice. also please go check the stats yourself. they are freely available from the raw data.

Herb Powell · 11-01-2013 10:45PM

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

well i could not read 100 pages but it seems some people dont understand what the right to bear arms is about...
the right to bear arms is nothing to do with hunting, home protection or liking guns...the sole reason is to protect yourself from a corrupt government. there is a comment from the movie V for Vendetta 'a governemnt should be afraid of its people'. what most do not realise is that a modern update to a very old comment from Thomas Jefferson 'A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny'.

a case in point every single dictator that has existed (well at least all the current ones) have always done the same thing...they have banned guns. thats almost the first thing they do ranging from Hitler to Stalin to Mao.

a gun in just a tool, a weapon, it needs someone to use it.

as for banning weapons here is some real facts you are unlikely to hear on the news.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun-violence/

since 1992 to 2011 the amount of violent crime has bee cut in half in the US. thats from the FBI database. Some of the initial posters on this very thread seem to think the US is dangerous. I have some news for you, its far safer then most of Europe. why is that figure interesting? well that when the US started to reduce the bans that were illegally in place. it also marked the rise in concealed carry permits. the other issue the stats prove is that urban areas are more violent, this is primarily related to gang crime and i might add takes place in cities like LA and Chicago. There is a reason why i mention these as an example...guns are banned in these locations. Also schools are gun free zones in the US? i know that sound ridiculous but its only exceeded in my mind that some people really believe banning guns on a wider scale will work. So if they are banned in these cities how come criminals have them?

now to the UK who banned guns. violent crime is 5 times higher then the US. the Uk is now the most violent place in Europe, dont believe me, goto their stats database. The UK also has a huge illegal weapons issue.

i totally agree that gun deaths are higher in the US but almost 50% of the figure is suicide (that sad statistic is from memory). Also the vast vast majority of those deaths occur in cities and are gang related. also included in these figures is cases that are completely legitimate, someone protecting their family for example.

the problem with banning guns is it wont affect people who decide to ignore the laws. Its illegal to kill, that didnt stop the shooter in the school -- so why do you think banning guns will? and before you say there has not been a rampage shooting in the Uk since the banning, well you have managed to forget about that nutter driving around the countryside from village to village shooting unarmed villagers. he only killed himself when the armed police showed up, which is again interesting.

its easy to pick on a gun as the issue. they are big and scary..but they are just metal and plastic until someone decided to use them for good or ill.

the harsh reality of the world is there are a lot of people who are not very nice. they are not like you. they mean you harm. they dont behave like you - they dont think like you. now you can go and say ban the big scary gun, but you are not facing the real problem. the UK has shown that -- they have had a massive increase in violent crime since the gun bans. in a dangerous situation between you and a criminal, only one of you is unarmed, only one of you is breaking the law. sorry but in a situation like that, i want the ability to equalise the playing field so i have a chance. we have been programmed to believe its guns that is the issue, it isnt. i know its easy to snap at something like that and say it all will go away but the harsh reality and the facts dont back that up. the psycho who shot the kids in norway and as for the bombing, well thats illegal ...guns are illegal there, guns are illegal in Mexico. honestly, do you really believe the cartels would get away with beheadings and murder if honest people at least had a chance of fighting for their lives? here in ireland we also have proof...although we have very limited access here and very restrictive access, who has guns and who does not? the crime families, the RIRA..they have them but you do not. if you believe they wont shoot you in a crossfire or mixup-- you are sadly mistaken.

the stats on guns is complex. beware people with simple solutions, they are neither simple or solutions. banning guns will be like banning drugs or alcohol. America has a current issue with a drugs war and disastrous one with alcohol banning. Again i might add it is worth reading the thought process behind the Volstead act. It was based on the crime stats, drink fuelled violence and violence against women. the unintended consequences of that are all too plain to see. the violence in Mexico is a direct result of the drugs war in the US. Guns will follow exactly the same path if banned.

America has a gun culture due to where it came from. to any who dont understand that may i politely suggest you read the second amendment and for those who believe that is not clear and wish to try and displace a comma to get a different meaning...read the federalist papers, the founders were very clear on why the population should have access. is there a cost to this, yes there is. the idea behind the second amendment is that it is there to enforce the first. it is interesting to me that the the very amendment the press survives under is the very press now fighting with dodgy statistics on gun crime. the bill of rights in the states is probably one of the most important documents in the history of man. it states that man has rights that do not come from government but your God (whoever that maybe). these rights cannot be taken away by government -- you have them the second you are created. yet here we are now, with a president who is going to use executive order to ban guns. an executive order from a single person, this is why the original founders created the amendment for in the first place. if it wasnt so sad it would actually be funny.

