Another mass shooting in the U.S

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 08:42PM

Sparks wrote: »

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.

Do airsoft guns kill?

Do real firearms kill?

Where is the connection between between airsoft in Ireland and gun crime in the US?

If they ban airsoft in Ireland ill just have to live with it, would I lose sleep over it - no!

I'm not talking about sport, I'm talking about people going postal in the states because they can access weapons that have the potential to do more damage than others.

To suggest an outright ban on guns in the states won't work, there are to many and you will never get them all.

Do you believe the states has a gun control problem?

Or am I just being too unreasonable?

clairefontaine · 12-01-2013 08:45PM

People go postal in the states because they are angry, alienated, and disconnected from others.

They probably think they are heros.

The American heroic model is part of this.

I would like to hear from the gun people what their solutions are because Joe Biden having a conference with the video game makers is pretty ridiculous.

Surface answers to surface questions.

BattleCorp · 12-01-2013 09:12PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Do real firearms kill?

Yes, real guns kill. But they don't kill on their own. They only kill if somebody points it at you and pulls the trigger. Sane, sensible, law abiding people don't go about pointing them at people and pulling the trigger.

If they ban airsoft in Ireland ill just have to live with it, would I lose sleep over it - no!

I'd certainly lose sleep if they banned the guns I use. I've invested a hell of a lot of time and money and effort to take part in my sport. A fully legal licenced sport which I am very passionate about.

I'm not talking about sport, I'm talking about people going postal in the states because they can access weapons that have the potential to do more damage than others.

I have a semi automatic rifle that I use to take part in shooting competitions. It has the potential to do harm, yes. Just like a car has the potential to do harm. Will it do any harm in my hands, no, only to pieces of paper.

To suggest an outright ban on guns in the states won't work, there are to many and you will never get them all.

You are probably correct there. There will never be an outright ban on guns in the States. An outright ban wouldn't achieve much to be honest as only law abiding citizens would hand up their guns. We have an outright ban on illegally held drugs and there are still drugs available here.

Remember this: If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

BattleCorp · 12-01-2013 09:18PM

I've a question on gun control that maybe somebody can answer.

Are convicted felons in the US allowed to legally licence a firearm?

aaakev · 12-01-2013 09:38PM

I said probably 40-50 pages ago a system somewhere between ours in Ireland and the US model would be good. I too think our system is too restrictive in some ways. We have over 230,000 legally held fireams in this country and very very few of them are used in any crime

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 09:43PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes, real guns kill. But they don't kill on their own. They only kill if somebody points it at you and pulls the trigger. Sane, sensible, law abiding people don't go about pointing them at people and pulling the trigger.

I'd certainly lose sleep if they banned the guns I use. I've invested a hell of a lot of time and money and effort to take part in my sport. A fully legal licenced sport which I am very passionate about.

I have a semi automatic rifle that I use to take part in shooting competitions. It has the potential to do harm, yes. Just like a car has the potential to do harm. Will it do any harm in my hands, no, only to pieces of paper.

You are probably correct there. There will never be an outright ban on guns in the States. An outright ban wouldn't achieve much to be honest as only law abiding citizens would hand up their guns. We have an outright ban on illegally held drugs and there are still drugs available here.

Remember this: If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.

If going forward the government restrict certain types of firearms, do you think that could help the present situation?

Is there a problem with firearms in the states?

I am aware that it takes a finger to pull a trigger. If more strict laws are in place to limit the opportunities that outlaws/people prone to use them against others are in place, is that a good thing?

BattleCorp · 12-01-2013 10:01PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

If going forward the government restrict certain types of firearms, do you think that could help the present situation?

Is there a problem with firearms in the states?

I am aware that it takes a finger to pull a trigger. If more strict laws are in place to limit the opportunities that outlaws/people prone to use them against others are in place, is that a good thing?

Who gets to decide which guns to restrict? Fair enough, fully auto firearms aren't needed by civilians but nearly all calibers of guns will have legitimate uses somewhere.

There's a problem with the wrong people accessing firearms in the States. I believe their system is too loose to be honest. All guns are safe in the right hands, no matter what type of gun it is. What the US need to do is bring in rules and regulations that try and ensure that the guns end up in the right hands.

Yes, strict laws are a good thing. Banning certain types of firearms isn't a good thing. Maybe restrict fully auto, but banning other types of guns only punishes law abiding sensible people.

Access should only be a right if you can prove you are the type of person who will use the gun properly (and keep it safe when not in use).

MadsL · 12-01-2013 10:28PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've a question on gun control that maybe somebody can answer.

Are convicted felons in the US allowed to legally licence a firearm?

Federal gun laws prohibit felons from having any contact with firearms and ammunition. Felons are prohibited from owning a weapon, and even touching a firearm is a violation of parole.

StinkyMunkey · 12-01-2013 10:46PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Who gets to decide which guns to restrict? Fair enough, fully auto firearms aren't needed by civilians but nearly all calibers of guns will have legitimate uses somewhere.

There's a problem with the wrong people accessing firearms in the States. I believe their system is too loose to be honest. All guns are safe in the right hands, no matter what type of gun it is. What the US need to do is bring in rules and regulations that try and ensure that the guns end up in the right hands.

Yes, strict laws are a good thing. Banning certain types of firearms isn't a good thing. Maybe restrict fully auto, but banning other types of guns only punishes law abiding sensible people.

Access should only be a right if you can prove you are the type of person who will use the gun properly (and keep it safe when not in use).

I agree with you.

But if certain types of weapons are restricted will that not in turn limit the carnage someone can cause when they come into possession of said weapons.

The average law abiding citizen like yourself will be paying for others crimes, as in they won't be able to access them weapons for recreation and sport. Is someone's passion more important than the risk certain weapons can come into the wrong hands!

Is there even a way to limit access to semi automatic firearms. Such as people can only keep them at the firing range under look and key, or they need a special permit to be able to transport them.

If people like to hunt, can the back round checks be tighter, I realise your not going to bring a small hand gun hunting. Or maybe some do.

There is always a middle ground, finding it is not always easy, but if lives are saved surely that's a good thing.

MadsL · 12-01-2013 11:49PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Do you believe the states has a gun control problem?

I believe that the US has a violence problem that they have been dealing with since some of it's urban areas became no-go areas in the 70s-80s. In the 90s police managed to get that under control and violent crime rates have been dropping rapidly since the early 90s.

Would you say the UK has a knife control problem?

In the UK, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down). In the US, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

source

StinkyMunkey · 13-01-2013 12:37AM

MadsL wrote: »

I believe that the US has a violence problem that they have been dealing with since some of it's urban areas became no-go areas in the 70s-80s. In the 90s police managed to get that under control and violent crime rates have been dropping rapidly since the early 90s.

Would you say the UK has a knife control problem?

In the UK, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down). In the US, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

source

I Won't argue with the statistics.

What's knife crime like in the states, I ask because I don't know.

Ill take my chances with a knife over a semi automatic gun thanks.

I'm not saying a knife won't kill me just as easy as a bullet, but at least I can outrun a knife.

Your not allowed to carry a knife in the UK, it's against the law. Do I think knife crime is a problem in the UK - yes.

I also think it is in Ireland to a point.

I also think drink driving is a problem, taking drugs, violence in our society, bullying in school et etc....!

The first part of your post go's some way in explaining to me why crime increased in the states.

Can we start a new thread and debate knife crime there please?

Manic Moran · 13-01-2013 07:43AM

As promised, a round count.

Started shooting about 1300, finished about 1530.
My supplies have been reduced by approximately, 50x .22lr, 60x 9mm, 40x .45ACP, 100x 5.56mm, 100x 7.62mm, 40x .303

It was actually a light day

Victor · 13-01-2013 07:51AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

As promised, a round count.

Started shooting about 1300, finished about 1530.
My supplies have been reduced by approximately, 50x .22lr, 60x 9mm, 40x .45ACP, 100x 5.56mm, 100x 7.62mm, 40x .303

It was actually a light day

390 rounds. How much?

BattleCorp · 13-01-2013 03:16PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

As promised, a round count.

Started shooting about 1300, finished about 1530.
My supplies have been reduced by approximately, 50x .22lr, 60x 9mm, 40x .45ACP, 100x 5.56mm, 100x 7.62mm, 40x .303

It was actually a light day

That'd be an expensive days shooting over here.

And an impossible one for me as I can't have a 9mm or a .45 handgun even though I'm considered safe to have other guns. Yet others on the firing line can have them simply because they have had them before November 2008.

Capt'n Midnight · 13-01-2013 04:14PM

MadsL wrote: »

In the UK, there was one knife crime commited for every 374 people (rounded down). In the US, there was one gun crime committed for every 750 people — less than half a gun crime per 374 people (about 0.4987 gun crimes per 374 people, actually).

That means that, based on these statistics, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK as you are to be a victim of gun crime in the US.

source

Very roughly - anyone got better stats ? - knife crime in the US isn't far behind gun crime. Do the UK stats include muggings where the victim handed over the wallet/phone without being assaulted as the US stats are for violence.

If so it would indicate that your chances of being heldup at knife point in the UK are comparable to being injured in the US.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

On average, each year U.S. residents were victims of crimes
committed with firearms at a rate of 4 crimes per 1,000
persons age 12 or older. Of the average 847,000 violent
victimizations committed with firearms, about 7 out of 8
were committed with handguns.
...

Annually during the 9-year period, about 570,000 violent
victimizations were committed with a knife or other sharp
object, accounting for 6% of all violent crimes. Thirteen
percent of robberies, 6% of assaults, and 3% of rapes
were committed with a knife or other sharp object.

From 1993 through 2001 crimes involving knives or sharp
objects were committed at an average annual rate of 3 per
1,000 persons age 12 or older. In 85% of these
victimizations, about 480,000 each year, the weapon was a
knife. In the remainder, about 88,000 victimizations per
year, the weapon was another type of sharp object.

The most dangerous types of knives are long pointy ones
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558080/

In 1669, King Louis XIV of France noted the association between pointed domestic knives and violence and passed a law demanding that the tips of all table and street knives be ground smooth.
...
Some commented that a point is useful in the fine preparation of some meat and vegetables, but that this could be done with a short pointed knife (less than 5 cm in length).

Has anyone mentioned smaller magazines yet ?

Or SciFi stuff like adding infra red sensors to guns so they won't fire if at something warm ( hunting rifles would be limited to bolt action ) - or maybe won't fire at a cell phone or even use the facial recognition technology used in cameras. Biometrics for the target rather than just for the shooter.

Potential market is a hundred million devices each of which costs more than smartphones that already have the potential to use these technologies.

Sparks · 13-01-2013 04:42PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Has anyone mentioned smaller magazines yet ?

It's been pointed out that they're a red herring because of how fast you can change magazines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67PNOuj93w

Or SciFi stuff

That stuff really is science fiction I'm afraid.

BattleCorp · 13-01-2013 05:12PM

Sparks wrote: »

That stuff really is science fiction I'm afraid.

Although Capt'n Midnight's post was about biometrics for the target, we are probably not as far away as you think from biometric grips on firearms. It's not that far fetched. There are plenty of different manufacturers making biometric devices now. They are on safes, laptops and plenty of other stuff.

Soon they will be small enough to fit into the grip/stock of a rifle. Actually, I saw a very small USB fingerprint scanner that would easily fit into the stock of a rifle.

Fair enough, we are not there yet, but we aren't all that far off.

Sparks · 13-01-2013 05:18PM

Grips, maybe, but frankly I wouldn't trust them. You can beat the best fingerprint readers in the world with a gummi bear for pete's sake.

BattleCorp · 13-01-2013 05:22PM

Sparks wrote: »

Grips, maybe, but frankly I wouldn't trust them. You can beat the best fingerprint readers in the world with a gummi bear for pete's sake.

True. There are ways around pretty much everything.

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 02:44AM

Sparks wrote: »

It's been pointed out that they're a red herring because of how fast you can change magazines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z67PNOuj93w

That stuff really is science fiction I'm afraid.

If the amount of magazines you can own was limited, that solves that.

Witcher · 14-01-2013 02:50AM

pabloh999 wrote: »

If the amount of magazines you can own was limited, that solves that.

Who would monitor the amount you have?

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 02:55AM

Blay wrote: »

Who would monitor the amount you have?

Police Department.

Witcher · 14-01-2013 02:57AM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Police Department.

Explain for us all how that system would work.

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 03:02AM

Ive said this earlier

pabloh999 wrote: »

Guns specificaly for home protection should have serious limits on the number of rounds kept at home.
Guns for sport, target practice etc should have ALL ammo stored in whatever shooting facility you attend

Obviously there would be exceptions, like rural areas might have slightly looser rules etc

Manic Moran · 14-01-2013 03:05AM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Ive said this earlier

Obviously there would be exceptions, like rural areas might have slightly looser rules etc

That wasn't the question he asked.

How would the police department monitor such a thing?

Witcher · 14-01-2013 03:09AM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Ive said this earlier

Obviously there would be exceptions, like rural areas might have slightly looser rules etc

But the crucial thing is that nobody in the US would accept that law, to my knowledge no other nation on Earth limits the amount of magazines one can hold. If it was as easy as bringing the hammer down on guns in the US then past presidents would have done it but they haven't done it because the NRA etc. would break them. Firearms owners are not a niche group in the US, they wield the most power of any lobby group, right now Joe Biden is running legislation by the NRA to see if they'll accept it...anywhere else it would just be imposed and that's it.

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 03:21AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

That wasn't the question he asked.

How would the police department monitor such a thing?

You want ammo for home protection?
Go to your local police station and apply. You get a small supply.
You shoot at a range? The range keep all the ammo safe and secure onsite.
They may have to improve facilities.
It would require changes, planning and enforcement
It would cost money.
Obviously different regions would have variations
If ammo was monitored would it not help ?

But i think any rational person would agree things should have to change

Are guns not a part of gun deaths?
Are school massacres all part of the population owning guns?
Collateral damage is it?

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 03:27AM

Blay wrote: »

But the crucial thing is that nobody in the US would accept that law, to my knowledge no other nation on Earth limits the amount of magazines one can hold. If it was as easy as bringing the hammer down on guns in the US then past presidents would have done it but they haven't done it because the NRA etc. would break them. Firearms owners are not a niche group in the US, they wield the most power of any lobby group, right now Joe Biden is running legislation by the NRA to see if they'll accept it...anywhere else it would just be imposed and that's it.

Perhaps, but the numbers of gun deaths is just not normal for a civilized society and something really need to change.
How the population just accept this is a bit frustrating.
Guns are big business and money talks and all that

It wasn't me! · 14-01-2013 03:42AM

Did you not see the part earlier about ranges being built in locations which are good for ranges and therefore in the middle of nowhere, meaning that storing a big pile of firearms and ammo there is just like putting them out in a basket on the street with a "steal me" sign next to them? No security system will stop a determined person with time to work getting to whatever's behind it, so when you put these stockpiles out in the middle of nowhere (which have crap policing for the most part), they're going to get robbed by people who don't care what the law is in the first place.

The answer is not going to be to do with limiting firearms. There are countries in Europe, within the EU, which allow for private civilian ownership of full automatic firearms more easily than most of the US IIRC (Belgium and Luxembourg), some allow carriage of concealed firearms for self-defence, most have relatively liberal, well structured firearms legislation which allows for ownership of more or less whatever you could want, without restrictions like ammunition or magazine numbers, or calibre limitations, or extra restrictions on semi-automatic firearms or anything of the sort, without the problems the US has.

This seems to indicate that neither the type nor number of firearms are the issue. Now, perhaps attitude to firearms as a component of a larger social issue (and by issue I mean big box of issues) is part of the problem, but removing firearms or reducing their numbers will not change the attitude towards them. Therefore, suggesting any such thing is just skirting the actual issue, which makes no sense. You have an open wound and it's infected. Looking at the guns as the issue is like stitching up that wound without treating the infection. You've hidden the issue from yourself, but it's still there and it's only ever going to get worse for it. Europe doesn't have this problem, despite there being plenty of guns, try figure out why that is, then fix whatever the difference is.

Sparks · 14-01-2013 03:46AM

pabloh999 wrote: »

You want ammo for home protection?
Go to your local police station and apply. You get a small supply.

We've explained why that would be a bad thing earlier in this thread.

You shoot at a range? The range keep all the ammo safe and secure onsite.

And we've mentioned earlier in this thread that even the police think this would be a really bad idea.

But i think any rational person would agree things should have to change

Yes; but they wouldn't necessarily think that simplistic gun bans were going to fix anything, and given the expense and effort involved in imposing them, a rational person would need to be sure beforehand that they at least had a good chance of working. And when the CDC and the NAS both say that nobody knows how to fix the problem yet, rational people ought to be calling for further study to find the solution, not just random changes in the law in the hope that the solution would be found through random blind chance.

Are school massacres all part of the population owning guns?
Collateral damage is it?

No, just really rare and unrepresentative. They're like airline crashes - they're horrible, nobody dismisses them as irrelevant and any measure that would prevent them should be taken (and don't just jump in here and say "ban guns" without so much as reading the last paragraph please); but all the mass shootings from 2012 combined - and it was the worst year on record since 1998 for mass shootings - came to 140 killed and injured. That is, without taking away anything from the emotions of those involved, not even 1% of the firearms homicides in the US in that year; and not even 0.5% of the overall number of firearms-related deaths.

You just can't look at a mass shooting and think that that's the norm, because it just isn't.

pabloh999 wrote: »

Perhaps, but the numbers of gun deaths is just not normal for a civilized society and something really need to change.
How the population just accept this is a bit frustrating.
Guns are big business and money talks and all that

Hold up here a moment pablo. We do exactly the same thing in Ireland.
Don't believe me? Read the comments on this Journal.ie article about an 18-year-old who was shot in the middle of Dublin yesterday:

Lock up criminals reduce crime.

And apparently the guy that was shot has also done some shooting himself

well it safe to say he didnt get shot for been a alter boy

Simple fact of the matter is that it’s all in the upbringing of the child. If the child us brought up to be respectful and caring the child will turn out to be just that. If the child is brought up to be disrespectful and a pup….. Well you know the rest.

RTE news say victim was a teenager; shot in head and neck.

Another drug deal gone bad.

You can’t blame the murders, robberies, thefts, shootings and knifing on just one thing…. I believe it is related to many things. Yes there are many influences that hoovers around this country…. But I think we can only blame ourselves. We have a culture in Ireland where children can do no wrong… “Especially my kids”. If a child breaks the law or is involved in anti-social behavior, the child is released to the parents. In many cases the parents are as bad as the children. In other cases, the parent sees it as “children will be children”. This is not good enough.

No end to this violence and what does the government decide is the right thing to do ??? Stop Garda recruitment and all the while Gardai are retiring and leaving the force.

Seriously, there's an entire page on there of the same people who were saying the US were stupid for not immediately banning guns as that was the obvious solution to their high gun crime level... but there they're saying that Ireland's gun crime level has deeply rooted and complex social causes and that personal responsibility and policing are good solutions. Not one person mentioned banning guns as a solution.

Now, are they all thick, or are they correct in thinking that the problem's not simple; and if it's not simple for us, why would it be simple for the Americans?

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments