Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

Options
1…457910…12

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    MadsL wrote: »
    Well the one my friend owns produces delicious elk. :) There are 320 million people in the US. 2 million guns is peanuts.
    That's 2 million of one type of AR in one decade.
    Never tasted elk myself. Is it like venison?
    MadsL wrote: »
    I have a 'collectable' car to sell you. I'm keeping the engine, but pay me full price huh?
    You're repeating the same refuted argument here. If the buyer is banned from using the firearm, why would he be interested in the first place?
    MadsL wrote: »
    You asked for me to agree with your 'sorta' equating of home defense with killing people. Clearly they are not the same. Any rational person would hope the intruder would flee rather than them having to shoot them in defense.
    Ah, so guns for home defence are only there to scare people off. Shoot them into the air, yeah? Don't tell the criminals mind you, or they'll know it's all a bluff!
    C'mon off it. Whatever you "hope" for, the gun is designed to shoot people.


  • Options
    #183
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Why would you assume I would single out US citizens?
    For recreational shooting, why would you need more than a single shot firearm?

    You can't go pew-pew-pew nanananananana with a single shot.

    And after all - thats whats most important.


  • Options
    #184
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.... lets ban people
    Couldn't get further from a logic argument there if you tried TBH.
    We need people because that's, like, what we are.
    We don't need large capacity large calibre firearms freely available to civilians because they are a net negative to society.


  • Options
    #185
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    You can't go pew-pew-pew nanananananana with a single shot.

    And after all - thats whats most important.
    Well you can make the noise yourself while you learn how to hit a target. :)
    (which apparently is what recreational shooting is about)


  • Options
    #186
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,272 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    FTFY.
    Why pretend they are only used for "defense"? Are there any stats on how many civilians have saved themselves from a shooting by having their own firearm?

    Not specifically, because in order to be sure they would have been shot had they not used their own firearm, then they would have had to have not defended themselves and then gotten shot. We can only make estimates.

    However, the closest figure we have available is "Defensive Gun Uses", which is basically how many times someone felt at risk and grabbed their weapon. It includes threatening and not shooting, shooting and missing, shooting and wounding, and shooting and killing.

    The problem with that is that there is no reliable figure, with a massive range depending on quite how the question is framed. About the lowest figure is from an anti-gun group survey, about 70,000 a year. 100,000 or so is a more common low-end estimate. At the higher end, figures in excess of 3.5 million are touted.

    The other problem appears to be that we don't really have modern figures available to us. Bureau of Justice Statistics stats from the late 80s, before the current wave of firearms prevalence amongst the citizenry, state about 85,000 a year, although those are based on a sample of reported crimes (about 3/4 of these were violent crimes) and not crimes which were averted and so not reported. The last time that the Dept of Justice took a look at the figures was 1994, the conclusion was that 1.5 million DGUs annually was probably about right. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    But, again, that was 20 years ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Ronin247
    Registered Users Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭Ronin247


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Couldn't get further from a logic argument there if you tried TBH.
    We need people because that's, like, what we are.
    We don't need large capacity large calibre firearms freely available to civilians because they are a net negative to society.

    Technically we do not need clothes, big cars, big houses so should they all be banned? A big car is a net negative due to the carbon footprint so lets ban big cars. It takes too much labour/ material to build a large house so everyone should only be allowed one that covers the basics?

    Automatic firearms are perfectly legal and constitutionally protected by the second amendment in a democracy, you may not like it, but it is a democracy.The reasoning behind it in the American Constitution was supposedly that the only thing that would keep the Government in line was the fear of an armed militia.

    Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.


  • Options
    #188
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    Technically we do not need clothes, big cars, big houses so should they all be banned? A big car is a net negative due to the carbon footprint so lets ban big cars. It takes too much labour/ material to build a large house so everyone should only be allowed one that covers the basics?

    Automatic firearms are perfectly legal and constitutionally protected by the second amendment in a democracy, you may not like it, but it is a democracy.The reasoning behind it in the American Constitution was supposedly that the only thing that would keep the Government in line was the fear of an armed militia.

    Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.

    Yeah a militia from centuries ago, armed with blackpowder long arms that went something like this.

    Loose !! ....kneel, ye powder, ye rod, ye leaden balles, ye flinte, stand, aim, hold, target within ye 100 paces .... Loose !!


  • Options
    #189
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    Technically we do not need clothes, big cars, big houses so should they all be banned? A big car is a net negative due to the carbon footprint so lets ban big cars. It takes too much labour/ material to build a large house so everyone should only be allowed one that covers the basics?

    Automatic firearms are perfectly legal and constitutionally protected by the second amendment in a democracy, you may not like it, but it is a democracy.The reasoning behind it in the American Constitution was supposedly that the only thing that would keep the Government in line was the fear of an armed militia.

    Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.
    Saying something refuted twice doesn't really make it magically true I'm afraid.
    We need people. We do not need large capacity large calibre firearms in civilian ownership need. Nothing you have said changes that.
    There's no denying they are currently legal and constitutional in the US. This isn't any case whatsoever that this is the right thing in modern times for the benefit of US society.


  • Options
    #190
    Dar
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Dar


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    This isn't any case whatsoever that this is the right thing in modern times for the benefit of US society.

    Of course there's a case, just not one you agree with.


  • Options
    #191
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Ronin247 wrote: »
    Technically we do not need clothes
    Somebody hasn't been in Ireland in December, eh?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    fryup wrote: »
    they should take the american senate to court for allowing their crazy gun laws to stand
    MadsL wrote: »
    They are not laws, but constitutional rights. Which would involve a further amendment to change.

    in which their senate were too chicken to change a few years back


  • Options
    #193
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Dar wrote: »
    Of course there's a case, just not one you agree with.
    Er, no, I'm right, times ten...
    Have you any actual argument or are you just saying "you're wrong"?


  • Options
    #194
    SwiftJustice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭SwiftJustice


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yeah a militia from centuries ago, armed with blackpowder long arms that went something like this.

    Loose !! ....kneel, ye powder, ye rod, ye leaden balles, ye flinte, stand, aim, hold, target within ye 100 paces .... Loose !!

    I think the American Constitution is an amazing document. It was written in the 1700's and it provides freedoms to the people that people dictatorships today would die for. It was written by the very people who defeated the British 'tyrants' and they put checks and balances into the structure of government to ensure that a tyrannical government would never rise again.

    The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which reaffirms the inalienable rights of the citizens. It protects the first amendment. If the 1st and 2nd amendments were in the Syrian contstitution we wouldn't be witnessing the bloodbath we see today.


  • Options
    #195
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    You can't go pew-pew-pew nanananananana with a single shot.

    And after all - thats whats most important.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Well you can make the noise yourself while you learn how to hit a target. :)
    (which apparently is what recreational shooting is about)


    Nice to see your arguments simply reduce to ridicule. Convincing.
    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yeah a militia from centuries ago, armed with blackpowder long arms that went something like this.

    Loose !! ....kneel, ye powder, ye rod, ye leaden balles, ye flinte, stand, aim, hold, target within ye 100 paces .... Loose !!

    Did you miss the part where pointed out automatic weapons were already invented.
    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Saying something refuted twice doesn't really make it magically true I'm afraid..

    That's me off the hook then. ;)
    fryup wrote: »
    in which their senate were too chicken to change a few years back

    When?

    The Senate doesn't typically form amendments, non of the 27 have been formulated that way.


  • Options
    #196
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,069 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    MadsL wrote: »
    When?

    The Senate doesn't typically form amendments, non of the 27 have been formulated that way.

    they had the opportunity to change it but did a u-turn at the last minute

    http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/04/senate-vote-background-checks/64331/


  • Options
    #197
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    SwiftJustice wrote: »
    I think the American Constitution is an amazing document. It was written in the 1700's and it provides freedoms to the people that people dictatorships today would die for. It was written by the very people who defeated the British 'tyrants' and they put checks and balances into the structure of government to ensure that a tyrannical government would never rise again.

    The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which reaffirms the inalienable rights of the citizens. It protects the first amendment. If the 1st and 2nd amendments were in the Syrian contstitution we wouldn't be witnessing the bloodbath we see today.

    All very true but none of it sides with the gun nuts.

    You might note that it refers to freedom to bear arms - yet anti-tank systems aren't frequently available in walmart. Surely thats breaking the American peoples constitutional rights.

    Time and change trumps everything ... even amendments to constitutions written in a time before your great great great grandfather.


  • Options
    #198
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    MadsL wrote: »
    Nice to see your arguments simply reduce to ridicule. Convincing.



    Did you miss the part where pointed out automatic weapons were already invented.



    You think Im being ridiculous in my arguments .... interesting.
    Anyhoo, tell me of these automatic weapons that were already invented at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.

    Im guessing they involved at least one turning handle and possibly some water cooled steam powered brass cogs.

    Aye - Tis a fine weapon but sure it is not goode for shooting up ye picture house English.


  • Options
    #199
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you consider an off-road vehicle a "toy"?
    Unless you need it to survive then yes, it's a complete toy.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    I really don't see why people are worked up over "The purpose of a gun is to kill people". Well, duh. What's wrong with that? So far, it's the best tool we seem to have come up with for defending ourselves. Once someone invents something better (Phasers set to stun?)
    ... Or civilised society. :pac:

    It is pointless trying to convince Americans that they shouldn't have a country polluted with guns, but it's a culture thing. Ireland came out of hundreds of years of being oppressed by a country that used its military might to get it's way. America didn't really have to suffer that in the same way we did, the gun gave America it's freedom whereas in Ireland the gun kept us in line. Our civil war is just about out of living memory and you can still see the bullet holes in buildings from that conflict, whereas in America time allowed for the living memory of people that suffered the gun to pass into legend.

    At the end of the day America and Europe are at very different stages in their development. Europe is still getting over the effects of the gun and war, America hasn't had to suffer it's full effects in a long time.

    All I can think as a European is that at least it's happening thousands of miles away from me.


  • Options
    #200
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    All very true but none of it sides with the gun nuts.

    As always, when unable to make a coherent and practical argument, resort to name-calling.
    You might note that it refers to freedom to bear arms - yet anti-tank systems aren't frequently available in walmart. Surely thats breaking the American peoples constitutional rights.

    Nothing in the second amendment prevents either individual states or Federal Govt passing restrictions, as evidenced by the restrictions on fully automatic firearms. It is up to the Supreme Court(s) to determine if the legislation violates the 2nd Amendment.
    Time and change trumps everything ... even amendments to constitutions written in a time before your great great great grandfather.

    Consider how few of them have required changes.


  • Options
    #201
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    You think Im being ridiculous in my arguments .... interesting.
    Anyhoo, tell me of these automatic weapons that were already invented at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.

    Im guessing they involved at least one turning handle and possibly some water cooled steam powered brass cogs.

    Aye - Tis a fine weapon but sure it is not goode for shooting up ye picture house English.

    Do you even read my posts? I even quoted you.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93470553&postcount=122

    9 rounds a minute would have been shock and awe in the 1720s.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Unless you need it to survive then yes, it's a complete toy.

    A friend of mine lives at the end of this road...it gets far worse than this at the end too. When I visit him, I couldn't safely get there without a 4x4.

    For some it's a toy, for others a tool. But you cannot restrict access to tools on the basis that others have fun with the tools.

    ... Or civilised society. :pac:

    Come now - it is not like people are not shot on the streets of Dublin.
    It is pointless trying to convince Americans that they shouldn't have a country polluted with guns, but it's a culture thing.

    Polluted? Is Ireland also polluted with some 200 thousand plus firearms?
    Ireland came out of hundreds of years of being oppressed by a country that used its military might to get it's way.

    America didn't really have to suffer that in the same way we did,
    Lol. You really should read some North America history. England, France, Spain, Sweden and Holland were all US colonial powers. As a side note technically the Irish nation is still at war with Canada. In fact the Seven Year's War actually started in North America.

    "Americans" didn't have to suffer in the same way Ireland did. Have you any notion of what Native Americans suffered at the hands of Europeans?
    the gun gave America it's freedom whereas in Ireland the gun kept us in line. Our civil war is just about out of living memory and you can still see the bullet holes in buildings from that conflict,

    I see. There was no armed rebellion in Ireland?
    whereas in America time allowed for the living memory of people that suffered the gun to pass into legend.

    Eh? Is there some romantic music to be played that makes this makes sense?
    At the end of the day America and Europe are at very different stages in their development. Europe is still getting over the effects of the gun and war, America hasn't had to suffer it's full effects in a long time.

    You are aware that there are 19 million military veterans currently in the US, 7 million Vietnam-era veterans, 5.2 million who served during the Gulf War Era, 1.3 million who served in World War II; and 2.1 million who served in the Korean War.

    That's one in seventeen Americans who are combat vets.
    All I can think as a European is that at least it's happening thousands of miles away from me.

    Tell me, where are the current armed conflicts taking place? Ukraine is also part of Europe.


  • Options
    #203
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    fryup wrote: »
    they had the opportunity to change it but did a u-turn at the last minute

    http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/04/senate-vote-background-checks/64331/

    That Bill was about background checks, not the Second Amendment, and supported by approx 90% of Americans.

    Very few Americans would countenance conviced criminals having legal access to firearms.


  • Options
    #204
    The Diabolical Monocle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭The Diabolical Monocle


    MadsL wrote: »
    As always, when unable to make a coherent and practical argument, resort to name-calling.

    Yes boo hoo I said gun nut. What happens when its an accurate description ... do I regain my coherent argument card ? Is that what internet law says ?
    MadsL wrote: »
    Nothing in the second amendment prevents either individual states or Federal Govt passing restrictions, as evidenced by the restrictions on fully automatic firearms. It is up to the Supreme Court(s) to determine if the legislation violates the 2nd Amendment.

    Exactly - so its not a holy document which sets life in stone n'er to be changed. Certain weapons have been banned previously, its frankly a painfully obvious thing to do, at least they somewhat used sense, so you dont have rockets flying round the streets of the US.
    In an ideal world they'd go the final inch and finish the job, that wouldn't do however for people who like their 'recreational shooting' and 'collectors items' with a great deal of passion.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Consider how few of them have required changes.

    Thats not really an argument now is it - something hasn't been often changed .... therefore what. It mustn't be changed - why ? - because it hasn't been changed much.
    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you even read my posts? I even quoted you.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93470553&postcount=122

    9 rounds a minute would have been shock and awe in the 1720s.

    Yes .... in the 1720's. When shopping centers, universities and cinemas getting shot up wasn't a real big deal. It also looks like it weighs about 20kg.

    lol ...it was for shipboard use to prevent boarding.
    Your defense for why no changes are needed to present day US gun laws is 'the puckle gun' existed in the 1700's.

    Ah I see it did indeed have a turning handle as predicted.


  • Options
    #205
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    MadsL wrote: »
    Do you even read my posts? I even quoted you.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93470553&postcount=122

    9 rounds a minute would have been shock and awe in the 1720s.
    The Puckle Gun drew few investors and never achieved mass production or sales to the British armed forces. As with other designs of the time it was hampered by "clumsy and undependable flintlock ignition" and other mechanism problems.[2] One newspaper of the period sarcastically observed, following the business venture's failure, that the gun has "only wounded those who hold shares therein
    the second variant, designed to be used against the Muslim Turks, fired square bullets
    :rolleyes:

    It never went into full-scale production, no army or navy adopted it and it was completely impractical, it might as well have been invented by Rube Goldberg.

    Plus it's not very practical for massacring 6 year olds in a classroom.


  • Options
    #206
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »
    Yes boo hoo I said gun nut. What happens when its an accurate description ... do I regain my coherent argument card ? Is that what internet law says ?

    Insult away! You are only making your weak arguments weaker. Maybe that is why you have resorted to bold text?
    Exactly - so its not a holy document which sets life in stone n'er to be changed. Certain weapons have been banned previously, its frankly a painfully obvious thing to do, at least they somewhat used sense, so you dont have rockets flying round the streets of the US.
    I never said it was, perhaps you kight quote where I did if I am mistaken. As for rocket propelled grenades, you are aware they can be legally owned and fired in the US. Just at rather a hefty price tag.
    In an ideal world they'd go the final inch and finish the job, that wouldn't do however for people who like their 'recreational shooting' and 'collectors items' with a great deal of passion. [/B]
    Can you enlighten me as to what is wrong with recreational shooting? A past-time practiced in a good many countries, including Ireland. Please I'd love to know what causes you to froth at the mouth at the thought of people putting a few rounds downrange at a target.
    Thats not really an argument now is it - something hasn't been often changed .... therefore what. It mustn't be changed - why ? - because it hasn't been changed much.
    You do know what a democracy is, right?

    Yes .... in the 1720's. When shopping centers, universities and cinemas getting shot up wasn't a real big deal. It also looks like it weighs about 20kg.

    lol ...it was for shipboard use to prevent boarding.
    Your defense for why no changes are needed to present day US gun laws is 'the puckle gun' existed in the 1700's.
    Ah I see it did indeed have a turning handle as predicted.

    My defence wasn't the puckle gun, it was my response to your assertion that when the Bill of Rights was written that the only guns were black powder muzzleloaders. Since you now admit that there was a bit more firepower around in the 1790s or even the 1720s than just muzzleloader muskets you have conceded that your argument point is factualy incorrect, thanks for conceding it. You mocking the gun doesn't make it any less historically present.


  • Options
    #207
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    It never went into full-scale production, no army or navy adopted it and it was completely impractical, it might as well have been invented by Rube Goldberg.

    Plus it's not very practical for massacring 6 year olds in a classroom.

    Did it exist as a firearm? Yes.

    My point is already made, the founding fathers must have been aware of more substantial firepower than muskets, and yet did not frame the Second Amendment as "the right to bear arms except for those nasty Puckle Guns".


  • Options
    #208
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,272 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    It never went into full-scale production, no army or navy adopted it and it was completely impractical, it might as well have been invented by Rube Goldberg.

    Plus it's not very practical for massacring 6 year olds in a classroom.

    Perhaps a better example would have been the Giradoni Rifle, which was in Austrian Army service at that time. It fired from detachable 20-round gravity-fed magazines (each soldier carried five in total). It was in service for about 25 years, the main problems for its time were that it was bloody hard to make and maintain, and kind of fragile. Americans will know it as the rifle which armed the Lewis and Clark expedition.


  • Options
    #209
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    MadsL wrote: »
    You do know what a democracy is, right?
    Another amazingly inept non-point.
    I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
    Are you confused by this yourself?


  • Options
    #210
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Another amazingly inept non-point.
    I think we're all pretty well aware that it would take a plebiscite to change the US constitution. Or the right democratically elected (and paid off) representatives to change laws.
    Are you confused by this yourself?

    No it wouldn't - the US Constitution is amended through resolutions voted by individual State legislatures, not by referendum.

    Two thirds of both houses of congress must agree to a proposal to amend - or the legislatures of two thirds of the States can agree a proposal to amend.

    The proposal then goes to the states for ratification - usually there's a time limit - and for it to be accepted (and the Constitution amended) 75% of the states must ratify it.

    In the case of the second amendment - good luck with tha'


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Jawgap wrote: »
    No it wouldn't - the US Constitution is amended through resolutions voted by individual State legislatures, not by referendum.

    Two thirds of both houses of congress must agree to a proposal to amend - or the legislatures of two thirds of the States can agree a proposal to amend.

    The proposal then goes to the states for ratification - usually there's a time limit - and for it to be accepted (and the Constitution amended) 75% of the states must ratify it.
    Which doesn't change the fact that we all know already that it takes a democratic decision to change the constitution and state laws. You're not even attempting to refute this.
    Jawgap wrote: »
    In the case of the second amendment - good luck with tha'
    Also a separate argument, whether such a plebiscite would succeed.
    Anything anybody posted you'd care to comment on?


Advertisement