this issue is one of those where people are in one camp or another. having a logical conversation is nigh on impossible. for me, i truly wish it were as simple as ban this and it will go away. Honestly, if that were so, i would support it but history and information and facts show us otherwise. like all issues there is a cost to either decision. its slick to use the one liner, its slick to even use the death of these kids in this nightmarish shooting and they are been used, sadly by both sides both now and in the past. i have 2 kids so i truly cannot imagine the pain and hurt of this on those families. but the sad horrible fact is a psychopath killed their kids. the gun was nothing more than a tool. if history has shown us anything, it is that banning anything never works the way you expect..

i dont expect people to be converted but i would ask this one favour. if you are pro choice, think why? think does banning abortion work? if you are pro legalisation of drugs for example, think why? does the banning of drugs work, after all they are dangerous are they not? hopefully you may at least realise this is not as clear cut as sky news would like you to think. also i would ask this one small favour, do not listen to inept, idiotic hollywood or politicians as a leader on this, people whose job is to pretend to be someone else and another group who are in politics because they are to ugly for hollywood. the hilarity of the biggest hollywood names talking of banning guns who appear in the most violent movies in history or a slick politician simply telling you what you want to hear to get elected...both of which i might add will have armed guards regardless of a ban or not... i could call that cynical but honestly that does not do it justice. also please go check the stats yourself. they are freely available from the raw data.

Utter bolloccks; didn't read

MadsL · 11-01-2013 10:47PM

Herb Powell wrote: »

Utter bolloccks; didn't read

Did you really need to post then?

If you can't be bothered reading I think there is a thread with just pictures in it somewhere.

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 10:48PM

MadsL wrote: »

So I should be forced to buy a weapon I am less comfortable with? My nephew's 95lb girlfriend could not pull the trigger on a S&W .357 revolver (DA, not cocked) last time we were at the range. If you allow self-defence as a reason to own a gun, as my State allows, should she be prevented from her choice of the most suitable gun for her needs?

Just because you feel a shotgun is adequate for you, doesn't mean a 95lb young girl could handle a 12 gauge comfortably.

Correct me if im wrong but not every handgun needs a 350 lb man to fire it. what about a 9mm M&P compact.

Im sure an AR-15 is a little big for a 95lb girl.

Ive no issue with someone defending themselves what so ever. If i had a gun and an intruder came into my house i would point it at his face and kindly ask him to leave.

Most people, criminals included will leave your property when faced with any type of firearm, unless ofc they have a death wish.

Fact is, by restricting the type of firearm you are allowed reduces the damage you can do. The guy literally made an entrance for himself in Sandy hook with his AR-15.

So if i feel im comfortable with a GPMG or Barrett M82A1, i should be allowed to defend my home with one?

Herb Powell · 11-01-2013 10:49PM

MadsL wrote: »

Did you really need to post then?

If you can't be bothered reading I think there is a thread with just pictures in it somewhere.

I did read it, I was just making a play on TL;DR.

If I didn't read it, how do you think I could have formed an opinion on it?

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 10:49PM

Blay wrote: »

You need a 'restricted' licence for one. You need reason for one like ya do for any firearm here but they're still available.

What reason would i give for needing a semi automatic rifle?

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 10:50PM

aaakev wrote: »

Restricted meaning you need to apply to the cheif super instead of just the super, anyone can still get one as long as you have a good reason

Again what reason would i give?

MadsL · 11-01-2013 10:54PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Correct me if im wrong but not every handgun needs a 350 lb man to fire it. what about a 9mm M&P compact.

Im sure an AR-15 is a little big for a 95lb girl.

Too big how?

As you are now getting in a discussion of felt recoil between a 9mm M&P (which I've fired by the way, have you?) and for instance AR-15 chambered in .22, I think you are getting a little out of your depth.

Ush1 · 11-01-2013 10:57PM

What about hand grenades or weapons grade plutonium, even a nice 50 cal, surely the right to bear arms covers that?

aaakev · 11-01-2013 10:59PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Again what reason would i give?

Targwt shooting disaplines that use semi auto would be one, hunting dangerous game such as boar on the continent where quick follow up shots are needed to stay on target would be another

MadsL · 11-01-2013 11:01PM

aaakev wrote: »

Targwt shooting disaplines that use semi auto would be one, hunting dangerous game such as boar on the continent where quick follow up shots are needed to stay on target would be another

If I were hunting boar, I'd also want a sidearm handcannon in .50 in case of a jam - those ****ers are scary when you piss them off.

clairefontaine · 11-01-2013 11:02PM

Fallschirmjager wrote: »

well i could not read 100 pages but it seems some people dont understand what the right to bear arms is about...
the right to bear arms is nothing to do with hunting, home protection or liking guns...the sole reason is to protect yourself from a corrupt government. there is a comment from the movie V for Vendetta 'a governemnt should be afraid of its people'. what most do not realise is that a modern update to a very old comment from Thomas Jefferson 'A government afraid of its citizens is a Democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny'.

a case in point every single dictator that has existed (well at least all the current ones) have always done the same thing...they have banned guns. thats almost the first thing they do ranging from Hitler to Stalin to Mao.

a gun in just a tool, a weapon, it needs someone to use it.

as for banning weapons here is some real facts you are unlikely to hear on the news.

http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/10/reasons-5-facts-on-guns-and-gun-violence/

since 1992 to 2011 the amount of violent crime has bee cut in half in the US. thats from the FBI database. Some of the initial posters on this very thread seem to think the US is dangerous. I have some news for you, its far safer then most of Europe. why is that figure interesting? well that when the US started to reduce the bans that were illegally in place. it also marked the rise in concealed carry permits. the other issue the stats prove is that urban areas are more violent, this is primarily related to gang crime and i might add takes place in cities like LA and Chicago. There is a reason why i mention these as an example...guns are banned in these locations. Also schools are gun free zones in the US? i know that sound ridiculous but its only exceeded in my mind that some people really believe banning guns on a wider scale will work. So if they are banned in these cities how come criminals have them?

now to the UK who banned guns. violent crime is 5 times higher then the US. the Uk is now the most violent place in Europe, dont believe me, goto their stats database. The UK also has a huge illegal weapons issue.

i totally agree that gun deaths are higher in the US but almost 50% of the figure is suicide (that sad statistic is from memory). Also the vast vast majority of those deaths occur in cities and are gang related. also included in these figures is cases that are completely legitimate, someone protecting their family for example.

the problem with banning guns is it wont affect people who decide to ignore the laws. Its illegal to kill, that didnt stop the shooter in the school -- so why do you think banning guns will? and before you say there has not been a rampage shooting in the Uk since the banning, well you have managed to forget about that nutter driving around the countryside from village to village shooting unarmed villagers. he only killed himself when the armed police showed up, which is again interesting.

its easy to pick on a gun as the issue. they are big and scary..but they are just metal and plastic until someone decided to use them for good or ill.

the harsh reality of the world is there are a lot of people who are not very nice. they are not like you. they mean you harm. they dont behave like you - they dont think like you. now you can go and say ban the big scary gun, but you are not facing the real problem. the UK has shown that -- they have had a massive increase in violent crime since the gun bans. in a dangerous situation between you and a criminal, only one of you is unarmed, only one of you is breaking the law. sorry but in a situation like that, i want the ability to equalise the playing field so i have a chance. we have been programmed to believe its guns that is the issue, it isnt. i know its easy to snap at something like that and say it all will go away but the harsh reality and the facts dont back that up. the psycho who shot the kids in norway and as for the bombing, well thats illegal ...guns are illegal there, guns are illegal in Mexico. honestly, do you really believe the cartels would get away with beheadings and murder if honest people at least had a chance of fighting for their lives? here in ireland we also have proof...although we have very limited access here and very restrictive access, who has guns and who does not? the crime families, the RIRA..they have them but you do not. if you believe they wont shoot you in a crossfire or mixup-- you are sadly mistaken.

the stats on guns is complex. beware people with simple solutions, they are neither simple or solutions. banning guns will be like banning drugs or alcohol. America has a current issue with a drugs war and disastrous one with alcohol banning. Again i might add it is worth reading the thought process behind the Volstead act. It was based on the crime stats, drink fuelled violence and violence against women. the unintended consequences of that are all too plain to see. the violence in Mexico is a direct result of the drugs war in the US. Guns will follow exactly the same path if banned.

America has a gun culture due to where it came from. to any who dont understand that may i politely suggest you read the second amendment and for those who believe that is not clear and wish to try and displace a comma to get a different meaning...read the federalist papers, the founders were very clear on why the population should have access. is there a cost to this, yes there is. the idea behind the second amendment is that it is there to enforce the first. it is interesting to me that the the very amendment the press survives under is the very press now fighting with dodgy statistics on gun crime. the bill of rights in the states is probably one of the most important documents in the history of man. it states that man has rights that do not come from government but your God (whoever that maybe). these rights cannot be taken away by government -- you have them the second you are created. yet here we are now, with a president who is going to use executive order to ban guns. an executive order from a single person, this is why the original founders created the amendment for in the first place. if it wasnt so sad it would actually be funny.

