Another mass shooting in the U.S

MadsL · 31-01-2013 07:59PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Its a pity more people in America do not think like you. A total ban on guns just wont work, there are to many guns and to many people who own them.

I'm glad you have come around to that view, a while ago you were proposing bans on all semi-automatics.

I agree that the second Amendment is a little outdated and should be reviewed (not scrapped). The world is forever changing and so are the views and situations were laws need to be updated.

Is the first Amendment equally outdated? And reviewed? Reviewed how? By the people?

Better communication between all departments in the States is needed so people who shouldnt have guns, dont have ie the mentally unfit.

Hence the 23 presidential orders which I have no issue with.

Criminals will always find ways to get hold of guns, whether its Ireland or the states. America doesnt need more guns like the NRA says, they need tighter controls and laws put in place were its not easy to just go purchase any gun they desire.

It is already "not easy to just go purchase any gun they desire". What controls do you actually want. I'm getting tired of people blabbing about "tighter controls" without actually being specific about what it is they want.

InTheTrees · 31-01-2013 08:10PM

The 2nd ammendment is nuts.

The pro-gun people claim it guarantees every citizen can own a machine gun and the anti-gun people claim it clearly states only the army should have guns.

Both sides insist they're "defending" the 2nd amendment.

StinkyMunkey · 31-01-2013 08:26PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

The 2nd ammendment is nuts.

The pro-gun people claim it guarantees every citizen can own a machine gun and the anti-gun people claim it clearly states only the army should have guns.

Both sides insist they're "defending" the 2nd amendment.

Thats something i didnt know tbh. I thought it meant everyone should have to right to bear arms. Hopefully they revise it.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 08:27PM

pabloh999 wrote: »

What in the name of god are you on about

I'm just pointing out the cognative disconnect between those wanting to disarm 70 year olds who keep a pistol under the bed 'just in case" and the 'harmless' airsofters who run around at the weekends playing terrorist. I suspect that next active shooter is more likely to come from the second group.

If fact three already have; Tim Kretschmer owned many airsoft guns. source

14-year-old Dillon Cossey was arrested at his home in Plymouth Meeting after a friend told police about his plan to carry out a Columbine style attack on Plymouth Whitemarsh High School. After a police-conducted search of the Cossey residence, officers found a 9 mm Hi-Point Carbine(which he named "Reb" in honor of Eric Harris), over 30 airsoft guns, a dozen knives and swords, 7 homemade explosives (4 which were live), a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook, and several movies about the Columbine High School Massacre, all which were in the boy's bedroom.

An eighth grade student who attended St. Andrew School in Drexel Hill was arrested after a fellow pupil he attempted to recruit for an attack tipped off authorities. The suspect was then pulled from class and later arrested. Shortly after, two airsoft pistols were found in his backpack, one of them looking very much like a real gun. The plan of the 13-year-old student was to force the school in lock down and shoot anybody who tried to escape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_attacks_related_to_schools

InTheTrees wrote: »

They're Toys.

Which is why they use the word "soft" in the name.

Yes, I'm sure that "toy" was lots of fun for this 4 year old who was shot with those "soft" pellets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/stetson-tedder-hog-tied-girl_n_2568257.html

Ush1 wrote: »

Doesn't negate what I said.

An actual lethal weapon designed to inflict injuries is the difference you were looking for between it and airsoft, hence the differing standards people have.

So the mindset has nothing to do with it, it is the object that is owned that is the risk factor?

I see, so a psychopathic/sociopathic unstable teen can get military-grade practice on how to evade a SWAT team all weekend but it is the guy who goes quietly to the range and shoots holes in paper that you really want to keep an eye on.

Yep, that's a differing standard alright.

Ush1 · 31-01-2013 08:49PM

MadsL wrote: »

So the mindset has nothing to do with it, it is the object that is owned that is the risk factor?

I see, so a psychopathic/sociopathic unstable teen can get military-grade practice on how to evade a SWAT team all weekend but it is the guy who goes quietly to the range and shoots holes in paper that you really want to keep an eye on.

Yep, that's a differing standard alright.

Yes, you got it in the first sentence. As has been said a million times, I could play grand theft auto and want to run people over with a car but the car wasn't designed for that purpose.

I'd be more worried about sociopathes who had access to actual lethal weapons than fake ones.

Knives are dangerous however I need something to chop my food and eat it. I've never had any need for firing a high velocity piece of metal though/into something.

The double standard is there because you are comparing different things. Psychology and lethal objects designed to kill.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 09:11PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, you got it in the first sentence. As has been said a million times, I could play grand theft auto and want to run people over with a car but the car wasn't designed for that purpose.

If you went out to an airfield and played games that involved running over dummy pedestrians would you consider that acceptable?

Oh, and aren't airsoft scenarios designed after actual terrorist incidents, designed to be as realistic as possible?

I'd be more worried about sociopathes who had access to actual lethal weapons than fake ones.

As opposed to being concerned about identifying sociopaths in the first place? Do you think people with a history of sociopathic behaviour should be screened before being allowed to partake in airsoft?

Knives are dangerous however I need something to chop my food and eat it. I've never had any need for firing a high velocity piece of metal though/into something.

A high velocity piece of metal went through/into your food if you mean beef or pork.

I also enjoy quail and venison, wanna take a guess how they end up in the freezer?

The double standard is there because you are comparing different things. Psychology and lethal objects designed to kill.

Which is the more reliable indicator would you say? Mental issues or owning a gun?

I have shown you two examples of potential mass murders and a mass killer who owned airsoft gear. No thoughts on the link between these activities? Just co-incidence?

Edit: By the way, your insisting on controlling the object owned like it is the risk factor rather than focusing on identifying those with mental issues mean that all those calls for background checks are pretty pointless wouldn't you say.

Manic Moran · 31-01-2013 09:16PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

I believe there was an armed guard at Colombine wasnt there?

Also at that jewish community centre that got shot up.

What happens is that the shooters simply target the security guard first.

Not necessarily.

A security guard... sorry.. 'School Resource Officer', seemed to survive in a school in Tenessee.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/gudger.asp

Ush1 · 31-01-2013 09:23PM

MadsL wrote: »

If you went out to an airfield and played games that involved running over dummy pedestrians would you consider that acceptable?

I don't know, it's largely irrelevant to what I said. Don't they shoot at human shaped targets often in shooting ranges? Did I not tell you how great craic it is to run people over in grand theft auto?

You honestly sound like Alex Jones with the deflection and refusal to see or ignorance of something so obvious.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, and aren't airsoft scenarios designed after actual terrorist incidents, designed to be as realistic as possible?

Okay, you have a vendetta against airsoft? You still aren't understanding the concept of comparing like with like.

MadsL wrote: »

As opposed to being concerned about identifying sociopaths in the first place? Do you think people with a history of sociopathic behaviour should be screened before being allowed to partake in airsoft?

Why are the two ideas opposed? Avoid psychos AND guns! Perfect.

MadsL wrote: »

A high velocity piece of metal went through/into your food if you mean beef or pork. I also enjoy quail and venison, wanna take a guess how they end up in the freezer?

Disingenuous and deflection. So if you eat meat you should support guns?

MadsL wrote: »

Which is the more reliable indicator would you say? Mental issues or owning a gun?

I have shown you two examples of potential mass murders and a mass killer who owned airsoft gear. No thoughts on the link between these activities? Just co-incidence?

Again, this doesn't really have relevance to what I said. Psychos can do all sorts of psycho things, readily available guns and it gets nice and interesting.

InTheTrees · 31-01-2013 09:27PM

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure that "toy" was lots of fun for this 4 year old who was shot with those "soft" pellets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/stetson-tedder-hog-tied-girl_n_2568257.html

Well sure.

You can tie a child up and beat them with any number of toys and inflict damage and its Bad.

I'm not sure what your point is...

InTheTrees · 31-01-2013 09:35PM

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Thats something i didnt know tbh. I thought it meant everyone should have to right to bear arms. Hopefully they revise it.

Here's the offending ammendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Its pretty clear that you can interpret it in any way that suits you! :eek:

MadsL · 31-01-2013 09:50PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I don't know, it's largely irrelevant to what I said. Don't they shoot at human shaped targets often in shooting ranges? Did I not tell you how great craic it is to run people over in grand theft auto?

So you are saying that a simulation of something is harmless. So the guy shooting at human shaped targets at the range is harmless. OK, then. Why do you want to control his use of that gun?

You honestly sound like Alex Jones with the deflection and refusal to see or ignorance of something so obvious.

Insulting your opponent is no way to back up your case, teh Alex Jones interview demonstrates that. In fact, you are more like Alex Jones by bringing up Alex Jones in the first place.

Okay, you have a vendetta against airsoft?

I have a vendetta now? Wow, that escalated quickly.

You still aren't understanding the concept of comparing like with like.

I gave you three examples of links between airsoft and unstable (2 potential) shooters. You say there no comparison between running around a (airsoft) building shooting pellets at people and evading SWAT capture and a shooter running around a (school) building shooting bullets at people and evading SWAT capture. No comparison.

Yet, my 70 year old neighbour who keeps a pistol for personal safety can be more closely compared in your view to said shooter running around a (school) building shooting bullets at people and evading SWAT capture. Clearly similar.

I see. Like with Like. Hmmm.

Why are the two ideas opposed? Avoid psychos AND guns! Perfect.

Yes, in a "perfect" world. Meanwhile in the real world...
Your word "avoid" sounds like a blanket ban. Is that what you propose?

Disingenuous and deflection. So if you eat meat you should support guns?

Hey, you bought up food.

Again, this doesn't really have relevance to what I said. Psychos can do all sorts of psycho things, readily available guns and it gets nice and interesting.

Should sociopaths continue to have unfettered access to terrorist simulations in your view then? Fertiliser is readily available and gets "nice and interesting" in certain ratios.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 09:54PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's the offending ammendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Its pretty clear that you can interpret it in any way that suits you! :eek:

Here's how my State interprets it in its Constitution, seems pretty clear to me.

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,

And "offending"? The Bill of Rights "offends" you? Wow

MadsL · 31-01-2013 09:56PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well sure.

You can tie a child up and beat them with any number of toys and inflict damage and its Bad.

I'm not sure what your point is...

toy
/toi/
Noun
An object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.

Would you give a child an airsoft rifle to play with?

BattleCorp · 31-01-2013 09:59PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I'd be more worried about sociopathes who had access to actual lethal weapons than fake ones.

You are not wrong there. I'd be very worried about sociopathes getting access to lethal weapons too. But the vast vast majority of people with legally held firearms aren't sociopathes. We behave ourselves and go about our business in a very safe manner. Banning guns only affects us, the law abiding citizens. It does feck all to stop criminals or sociopathes.

Knives are dangerous however I need something to chop my food and eat it. I've never had any need for firing a high velocity piece of metal thoughinto something.

I don't need to go target shooting and put holes in pieces of paper at the weekend either, but I really enjoy it. I don't see it as a hobby to be ashamed of as a lot of posters here seem to suggest. What harm am I doing by putting high velocity pieces of steel through paper targets?

The double standard is there because you are comparing different things. Psychology and lethal objects designed to kill.

Just because something might have originally have been designed to kill, doesn't mean that it can't be used for other purposes. Guns can be used safely if they are in the right hands. We have over 260,000 legally held guns here in Ireland and 99.99 of them are being used safely and legally.

I think the problem with gun violence in the US is psychologically based. Sorry if this is p1ssing off any of the Americans on this thread but, to put it simply, America is a more violent place than Ireland.

They need to address this before gun violence will go down.

The answer isn't banning guns. It's sorting out why there are so many willing to resort to guns to settle any grievance that they have.

Ush1 · 31-01-2013 10:02PM

MadsL wrote: »

So you are saying that a simulation of something is harmless. So the guy shooting at human shaped targets at the range is harmless. OK, then. Why do you want to control his use of that gun?

You're really having trouble with this concept and it's so simple. The point I was making that you reckon sociopathic behaviour relates to things like running dummies over, I simply pointed out that people on gun ranges do similar things.

What you said didn't address what I said at all, I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of what you are saying. Just 'cause it's fun you know.

MadsL wrote: »

I gave you three examples of links between airsoft and unstable (2 potential) shooters. You say there no comparison between running around a (airsoft) building shooting pellets at people and evading SWAT capture and a shooter running around a (school) building shooting bullets at people and evading SWAT capture. No comparison.

Yet, my 70 year old neighbour who keeps a pistol for personal safety can be more closely compared in your view to said shooter running around a (school) building shooting bullets at people and evading SWAT capture. Clearly similar.

I see. Like with Like. Hmmm.

I think it has to be wilful ignorance at this stage.

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, in a "perfect" world. Meanwhile in the real world...

lol No in a rational one. I'm suggesting a two prong attack while you suggest one, who is aiming for perfection?

MadsL wrote: »

Your word "avoid" sounds like a blanket ban. Is that what you propose?

"Wow, that escalated quickly."

MadsL wrote: »

Should sociopaths continue to have unfettered access to terrorist simulations in your view then? Fertiliser is readily available and gets "nice and interesting" in certain ratios.

I'm gonna have to go Father Ted on this..

These guns are lethal, but these guns are faaar away.:)

Ush1 · 31-01-2013 10:14PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are not wrong there. I'd be very worried about sociopathes getting access to lethal weapons too. But the vast vast majority of people with legally held firearms aren't sociopathes. We behave ourselves and go about our business in a very safe manner. Banning guns only affects us, the law abiding citizens. It does feck all to stop criminals or sociopathes.

Are you talking about Ireland or the US?

The fact is for me that a gun or large explosive and such devices are designed to easily inflict injury.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I don't need to go target shooting and put holes in pieces of paper at the weekend either, but I really enjoy it. I don't see it as a hobby to be ashamed of as a lot of posters here seem to suggest. What harm am I doing by putting high velocity pieces of steel through paper targets?

Would you enjoy it if the bullets or weapon firing them would only pierce paper and not flesh?

BattleCorp wrote: »

Just because something might have originally have been designed to kill, doesn't mean that it can't be used for other purposes. Guns can be used safely if they are in the right hands. We have over 260,000 legally held guns here in Ireland and 99.99 of them are being used safely and legally.

I think the problem with gun violence in the US is psychologically based. Sorry if this is p1ssing off any of the Americans on this thread but, to put it simply, America is a more violent place than Ireland.

They need to address this before gun violence will go down.

The answer isn't banning guns. It's sorting out why there are so many willing to resort to guns to settle any grievance that they have.

Do a huge of amount of Americans have there guns for "home protection"? Do they have human shaped targets at ranges? These people are thinking of using a gun for what it was designed to do. To inflict an injury or possibly kill something when they feels it fits the situation. Rightly or wrongly.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 10:24PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

America is a more violent place than Ireland.

It always has been. And it is becoming, year on year, a less violent place. Some posters seem to have some difficulty grasping that.

Ush1 wrote: »

You're really having trouble with this concept and it's so simple. The point I was making that you reckon sociopathic behaviour relates to things like running dummies over, I simply pointed out that people on gun ranges do similar things.

And as you agreed these things are harmless then. So why try and restrict the guy on the gun range? Why pick this guy out?

I think it has to be wilful ignorance at this stage.

Are you being serious that you can see no similarity whatsoever between running around a (airsoft) building shooting pellets at people and evading SWAT capture and a shooter running around a (school) building shooting bullets at people and evading SWAT capture. Really, no similarity. And you call me wilfully ignorant. Wow.

lol No in a rational one. I'm suggesting a two prong attack while you suggest one, who is aiming for perfection?

I'm suggesting the attack with the most precision, not the one that involves punishing 150 million households.

"Wow, that escalated quickly."

Is see you didn't respond. Is a ban what you are proposing or not?

I'm gonna have to go Father Ted on this..

These guns are lethal, but these guns are faaar away.:)

aaaaannnd...another deflection that really doesn't answer my question.

Witcher · 31-01-2013 10:29PM

Don't mean to step on your toes Battlecorp but this one is worth replying to

Ush1 wrote: »

Are you talking about Ireland or the US?

The fact is for me that a gun or large explosive and such devices are designed to easily inflict injury.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it...but that's not their only use.

Would you enjoy it if the bullets or weapon firing them would only pierce paper and not flesh?

What round that is usefully accurate will pierce paper but not flesh? Some of the things I've read on this thread are laughable:pac:

Do a huge of amount of Americans have there guns for "home protection"? Do they have human shaped targets at ranges? These people are thinking of using a gun for what it was designed to do. To inflict an injury or possibly kill something when they feels it fits the situation. Rightly or wrongly.

People in a lot of countries keep firearms for home defence. People doing CCW weapon drills will usually use a human targets since they would be shooting at humans if they were to draw a concealed firearm so it's helpful to know how effectively you would be able to use it.

Not all people use their firearms for killing... 220,000 of them licenced at this very moment in Ireland and when was the last time someone was killed with one?

People that purchase firearms for use on a range/hunting/home defence aren't the ones carrying out these shootings. James Holmes bought his specifically to carry out his shooting and Adam Lanza stole the firearm he used.

InTheTrees · 31-01-2013 10:35PM

MadsL wrote: »

Would you give a child an airsoft rifle to play with?

I dont get why you're after toy guns? Just because some nerds like to play soldier in the woods with them? They're trying to replicate their favourite computer game, like Call Of Duty, not planning some covert take over of government with toy guns.

They're far less powerful than air rifles too so why not go after those? Air guns are powerful enough that not even nerds in camouflage can go shoot at each other with them. You could possibly break the skin with one.

And yes, I'd give an airsoft to a "child". I had one as a kid, a spring fired toy gun that fires little pellets? Sheesh.

Lighten up.

Or am I coming across as a Psycho Gun Nut?

Ush1 · 31-01-2013 10:37PM

MadsL wrote: »

And as you agreed these things are harmless then. So why try and restrict the guy on the gun range? Why pick this guy out?

No I didn't, you need to actually read what I said. I'm really getting bored typing this. The implement being used is the difference between an airsoft gun and an actual gun. Do you comprehend this??

MadsL wrote: »

Are you being serious that you can see no similarity whatsoever between running around a (airsoft) building shooting pellets at people and evading SWAT capture and a shooter running around a (school) building shooting bullets at people and evading SWAT capture. Really, no similarity. And you call me wilfully ignorant. Wow.

No I'm ignoring this as it has nothing to do with what I said. What's your excuse?

MadsL wrote: »

I'm suggesting the attack with the most precision, not the one that involves punishing 150 million households.

What exactly does your "precision" approach entail? You reckon America is violent and just leave the guns while you do what?

Punishing in what way? Can you answer, if you don't use guns for your job, does the general public have any necessity for them?

MadsL wrote: »

Is see you didn't respond. Is a ban what you are proposing or not?

You didn't respond to my vendetta question either.

MadsL wrote: »

aaaaannnd...another deflection that really doesn't answer my question.

I have answered, you can lead a horse to water an all that....

MadsL · 31-01-2013 10:44PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont get why you're after toy guns? Just because some nerds like to play soldier in the woods with them? They're trying to replicate their favourite computer game, like Call Of Duty, not planning some covert take over of government with toy guns.

They're far less powerful than air rifles too so why not go after those? Air guns are powerful enough that not even nerds in camouflage can go shoot at each other with them. You could possibly break the skin with one.

And yes, I'd give an airsoft to a "child". I had one as a kid, a spring fired toy gun that fires little pellets? Sheesh.

Lighten up.

Or am I coming across as a Psycho Gun Nut?

I'm pointing out the cognitive disconnect between on the one hand calling for law-abiding citizens to surrender legally held firearms and accusing them somehow of being to blame for school massacres whilst at the same time defending the rights of people dressed as terrorists, running around practising storming buildings and evading SWAT teams and saying there is no similarity between that and actually storming buildings and evading SWAT teams.

It strikes me as very odd to want to restrict one group of people but not the other.

Personally I don't believe either group should be restricted, but as Sparks has pointed out previously, (technically) Paintball is illegal in Ireland.

BattleCorp · 31-01-2013 10:45PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Are you talking about Ireland or the US?

Ireland

The fact is for me that a gun or large explosive and such devices are designed to easily inflict injury.

The fact that it was designed for one purpose doesn't mean that it can't be used safely for other purposes. For me, radiation is something that comes from a nuclear bomb. Clearly a device made for killing. Yet radiation can be used to fight cancer through chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Guns originally might have been designed for killing but my guns aren't used for killing. They are used for sport.

Would you enjoy it if the bullets or weapon firing them would only pierce paper and not flesh?

No such firearm exists that I'm aware of but yes, if it shot like a gun and the bullet behaved like a normal gun, then yes, I think I'd like it.

Mission Impossible though to get a bullet to go through paper and not flesh. I'm guessing you don't shoot but a bullet has to go pretty fast to hit a target. A fast moving bullet will pierce paper and flesh. You'd need a bullet to go very slow if it was to break paper and not flesh. Such a slow moving bullet would make it impossible to use effectively and would have a range of about 1 metre (3 feet approx for any Americans here) or less.

Plus, I doubt that the hunters and people involved in vermin control would be too impressed with your guns. Not much use for those guys if they don't go through flesh.

Do a huge of amount of Americans have there guns for "home protection"? Do they have human shaped targets at ranges? These people are thinking of using a gun for what it was designed to do. To inflict an injury or possibly kill something when they feels it fits the situation. Rightly or wrongly.

What would be the point of having a gun for home protection if they aren't able to use it should the need arise? There are two ways to look at that arguement. You say that they are intending to use the gun as it was designed to do, to inflict injury or to kill someone. The other side of the arguement is that they might say that they are intending to use the gun to possibly save their lives and the lives of their family.

Americans are allowed by law to have guns for home protection. They are also allowed to shoot at human shaped targets. We are banned from having a gun for self defence here in Ireland and we are also not allowed to shoot at human shaped targets here in Ireland.

Personally, I don't think it matters what shape of a target you shoot at. Shooting at a human shaped target won't turn you into a psychopath any more than shooting at a bulls eye will.

Ush1 · 31-01-2013 10:51PM

Blay wrote: »

Don't mean to step on your toes Battlecorp but this one is worth replying to

Blay wrote: »

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it...but that's not their only use.

In a relative sense, what other uses do they have? Particularly guns. I don't think it's opinion that they were designed to injure.

Blay wrote: »

What round that is usefully accurate will pierce paper but not flesh? Some of the things I've read on this thread are laughable

Why is it funny? It's a hypothetical question. It could be an advanced laser system that can 100% accurately match the trajectory of a bullet but would obviously be harmless to anything. Would you be happy with that?

Blay wrote: »

People in a lot of countries keep firearms for home defence. People doing CCW weapon drills will usually use a human targets since they would be shooting at humans if they were to draw a concealed firearm so it's helpful to know how effectively you would be able to use it.

Perfect, no questions about what the gun will doing with them so is there other than possibly inflict injuries or kill a human.

Blay wrote: »

Not all people use their firearms for killing... 220,000 of them licenced at this very moment in Ireland and when was the last time someone was killed with one?

People that purchase firearms for use on a range/hunting/home defence aren't the ones carrying out these shootings. James Holmes bought his specifically to carry out his shooting and Adam Lanza stole the firearm he used.

I'm sure plenty of legally held guns in the US have killed people also.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 11:01PM

Ush1 wrote: »

No I didn't, you need to actually read what I said. I'm really getting bored typing this. The implement being used is the difference between an airsoft gun and an actual gun. Do you comprehend this??

So it is the implement that should be controlled and not the person. So that is why we impound your car when you speed. What's that? Oh we don't.

Are you familiar with the concept of muscle memory? That if you practice something often enough it becomes second nature? Frankly, that is what airsoft is, a way of training to become instinctively combat capable. But my 70 year old neighbour is the greater risk. I see.

No I'm ignoring this as it has nothing to do with what I said.

You said that you could see no similarity between the two scenarios. I call bull, you just refuse to admit they are similar.

What exactly does your "precision" approach entail? You reckon America is violent and just leave the guns while you do what?

You don't think it better to try and identify those likely to go postal, than to apply a blanket law to 150 million people? America is becoming less violent, however it owns more guns each year. I don't know if the two are linked, frankly, but there it is. What do you propose to do?

Punishing in what way? Can you answer, if you don't use guns for your job, does the general public have any necessity for them?

Why do you feel they should not be allowed to have them. I already posted what my State considers uses. hunting, self-defence, recreation and other lawful purposes. What's the "necessity" for an airsoft rifle?

You didn't respond to my vendetta question either.

Because it is obviously not a "vendetta" rather an prime example of a double standard at work.

BattleCorp · 31-01-2013 11:02PM

Ush1 wrote: »

In a relative sense, what other uses do they have? Particularly guns. I don't think it's opinion that they were designed to injure.

Guns can be used for target shooting. That's another use.

Why is it funny? It's a hypothetical question. It could be an advanced laser system that can 100% accurately match the trajectory of a bullet but would obviously be harmless to anything. Would you be happy with that?

You don't know much about shooting. Lasers can't 100% match the trajectory of a bullet. Bullets shoot in pretty much an arch. Lasers shoot straight. Bullets are affected by wind etc, lasers aren't. You'd be taking a lot of skill out of shooting by using lasers.

I'm sure plenty of legally held guns in the US have killed people also.

Yes, plenty of legally held guns in the US have killed people. So have legally held cars.

I'm not trying to make light of deaths, I'm just saying that yes, there are bad people out there, but there are also a hell of a lot more good people out there who go about their business and don't put anybody in danger.

.

Witcher · 31-01-2013 11:03PM

Ush1 wrote: »

In a relative sense, what other uses do they have? Particularly guns. I don't think it's opinion that they were designed to injure.

Their other uses have been pointed out to you numerous times.

Why is it funny? It's a hypothetical question. It could be an advanced laser system that can 100% accurately match the trajectory of a bullet but would obviously be harmless to anything. Would you be happy with that?

Yes, but realistically that will never happen. Plus what about people that use their firearms for target shooting and hunting? That's wont suffice for them.

Perfect, no questions about what the gun will doing with them so is there other than possibly inflict injuries or kill a human.

This sentence makes no sense.

I'm sure plenty of legally held guns in the US have killed people also.

How come AR15's etc. have never been an issue before then? Some deranged individuals use them to shoot people and suddenly everyone that owns an AR15 or other 'assault rifles' or wishes to own one is a lunatic and probably planning to carry out a school shooting.

They're bringing the hammer down on these rifles because several have been used in school shootings...what about the millions of them that haven't been used in shootings and are owned by law abiding people? It's a disproportionate punishment for the actions of a tiny minority. This push for 'assault rifle' bans only took off after Aurora so the actions of James Holmes and Adam Lanza mean that in a few months 300m people will be unable to buy an AR15 is they wish to do so...that is ****ing ridiculous.

.

Ush1 · 31-01-2013 11:05PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ireland

Well I don't know how many guns that were involved in deaths in Ireland were legally or illegally. I'd be confident though that if there was an abundance of legal firearms it would make them easier to fall into the wrong hands.

BattleCorp wrote: »

The fact that it was designed for one purpose doesn't mean that it can't be used safely for other purposes. For me, radiation is something that comes from a nuclear bomb. Clearly a device made for killing. Yet radiation can be used to fight cancer through chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Guns originally might have been designed for killing but my guns aren't used for killing. They are used for sport.

It's not really apt simile as the only other use for a gun you've mentioned is sport. It's not the same necessity as curing cancer and very few people have access to nuclear bombs or damaging amounts of radiation.

BattleCorp wrote: »

No such firearm exists that I'm aware of but yes, if it shot like a gun and the bullet behaved like a normal gun, then yes, I think I'd like it.

Mission Impossible though to get a bullet to go through paper and not flesh. I'm guessing you don't shoot but a bullet has to go pretty fast to hit a target. A fast moving bullet will pierce paper and flesh. You'd need a bullet to go very slow if it was to break paper and not flesh. Such a slow moving bullet would make it impossible to use effectively and would have a range of about 1 metre (3 feet approx for any Americans here) or less.

See my above post about a laser system. It's really a point about psychology of firing a gun and the necessity of them.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Plus, I doubt that the hunters and people involved in vermin control would be too impressed with your guns. Not much use for those guys if they don't go through flesh.

If someone necessarily and practically needs it for their job I think that's different.

BattleCorp wrote: »

What would be the point of having a gun for home protection if they aren't able to use it should the need arise? There are two ways to look at that arguement. You say that they are intending to use the gun as it was designed to do, to inflict injury or to kill someone. The other side of the arguement is that they might say that they are intending to use the gun to possibly save their lives and the lives of their family.

Americans are allowed by law to have guns for home protection. They are also allowed to shoot at human shaped targets. We are banned from having a gun for self defence here in Ireland and we are also not allowed to shoot at human shaped targets here in Ireland.

Personally, I don't think it matters what shape of a target you shoot at. Shooting at a human shaped target won't turn you into a psychopath any more than shooting at a bulls eye will.

So it comes back to my point of using a gun to kill and I would fall on the former of your argument. I believe such things are a danger and the general public would be better off without them.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 11:05PM

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm sure plenty of illegally held guns in Ireland have killed people also.

FYP
Far more killed in paramilitary operations than in school shootings in the US.

MadsL · 31-01-2013 11:08PM

Ush1 wrote: »

So it comes back to my point of using a gun to kill and I would fall on the former of your argument. I believe such things are a danger and the general public would be better off without them.

So you are arguing for a gun ban despite all your "well, that escalated quickly" nonsense earlier.

Why can't you just be honest about it.

Now, how are you going to achieve recalling 350 million firearms from the US, and why are people allowed them in Ireland and not the US in your universe?

Witcher · 31-01-2013 11:11PM

MadsL wrote: »

So you are arguing for a gun ban despite all your "well, that escalated quickly" nonsense earlier.

Why can't you just be honest about it.

Now, how are you going to achieve recalling 350 million firearms from the US, and why are people allowed them in Ireland and not the US in your universe?

Ush1 is a militant anti gunner unfortunately Madsl..we've encountered several of them in the last 123 pages of this thread but more of them keep coming out of the woodwork:pac:

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments