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

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

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.

Yeah, it is a lot easy to opine on what laws should be passed if you don't let little things like facts get in the way.

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 or whatever is always going to be outdated.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.

Really? Freedom of speech outdated? Freedom of religion outdated? Is the right to silence 'outdated'. The right to due process of law outdated? The right to be protected from unreasonable search outdated?

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.

You don't really understand that amendment do you?

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.

It is very much the point of democracy. Americans support the right to bear arms. If they did not, the Constitution would change - or do you not believe in the principle of the will of the people?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

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

Great! Let's get plebiscite in the works and see where America really stands on this.

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?

As I've learned very quickly here, I'm no gun expert. But if you go back a few pages, my hypothetical scenario is what I mean, as you would put it.

Would you like a kleenex?

I'm sorted here, thanks.

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.

Last time was in a suburb outisde of New York in Connecticut, just like Newtown infact.

You need to dislike Obama's facebook page. It's sad but true that the US is only united at times of great tragedy or war.

We in Ireland and in most places do all of the above, but without the gun culutre. Its great, you know yourself sure.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

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

I was wondering if you find airsoft 'perverse'?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

If they did not, the Constitution would change - or do you not believe in the principle of the will of the people?

So who will put it to the people? The legislators employed by the NRA certainly won't, their own opinions aside.

Its not exactly a democratic country when the NRA and other lobbyists have too much swing in governance.

donvito99

CollardGreens wrote: »

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

I certainly wouldn't.

You might bloody shoot me.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Great! Let's get plebiscite in the works and see where America really stands on this.

Given 47% of household in the US own a gun, where do you think that wil end up?

As I've learned very quickly here, I'm no gun expert. But if you go back a few pages, my hypothetical scenario is what I mean, as you would put it.

You mean this?

donvito99 wrote: »

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.

What exactly is that meant to accomplish other than piss off gun owners? Which may well be why you are proposing it give they are 'perverse'.

Last time was in a suburb outisde of New York in Connecticut, just like Newtown infact.

When was that?

You need to dislike Obama's facebook page. It's sad but true that the US is only united at times of great tragedy or war.

What utter nonsense. Have you even lived in the US?

We in Ireland and in most places do all of the above, but without the gun culutre. Its great, you know yourself sure.

Every seven hours, someone in Ireland dies from an alcohol-related illness.
You have a different "culture".

donvito99

Overheal wrote: »

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.

I'm in no doubt that the reason for violent crime has nothing to do with guns but with the guy's finger on the trigger. Its to do with socio-economic conditions. The gangbangers -- as Alex Jones would put it -- are responsible for alot of the violent deaths in the US.

If I could also ask everyone who's on my back, are you in favour of maintaining the status quo or what? Are you in favour of more guns, the good guy/bad guy rhetoric?

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

So who will put it to the people? The legislators employed by the NRA certainly won't, their own opinions aside.

Its not exactly a democratic country when the NRA and other lobbyists have too much swing in governance.

Where does the NRA get it's money from? Where do gay-rights lobby groups get their money from? Where do tobacco lobby groups get their money from?

This isn't some giant conspiracy. It's just politics.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

Every seven hours, someone in Ireland dies from an alcohol-related illness.
You have a different "culture".

Yep. Don't need no amendments for that either.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

When was that?

2 years ago now.

Have you even lived in the US?

As a four year old in Boston, I had things other than guns on my mind.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

I'm in no doubt that the reason for violent crime has nothing to do with guns but with the guy's finger on the trigger. Its to do with socio-economic conditions. The gangbangers -- as Alex Jones would put it -- are responsible for alot of the violent deaths in the US.

If I could also ask everyone who's on my back, are you in favour of maintaining the status quo or what? Are you in favour of more guns, the good guy/bad guy rhetoric?

1. I would control the media and prevent irresponsible reporting of rampage killings.
2. I would close the gunshow loophole, but make the buyer responsible for providing a verifiable background check if not buying through a dealer.
3. I support all of Obama's recent 23 presidential orders on gun control.

You on the other hand have still not explained wh you would restrict the number of guns one person could own.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

This isn't some giant conspiracy. It's just politics.

Doesn't mean its right though:rolleyes:

Again - are we proposing to leave thing as is, or otherwise? I'd love to hear what others think rather than being Joe Mc Cartyhyied here myself.

EDITED

I'm gonna go ahead and claim the 5th amendment in a moment.

Manic Moran

I'm still bemused by this whole "military style" business. Outside of being generally black or green, with sticky-out bits that have nothing to do with the mechanical operation of the weapon, and the fact that modern military rifles such as the M4 fire smaller rounds than their older counterparts, what is the difference which makes them so objectionable as opposed to your older hunting semi auto?

BattleCorp

donvito99 wrote: »

Hunters should be allowed to own their hunting rifles. That's just about the limit if you ask me.

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.

Just for the record, I live in Ireland and target shooting is my hobby. Or sport if you want to call it that (depending on how accurate I am at the time).

We have a brilliant safety record when it comes to target shooting. Far far far less injuries than golf. In fact I have never ever seen an injury here in Ireland when I was shooting. Can you please tell me why you think shooting should not be a hobby? Can you give me a reason why I should be banned from shooting?

Do you think you would be safer with all the target shooting guns removed from Ireland?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

1. I would control the media and prevent irresponsible reporting of rampage killings. Totally agree
2. I would close the gunshow loophole, but make the buyer responsible for providing a verifiable background check if not buying through a dealer. Disagree in principle.
3. I support all of Obama's recent 23 presidential orders on gun control.

You on the other hand have still not explained wh you would restrict the number of guns one person could own.

Did I not? Its tied into the point I made surrounding less protection - more hobby. What's the need for more than one gun? If someone comes into your house, you shouldn't be allowed to decide whether I'll shoot him when he's far away with my sniper rifle or close up with my shotgun. Handgun, military or not (as I have learned to my peril) - be grand.

donvito99

BattleCorp wrote: »

Can you please tell me why you think shooting should not be a hobb?

I made provision for hunting in my brilliant gun legislation earlier.

Can you give me a reason why I should be banned from shooting?

You won't be banned from shooting. You're grand.

For now...

Do you think you would be safer with all the target shooting guns removed from Ireland?

No.

If I might clarify, I find the gun collecting, back garden militia type walter mittys to be "sad".

donvito99

Also, how many guns are needed to protect the average American family home?

CollardGreens

......hmmm....looks like it's "beer'thirty" time for donvito, he's brought Alex Jones into this. Not a fan of Alex myself but he'd do for halloween scare night.

donvito you need some friends, lol.

CollardGreens

Also, how many guns are needed to protect the average American family home?

18 :cool:

donvito99

CollardGreens wrote: »

donvito you need some friends, lol.

Yeah, I've only my pansy gun-less house for comfort.

Overheal

donvito99 wrote: »

So who will put it to the people? The legislators employed by the NRA certainly won't, their own opinions aside.

Its not exactly a democratic country when the NRA and other lobbyists have too much swing in governance.

You're hardly an expert on us politics. Kindly stop pretending like you understand how lobbyism operates

donvito99

Overheal wrote: »

You're hardly an expert on us politics. Kindly stop pretending like you understand how lobbyism operates

If I don't understand, then you'll kindly explain how lobbyism in the US does work.

Kindly.

Overheal

donvito99 wrote: »

Did I not? Its tied into the point I made surrounding less protection - more hobby. What's the need for more than one gun? If someone comes into your house, you shouldn't be allowed to decide whether I'll shoot him when he's far away with my sniper rifle or close up with my shotgun. Handgun, military or not (as I have learned to my peril) - be grand.

What if I'm upstairs when someone breaks in and my only weapon is downstairs?

Also, i can't think of any other economic product that you are limited to owning one of?

Overheal

donvito99 wrote: »

If I don't understand, then you'll kindly explain how lobbyism in the US does work.

Kindly.

Do your own research, kindly. I've supplied plenty to this discussion already pet.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Did I not? Its tied into the point I made surrounding less protection - more hobby. What's the need for more than one gun? If someone comes into your house, you shouldn't be allowed to decide whether I'll shoot him when he's far away with my sniper rifle or close up with my shotgun. Handgun, military or not (as I have learned to my peril) - be grand.

What's the harm in owning more than one gun?

You need to explain what it is you are trying to achieve.

Also given you have banned all semi-automatics, you will need to reload after every shot at your intruder. You think that makes sense?

donvito99

Overheal wrote: »

What if I'm upstairs when someone breaks in and my only weapon is downstairs?

If your house has two stories and a landing, your allowed two-and-a-half guns.

Also, i can't think of any other economic product that you are limited to owning one of?

Most products aren't designed with the express purpose of killing people.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

What's the harm in owning more than one gun?

That's the attitude I'm talking about exactly.

You people, except for maybe ManicMoran, should concern yourselves less with the various scenarios of people invading your home and just relax.

What I've learned from this thread, aside from the difference between fully and semi - automatic guns and the fact I have no friends, is that you can trust the Airsoft forum to come out and bat for guns on boards.

Manic Moran

donvito99 wrote: »

Doesn't mean its right though:rolleyes:

Again - are we proposing to leave thing as is, or otherwise? I'd love to hear what others think rather than being Joe Mc Cartyhyied here myself.

EDITED

.

Struck out, but I'll respond to it anyway, assuming you are referring to the current firearms legislation in the US.

The current situation is unsatisfactory, and a perfect example of the flaw of a compromise position which accomplishes nothing well.

The one extreme is to ban most everything. The other extreme is to have a near free-for all. Either of these could, in an ideal world, solve the majority problem of lawbreakers harming innocents. Instead, we have taken a bizarre position which, from either perspective, contains the worst of the opposite side's position: We allow a fairly widespread proliferation of arms while at the same time fantasising that arbitrarily declaring invisible and unenforceable lines will protect us from malfeasers with those guns.

Go one way or the other but quit mucking around in the middle. Laws banning legal evil black rifles are another example of the same. They don't affect rifles of equal or higher lethality because they are almost invariably based on cosmetic or ergonomic features. They don't address the major weapon used which some 8 times out of ten is a pistol or revolver. But some people believe it to be "reasonsble," mainly people who have no idea what they're talking about. If you want a laugh, go to Youtube and search for "shoulder thing that goes up" (Then, if you don't know the correct answer either, look it up and marvel that this is one of the most strident anti gun politicians in Congress)

The correct solution is to stop deluding ourselves that the current gun laws are any good at stopping our problems. If we cannot cure them by use of education, policing, provision of mental health, or social change, and decide we must take the easy (and less effective) way of changing the gun laws, then we need to quit mucking around with this neither fish nor fowl situation and move sharply one way or the other.

Even if a total ban, or at least very strict licensing issuance were somehow politically possible by changing the various State and Federal Constitutions, the evidence shows from our neighbours to the North and South that it is unrealistic on a practical level.

The other option is to go the other way and remove many of the daft restrictions, which is politically somewhat difficult as well (but I would wager far less so than the other direction), but at least has the advantage of being realistically practicable. But few politicians have the balls to do that either.

So we remain in our current useless state of equilibrium which at least has the advantage of satisfying enough voters in the various politicians' constituencies to keep them re elected

NTM

donvito99

Overheal wrote: »

Do your own research, kindly. I've supplied plenty to this discussion already pet.

So I'll take your knowledge of US lobbyism to be a bluff, right?

Ha.

I pretty much fully agree with Manic Moran's thorough post. More than anything, I would like to see the ATF be allowed to do there job and not be stymied by silly little amendments to the Patriot Act and other minutia of legislation.

Surely we can all agree that there needs to be the strictest of background checks conducted on anyone who holds a gun license of who simply walks in to buy a gun, or is this an infringement upon the hard-fought liberty of the American people?

BattleCorp

donvito99 wrote: »

Did I not? Its tied into the point I made surrounding less protection - more hobby. What's the need for more than one gun? If someone comes into your house, you shouldn't be allowed to decide whether I'll shoot him when he's far away with my sniper rifle or close up with my shotgun. Handgun, military or not (as I have learned to my peril) - be grand.

How many balls are in an average household? You wouldn't think it excessive if somebody had a rugby ball, tennis balls, basketball, GAA ball, football etc?

Supposing you are only allowed one ball by law, that'd be grand yeah?

Sure why can't you play basketball with a rugby ball?

That's kind of what you are proposing if you are only allowing one gun per household. Supposing hunting is your thing, then you'd need a .22 calibre gun if you are shooting rabbits. Now I think I'll shoot a deer. Oh wait, it isn't humane (or legal) to shoot a deer with a .22. You need a larger calibre for that, maybe a 308. Supposing I need to control foxes. Need a .223 for that. Now you need three guns. See how your proposal couldn't work.

Then sport;

.22 semi auto pistol to take part in smallbore competitions.
Centrefire pistol for WA1500 or other centrefire competitions.
.22 semi auto rifle for gallery rifle competitions.
Centrefire rifle for centrefire rifle competitions.
3 different .22 bolt action rifles for the 3 categories of benchrest.
Then there's shotgun etc.
I'm leaving sh1tloads out........I know.

I'm just trying to point out that there's no such thing as "one gun fits all".