this issue is one of those where people are in one camp or another. having a logical conversation is nigh on impossible. for me, i truly wish it were as simple as ban this and it will go away. Honestly, if that were so, i would support it but history and information and facts show us otherwise. like all issues there is a cost to either decision. its slick to use the one liner, its slick to even use the death of these kids in this nightmarish shooting and they are been used, sadly by both sides both now and in the past. i have 2 kids so i truly cannot imagine the pain and hurt of this on those families. but the sad horrible fact is a psychopath killed their kids. the gun was nothing more than a tool. if history has shown us anything, it is that banning anything never works the way you expect..

i dont expect people to be converted but i would ask this one favour. if you are pro choice, think why? think does banning abortion work? if you are pro legalisation of drugs for example, think why? does the banning of drugs work, after all they are dangerous are they not? hopefully you may at least realise this is not as clear cut as sky news would like you to think. also i would ask this one small favour, do not listen to inept, idiotic hollywood or politicians as a leader on this, people whose job is to pretend to be someone else and another group who are in politics because they are to ugly for hollywood. the hilarity of the biggest hollywood names talking of banning guns who appear in the most violent movies in history or a slick politician simply telling you what you want to hear to get elected...both of which i might add will have armed guards regardless of a ban or not... i could call that cynical but honestly that does not do it justice. also please go check the stats yourself. they are freely available from the raw data.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the most famous slave owners and writers of the constitution, also believed that the constitution should be re written with each new generation, around every 20 years I believe. I wonder what he would say now about the bill of rights.

On the other hand rights are not absolute. Take the first ammendment, freedom of speech, child pornography is not protected under that. Caught watching that and you will be in a whole lot of trouble. So let's not be too hypocritical here about rights and freedoms.

You cannot understand America without reading the Federalist papers, but how many people read that? Not many.

I agree with you that this is a wider problem. Just because it's gangs [ahem young minorities and foreign gangsters] who are getting most of the wounds doesn't make it less of a problem. But yes, most of that is through illegal acquisition. And some if it is from borrowing it from your parents.

You cannot ban things like you can in Europe. It just does not work that way in the US. Americans don't tolerate it.

Was Lanza a psychopath? He has had no previous history of psychopathic behaviour. He was also a loner, a child of divorce and he was weird. He was a lot of things. Psychopathic? Calling someone crazy or evil is not going to help you get to the matter. They are now talking about prohibiting the mentally ill from having guns. Well, eh.... 2nd ammendment? The mentally ill don't have a right to defend themselves? And let's not forget that psychpathy is not a mental illness, it's a personality disorder.

America is a violent country [among other things- just for the sake of this particular response am iterating that], founded on violence, sustains the death penalty, glorifies brutality in the culture, loves power. Freedom comes with prices. You decide if you want to pay them or not. Some are willing to pay the price of 20 six year olds getting killed every once in a while, and others are not. So what do you do?

America, rule by example.

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 11:05PM

MadsL wrote: »

Too big how?

As you are now getting in a discussion of felt recoil between a 9mm M&P (which I've fired by the way, have you?) and for instance AR-15 chambered in .22, I think you are getting a little out of your depth.

Where did i state anything about recoil.

So you woud have me believe that a semi automatic rifle is not overkill when faced with an intruder.

Simple fact is a bullet can kill no matter what gun its fired from. If you lived in downtown Iraq, sure go buy an AK47, but you dont.

And lets face it, if i was gonna buy a AR-15, i sure as hell would not be bringing it on a kill spree firing .22 ammo.

You have totally missed my point:

Big gun firing lots of bullets does lots of damage.

Small gun not firing so many doesnt.

Is that simple enough?

MadsL · 11-01-2013 11:07PM

Ush1 wrote: »

What about hand grenades or weapons grade plutonium, even a nice 50 cal, surely the right to bear arms covers that?

Weapons grade plutonium is not a weapon, therefore not arms.

As far as grenades go, they are not illegal and you'd have to become certified to purchase/own explosives, and maintain a license. The kind of thing that companies who put on firework shows have to go through. And, you'd probably have to get a Class III firearm license, as well as pay for a Class 3 tax stamp iirc it's about $200 per bang, so a pricy venture.

As to .50 cal, a Desert Eagle would do me for the lawful purpose I described above...the oh shit moment hunting boar...those fuckers can break your ankle/leg in a heartbeat and require serious stopping power when pissed off.

StinkyMunkey · 11-01-2013 11:08PM

aaakev wrote: »

Targwt shooting disaplines that use semi auto would be one, hunting dangerous game such as boar on the continent where quick follow up shots are needed to stay on target would be another

Ive not come across many boar where i live, a few horses maybe....!

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments