nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Another Shooting in the U.S..

willmunny1990

http://news.sky.com/story/1040544/teenage-gunman-shoots-five-people-dead-in-us

More to follow...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Witcher

Ush1 wrote: »

So mark them with an infrared gun then you'll know they were hit. Do you seriously think guns aren't designed to inflict damage?

This comparison to cars or knives makes no sense.

Mark a clay pigeon with an infa red gun...that's your answer? Do you know what clay shooting is?

Who said they aren't designed to do damage?

There's 220000+ firearms in civilian hands in this country right now including evil 'assault rifles' and when was the last time someone was killed with one here? I've 2 in this room as we speak and I don't recall them ever harming people, I shoot with a group of guys and some of them hold 5/6 firearms..firearms don't corrupt you..Adam Lanza, James Holmes, Anders Breivik..they were all corrupted already.

Ush1

Blay wrote: »

What bbs guns use rubber pellets? How could one use a bb gun to shoot clay pigeons or shoot F-Class rifle out to 1000yards?

So mark them with an infrared gun then you'll know they were hit. Do you seriously think guns aren't designed to inflict damage?

This comparison to cars or knives makes no sense.

Witcher

Ush1 wrote: »

If its designed to pierce paper targets, why not a bb gun with harmless rubber pellets?

What bbs guns use rubber pellets? How could one use a bb gun to shoot clay pigeons or shoot F-Class rifle out to 1000yards?

MadYaker wrote: »

In reality though there is no reason for a normal member of the public to be able to purchase military spec rifles like the one used at Sandy Hook. They should be for military and police use only.

An Garda Siochana disagree with you..they think semi auto centrefires are safe in the hands of civilians.

MadYaker

There is no point debating banning guns because its never going to happen. Obama has come up with a few fairly moderate common sense proposals such as forcing back ground checks for anyone trying to buy a gun and restrictions on high capacity semi automatic rifles like the one used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Its going to be a huge battle to get through congress. In reality though there is no reason for a normal member of the public to be able to purchase military spec rifles like the one used at Sandy Hook. They should be for military and police use only.

Americans illogical attachment to the second amendment amazes me. The constitution was written in a time when America largely a lawless country where a lot of people lived in very remote ares and couldn't rely on a police force for protection so they needed guns to protect themselves.

Times have changed and the laws should change to reflect that. Most Americans live in urban areas with well funded and heavily armed police forces.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

And you post ill-informed nonsense about killing people as being the sole purpose for a gun.

How is your weekend warrior combat training going by the way

All the things you listed are to do with damaging and doesnt change the fact guns are designed to inflict injury, cars aren't. I could use a car to break a wall down but it wasn't designed for that.

If its designed to pierce paper targets, why not a bb gun with harmless rubber pellets?

beefstew

BattleCorp wrote: »

Why are you in favour of banning guns? Seriously, what do you think that would achieve?

All that would do is remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals won't hand up theirs. Seriously, think about it.

We banned drugs........................ does that work?

Dermot Aherne banned centrefire handguns in 2009 despite the fact that legally held centrefire handguns have never been used to commit a crime.

Your spouting "ban guns" shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

Firstly its not a lack of knowledge, its just an opinion. Secondly what i was trying to say but might not of made it clear is, its gone to the point that banning guns now is nearly pointless because all the criminals are armed already.

I've met people in the states who own guns and obviously it is only a few but the few that come to mind really were not responsible enough to carry a gun.

I just think its something that really needs to be looked at with a lot of thought, instead of both sides of the argument being so unwilling to move.

BattleCorp

beefstew wrote: »

I'm all for banning guns but the problem now is there is so many guns in circulation at the moment..

Why are you in favour of banning guns? Seriously, what do you think that would achieve?

All that would do is remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. Criminals won't hand up theirs. Seriously, think about it.

We banned drugs........................ does that work?

Dermot Aherne banned centrefire handguns in 2009 despite the fact that legally held centrefire handguns have never been used to commit a crime.

Your spouting "ban guns" shows a lack of knowledge on the subject.

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Every time the gun debate starts, people start comparing guns to other things that can kill ie: cars, knifes etc.....

And you post ill-informed nonsense about killing people as being the sole purpose for a gun.

How is your weekend warrior combat training going by the way

BattleCorp

mark renton wrote: »

Why is there no mass murders in Ireland?

Because we don't go to mass as much anymore.

:D:D:D

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I'm not talking about the laws that govern firearms. I'm talking about why guns where invented and have been modified over the years to become more proficient in doing what they do best - kill things.

Yes, deer, wild boar, bunnies, quail. etc.

If you are a police officer they can be used to subdue bad guys with guns too.

They can also be used to have fun/sport by shooting at paper targets.

They can be used to legally defend yourself, family and others.

Are you saying none of these four are a legitimate uses expect the police using them?

Out of interest, would you say this looks like it was modified to kill people more effectively?

StinkyMunkey

MadsL wrote: »

and the State consitition of New Mexico says:

I guess New Mexico recognises the use of guns in its State pretty clearly.

I'm not talking about the laws that govern firearms. I'm talking about why guns where invented and have been modified over the years to become more proficient in doing what they do best - kill things.

Every time the gun debate starts, people start comparing guns to other things that can kill ie: cars, knifes etc.....

You can pretty much kill someone with most house hold objects. The debates are about guns and the laws/lack of laws. Not drink driving deaths or knife crime. Neither is any less heinous tbh.

People who support the 2nd amendment and don't think guns are the problem don't see why they should have to pay for others mistake/crimes. I understand it, but don't particularly agree with it. I'm not saying owning a gun is the sole reason for crime, banning all guns just isn't practical.

Some people don't wanna see restriction on the type of weapon they can buy. Some people do want to see restrictions.

Witcher

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

perhaps if some sort of car license was brought in

Never going to happen in the US.

one interesting car technology is little microdots that are scattered through luxury cars, so you can trace stolen parts. you can also get custom made DNA. yes it's technically possible to trace guns and even bullets

Never going to happen anywhere.

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

9/11's relevance to gun violence is completely infinitesimal. Thanks.

of course it has no relevance

it's the difference in the response that's so different

gun ownership is a sacred cow.

perhaps if some sort of car license was brought in

at present all drivers require a valid license that is only obtainable if you can pass a competancy test and don't have any medical problems that cause you to be a danger to others. This hasn't proved to be much of a barrier to entry and I haven't heard anyone demanding an easier driving test or

all cars are required a license plate / tag and are registered to an owner
selling cars isn't a big issue whereas the illegal / quasi-legal trade in second hand guns is

one interesting car technology is little microdots that are scattered through luxury cars, so you can trace stolen parts. you can also get custom made DNA. yes it's technically possible to trace guns and even bullets

(you are also required to have insurance for cars, that's a different story, but it would be interesting thought experiment to see how much insurance companies would charge different people for third party cover) - much in the same way that young male drivers here were priced out of the market for a long time)

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=492577

The suspect admits buying 100 pounds of an explosive material advertised as 'Tannerite' from an internet website. The compound is most commonly used by long range target shooters, who aim at 8 ounce cans and know they've hit their mark when they explode. The suspect's device was the equivalent of 200 of those cans. "He had placed it inside of a barell inside the bed of an old dump truck, and shot it it with a 50 caliber rifle from 300 yards away," explained Albers. The blast was powerful enough to rattle windows at Treasure Island, and trigger a high alert at nearby Prairie Island Nuclear Powerplant.

MadsL

Bad Santa wrote: »

I always knew the guy wasn't too bright but for someone like him to be given 15 minutes exposure on prime time CNN and not exploit that to his own advantage, then he's a hell of lot dumber than I first thought. That was his one and only chance at grabbing a slice of credibility and he well and truly blew it. Mocking Piers' accent just made him look extremely immature in addition.

Identifying American gunowners with Alex Jones is like assuming John "Mad Dog" Adair speaks for the Church of Ireland.

Bad Santa

donegal_road wrote: »

Jesus, have you ever seen a more ignorant lout in your life?

I always knew the guy wasn't too bright but for someone like him to be given 15 minutes exposure on prime time CNN and not exploit that to his own advantage, then he's a hell of lot dumber than I first thought. That was his one and only chance at grabbing a slice of credibility and he well and truly blew it. Mocking Piers' accent just made him look extremely immature in addition.

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/who-invented-the-first-gun.html

A little article talking about the invention of the first gun.

Military, soldier, enemy etc etc..... All words used to describe the first use of the gun. I'm sure many poor animals have met their untimely end due to guns, but a far few people have to.

A gun was invented to kill, be it animal or person. People automatically think of war, death, hunting and the likes when you mention gun, it's not seen as a object that can be harmless at any point. Unless ofc you wanna throw out some ****e about water pistols and toy guns.

and the State consitition of New Mexico says:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes,

I guess New Mexico recognises the use of guns in its State pretty clearly.

MadsL

Pherekydes wrote: »

Sorry to seem crass about such a serious issue, but would it be better if they were killed using a pistol?

My comment about pity there was a rifle involved was in reference to the silliness being spouted about AR-15s and the like.

MadsL

Lionel Messy wrote: »

The second amendment in America is misunderstood and daft. Christian bastards from Arkansas can keep trying to defend themselves. The rest of the world is either cringing or laughing.

Tell that to Switzerland or the Czech Republic, both of whom allow citizens pretty free access to firearms.

Overheal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

per-capita the Omagh bombing was worse

since 9/11 there have been several hundred thousand premature deaths in the us because of lack of healthcare , but when you spend three billion on FUD some savings have to be made elsewhere.

9/11 is not a reason for the US to feel hard done by on an international scale

of course 9/11 would not have happened if all the passengers had been allowed to carry guns on board ?

You've already mentioned that the death toll in 9/11 is disproportionate to healthcare or gun violence. Leave it at that, and don't trivialize the event or, forbid, make such a cyclical subject the issue of another cyclical subject. 9/11's relevance to gun violence is completely infinitesimal. Thanks.

mike65

North Dakota seems to be seems to be the only state not to have a fatal shooting since Newtown massacre

Ush1

Overheal wrote: »

Hunt animals

Kill things, yep, that's the one.

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

9/11 was not a number.

per-capita the Omagh bombing was worse

since 9/11 there have been several hundred thousand premature deaths in the us because of lack of healthcare , but when you spend three billion on FUD some savings have to be made elsewhere.

9/11 is not a reason for the US to feel hard done by on an international scale

of course 9/11 would not have happened if all the passengers had been allowed to carry guns on board ?

StinkyMunkey

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/who-invented-the-first-gun.html

A little article talking about the invention of the first gun.

Military, soldier, enemy etc etc..... All words used to describe the first use of the gun. I'm sure many poor animals have met their untimely end due to guns, but a far few people have to.

A gun was invented to kill, be it animal or person. People automatically think of war, death, hunting and the likes when you mention gun, it's not seen as a object that can be harmless at any point. Unless ofc you wanna throw out some ****e about water pistols and toy guns.

Lionel Messy

The second amendment in America is misunderstood and daft. Christian bastards from Arkansas can keep trying to defend themselves. The rest of the world is either cringing or laughing.

StinkyMunkey

Overheal wrote: »

Hunt animals

Of course you can use a gun to hunt animals, you can also use a gun to shoot at paper targets.

Why was the gun invented and modified throughout its time on this planet?

Overheal

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, the sole purpose the gun was invented was to kill people.

Hunt animals

StinkyMunkey

Faith+1 wrote: »

More people are killed with Knifes in the US than guns, so let's ban knifes as well.:rolleyes:

Unless I'm mistaken, the sole purpose the gun was invented was to kill people.

Why not try carve your Sunday roast with an AR-15.

According to your logic, anything that can kill should be banned. Lets ban the sun as well, it can give u skin cancer.

Lame comparison!

Overheal

mark renton wrote: »

Yes you could write 20 paragraphs about crazy people, however you would completely miss the point, that is that if there arent so many guns lying around when people flip, then so many people dont get killed.

It aint that complicated to overkill with 10 paragraphs.

Hard to believe that when so many home invasions, attempts at murder and rape, are prevented by the legal and defensive use of firearms

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

incorrect.

55,000 violent deaths in the US every year

that's a 9/11 every 20 days.

9/11 was not a number.

beefstew

I'm all for banning guns but the problem now is there is so many guns in circulation at the moment..

Capt'n Midnight

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's been more people violently killed in the states since 2010 than there is people in Leitrim. That's only the people they killed inside their border. Approx 40,000 every 3 years.

incorrect.

55,000 violent deaths in the US every year

that's a 9/11 every 20 days.