Another mass shooting in the U.S

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU_m2glk3Ao

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

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?

You really know nothing about guns do you.

A .233 round (most common round) has 3.9 ft lbs of recoil, compared to almost double for a 9 mm (7.4 ft lbs) - your post is actually funny in its ignorance.

If my nephew's girlfriend seriously wanted a self defence weapon and she couldn't handle a shotgun or a handgun accurately, I guarantee she would be more accurate with the AR.

Here's an AR-15 being fired by a young girl. It is a perfectly acceptable weapon in her hands. Two hands and shoulder give it some advantages over a handgun for a light shooter. Plus with slim wristed people it puts the snap into the shoulder rather than the wrist so they flinch less.

Your big/small gun stuff is utter nonsense without understanding calibre, recoil and speed of target reacquisition. In fact, it is one of the most misinformed posts so far. Your post is simple alright, just not in the sense you meant it.

aaakev

My 5 yr old fired my 223 a few weeks ago, same cal as the AR15....

aaakev wrote: »

My 5 yr old fired my 223 a few weeks ago, same cal as the AR15....

I actually chuckled at that point. It cracks me up the people who think handguns have next to no recoil and rifles go off like cannons.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I know you can't buy an assault rifle in Ireland.

Actually, I meant both here and in the US.

As far as I'm aware, you can only buy a .22 rifle, .22 handgun or shotgun in Ireland since the brought firearm restrictions regarding handguns back into affect.

True only from 1972 to 2004; and even then, it wasn't the law, it was unofficial Garda policy (which the courts have since ruled to be Very Very Naughty) and it banned .22 handguns as well (you were allowed air rifles, .22 rifles and shotguns only).

My statement regarding defending yourself in your home, was being able to defend yourself by other means, I didn't mention a gun, which I probably should have stated.

Means does not matter, and never has under Irish law. When in extremis, you can use any and all means necessary to defend yourself (and you must only believe you were in immediate danger -- if, looking back on it from years later with 20/20 hindsight you can see that you were mistaken, that doesn't invalidate the actions you took in the middle of the night with incomplete data to hand).

Witcher

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

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

Hunting and target shooting like any other firearm.

The guy I mentioned that has the R25 has it to shoot deer I believe. Other guys on the shooting forum have them for target shooting, there are even disciplines for classic rifles..M1 Garands etc. Then there's a gallery rifle discipline for M1 Carbines. These are all centrefires, you can get a rimfire S/A as easy as you can get a shotgun..they're unrestricted so they only go to your district's super.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Firearms policy in Ireland:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

That website isn't as bad as others I've seen in terms of accuracy... but it still has quite a few serious errors and dozens of less serious ones (and we'd be here for a few hours if I went through it with a red pencil).

To be fair to the author though, there are a lot more Acts and SIs involved in defining Irish firearms law than he lists - at my last count it was closer to 22 acts than the five or six mentioned there - and as a result there are maybe two to three dozen people in the entire country (including solicitors, barristers and legislators) who have a working knowledge of Irish firearms law (and there have been calls from the Law Reform Commission and High Court Judges to fix that for years).

My name is URL

How come every thread about mass shootings turn into a discussion between 4-5 people about the technical specs and nuances of certain guns?

I read a funny tweet earlier about how Joe Biden was meeting with video game developers to discuss gun crimes.. someone compared it to him meeting with the makers of Hot Wheels to discuss car safety

MadsL wrote: »

You really know nothing about guns do you.

A .233 round (most common round) has 3.9 ft lbs of recoil, compared to almost double for a 9 mm (7.4 ft lbs) - your post is actually funny in its ignorance.

If my nephew's girlfriend seriously wanted a self defence weapon and she couldn't handle a shotgun or a handgun accurately, I guarantee she would be more accurate with the AR.

Here's an AR-15 being fired by a young girl. It is a perfectly acceptable weapon in her hands. Two hands and shoulder give it some advantages over a handgun for a light shooter. Plus with slim wristed people it puts the snap into the shoulder rather than the wrist so they flinch less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU_m2glk3Ao

Your big/small gun stuff is utter nonsense without understanding calibre, recoil and speed of target reacquisition. In fact, it is one of the most misinformed posts so far. Your post is simple alright, just not in the sense you meant it.

I get it, your not missing my point, just choosing to ignore it.

Everyone in America needs an AR-15 or something similar to defend their homes.

America will be safer once everyone owns a gun - the bigger the better.

Im sure the families of those childern in Sandy Hook will take comfort in the knowledge that your nephews girlfriend is well able to handle the recoil on a AR-15.

I take perverse delight in knowing that my 2 childern can go to school, and i wont get a phone cll saying some lunatic has gone postal with a semi automatic rifle.

Maybe you should arm the kids in school as well, that way you can eliminate bullying...!

BattleCorp

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.

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.

And Criminals would then know where to go to steal your guns.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

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

True, and you wouldn't use an AR-15 for hunting boar. What do you hunt with a .223 semi-automatic rifle in Ireland? Seriously? No jokes, honest answer?

Foxes.

Not joking, the .223 round was originally designed for shooting what the americans call varmints and what we refer to as vermin and what the law (at least here) refers to as unprotected wild animals (which means rabbits, foxes and the like). The .22lr round won't humanely kill foxes, it's not big enough outside of a few yards; shotguns aren't accurate enough outside of those few yards, it has to be a rifle round; and the ones designed for the job are all in and around the .22-.24 size range.

And the reason most foxing rifles are semi-autos are that if you miss the fox on shot one, you really need to get him quickly on shot two or they'll learn that you're shooting at them and vanish; and that's your free-range chickens rather stuffed at that point.

Sparks wrote: »

That website isn't as bad as others I've seen in terms of accuracy... but it still has quite a few serious errors and dozens of less serious ones (and we'd be here for a few hours if I went through it with a red pencil).

To be fair to the author though, there are a lot more Acts and SIs involved in defining Irish firearms law than he lists - at my last count it was closer to 22 acts than the five or six mentioned there - and as a result there are maybe two to three dozen people in the entire country (including solicitors, barristers and legislators) who have a working knowledge of Irish firearms law (and there have been calls from the Law Reform Commission and High Court Judges to fix that for years).

As i did state "as far as im aware", i accept that you would have a better knowledge of the understanding of gun law in Ireland. If not, you have no buisness being a mod on the firearms forum.

In Ireland there is not a gun culture. I myself have fired shotguns, .22 rifles and air rifles. I even went so far as to go to a firing range in New York, but discovered that without a back round check i wasnt aloowed to use said firing range.

I would like to own a firearm in a perfect world, have my pick. But i also understand that its not a perfect world, and more guns = more possibilties for more deaths.

Sparks wrote: »

True, and you wouldn't use an AR-15 for hunting boar. What do you hunt with a .223 semi-automatic rifle in Ireland? Seriously? No jokes, honest answer?

Foxes.

Not joking, the .223 round was originally designed for shooting what the americans call varmints and what we refer to as vermin and what the law (at least here) refers to as unprotected wild animals (which means rabbits, foxes and the like). The .22lr round won't humanely kill foxes, it's not big enough outside of a few yards; shotguns aren't accurate enough outside of those few yards, it has to be a rifle round; and the ones designed for the job are all in and around the .22-.24 size range.

And the reason most foxing rifles are semi-autos are that if you miss the fox on shot one, you really need to get him quickly on shot two or they'll learn that you're shooting at them and vanish; and that's your free-range chickens rather stuffed at that point.

Im not one for hunting tbh, i do enjoy shooting at targets that are inanimate.

My name is URL wrote: »

How come every thread about mass shootings turn into a discussion between 4-5 people about the technical specs and nuances of certain guns?

Because every thread on mass shootings starts off talking about the technical specs of guns but with so many factual errors that it sounds like a group of people who've never driven a car reasoning out how to draft the Road Traffic Acts based on their cycling and walking experiences.

And that's not to say that it's not understandable as to why people don't know the facts involved, especially in Ireland where for thirty years we associated firearms with either the Army, the Flying Squad or the 'Ra; but if you want to talk about something, you should be getting the details correct. If I had a euro for every time I've seen legislators make a mess of firearms law because of a lack of factual knowledge and not being bothered by not knowing those facts... well, I couldn't retire today, but I could buy a small second-hand car and a tank of petrol with the proceeds.

I mean, to give you an example, did you ever go to a stag or something like that and go paintballing for an hour? You know, the usual gig of twenty or so lads in their later twenties running around an acre of woodland in Wicklow pretending they're not seriously out of breath while firing half a tin of dulux at each other (but mostly at the ground and the trees) a teaspoon at a time?

Yeah, under Irish law that means you could be arrested and charged with breaking the Firearms Acts in at least two places, with a total possible sentence of fourteen years in prison and €40,000 in fines. Not because we think paintball is a serious social ill, but because legislators didn't know what size a paintball marker was.

Like I've been saying, the details matter.

BattleCorp

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.

All competition shooters here are members of the general public.

And yes, there are AR15s licenced here.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I get it, your not missing my point, just choosing to ignore it.

What point was that again? That a shotgun or a handgun is suitable for everyone and that these AR-15 'big' guns should be banned. I've just logically shown you that a shotgun or handgun may not be suitable for everyone. If anyone is ignoring points made it is you.

Everyone in America needs an AR-15 or something similar to defend their homes.

Where on earth did I say that??? Your point however seems to be analogous that we should force everyone to drive a Smart car because they use less fuel. Not everyone in America needs a pickup, but I'm about to throw some railway sleepers in the back of mine. Should I be forced to only have a Smart (that I drove in Ireland for 6 years because it was [appropriate.)

America will be safer once everyone owns a gun - the bigger the better.

Given that you have absolutely no clue what constitutes a 'big' gun how would you know? And where have I been arguing other than for individual right to chose if they own a firearm...not once have I advocated universal ownership.

Im sure the families of those childern in Sandy Hook will take comfort in the knowledge that your nephews girlfriend is well able to handle the recoil on a AR-15.

Oh I see. This is more about making some kind of retribution as an emotional response. My nephews girlfriend should have less options in her State guaranteed rights to defend herself because someone else did someone harm. Yes, I see that logic. A bit like keeping all the kids in at lunchtime because Lindsey would not stop talking. Yes. I see perfectly now how that is fair.

I take perverse delight in knowing that my 2 childern can go to school, and i wont get a phone cll saying some lunatic has gone postal with a semi automatic rifle.

I hate to break it to you but there is absolutely nothing in Irish law to prevent such a situation.

Maybe you should arm the kids in school as well, that way you can eliminate bullying...!

I see you don't want to have a sensible debate. Why is that?

My name is URL wrote: »

How come every thread about mass shootings turn into a discussion between 4-5 people about the technical specs and nuances of certain guns?

Largely because of exchanges like this one with StinkyMunkey. A reactionary response making inaccurate statements, followed by someone correcting the inaccurate statement and then the reactionary poster starts making wild emotional responses along the lines of gun owners being directly responsible for the evils of the world. Any attempt at reasonable debate descends into either absurd responses claiming things like arming kids as above or la-la-la can't hear you or you are a sick gun-nut comments.

Tiresome.

clairefontaine

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As i did state "as far as im aware", i accept that you would have a better knowledge of the understanding of gun law in Ireland. If not, you have no buisness being a mod on the firearms forum.

In Ireland there is not a gun culture. I myself have fired shotguns, .22 rifles and air rifles. I even went so far as to go to a firing range in New York, but discovered that without a back round check i wasnt aloowed to use said firing range.

I would like to own a firearm in a perfect world, have my pick. But i also understand that its not a perfect world, and more guns = more possibilties for more deaths.

You can get some very powerful weapons on line without a back ground check in the US. Anyone can get them and it's legal. It's in the link I provided earlier.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

As i did state "as far as im aware", i accept that you would have a better knowledge of the understanding of gun law in Ireland. If not, you have no buisness being a mod on the firearms forum.

Actually, being a mod had nothing to do with it; I was on the committee of one of the national governing bodies of target shooting sports (specifically the NGB that looks after olympic rifle and olympic pistol shooting) and the NGBs were involved in the legislative process for a few years.

In Ireland there is not a gun culture.

Well. Not in the sense that Dermot Ahern was referring to, at any rate. But we have won the World Championships (and several World Cups) in Olympic Shotgun shooting and we have several people ranking in the top hundred Olympic rifle and shotgun shooters in the world, not to mention considerable success in the other target shooting sports.
I'd say we had a different gun culture, and mostly it's kept itself to itself to the detriment of pretty much everyone - us because we get treated badly by government and society; and everyone else because they get bad laws and miss out on some great sports as a result.

I would like to own a firearm in a perfect world, have my pick. But i also understand that its not a perfect world, and more guns = more possibilties for more deaths.

Mathematically, probably. Practically? Not so much. If that was true, Switzerland would look more like Somalia than one of the better places in Europe to live.

Sparks wrote: »

Because every thread on mass shootings starts off talking about the technical specs of guns but with so many factual errors that it sounds like a group of people who've never driven a car reasoning out how to draft the Road Traffic Acts based on their cycling and walking experiences.

And that's not to say that it's not understandable as to why people don't know the facts involved, especially in Ireland where for thirty years we associated firearms with either the Army, the Flying Squad or the 'Ra; but if you want to talk about something, you should be getting the details correct. If I had a euro for every time I've seen legislators make a mess of firearms law because of a lack of factual knowledge and not being bothered by not knowing those facts... well, I couldn't retire today, but I could buy a small second-hand car and a tank of petrol with the proceeds.

I mean, to give you an example, did you ever go to a stag or something like that and go paintballing for an hour? You know, the usual gig of twenty or so lads in their later twenties running around an acre of woodland in Wicklow pretending they're not seriously out of breath while firing half a tin of dulux at each other (but mostly at the ground and the trees) a teaspoon at a time?

Yeah, under Irish law that means you could be arrested and charged with breaking the Firearms Acts in at least two places, with a total possible sentence of fourteen years in prison and €40,000 in fines. Not because we think paintball is a serious social ill, but because legislators didn't know what size a paintball marker was.

Like I've been saying, the details matter.

Very sensationalist, we both know as long as some muppet isnt running around a housing estate firing at people he is fine.

Its like once an airsoft rifle fires over a certain juole its classed as a firearm, hence the ban on imports from china.

I make it a point once im carrying my G36C in the boot of the car to make sure the mag in not in or either is the battery.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Very sensationalist, we both know as long as some muppet isnt running around a housing estate firing at people he is fine.

Its like once an airsoft rifle fires over a certain juole its classed as a firearm, hence the ban on imports from china.

I make it a point once im carrying my G36C in the boot of the car to make sure the mag in not in or either is the battery.

Here's an idea. Why don't we ban airsoft and paintball as they glorify gun violence on people.

I go to the range and shot holes in pieces of paper, you guys are gussied up in camo recreating wars and shoot at people.

That sound fair?

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Very sensationalist

No, very illustrative of the point I was trying to make.
Do you think the paintball situation is the worst mistake in the law, or do you think I chose it because more people would understand the context better, given the rest of the post?

BattleCorp

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Very sensationalist, we both know as long as some muppet isnt running around a housing estate firing at people he is fine.

Its like once an airsoft rifle fires over a certain juole its classed as a firearm, hence the ban on imports from china.

I make it a point once im carrying my G36C in the boot of the car to make sure the mag in not in or either is the battery.

I think you are missing Spark's point. Ill informed laws made as a knee jerk reaction to some public outcry or tragedy don't make for good laws.

You say that lads behaving themselves when paintballing won't be arrested. They could be. And strictly speaking, they would be breaking the law.

There's no ban on airsoft guns from China that exceed the joule limit. They just have to be fully licenced.

MadsL wrote: »

What point was that again? That a shotgun or a handgun is suitable for everyone and that these AR-15 'big' guns should be banned. I've just logically shown you that a shotgun or handgun may not be suitable for everyone. If anyone is ignoring points made it is you.

Where on earth did I say that??? Your point however seems to be analogous that we should force everyone to drive a Smart car because they use less fuel. Not everyone in America needs a pickup, but I'm about to throw some railway sleepers in the back of mine. Should I be forced to only have a Smart (that I drove in Ireland for 6 years because it was [appropriate.)

Given that you have absolutely no clue what constitutes a 'big' gun how would you know? And where have I been arguing other than for individual right to chose if they own a firearm...not once have I advocated universal ownership.

Oh I see. This is more about making some kind of retribution as an emotional response. My nephews girlfriend should have less options in her State guaranteed rights to defend herself because someone else did someone harm. Yes, I see that logic. A bit like keeping all the kids in at lunchtime because Lindsey would not stop talking. Yes. I see perfectly now how that is fair.

I hate to break it to you but there is absolutely nothing in Irish law to prevent such a situation.

I see you don't want to have a sensible debate. Why is that?

Largely because of exchanges like this one with StinkyMunkey. A reactionary response making inaccurate statements, followed by someone correcting the inaccurate statement and then the reactionary poster starts making wild emotional responses along the lines of gun owners being directly responsible for the evils of the world. Any attempt at reasonable debate descends into either absurd responses claiming things like arming kids as above or la-la-la can't hear you or you are a sick gun-nut comments.

Tiresome.

There has been no one going into a school killing childern and teachers in Ireland regardless of what the guns laws are here FACT.

I believe that to curtail the purchase of certain guns in America can only be a good thing.

What do you believe???

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Im not one for hunting tbh, i do enjoy shooting at targets that are inanimate.

There are a few target shooting sports that use the AR-15 (NRA HighPower shooting for example, which is one of the larger target shooting competitions around and I think the largest in the US). Granted, you can use other rifles in it, ranging from the M1 Garand to purpose-built custom jobs like the Tubb 2000:

But those things cost a lot and so most shooters use the cheaper - but still competitive - AR-15 models. And they all use the bullseye target design you'd be familiar with from air rifle or smallbore rifle shooting.

MadsL wrote: »

Here's an idea. Why don't we ban airsoft and paintball as they glorify gun violence on people.
I go to the range and shot holes in pieces of paper, you guys are gussied up in camo recreating wars and shoot at people.

In fact, we enshrined that in law. Section 4C of the firearms act, which basicly says "you will not pretend you're shooting at people, except where it's paintball or airsoft where you actually are shooting at people; under punishment of up to seven years in jail and €20,000 in fines", albeit in very badly phrased legalese which managed to ban an internationally-recognised sport in Ireland on the grounds that it looked scary (despite there not having been any accidents in formal target shooting in Ireland since records began in the late 1850s) but which never defined its terms well enough to know exactly what's banned and what's not (and there's a court case you'd never want to be on the recieving end of, when you basicly have to let the judge define what the crime you're accused of is so that he can tell if you did it or not... with up to seven years of prison riding on his or her decision).

MadsL wrote: »

Here's an idea. Why don't we ban airsoft and paintball as they glorify gun violence on people.

I go to the range and shot holes in pieces of paper, you guys are gussied up in camo recreating wars and shoot at people.

That sound fair?

Last i checked no one has gone postal with an airsoft rifle killing and maiming people.

Airsoft is exactly what it says on the tin, people running around playing War, the most you have to worry about is a cracked tooth or nasty bruise!

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

There has been no one going into a school killing childern and teachers in Ireland regardless of what the guns laws are here FACT.

And that's not because of the gun laws in Ireland. Also a fact. (Because since when did the 'ra or the gangs ever bother with gun laws?)

Now here's the logical pain in the arse. If the gun laws didn't prevent it; what did? And if the gun laws didn't prevent it, but this other thing did, then why would anyone try to fix the problem in the US using gun laws when they don't fix the problem?