Another Shooting in the U.S..

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:41PM

donvito99 wrote: »

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

What would that achieve?

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 08:41PM

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.

So contorting guns/ammunition doesn't effect gun deaths? Interesting - seems to have worked in most of Europe.

Reading an act is one thing. Understanding how it is interpreted is another - it seems you lack that skill.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:42PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Can we just address this now?

Why are you so paranoid?

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

Err. I'm not.

1. You don't know me.
2. This debate is not about me

What is it you want to 'address' and what is its relevance to this debate?

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:44PM

Blay wrote: »

Are they banned in Ireland?

I don't know, are they? Do tell.

If we have a school shooting, using one, then yes, they should.

Has there been one? No.

Don't even try and relate Ireland with America on this one.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:45PM

MadsL wrote: »

Err. I'm not.

1. You don't know me.
2. This debate is not about me

What is it you want to 'address' and what is its relevance to this debate?

I feel it is quite relevant. I'm asking why is it that I can be perfectly content without owning a firearm. It appears that you are not. Why?

Witcher · 23-01-2013 08:48PM

donvito99 wrote: »

I don't know, are they? Do tell.

If we have a school shooting, using one, then yes, they should.

Has there been one? No.

Don't even try and relate Ireland with America on this one.

No, they're not. The Gardai disagree with your opinions on them.

So X type of firearm been used in a school shooting means it shoild be banned? That's the threshold in your opinion? So if an over and under shotgun was used then they should be banned?

I'm mentioning Ireland because people here seem to know everything about the laws in the US and what should be banned but don't know what's going on in their own country.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:49PM

Procrastastudy wrote: »

So contorting guns/ammunition doesn't effect gun deaths? Interesting - seems to have worked in most of Europe.

Contorting guns will stop them working that is true. Did you mean controlling?

I see you didn't answer my question about the Castle Doctrine in the rest of Europe. Nice dodge.

When you say 'worked' what is your definition for 'worked'?

Reading an act is one thing. Understanding how it is interpreted is another - it seems you lack that skill.

You said you were undergraduate law and didn't know much, I see however that you will fit right into the legal profession, you have the cocky attitude down perfect.

I'll be interested to hear how you think my interpretation is lacking.

Overheal · 23-01-2013 08:50PM

donvito99 wrote: »

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

That would constitute a nearly full ban on all firearms. Muskets and bolt action rifles being the exception. But even if you did that tomorrow, people would still be allowed to own their current weapons, whether they be pre1986 full autos or pre 2013 semi automatics.

Setting aside the constitutionality of banning that, all you've done is changed behavior so that now instead of owning one weapon and firing two bullets, people will own two weapons and fire one bullet each.

And all the while there will still be violent deaths. Removing the weapon doesn't remove the impulses to kill. Knives cause more deaths and are involved in more incidents.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:51PM

donvito99 wrote: »

I feel it is quite relevant. I'm asking why is it that I can be perfectly content without owning a firearm. It appears that you are not. Why?

I said you know nothing about me. I was right. I do not currently own a firearm.

Now explain to me further how what I own/do not own is relevant to this thread.

CollardGreens · 23-01-2013 08:52PM

MadsL, what are you running for in the US politics? Whatever it is, I'll vote for you!

TY for some good post.....still can't find that button with this site where I agree with you but again, TY, good thoughts!

Whomever said that guns are just for hunting or protection obviously has never enjoyed shooting. I've been shooting for almost 40 years now and love it. I don't hunt and don't even eat meat but that has nothing to do with it for me personally. I'm not that big of a woman so it would be easy for a man to overpower me. I feel sorry for the one that tries. It gets dark here in the winter at 5-6pm and sometimes I have to shop when it's dark. Women get grabbed in parking lots, I'm safe with my legally owned gun with me, the offender is not safe attacking me (smile).

Last Saturday another lady and myself went target shooting at a range and had a wonderful time, as much as many do playing a game of golf. It is a "hobby" for me and a truly enjoyable one. When I'm not target shooting, my guns and ammo stay locked up in a safe.

What I don't understand is how someone that has NEVER shot a gun knows anything about guns just as since I don't enjoy football, I don't know what a something or another down on some kind of line is.

People making opinions about guns and the rights that ppl in America have that never shot a gun make as much sense to me as a man giving advice on feminine itching.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:54PM

Blay wrote: »

No, they're not. The Gardai disagree with your opinions on them.

So X type of firearm been used in a school shooting means it shoild be banned? That's the threshold in your opinion? So if an over and under shotgun was used then they should be banned?

I'm mentioning Ireland because people here seem to know everything about the laws in the US and what should be banned but don't know what's going on in their own country.

I don't claim to know anything about US gun laws, except for the 2nd amendment, of which I claim to be redundant in this day and age in its current form.

When I said ban semi-automatic guns, it's in the context of my previous reply to MadsL, in that the types of guns allowed should be restricted (controlled, whatever you want to call it) to guns that are not military-esque.

It is quite clear that what is being argued here does not concern guns at all, merely the principle of the right to own whatever gun you want, and that is sad.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 08:54PM

CollardGreens wrote: »

MadsL, what are you running for in the US politics? Whatever it is, I'll vote for you!

I'd be the rare breed of gun rights supporting liberals, ma'am.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 08:57PM

CollardGreens wrote: »

MadsL, what are you running for in the US politics? Whatever it is, I'll vote for you!
TY for some good post.....still can't find that button with this site where I agree with you but again, TY, good thoughts!

Whomever said that guns are just for hunting or protection obviously has never enjoyed shooting. I've been shooting for almost 40 years now and love it. I don't hunt and don't even eat meat but that has nothing to do with it for me personally. I'm not that big of a woman so it would be easy for a man to overpower me. I feel sorry for the one that tries. It gets dark here in the winter at 5-6pm and sometimes I have to shop when it's dark. Women get grabbed in parking lots, I'm safe with my legally owned gun with me, the offender is not safe attacking me (smile).

Last Saturday another lady and myself went target shooting at a range and had a wonderful time, as much as many do playing a game of golf. It is a "hobby" for me and a truly enjoyable one. When I'm not target shooting, my guns and ammo stay locked up in a safe.

What I don't understand is how someone that has NEVER shot a gun knows anything about guns just as since I don't enjoy football, I don't know what a something or another down on some kind of line is.

People making opinions about guns and the rights that ppl in America have that never shot a gun make as much sense to me as a man giving advice on feminine itching.

My opinion of guns as a hobby is that it is perverse, as I have said a few times here.

You'd be hard pushed to kill someone with a golf club or a tennis racket. Although shooting is an olympic sport! So perhaps they can be used in the same sentence, golf, shooting, and hobby. I just don't agree with it!

And I certainly wouldn't vote for MadsL, I dare think what his fiscal policies are like!

Witcher · 23-01-2013 09:00PM

donvito99 wrote: »

I don't claim to know anything about US gun laws, except for the 2nd amendment, of which I claim to be redundant in this day and age in its current form.

When I said ban semi-automatic guns, it's in the context of my previous reply to MadsL, in that the types of guns allowed should be restricted (controlled, whatever you want to call it) to guns that are not military-esque.

It is quite clear that what is being argued here does not concern guns at all, merely the principle of the right to own whatever gun you want, and that is sad.

Define 'military esque'.

If these evil 'military esque' rifles are so dangerous...how come they're not banned here?

All the shooters here are recommending reasonable controls that will work and limit the effect on legitimate shooters, the anti gun crowd by contrast are just saying 'ban this, ban that, ban the other' or coming out with ridiculous suggestions. There's a reason Obama etc. aren't meeting with the anti gun lobby...they already know their spiel and nothing would be gained through talking to them.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 09:02PM

donvito99 wrote: »

I don't claim to know anything about US gun laws, except for the 2nd amendment, of which I claim to be redundant in this day and age in its current form.

But presumably you believe in democracy and self-determination. If the US votes for a constitional change, so be it. In the meantime; deal with it.

When I said ban semi-automatic guns, it's in the context of my previous reply to MadsL, in that the types of guns allowed should be restricted (controlled, whatever you want to call it) to guns that are not military-esque.

I want ANY gun I use to be 'military', I want it to function as safely and efficively as possible. If the military don't like it, chances are it a piece of shit. I find firing pieces of shit with the potential to blow your hand off not a good idea.[/QUOTE]

It is quite clear that what is being argued here does not concern guns at all, merely the principle of the right to own whatever gun you want, and that is sad.

Huh?

Why? Please try an make an rational argument, rather than just insulting people.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 09:02PM

Overheal wrote: »

That would constitute a nearly full ban on all firearms. Muskets and bolt action rifles being the exception. But even if you did that tomorrow, people would still be allowed to own their current weapons, whether they be pre1986 full autos or pre 2013 semi automatics.

Setting aside the constitutionality of banning that, all you've done is changed behavior so that now instead of owning one weapon and firing two bullets, people will own two weapons and fire one bullet each.

And all the while there will still be violent deaths. Removing the weapon doesn't remove the impulses to kill. Knives cause more deaths and are involved in more incidents.

All of which, apart from the semi-auto bannation :rolleyes: I didn't even allude to. All of what I have said an will say is in the context of the staunch and ardent gun tradition in the US.

I'm blue-sky, blank canvass thinking here!

MadsL · 23-01-2013 09:06PM

donvito99 wrote: »

My opinion of guns as a hobby is that it is perverse, as I have said a few times here.

You mean like rally driving as a hobby is perverse because of the road death figures?

You'd be hard pushed to kill someone with a golf club or a tennis racket.

You think? A golf club? Big heavy metal thing on the end of a stick type of thing?

Although shooting is an olympic sport! So perhaps they can be used in the same sentence, golf, shooting, and hobby. I just don't agree with it!

Dunno what it is, but I'm agin it! 'taint natural.

And I certainly wouldn't vote for MadsL, I dare think what his fiscal policies are like!

Well given your guesses on my personal life so far you are 0-1 down.

CollardGreens · 23-01-2013 09:07PM

Donvito, are you saying that I'm a pervert because I like to shoot as a hobby?

I'll bet a pretty penny on it you wouldn't say it to me in a dark parking lot

Witcher · 23-01-2013 09:07PM

donvito99 wrote: »

My opinion of guns as a hobby is that it is perverse, as I have said a few times here.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 09:08PM

donvito99 wrote: »

I'm blue-sky, blank canvass talking about things I know nothing about here!

FYP!

Overheal · 23-01-2013 09:08PM

donvito99 wrote: »

I don't claim to know anything about US gun laws, except for the 2nd amendment, of which I claim to be redundant in this day and age in its current form.

When I said ban semi-automatic guns, it's in the context of my previous reply to MadsL, in that the types of guns allowed should be restricted (controlled, whatever you want to call it) to guns that are not military-esque.

It is quite clear that what is being argued here does not concern guns at all, merely the principle of the right to own whatever gun you want, and that is sad.

What the hell is "Military-esque"?! If you mean Folding Stocks, Pistol Grips, attachment rails, etc. - these don't make the bullet any more or less lethal. They just make the gun look more "menacing" to people who thing they look menacing. In all actuality, a stock, pistol grip, forearm grip, etc would be examples of things that increase the accuracy of the weapon, resulting in potentially fewer incidents. Going back to the musket, you could fire that off and because of the weapons poor accuracy you could fire anything in a huge cone of influence in front of the weapon. Now, coupled with the fact that the musket only fired one bullet at a time means that if you were being attacked and you missed, well that's it. Never mind the thought of missing and hitting an unintended target.

As for your claim that the 2nd Amendment is redundant, that's an opinion I would simply love to hear the complete rationale for.

Procrastastudy · 23-01-2013 09:10PM

MadsL wrote: »

Contorting guns will stop them working that is true. Did you mean controlling?

Sometimes the spell checker doesn't catch the mistakes. Well done on the cheap shot - you seem to follow some of my posts as you mentioned 'me of all people' I'll just assume you've missed the numerous ones that state I'm dyslexic and assume you're not that cheap.

MadsL wrote: »

I see you didn't answer my question about the Castle Doctrine in the rest of Europe. Nice dodge.

I'm not prepared to engage further in a semantic argument. You've refused to engage with my original point and are taking parts of an Act in isolation. Look at the original context and point.

MadsL wrote: »

When you say 'worked' what is your definition for 'worked'?

I see you're now dodging questions.

MadsL wrote: »

You said you were undergraduate law and didn't know much, I see however that you will fit right into the legal profession, you have the cocky attitude down perfect.

That seems like a unbiased prejudiced to a certain profession. As you have been kind enough to enlighten me in regard to automatic weapons, allow me to enlighten you that most of the people I have met in my short time engaging with the Irish legal profession have been anything but cocky.

MadsL wrote: »

I'll be interested to hear how you think my interpretation is lacking.

See previous point ref not engaging with the point made.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 09:10PM

MadsL wrote: »

But presumably you believe in democracy and self-determination. If the US votes for a constitional change, so be it. In the meantime; deal with it.

Which is hard to pull of when elected officials are bankrolled by gun lobbyists. But hey, the system works.

Can someone enlighten me as to when the constitution was last amended?

I want ANY gun I use to be 'military', I want it to function as safely and efficively as possible.

Now you're being pernickety. You know very well the position I've taken here.

Huh?

Why? Please try an make an rational argument, rather than just insulting people.

I find the whole gun tradition/culture in the US to be very sad.

The fact that the country is now more polarised than ever and less optimistic since Carter can be put down IMO to the confrontational attitude of many Americans, in this is seen beautifully in the gun-control debate.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 09:11PM

donvito99 wrote: »

My opinion of guns as a hobby is that it is perverse, as I have said a few times here.

What's your view on airsoft?

Witcher · 23-01-2013 09:14PM

Donvito..which of these is more dangerous in your opinion?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2245200_angle-tfb.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_abaJ0xbRju4/TAZLkhm6-3I/AAAAAAAACmY/4LOfEK1mi3I/s400/Ruger+10+.22+Stainless+with+25-round+mag.jpg

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 09:19PM

Overheal wrote: »

What the hell is "Military-esque"?! If you mean Folding Stocks, Pistol Grips, attachment rails, etc. - these don't make the bullet any more or less lethal. They just make the gun look more "menacing" to people who thing they look menacing. In all actuality, a stock, pistol grip, forearm grip, etc would be examples of things that increase the accuracy of the weapon, resulting in potentially fewer incidents. Going back to the musket, you could fire that off and because of the weapons poor accuracy you could fire anything in a huge cone of influence in front of the weapon. Now, coupled with the fact that the musket only fired one bullet at a time means that if you were being attacked and you missed, well that's it. Never mind the thought of missing and hitting an unintended target.

You'll forgive those of us who just aren't quite up to scratch on the whole terminology side of things. And if we could keep the history lessons in the development of guns to a minimum, that'd be great.

As for your claim that the 2nd Amendment is redundant, that's an opinion I would simply love to hear the complete rationale for.

A constitution from 1776(?) or whatever is always going to be outdated. Not to mention that it is abused. It is not I feel redundant in that it provides for arms to be borne, undoubtedly for the purpose of protection.

And yet lots of Americans go overboard (out of fear, feigned or otherwise) and the 2nd amendment suddenly becomes less about protection from enemies, foreign and domestic, and more about the very amendment itself.

So the second amendment could do with refreshing, If you ask me. As for the constitutionality of that, I don't know, but that's beside the point in this thread.

MadsL · 23-01-2013 09:20PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Which is hard to pull of when elected officials are bankrolled by gun lobbyists. But hey, the system works.

Hey, you want to change politics - go right ahead; run for office.

Can someone enlighten me as to when the constitution was last amended?

Way back in the olde days of yore, when dinosaurs still roamed <what's that> Sorry, when Dinosaur Jr still roamed. 1992

Now you're being pernickety. You know very well the position I've taken here.

Actually I don't, you say you want to ban all semi-automatics. That would be every handgun except derringers, every shotgun except double barrels and single shots, every rifle except blackpowder muzzleloaders and bolt actions, and all revolvers.

Is that what you meant?

I find the whole gun tradition/culture in the US to be very sad.

Would you like a kleenex?

The fact that the country is now more polarised than ever and less optimistic since Carter can be put down IMO to the confrontational attitude of many Americans, in this is seen beautifully in the gun-control debate.

Tell me the last time you were in the US?

Americans have never been more co-operative and community focused in my experience. The volunteerism, pay-it-forward culture has never been stronger imho.

donvito99 · 23-01-2013 09:21PM

MadsL wrote: »

What's your view on airsoft?

Knock yourselves out. Can you outline the legal differences for us, please?

Overheal · 23-01-2013 09:25PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Which is hard to pull of when elected officials are bankrolled by gun lobbyists. But hey, the system works.

Can someone enlighten me as to when the constitution was last amended?.

1992, to limit the ability of Congress to appoint it's own immediate pay raises under the 27th Amendment.

Politicians are "bankrolled" by many lobbyists from all over the spectrum. You paint in inaccurate picture that the Pro-gun lobby has no opposition from anti-gun elements.

Still, I think we're getting off the topic which seems to be how to reduce the likelihood of violent incidents. Most proposals however simply don't work and many have already been tried. You can read up on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) Updates to the Firearms Control Act of 1968 (updated in 1986) And pick and choose your choiciest choice of incidents: everything from the Breivik shooting in Norway to the Columbine Massacre. Then look at violent crime statistics: deaths by firearm versus death by knife or other types of weapons other than firearms, deaths in vehicular or alcohol cases, etc.

CollardGreens · 23-01-2013 09:28PM

....and another thing, on the AR's, some ppl do have a need for them. I live in the swamps (no shet) and whereas Ireland don't have any snakes, we got Snakes, Alligators...and Bears OH MY!

Don't know how many have tried to shoot a p'eed off copperhead or an alligator running at 35 mph but one bullet won't get it. Snakes wiggle, and I'm good, but not that good.

Another Shooting in the U.S..

Comments