Another Shooting in the U.S..

StinkyMunkey · 23-01-2013 05:04AM

briany wrote: »

I can definitely get behind a media blackout on these kinds of killings. It'll never happen unless some monumental change comes about because these stories just make way too good copy. What would be nice would be to be able to ask those reporting the news why these particular shootings get so much attention over all the other gun related deaths and all the other violent deaths, carrying an equally tragic personal cost, and watch them struggle for an answer that doesn't sound money grubbing, class based, cynical or racist.

A media blackout wouldn't work even if the people who report it got on board. With social networking it would become known to the public.

im invisible · 23-01-2013 05:57AM

i keep seeing the thread title, and thinking 'f*ck, another one?'

MadsL · 23-01-2013 07:02AM

im invisible wrote: »

i keep seeing the thread title, and thinking 'f*ck, another one?'

I know, I keep getting confused between the two threads open on the same subject, with similar titles.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 07:47AM

FatherTed wrote: »

Wimpish gun owners like to hide behind the archaic 2nd amendment.

Wimpish how exactly?

As I mentioned before, the 2nd amendment was written in a different time when the country was new and had just gained independance. Its as stupid as the 3rd amendment written at the same time. Look up what that one is all about.

I didn't need to look it up, but do tell me how you think freedom from an unfair financial burden to be stupid? How deliciously ironic.

But don't worry the politicians wont ever budge on the 2nd amendment. They might bring in some laws about semi automatic assault weapons and tighten the gun shows but it wont make a bit of difference. Too many guns and nutjobs already.

Is there a point where ther are too few guns? What about just about the right amount of guns? Where would that point be?

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 06:55PM

MadsL wrote: »

Is there a point where ther are too few guns? What about just about the right amount of guns? Where would that point be?

Whatever amount of households there are in the US.

One gun for each and every household, minus city dwellers. And that gun should not be any sort of military style firearm. Hunters should be allowed to own their hunting rifles. That's just about the limit if you ask me.
The situation that currently exists of being able to buy whatever you want (to an extent) is perverse. Gun ownership shouldn't be a hobby. It should be about protection, you can't claim both either. The 2nd amendment did not take hobbies into account.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 07:05PM

There is no valid reason for the US gun laws they are bonkers, however, there are plenty of other countries with plenty of guns about the place - they don't have the murder rate the US does. I'm afraid it's just as much to do with internal social problems in the US than as it it guns.

Its not guns that kill people, its Americans. There is also a fundamental issue with how the US view Guns. Its the same way we view traffic accidents. Despite people doing stupid things on the road they somehow manage to think an accident isn't entirely their fault; 'these things happen' mentality.

When I was a kid I chased my brother around with a plastic gun playing Cops and Robbers. First time I got a real gun at 13 it was under the supervision of a range officer and I was taught to respect it. If you even aimed a drill rifle at someone your feet wouldn't have touched the ground. Many people in the US go straight from the playing to the real thing with very little in between.

Anyone owning a gun in the US should have to do 20 hours a month training and community service. It's what the second amendment envisaged in the first place.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 07:08PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Whatever amount of households there are in the US.

One gun for each and every household, minus city dwellers. And that gun should not be any sort of military style firearm. Hunters should be allowed to own their hunting rifles. That's just about the limit if you ask me.
The situation that currently exists of being able to buy whatever you want (to an extent) is perverse. Gun ownership shouldn't be a hobby. It should be about protection, you can't claim both either. The 2nd amendment did not take hobbies into account.

You think all guns fulfil the same function, and that my wife can handle the same calibre and level of trigger pull as me?

What you are proposing makes as much sense as saying a Smart car is the same as pickup truck and that people should only be allowed one vehicle.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 07:09PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Anyone owning a gun in the US should have to do 20 hours a month training and community service. It's what the second amendment envisaged in the first place.

I actually like that idea...

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 07:40PM

MadsL wrote: »

You think all guns fulfil the same function, and that my wife can handle the same calibre and level of trigger pull as me?

What I am saying is that guns should only be allowed to fulfill one function, protecting one's family/property (2 including hunting).

So if that means banning certain guns from sale, and prescribing certain others for sale, then so be it.

If your other half can't handle the gun you use, sell it and buy one that can be used by both of you.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 07:53PM

donvito99 wrote: »

What I am saying is that guns should only be allowed to fulfill one function, protecting one's family/property (2 including hunting).

So if that means banning certain guns from sale, and prescribing certain others for sale, then so be it.

If your other half can't handle the gun you use, sell it and buy one that can be used by both of you.

This is part of the problem. When you think its okay to defend property with lethal force you're already half way to hell in a hand basket. The issue being of course the US is so far down that road it becomes impossible to retrench from it.

I'm sorry but out side of a range and the 'fun factor' there can be no justification for high powered, automatic rifles.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 07:58PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

This is part of the problem. When you think its okay to defend property with lethal force you're already half way to hell in a hand basket. The issue being of course the US is so far down that road it becomes impossible to retrench from it.

You of all people should know that Irish law offers exactly the same home defence provision.

I'm sorry but out side of a range and the 'fun factor' there can be no justification for high powered, automatic rifles.

And that is why they are heavily restricted to a Class III firearms licence. Can we for once and all put paid to this utter myth that automatic firearms are widely available in the US. They are not, and have not been for quite some time.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 08:01PM

MadsL wrote: »

You of all people should know that Irish law offers exactly the same home defence provision.

I'm an undergrad which means I know next to nothing but that said; Irish Law provides for reasonable not lethal force.

MadsL wrote: »

And that is why they are heavily restricted to a Class III firearms licence. Can we for once and all put paid to this utter myth that automatic firearms are widely available in the US. They are not, and have not been for quite some time.

We can as long as people stop getting shot with legally owned ones. Point taken however.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:07PM

donvito99 wrote: »

What I am saying is that guns should only be allowed to fulfill one function, protecting one's family/property (2 including hunting).

Huh? I have to choose between target shooting, birding, deer hunting, vermin control, concealed carry, clay shooting, cowboy action shooting and home defence?

Why? What possible additional risk factor is owning more than one gun???

So if that means banning certain guns from sale, and prescribing certain others for sale, then so be it.

Banning what? And prescribing what?

If your other half can't handle the gun you use, sell it and buy one that can be used by both of you.

Are you saying that gun ownership needs to be shared per household? Why?
Who gets to take the gun with them when we both go out of an evening?

Why should I have to have a less effective firearm than I can handle because of my wife's physique?

What is the sense in this? What exactly are you trying to control here? None of your proposals make any sense nor show any understanding of how firearms are actually used in the US.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:09PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

reasonable not lethal force.

In effect it does, in the wake of the Nally controversy.

MadsL wrote:

automatic firearms are widely available in the US

Well it appears that they are of enough abundance to have been used at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, I'm not sure about Virginia Tech, but certainly a majority of the shootings (that we hear about).

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:10PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm an undergrad which means I know next to nothing but that said; Irish Law provides for reasonable not lethal force.

But it provides up to and including lethal force does it not?

We can as long as people stop getting shot with legally owned ones. Point taken however.

Automatic firearms were never a major problem in the US - they are too damn expensive even when legal. even in Miami in the 80s the likes of Uzis were the realm of Miami Vice not reality.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 08:11PM

donvito99 wrote: »

In effect it does, in the wake of the Nally controversy.

How so?

Witcher · 23-01-2013 08:13PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Well it appears that they are of enough abundance to have been used at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, I'm not sure about Virginia Tech, but certainly a majority of the shootings (that we hear about).

It appears you don't know what you're talking about. Do a bit of research and come back to us.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 08:15PM

MadsL wrote: »

But it provides up to and including lethal force does it not?

If that person was coming at you with a gun, which is unlikely in Ireland then yes. That is the point you are missing however, which is the one I originally made. If you've got to that stage you're already in a situation that people in most of Europe would find untenable. Part of the reason that the US in the in position it is in is the tradition of using lethal force to acquire and protect land.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:16PM

donvito99 wrote: »

In effect it does, in the wake of the Nally controversy.

It always existed in Irish law. The new law is a restatement of the principles.

Well it appears that they are of enough abundance to have been used at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, I'm not sure about Virginia Tech, but certainly a majority of the shootings (that we hear about).

You do know what an automatic firearm is?

Trigger - bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang

Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, and Virginia Tech all involved semi-automatic firearms.

Trigger - bang, Trigger - bang, Trigger - bang, Trigger - bang, Trigger - bang.

Semiautomatics have been around since the 1848 "Volition Repeating Rifle"

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:19PM

MadsL wrote: »

What exactly are you trying to control here?

Guns. Duh.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 08:23PM

MadsL wrote: »

It always existed in Irish law. The new law is a restatement of the principles.

Principles that in the vast majority of cases would see someone jailed for shooting someone in defense of their property.

Overheal · 23-01-2013 08:23PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Well it appears that they are of enough abundance to have been used at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, I'm not sure about Virginia Tech, but certainly a majority of the shootings (that we hear about).

Semi automatics were involved in all of those cases, not full automatics, which are already banned (the sale of any new automatics has been banned since 1986). Full auto weapons make appeared in fewer than 1% of gun incidents. In fact at Columbine he used a semi automatic rifle that was considered legal under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Because of clip size limitations under that ban, the shooters simply carried more clips with them. For instance they bought a Hi Point 995 semi automatic 9mm carbine with a 10 round capacity... it was fired 96 times, and they brought 13 clips for it.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 08:26PM

Overheal wrote: »

Semi automatics were involved in all of those cases, not full automatics, which are already banned (the sale of any new automatics has been banned since 1986). Full auto weapons make appeared in fewer than 1% of gun incidents. In fact at Columbine he used a semi automatic rifle that was considered legal under the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Because of clip size limitations under that ban, the shooters simply carried more clips with them. For instance they bought a Hi Point 995 semi automatic 9mm carbine with a 10 round capacity... it was fired 96 times, and they brought 13 clips for it.

Actually that raises a point I simply don't get either. The amount of ammunition people seem to keep about. Surely it would be sensible to limit people? If you're hunting then maybe you get a larger allowance etc. Surely someone for home protection needs no more than a dozen rounds.

Witcher · 23-01-2013 08:29PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Actually that raises a point I simply don't get either. The amount of ammunition people seem to keep about. Surely it would be sensible to limit people? If you're hunting then maybe you get a larger allowance etc. Surely someone for home protection needs no more than a dozen rounds.

A dozen rounds to defend yourself? Yeah...people in the US will accept that:pac:

Limits on ammunition are idiotic, they're easily got around. We've limits here and plenty of dealers will sell you more than that amount and there's nothing to stop you going to several dealers and buying your limit from each.

Overheal · 23-01-2013 08:29PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Actually that raises a point I simply don't get either. The amount of ammunition people seem to keep about. Surely it would be sensible to limit people? If you're hunting then maybe you get a larger allowance etc. Surely someone for home protection needs no more than a dozen rounds.

As NTM said earlier or in another thread the second amendment also assumes you have the right to practice proficiency in the exercise of your rights. Limiting access to bullets limits your right to practice using the weapon so it can be handled both effectively and safely.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:32PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

If that person was coming at you with a gun, which is unlikely in Ireland then yes.

You should read that Act. It is quite short.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/sec0002.html#sec2

(7) The use of force shall not exclude the use of force causing death.

That is the point you are missing however, which is the one I originally made. If you've got to that stage you're already in a situation that people in most of Europe would find untenable.

Which countries do not have a 'castle doctrine' allowing defence of the home up to and including lethal force. Ireland does, which do not?

Part of the reason that the US in the in position it is in is the tradition of using lethal force to acquire and protect land.

Lol. I think I remember a play about it, was it called "The Field"?

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:35PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Actually that raises a point I simply don't get either. The amount of ammunition people seem to keep about. Surely it would be sensible to limit people? If you're hunting then maybe you get a larger allowance etc. Surely someone for home protection needs no more than a dozen rounds.

Homeowner: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.
Punk: Now I feel lucky. (Reloads with his illegal stash)

What a stupid and arbitary control.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:38PM

MadsL wrote: »

You do know what an automatic firearm is?

Trigger - bangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangbang

Sandy Hook, Aurora, Columbine, and Virginia Tech all involved semi-automatic firearms.

So ban the sale of those too, as I have already proposed.

Witcher · 23-01-2013 08:39PM

donvito99 wrote: »

So ban the sale of those too, as I have already proposed.

Are they banned in Ireland?

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:40PM

MadsL wrote: »

Homeowner: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang.
Punk: Now I feel lucky. (Reloads with his illegal stash)

What a stupid and arbitary control.

Can we just address this now?

Why are you so paranoid?

Why doesn't this paranoia prevail in say, Ireland?

Another Shooting in the U.S..

Comments