Another mass shooting in the U.S

MadsL · 14-01-2013 05:17AM

Sparks wrote: »

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?

Ah c'mon Sparks - it's great craic to have a go at the Yanks...

BattleCorp · 14-01-2013 01:06PM

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

Is Switzerland not a civilised society? They don't have a history of people going into schools and murdering children and they have an incredibly high number of guns in that country.

It's all down to attitude. It's not in the Swiss psyche to do mental stuff like gunning down kids even though they have access to pretty much the same guns as are available in America.

Why is that? Logic tells me that it isn't the guns as both countries have access to similar guns.

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 04:02PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is Switzerland not a civilised society? They don't have a history of people going into schools and murdering children and they have an incredibly high number of guns in that country.

It's all down to attitude. It's not in the Swiss psyche to do mental stuff like gunning down kids even though they have access to pretty much the same guns as are available in America.

Why is that? Logic tells me that it isn't the guns as both countries have access to similar guns.

Perhaps,as i said earlier, Americans cannot handle the responsibilty lke the Swiss can.

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 04:07PM

Sparks wrote: »

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

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:

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?

Not really sure what your on about there?
But if you are comparing some drug dealers shooting each other to innocent kids/adults getting gunned down for no reason, then you really need your head examined

Sparks · 14-01-2013 04:08PM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Perhaps,as i said earlier, Americans cannot handle the responsibilty lke the Swiss can.

We could hope you're incorrect, given that they have one of the largest nuclear arsenals and one of the largest armed forces in the world...

My name is URL · 14-01-2013 04:09PM

Sparks wrote: »

We could hope you're incorrect, given that they have one of the largest nuclear arsenals and one of the largest armed forces in the world...

And a not-so-exemplary record to go along with it!

Sparks · 14-01-2013 04:19PM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Not really sure what your on about there?

I thought it was fairly clear - we've been lambasting the Americans, particularly the NRA and similar groups, because they say that a simplistic ban on firearms is not a way to address the problems of gun violence because the problem is complex. However, when confronted with gun violence in our own country, we are very quick to say that the problems are very complex. The irony is not terribly subtle there.

But if you are comparing some drug dealers shooting each other to innocent kids/adults getting gunned down for no reason, then you really need your head examined

It would be nice if you read my posts instead of skimming over them and imagining what I said.

What I said was that you cannot look at mass shootings in the US as the model on which to base your approach to the problem of gun violence in the US, purely because they account for such a tiny portion of the problem (less than 1% if you only consider firearms homicides, less than 0.5% if you consider all firearms-related deaths). You can't ignore or discount that 1%, but you can't ignore or discount the 99% either.

That 15,000 statistic - the number of people killed with firearms in the US in 2012 - how many of those do you think were precisely the same as the shooting in Dublin yesterday? And why do we think of shootings like yesterdays as being somehow different from mass shootings in terms of where they belong in the statistics? Is there anything to learn from the bias we show there?

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 04:21PM

Sparks wrote: »

We could hope you're incorrect, given that they have one of the largest nuclear arsenals and one of the largest armed forces in the world...

Well thankfully not every fool on the street has access to nuclear warheads.

Sparks · 14-01-2013 04:23PM

pabloh999 wrote: »

Well thankfully not every fool on the street has access to nuclear warheads.

No, they just all have a vote as to who gets access to the nuclear warheads...

curlzy · 14-01-2013 04:24PM

Ok, so after 111 pages what's been agreed?

pabloh999 · 14-01-2013 04:24PM

Sparks wrote: »

I thought it was fairly clear - we've been lambasting the Americans, particularly the NRA and similar groups, because they say that a simplistic ban on firearms is not a way to address the problems of gun violence because the problem is complex. However, when confronted with gun violence in our own country, we are very quick to say that the problems are very complex. The irony is not terribly subtle there.

It would be nice if you read my posts instead of skimming over them and imagining what I said.

What I said was that you cannot look at mass shootings in the US as the model on which to base your approach to the problem of gun violence in the US, purely because they account for such a tiny portion of the problem (less than 1% if you only consider firearms homicides, less than 0.5% if you consider all firearms-related deaths). You can't ignore or discount that 1%, but you can't ignore or discount the 99% either.

That 15,000 statistic - the number of people killed with firearms in the US in 2012 - how many of those do you think were precisely the same as the shooting in Dublin yesterday? And why do we think of shootings like yesterdays as being somehow different from mass shootings in terms of where they belong in the statistics? Is there anything to learn from the bias we show there?

To be honest no one really cares all that much when drug dealers etc kill each other. Its when innocents get gunned down thats when there is public outcry. If we could freely buys guns, like in the US and we had school massacre after school massare you can bet itwould get real simple.

InTheTrees · 14-01-2013 04:25PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

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

That doesnt really make sense without specifying the size of the bullets.

A .22 rifle would be more useful as a club against intruders so its most certainly not overkill.

(Besides dont you want "overkill" when faced with an attacker? I certainly do.)

Adamcp898 · 14-01-2013 04:27PM

curlzy wrote: »

Ok, so after 111 pages what's been agreed?

Guns for some, miniature American flag's for others!

curlzy · 14-01-2013 04:28PM

I keep my opinion on this simple: Guns kill people, guns are bad, m'kay?

Sparks · 14-01-2013 04:36PM

pabloh999 wrote: »

To be honest no one really cares all that much when drug dealers etc kill each other. Its when innocents get gunned down thats when there is public outcry.

And right there you have a summary of the US situation. That 15,000 figure? It's pointed at from the outside as saying "this is direct proof that you need to ban guns", but it's thought of there the same way we think of our gangland killings.

Sparks · 14-01-2013 04:37PM

curlzy wrote: »

I keep my opinion on this simple: Guns kill people, guns are bad, m'kay?

Personally, my simple take on this is that simple takes on complex problems are for the simple-minded...

StinkyMunkey · 16-01-2013 09:44PM

Thoughts on the new gun law proposals?

Personally thinks its a step in the right direction.

MadsL · 16-01-2013 09:55PM

Today, the President is announcing that he and the Administration will:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevantdata available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health InsurancePortability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3.Improve incentives for states to share information with the background checksystem.

4.Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited fromhaving a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full backgroundcheck on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product SafetyCommission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace gunsrecovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11.Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers

No issues with any of these - except 16. which I'm unclear as to the purpose.

I'm glad Obama seems to be taking a practical approach, rather than NY's frankly silly "take 3 bullets" out of the gun nonsense.

BattleCorp · 16-01-2013 10:07PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Thoughts on the new gun law proposals?

Personally thinks its a step in the right direction.

More background checks = good.

Assault weapon ban = depends on what they define as an assault weapon.

Limiting Mags to 10 rounds = not much use as you can change a magazine in a second or two. Plus what do they do with the millions of large capacity magazines out there already.

Banning armoured piercing bullets by all except police = no problem with this.

Increased penalties for people who buy guns for other people = good.

More info for background checks etc = I've no problems with it but civil liberty groups might have.

Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime = Shouldn't they be doing this already?

Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence = What has the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention got to do with gun violence?????

There are a few more but as I'm not an American citizen, I can't really comment as I don't understand some of the stuff he is proposing.

Just my two cents.

StinkyMunkey · 16-01-2013 10:09PM

What about the proposal to reinstate the ban on military assault style weapons.

As one person said "why does a civilian need a military assault style weapon".

I'm assuming it means prevent future sale off those type of weapons. Does this mean if you already own one, you don't have to worry about it being taken off you?

Witcher · 16-01-2013 10:12PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

What about the proposal to reinstate the ban on military assault style weapons.

As one person said "why does a civilian need a military assault style weapon".

I'm assuming it means prevent future sale off those type of weapons. Does this mean if you already own one, you don't have to worry about it being taken off you?

The last ban was useless...semi auto's were still available..they just had bayonet lugs and flashiders removed. The rifle was still functionally the same.

Existing rifles were grandfathered under the last ban and they will be this time too...trying to round them up is a futile endeavour and I have no doubt people would be killed in the attempt.

BattleCorp · 16-01-2013 10:13PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

What about the proposal to reinstate the ban on military assault style weapons.

As one person said "why does a civilian need a military assault style weapon".

I'm assuming it means prevent future sale off those type of weapons. Does this mean if you already own one, you don't have to worry about it being taken off you?

Here's the thing. What do you define as a military style assault weapon?

Is it a fully automatic rifle, semi automatic rifle, bolt action rifle that looks like what you think an assault rifle should look like, etc?

You can't say getting rid of assault rifles is good until you know exactly what they mean by assault rifle.

Sparks · 16-01-2013 10:15PM

Those look good to me, I especially like #14 and the $10 million he's pointing at it.

The 10-round magazines and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, on the other hand, seem like either a total waste of time (the federal ban was in place during Columbine, and the state level ban was in place during Sandy Hook) or a canny choice for an ablative element in the package.

StinkyMunkey · 16-01-2013 10:16PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

More background checks = good.

Assault weapon ban = depends on what they define as an assault weapon.

Limiting Mags to 10 rounds = not much use as you can change a magazine in a second or two. Plus what do they do with the millions of large capacity magazines out there already.

Banning armoured piercing bullets by all except police = no problem with this.

Increased penalties for people who buy guns for other people = good.

More info for background checks etc = I've no problems with it but civil liberty groups might have.

Maximizing enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime = Shouldn't they be doing this already?

Issuing a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to research gun violence = What has the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention got to do with gun violence?????

There are a few more but as I'm not an American citizen, I can't really comment as I don't understand some of the stuff he is proposing.

Just my two cents.

Is an assault style weapon not a gun that the military or law enforcement would utilise?

There are a lot of different types of guns, in sure they will come up with a way to categorise what falls under the assault style weapon.

MadsL · 16-01-2013 10:18PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Is an assault style weapon not a gun that the military or law enforcement would utilise?

Most police now carry Glock, Sig or S&W semi-auto pistols. Is that what you mean?

There are a lot of different types of guns, in sure they will come up with a way to categorise what falls under the assault style weapon.

Well, they failed pretty badly at it last time.

BattleCorp · 16-01-2013 10:19PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Is an assault style weapon not a gun that the military or law enforcement would utilise?

There are a lot of different types of guns, in sure they will come up with a way to categorise what falls under the assault style weapon.

Military snipers might use a bolt action rifle. Do you ban bolt action rifles?

I've no problem banning fully automatic rifles. That's what I would personally class as an assault rifle.

StinkyMunkey · 16-01-2013 10:21PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Here's the thing. What do you define as a military style assault weapon?

Is it a fully automatic rifle, semi automatic rifle, bolt action rifle that looks like what you think an assault rifle should look like, etc?

You can't say getting rid of assault rifles is good until you know exactly what they mean by assault rifle.

Lets face it, no law they put in place will totally eliminate the possibility of another sandy hook. But stricter rules regarding guns will make it harder. Once your a law abiding person, all this means is the hassle of having to go through more checks.

As I've said, I'm sure they will categorise weapons! Whether they get it right, that's to be seen.

Witcher · 16-01-2013 10:23PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Is an assault style weapon not a gun that the military or law enforcement would utilise?

There are a lot of different types of guns, in sure they will come up with a way to categorise what falls under the assault style weapon.

The Israeli Defence Forces use Ruger 10/22's..they're one of the most popular rimfire rifles in the world..ya can't take them off people because some military somewhere uses it.

StinkyMunkey · 16-01-2013 10:24PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Military snipers might use a bolt action rifle. Do you ban bolt action rifles?

I've no problem banning fully automatic rifles. That's what I would personally class as an assault rifle.

I'm not the one who will make that call.

MadsL · 16-01-2013 10:26PM

Blay wrote: »

The Israeli Defence Forces use Ruger 10/22's..they're one of the most popular rimfire rifles in the world..ya can't take them off people because some military somewhere uses it.

OT: Out of interest, why? Apart from being cheap to armour?

I would't have thought the IDF would have settled for anything less than max firepower.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments