Another mass shooting in the U.S

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 02:37AM

MadsL wrote: »

Which one looks most like violence to you? Answer honestly. I'm all ears.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDGJT7Fo92c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ-PZvFY98M

Exactly how many people where killed is those vidoe's - im all ears?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 02:37AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Simple question - do airsoft rifles kill?

Another simple question - is the semi automatic rifle you fire at a rifle range capable of killing?

Yes it is. Even empty I could have a fair stab at clubbing people to death with it. I expect you could club someone to death with your airsoft assuming it has some metal in it.

Simple question: could you kill someone with your car?

Y'know, you have been asking that question for some time now, has it not sunk in that the potential for harm is not the basis we use for allowing possession of something. As I pointed out I shave with straight razors which could have you dead in less that 2 minutes. Does your fallacy have to be pointed out to you all night?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 02:38AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Exactly how many people where killed is those vidoe's - im all ears?

.................aaaaaand once again you prove my point. You are not very good at this, are you?

Sparks · 12-01-2013 02:39AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Because i think thats America could do with stricter gun laws does not make me a troll.

No, it's the way that people post X and you post "so you want to kill children then?" as a response that makes you a troll:

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Ok, so let me ask you a question: Is your right to bear arms worth the life of a child??

And the way you completely ignore the content of peoples posts and ask if they mean the complete opposite of what they say. For example:

Sparks wrote: »

The point being that with the same item - an airsoft replica - you can either have a few lads running about having harmless fun of a summer evening; or you can have a few lads learning how to kill people. So just banning the item isn't a very good legislative response

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

So when i go out at the weekends palying at war, running around like a lunatic shooting poeple with my BB's, im actually being trained as SWAT?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 02:45AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I do not ignore whats posted, i simply post my views.

Because i think thats America could do with stricter gun laws does not make me a troll.

Maybe you should try spelling out what those laws should be and the reasons for them, because so far all you have managed to do is make a fool of yourself with regard to what is a "big" gun and revealed the fact that of the two of us, it is yourself that has a passion for running around pretending to kill people. All i do is punch holes in bits of paper. I don't need to dress up like a marine to do that either.

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 02:45AM

MadsL wrote: »

Yes it is. Even empty I could have a fair stab at clubbing people to death with it. I expect you could club someone to death with your airsoft assuming it has some metal in it.

Simple question: could you kill someone with your car?

Y'know, you have been asking that question for some time now, has it not sunk in that the potential for harm is not the basis we use for allowing possession of something. As I pointed out I shave with straight razors which could have you dead in less that 2 minutes. Does your fallacy have to be pointed out to you all night?

So we are in a debate about guns killing people and you start spouting out about fatalities caused by road accidents. I could kill you with a tea sppon, whats that got to do with people going into schools murdering people.

Ireland has 100's of people playing war at the weekend (airsoft), please name any of said people who have gone on to mass murder people?

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 02:47AM

Sparks wrote: »

No, it's the way that people post X and you post "so you want to kill children then?" as a response that makes you a troll:

And the way you completely ignore the content of peoples posts and ask if they mean the complete opposite of what they say. For example:

Airsoft does not kill people, am i wrong, who goes out playing airsoft and then onto mass killing, excuse me if i ignore something that is totally irrelevent to a debate.

MadsL · 12-01-2013 02:52AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Airsoft does not kill people, am i wrong, who goes out playing airsoft and then onto mass killing, excuse me if i ignore something that is totally irrelevent to a debate.

Ah but there is the potential that someone trains on airsoft, then goes and practices it for real using the skills he/she learnt. We should therefore ban it. After all, think of the children.

That is exactly the argument you have been trying to make about target shooting, hunting and home defence with semi-auto firearms.

Do me a favour and actually get your logic straight.

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 03:07AM

MadsL wrote: »

Ah but there is the potential that someone trains on airsoft, then goes and practices it for real using the skills he/she learnt. We should therefore ban it. After all, think of the children.

That is exactly the argument you have been trying to make about target shooting, hunting and home defence with semi-auto firearms.

Do me a favour and actually get your logic straight.

I could go out and kill with a knife/sweeping brush/screw driver/bottle/car/razor/etc etc etc..........!

Forgive me if im wrong in assuming we are talking about the hazards of high powered/semi automatic/high calibre firearms.

If your argument is i could go out and be hit by a car tomorrow, im sorry i just dont buy into it.

You can rest safe in the knowledge that an out dated law like the 2nd amendment will never fly over here. Just because its law doesnt make it a good one. I could dig up many a law from that period that you would laugh at.

You have your views and i have mine, we will never see eye to eye. Im a weekend warrior who likes to get his kicks running arounf like a kid playing at war. You on the other hand like to go down the firing range at the weekend and fire your semi automatic rifle at paper targets.

Mine doesnt, will not and cannot cause deaths.

Your semi automatic rifle can kill alot more people than a RTA!

MadsL · 12-01-2013 03:42AM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Im a weekend warrior who likes to get his kicks running arounf like a kid playing at war. You on the other hand like to go down the firing range at the weekend and fire your semi automatic rifle at paper targets.

Mine doesnt, will not and cannot cause deaths.

Your semi automatic rifle can kill alot more people than a RTA!

You don't do logic do you.
You want to ban firearms but are sticking up for war games that train active shooters how to avoid getting shot whilst at the same time you want to prevent defensive ownership and defensive instruction and practice that saves lives.

Lets say we do as you wish and ban semi-autos, would you be prepared to accept a ban on airsoft gear in exchange?

EZ24GET · 12-01-2013 03:56AM

Guns are a weapon of choice but guns in and of themself are not the cause of the problem , only a part of it. Why do we have so many people wanting to kill people? Not people they even know. Guns are available and that is unfortunate but we also have people pushing others into streets and off subway platforms, beating people with hammers, slashing with knives. For heavens sake we have people eating others faces. There is a problem , perhaps not as media prominent, but just as big, when people with mental illnesses go untreated, It is nearly impossible to have some one committed for treatment until they have harmed themselves or others. After is not acceptable. These people "self medicate" wander in the streets and there is no effort made to control them. I think we need to look at all causes. I have no idea what goes on in the shooters minds. Perhaps it was the sight of a gun that caused them to think "Hey I could kill someone" but I think it may have originated with "How can I kill someone?" and the gun seemed their best option. There was a recent story of a student making bombs to kill his fellow students. I'm not saying there shouldn't be gun control I'm just saying Please look at all sides of these problems.

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 06:54AM

MadsL wrote: »

You don't do logic do you.
You want to ban firearms but are sticking up for war games that train active shooters how to avoid getting shot whilst at the same time you want to prevent defensive ownership and defensive instruction and practice that saves lives.

Lets say we do as you wish and ban semi-autos, would you be prepared to accept a ban on airsoft gear in exchange?

Banning airsoft in Ireland will prevent US mass shootings - sounds reasonable.

Would I accept a ban on airsoft in Ireland to save one life in the states - in a heartbeat.

But you forget one thing, airsoft in Ireland has as much to do with mass killers/gun crime in the US as me sitting here typing does.

The issue here is not combat trained airsoft weekend warriors, but access to weapons of choice by the American public.

I've said my piece, I say stricter gun laws, you say car crashes and airsoft.

Manic Moran · 12-01-2013 08:23AM

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,

<snip>

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.

No, it was designed with the sole purpose of incapacitating humans on the battlefield. Killing them wasn't a requirement, just taking them out of the fight. The 5.56mm was chosen as the round which would ensure the greatest number of hits at battlefield ranges, due to a combination of ballistics, individual carrying capacity and recoil. The 7.62mm it replaced was far better at killing people. It's why 5.56mm is not legal to hunt deer in a number of States, it's not a particularly good killing round.

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.

What if I want to shoot out in unincorporated land and not at a range?
I'm going tomorrow with some colleagues from work (Granted, to a range, not wilderness, since I live in an urban area). I'll try to keep a count of how much I use. I'm going to bet my stockpile goes down a couple hundred. Incidently, I don't believe my local range actually sells ammunition. No place to lock it up, for starters, being a range, it's kindof out in the hills and unsecure.

Sorry, but I have a right to know who among my neighbours, lovers, parents with my kids share playdates keep weapons in the home.

I guess you can ask them. But if I trust them enough to take care of my daughter, they're probably trustworthy enough not to leave a loaded and chambered firearm where the kids can find them.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

So you need an assault rifle with large clips to defend your home 0.o

Need, no. But semi-auto carbines are arguably better than any other commonly accessible firearm for the job for a number of reasons. They provide the best combination of being more accurate, more likely to stop a threat quickly, less likely to overpenetrate, more flexible, and can be more easily equipped with aids like a torch. Although common popularity amongst the unwashed masses is that shotguns or handguns are good enough, a carbine is the best option for the owner who knows what he's doing.

In Ireland the law changed recently where you are actually allowed to defend yourself in your home.

Not true. Legislation changed. The law was already in existance.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Anyway, lets face it, it's hard to miss with a shotgun in close quarters.

One of the common misconceptions. The 'scatter' of a shotgun at typical in-home ranges is on the order of three inches in diameter. Absolutely devastating if you score a good hit, but not necessarily easy to do.

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

Between this and your previous posts, it seems to me that you know absolutely sod-all about firearms, don't you? The highlight of the Swiss sporting calendar is the Knabenschiessen, the State shooting contest for children using the Swiss Army service rifle (SIG 550, it's a little bigger and heavier than an AR). Ages 12-17, the national champion a few years ago was a 13-year old girl.

One 12-year-old girl shooting an AR-15 unsupported.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AkuSyrdWf8

Here's a 7-year-old girl shooting an AR-15, albeit from a supported position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk-qAlU4ODM

An AR-15 carbine only weighs 7.5lbs loaded, they are designed to be particularly light. They are more controllable than a 9mm pistol due to the lack of 'snap' when the recoil hits, and they also fire smaller bullets. The recoil is absorbed substantially by the rifle as well. We are not talking about Barretts here. We're talking about polymer furniture weapons using three points of contact and shooting small calibre rounds.

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

There is some debate on the .50 cal, it's an open question. I don't believe anyone is considering challenging hand grenades or plutonium.

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

1) No. You want to make the other guy not a threat as quickly as possible, using the best tool possible.
2) Find me anyone who has ever been convicted of overkill in a self-defense situation. (Clue. Never has been that I'm aware of) There is a threat, or not a threat. If you're using a firearm of any sort, you're using lethal force. You are not any more dead from ten 5.56mm rounds from an AR than you are from six .357 magnum rounds. Or even one .357 magnum round. Dead is dead.

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Ok, so let me ask you a question: Is your right to bear arms worth the life of a child??

I have a three-year-old. I will take whatever measures I can to ensure that (1) she will become a four-year old, and (2) she will become a four-year-old who still has a daddy and a mommy. Which means that I will defend ability to protect them and myself, particularly from those who don't follow the law and have illegally obtained weapons, and not relinquish that ability by handing in my legally-held firearms for fear of what I might do, and better yet, a fear based on faulty logic and generally ignorance on the actual capabilites of differing weapons.

NTM

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 02:25PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, it was designed with the sole purpose of incapacitating humans on the battlefield. Killing them wasn't a requirement, just taking them out of the fight. The 5.56mm was chosen as the round which would ensure the greatest number of hits at battlefield ranges, due to a combination of ballistics, individual carrying capacity and recoil. The 7.62mm it replaced was far better at killing people. It's why 5.56mm is not legal to hunt deer in a number of States, it's not a particularly good killing round.

What if I want to shoot out in unincorporated land and not at a range?
I'm going tomorrow with some colleagues from work (Granted, to a range, not wilderness, since I live in an urban area). I'll try to keep a count of how much I use. I'm going to bet my stockpile goes down a couple hundred. Incidently, I don't believe my local range actually sells ammunition. No place to lock it up, for starters, being a range, it's kindof out in the hills and unsecure.

I guess you can ask them. But if I trust them enough to take care of my daughter, they're probably trustworthy enough not to leave a loaded and chambered firearm where the kids can find them.

Need, no. But semi-auto carbines are arguably better than any other commonly accessible firearm for the job for a number of reasons. They provide the best combination of being more accurate, more likely to stop a threat quickly, less likely to overpenetrate, more flexible, and can be more easily equipped with aids like a torch. Although common popularity amongst the unwashed masses is that shotguns or handguns are good enough, a carbine is the best option for the owner who knows what he's doing.

Not true. Legislation changed. The law was already in existance.

One of the common misconceptions. The 'scatter' of a shotgun at typical in-home ranges is on the order of three inches in diameter. Absolutely devastating if you score a good hit, but not necessarily easy to do.

Between this and your previous posts, it seems to me that you know absolutely sod-all about firearms, don't you? The highlight of the Swiss sporting calendar is the Knabenschiessen, the State shooting contest for children using the Swiss Army service rifle (SIG 550, it's a little bigger and heavier than an AR). Ages 12-17, the national champion a few years ago was a 13-year old girl.

One 12-year-old girl shooting an AR-15 unsupported.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AkuSyrdWf8

Here's a 7-year-old girl shooting an AR-15, albeit from a supported position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk-qAlU4ODM

An AR-15 carbine only weighs 7.5lbs loaded, they are designed to be particularly light. They are more controllable than a 9mm pistol due to the lack of 'snap' when the recoil hits, and they also fire smaller bullets. The recoil is absorbed substantially by the rifle as well. We are not talking about Barretts here. We're talking about polymer furniture weapons using three points of contact and shooting small calibre rounds.

There is some debate on the .50 cal, it's an open question. I don't believe anyone is considering challenging hand grenades or plutonium.

1) No. You want to make the other guy not a threat as quickly as possible, using the best tool possible.
2) Find me anyone who has ever been convicted of overkill in a self-defense situation. (Clue. Never has been that I'm aware of) There is a threat, or not a threat. If you're using a firearm of any sort, you're using lethal force. You are not any more dead from ten 5.56mm rounds from an AR than you are from six .357 magnum rounds. Or even one .357 magnum round. Dead is dead.

I have a three-year-old. I will take whatever measures I can to ensure that (1) she will become a four-year old, and (2) she will become a four-year-old who still has a daddy and a mommy. Which means that I will defend ability to protect them and myself, particularly from those who don't follow the law and have illegally obtained weapons, and not relinquish that ability by handing in my legally-held firearms for fear of what I might do, and better yet, a fear based on faulty logic and generally ignorance on the actual capabilites of differing weapons.

NTM

The average house in Ireland is a three bed semi, I'm not joking when I say it would be hard to miss with a shotgun.

I'm sorry, I think semi auto weapon are overkill imo.

I have 2 kids and ofc will do whatever it takes to protect them.

Then again I'd not automatically shoot an intruder, I'd threaten them first, I'd only shoot as a last resort. I don't need a large gun to threaten tbh.

We are going around in circles here, I think stricter guns laws are needed - you guys don't. Lets just agree to dis agree.

Witcher · 12-01-2013 04:02PM

Here's well known Youtuber Hickok45 explaining how a shotgun patterns;

MadsL · 12-01-2013 05:04PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

The average house in Ireland is a three bed semi, I'm not joking when I say it would be hard to miss with a shotgun.

I'm sorry, I think semi auto weapon are overkill imo.

I have 2 kids and ofc will do whatever it takes to protect them.

Then again I'd not automatically shoot an intruder, I'd threaten them first, I'd only shoot as a last resort. I don't need a large gun to threaten tbh.

We are going around in circles here, I think stricter guns laws are needed - you guys don't. Lets just agree to dis agree.

Largely because you aren't prepared to learn anything from what people more knowledgeable than you have to say.

As to your contention that airsoft is harmless, consider that:

on October 11, 2007 in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, 14-year-old Dillon Cossey was arrested at his home in Plymouth Meeting after a friend told police about his plan to carry out a Columbine style attack on Plymouth Whitemarsh High School. After a police-conducted search of the Cossey residence, officers found a 9 mm Hi-Point Carbine(which he named "Reb" in honor of Eric Harris), over 30 airsoft guns, a dozen knives and swords, 7 homemade explosives(4 which were live), a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook, and several movies about the Columbine High School Massacre, all which were in the boy's bedroom. A .22 rifle and a .22 pistol, which were lent to another acquaintance for safe-keeping, were also recovered by authorities.

On March 11, 2009 in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. An eighth grade student who attended St. Andrew School in Drexel Hill was arrested after a fellow pupil he attempted to recruit for an attack tipped off authorities. The suspect was then pulled from class and later arrested. Shortly after, two airsoft pistols were found in his backpack, one of them looking very much like a real gun. The plan of the 13-year-old student was to force the school in lock down and shoot anybody who tried to escape.

Tim Kretschmer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting also possessed quite a number of airsoft guns.

If you cannot see any link between your activities and the actions of the deranged, then perhaps you might stop painting gun owners in the same light.

BattleCorp · 12-01-2013 06:08PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

So running around at the weekend taking part in a recreational activity when n one is harmed should be banned.

Are you high, when did i say a 70 yr old should just be cast out and left to the wovles.

I go out at the weekend with my real guns taking part in a recreational activity where no one is harmed.

And you reckon my shooting should be banned because I use real guns?

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 07:22PM

MadsL wrote: »

Largely because you aren't prepared to learn anything from what people more knowledgeable than you have to say.

As to your contention that airsoft is harmless, consider that:

on October 11, 2007 in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, 14-year-old Dillon Cossey was arrested at his home in Plymouth Meeting after a friend told police about his plan to carry out a Columbine style attack on Plymouth Whitemarsh High School. After a police-conducted search of the Cossey residence, officers found a 9 mm Hi-Point Carbine(which he named "Reb" in honor of Eric Harris), over 30 airsoft guns, a dozen knives and swords, 7 homemade explosives(4 which were live), a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook, and several movies about the Columbine High School Massacre, all which were in the boy's bedroom. A .22 rifle and a .22 pistol, which were lent to another acquaintance for safe-keeping, were also recovered by authorities.

On March 11, 2009 in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. An eighth grade student who attended St. Andrew School in Drexel Hill was arrested after a fellow pupil he attempted to recruit for an attack tipped off authorities. The suspect was then pulled from class and later arrested. Shortly after, two airsoft pistols were found in his backpack, one of them looking very much like a real gun. The plan of the 13-year-old student was to force the school in lock down and shoot anybody who tried to escape.

Tim Kretschmer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting also possessed quite a number of airsoft guns.

If you cannot see any link between your activities and the actions of the deranged, then perhaps you might stop painting gun owners in the same light.

I know guns kill people. Is that knowledgeable enough?

I know airsoft guns don't kill people. Please quote me where I said they where harmless.

I have learned things playing airsoft:

- Don't wear fingerless gloves, it hurts when you get hit on the finger.
- don't try run around with a GPMG, it's to heavy if its all metal.
- don't bring your cigarettes with you while running around a forest, they tend to get squashed.
- always buy your chicken roll before you set out
- don't go full auto in close quarters, it pisses people and the marshals off
- always bring a change of clothes, it's dirties the car if you don't.
- always remember to bring the knee pads, that old knee injury just can't do without them.
- that I wouldn't last pissing time in a real combat situation.
- people don't always stop firing once you call the hit.

This mean I'm now combat ready?

I watch the discovery channel and history channel on various different documentaries, including combat and tactics. Does this mean I'm combat ready.

I played various games on PC's including combat ones. This mean I'm combat ready?

Are you trying to convince me airsoft guns are as dangerous as real ones?

Because I think there should be stricter gun laws - I know nothing about real weapons killing people. Why do you insist that me going out the odd time at the weekend is the same as people who go out killing with real guns?

I don't own a real gun and have no intention of doing so.

Could I injury someone with my airsoft gun - YES
could I kill someone - YES, I could beat them to death with it.

What are the chances I could kill someone with a real weapon without even building up a sweat?

aaakev · 12-01-2013 07:24PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I go out at the weekend with my real guns taking part in a recreational activity where no one is harmed.

And you reckon my shooting should be banned because I use real guns?

Of course he will say yes because he is so comitted to this bul**** thread he will look like a bigger fool if he backs down now....

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 07:43PM

aaakev wrote: »

Of course he will say yes because he is so comitted to this bul**** thread he will look like a bigger fool if he backs down now....

I said stricter gun laws, how many times I have to say it - that does not mean an outright ban. Which part don't u understand?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 07:44PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

This mean I'm now combat ready?

Would you say you are better at airsoft than my 70 year od neighbour who keeps a .380 pistol on her nightstand? Would you say you are better prepared than her for a situation where police might be storming a building? Do you have a talent for taking cover in the best spots in a room? Do you have an understanding of where and when to move under fire?

All of those skills you have been honing by playing airsoft whether you admit it or not, yet you say my 70 year old neighbour owning a gun for protection is more 'dangerous'. Interesting viewpoint.

Here's a thing to consider. How would you feel if an Irish airsoft player went 'rogue' and became a mass shooter that you helped to "train". Would you quit the sport?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 07:45PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I said stricter gun laws, how many times I have to say it - that does not mean an outright ban. Which part don't u understand?

Which means what? As I asked earlier but you failed to answer. Is it a ban on "big" guns or semi-automatics? Pistols? Shotguns?

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 07:51PM

Let me put it this way:

I believe stricter gun laws will help curb gun related deaths.....!

What do you believe can be done?

Are the laws ok and don't need changing?

Is there no problem in the states with gun related deaths, should the powers that be just leave well enough alone?

MadsL · 12-01-2013 08:18PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Let me put it this way:

I believe stricter gun laws will help curb gun related deaths.....!

What new laws specifically?

What do you believe can be done?

Are the laws ok and don't need changing?

Is there no problem in the states with gun related deaths, should the powers that be just leave well enough alone?

I would link up the mental health databases to gun dealers by rule of law rather than convention and close the gunshow loophole

clairefontaine · 12-01-2013 08:21PM

MadsL wrote: »

What new laws specifically?

I would link up the mental health databases to gun dealers by rule of law rather than convention and close the gunshow loophole

That violates the rights of the mentally ill.

Lanza has no diagnosis of mental illness. You want private business owners to have access to confidential medical records on a database?

The 2nd ammendment is a right. If these people had no criminal record why should they not be allowed to hunt pheasant and defend themselves?

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 08:23PM

MadsL wrote: »

Would you say you are better at airsoft than my 70 year od neighbour who keeps a .380 pistol on her nightstand? Would you say you are better prepared than her for a situation where police might be storming a building? Do you have a talent for taking cover in the best spots in a room? Do you have an understanding of where and when to move under fire?

All of those skills you have been honing by playing airsoft whether you admit it or not, yet you say my 70 year old neighbour owning a gun for protection is more 'dangerous'. Interesting viewpoint.

Here's a thing to consider. How would you feel if an Irish airsoft player went 'rogue' and became a mass shooter that you helped to "train". Would you quit the sport?

It's a moot point, regardless of age, the guy standing there with the gun is more dangerous.

And if "what ifs where wings i could fly".

Regardless of what I do for recreation at the weekends, I'm always gonna be more dangerous with a real fire arm - which I don't own -.-

When someone in Ireland who happens to go postal and shoot up a school or the likes, get back to me and we will start a new debate,

BattleCorp · 12-01-2013 08:24PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Let me put it this way:

I believe stricter gun laws will help curb gun related deaths.....!

What do you believe can be done?

Are the laws ok and don't need changing?

Is there no problem in the states with gun related deaths, should the powers that be just leave well enough alone?

The problem is that most people's idea of stricter gun control is to ban them. That's why "we" in the shooting community have to come out fighting, so to speak, in order to try prevent our sport being cast in a bad light whenever our sport comes under attack.

Most people in the shooting community in Ireland agree that not everybody should have access to firearms.

A lot of our regulations are good, such as the requirement for safe storeage etc. To be honest, I think that our regulations are too restrictive in certain areas but that's my own personal view.

I've no problem with the principle of gun control, ..................but unfortunately, a hell of a lot of people not involved in the shooting community believe GUN CONTROL = BAN GUNS.

Gun control should mean rules and regulations to ensure that the guns end up in safe hands.

It definitely shouldn't mean BANNING GUNS.

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 08:25PM

MadsL wrote: »

Which means what? As I asked earlier but you failed to answer. Is it a ban on "big" guns or semi-automatics? Pistols? Shotguns?

That's for your country to figure out, not me. I'm not in a position to make new laws or even influence them.

Sparks · 12-01-2013 08:26PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Are you trying to convince me airsoft guns are as dangerous as real ones?

Actually, he was trying to point out that someone who doesn't know much about your sport could make a case for banning it that sounds logical to someone else who doesn't know much about your sport, but which sounds incredibly illogical, even irrational, to someone who does know something about your sport.

Which I think he did quite well, even if you missed it from the inside of the argument.

And I'm guessing that you'd miss the corollary, which was that the same is true of sports like target shooting or hunting, or of some non-sports, like using firearms for self-defence in the US.

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 08:35PM

MadsL wrote: »

What new laws specifically?

I would link up the mental health databases to gun dealers by rule of law rather than convention and close the gunshow loophole

So you do agree that something can be done to help with gun crime.

I don't know the in's and out's of US gun law. But I believe that if its harder for people to access certain types of weapons, it will in turn be harder to carry out mass shootings.

Regardless of what I think, these killings happen and will continue to happen if the issue of control in the states is not addressed.

Do I have all the answers - No!

All I can do is share my opinion. At the end of the day, nothing I say here will have any bearing or change opinions when it comes to guns in the US.

Guns in anyone's hands have the potential to kill or maim. Sure I play airsoft, what about kids playing games on the Xbox! Does that not teach the same sort of thing? But I'm not here to debate the effect that games contribute towards gun crime!

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments