10 people shot dead in Texas

steddyeddy · 23-05-2018 4:11pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Even if guns were first designed to kill people/animals, what difference does that make? Honestly, this is a genuine question.

That doesn't mean that they don't have other uses or that they can't be used safely.

Just curious but what are your suggestions for reducing mass shootings?

weisses · 23-05-2018 4:17pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ok. Leave out the words 'even if' and then answer my question.

of course they can be used for other purposes ... But that was not the point

Guns were invented to kill ... fact ... Its not an opinion, of some left wing liberal ... plenty of material to be found online that confirms this

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 4:20pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just curious but what are your suggestions for reducing mass shootings?

As a responsible gun owner myself, I think lots can be done to ensure that the guns don't end up in the hands of unstable people.

I'm fairly sure the laws in the US would not allow all of the following recommendations but here goes:

1. All firearms sales to be conducted through a registered firearms dealer.

2. All firearms to be registered in a National database linking the owner to the serial number on the gun.

3. All purchasers of firearms to be subject to a detailed background check including the ability to check medical history. Anything untoward and you don't get a gun.

4. All owners of firearms to undergo mandatory safety training in relation to their firearms.

5. All firearms to be securely stored in such a way as to prevent unauthorised access to the firearms by minors or other undesirables.

6. Very heavy penalties for those breaking the above rules.

That's just off the top of my head. As a gun owner I'm certainly not advocating guns for everyone. But like I said at the top of this post, many of my suggestions are probably against the law as it stands in the US.

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 4:23pm

weisses wrote: »

of course they can be used for other purposes ... But that was not the point

Guns were invented to kill ... fact ... Its not an opinion, of some left wing liberal ... plenty of material to be found online that confirms this

I'm not arguing that fact with you. I'm just stating that I don't believe the fact that they were originally used for killing people/animals has any relevance to the lawful use of them nowadays.

I'm only talking about lawful uses such as vermin control, hunting and target shooting. And because we are talking about the US, self defence.

weisses · 23-05-2018 4:26pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

And again, what difference does that make to the safe, legal use of firearms?

It puts people who do use guns safely in the US in an unattainable position, something has to be done and hiding behind the second amendment isn't the solution.

I was member of a gun club in The Netherlands, so you can use a gun or rifle for leisure without using an ancient piece of legislation.

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 4:37pm

weisses wrote: »

It puts people who do use guns safely in the US in an unattainable position, something has to be done and hiding behind the second amendment isn't the solution.

I was member of a gun club in The Netherlands, so you can use a gun or rifle for leisure without using an ancient piece of legislation.

To be honest, I hate coming on here having to defend the use of guns for legal purposes any time some fcukwit shoots up a school. I know, through absolutely no fault of my own, I'm going to get stick for it. But law abiding gun owners have a right to speak up for themselves. They are not doing anything wrong but they are still tarred with the same brush as the fcukwit who does something illegal with a gun.

It's like someone in a pub who drinks moderately and obeys all the laws and behaves themselves getting stick because some scumbag down the road kills someone while drink driving.

I'm saying don't ban guns, just take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that those school shooting fcukwits don't get their hands on firearms.

TeaBagMania · 23-05-2018 4:47pm

weisses wrote: »

something has to be done and hiding behind the second amendment isn't the solution.

you should become an American citizen and vote to remove the second amendment or change it how you see fit

weisses · 23-05-2018 4:47pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm saying don't ban guns, just take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that those school shooting fcukwits don't get their hands on firearms.

That means doing something about the second amendment imo.

No one is talking about banning guns (you can own guns/rifles in Europe as well) but if that silly cartoon reflects how you and the USA in general see the gun issue then I think there are gonna be plenty more fkctards shooting up schools in the near future.

The USA has a big problem with guns but if no one in power has the courage to do something about it then deal with it and just hope its not someone you know/love who gets shot the next time.

weisses · 23-05-2018 4:52pm

TeaBagMania wrote: »

you should become an American citizen and vote to remove the second amendment or change it how you see fit

Jesus please no ... Im a happy European

In the end I dont give a sheit how many school shootings there are to be honest, Its the blatant denial on the issue some people are displaying here on this thread I find intriguing/disturbing.

If you think the situation in the US regarding gun violence is okay, then who am I to judge .. .You have to live there

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 4:59pm

weisses wrote: »

That means doing something about the second amendment imo.

Is there an appetite to do something about the 2nd Amendment in the US? I'm not so sure that the majority of people would want to see it removed.

No one is talking about banning guns (you can own guns/rifles in Europe as well) but if that silly cartoon reflects how you and the USA in general see the gun issue then I think there are gonna be plenty more fkctards shooting up schools in the near future.

Are you seriously suggesting that there is nobody calling for guns, or indeed certain types of guns to be banned? I could easily gather a pile of usernames from this thread who think 'Guns R Bad, Mkay'. I don't mean that disrespectfully, I'm just saying many people on here are anti-gun.

Do you really think that cartoon is silly because it accurately reflects how I see discussions going every time that someone does something illegal with a gun? Guns get blamed every single time but they don't do the killing on their own. Why isn't the question asked regarding why so many Americans have such a hard-on for going into schools and doing mass shootings when many other countries have access to firearms but don't have the school shooting problem?

The USA has a big problem with guns but if no one in power has the courage to do something about it then deal with it and just hope its not someone you know/love who gets shot the next time.

I'll agree with the first part of the above paragraph but save me the 'hopefully it won't be one of your loved ones' sentiment.

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 5:02pm

weisses wrote: »

Jesus please no ... Im a happy European

In the end I dont give a sheit how many school shootings there are to be honest, Its the blatant denial on the issue some people are displaying here on this thread I find intriguing/disturbing.

If you think the situation in the US regarding gun violence is okay, then who am I to judge .. .You have to live there

Nobody here is saying that the situation in the US regarding gun violence is ok. Absolutely nobody.

weisses · 23-05-2018 5:31pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there an appetite to do something about the 2nd Amendment in the US? I'm not so sure that the majority of people would want to see it removed.

You bring up two scenarios ... amend and remove, why not modify the second amendment so it fits into this day and age ?

BattleCorp wrote: »

Do you really think that cartoon is silly because it accurately reflects how I see discussions going every time that someone does something illegal with a gun? Guns get blamed every single time but they don't do the killing on their own. Why isn't the question asked regarding why so many Americans have such a hard-on for going into schools and doing mass shootings when many other countries have access to firearms but don't have the school shooting problem?

Yes I find it a silly cartoon .... Its the readily availability of guns that is the problem plus the way american society is (non)functioning imo

I agree its very difficult to change the imo unhealthy relationship with guns people have in the US

weisses · 23-05-2018 5:36pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Nobody here is saying that the situation in the US regarding gun violence is ok. Absolutely nobody.

Then why is nothing noteworthy done about it ??

People seem outraged for a while and then happily put their heads back into the sand until the next shooting

Theboinkmaster · 23-05-2018 5:37pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the laws in the US would not allow all of the following recommendations but here goes:

1. All firearms sales to be conducted through a registered firearms dealer.

Stephen Paddock could buy his guns.

2. All firearms to be registered in a National database linking the owner to the serial number on the gun.

Stephen Paddock could register his guns.

3. All purchasers of firearms to be subject to a detailed background check including the ability to check medical history. Anything untoward and you don't get a gun.

Stephen Paddock would pass as had no history of mental illness.

4. All owners of firearms to undergo mandatory safety training in relation to their firearms.

Stephen Paddock could safely operate his guns.

5. All firearms to be securely stored in such a way as to prevent unauthorised access to the firearms by minors or other undesirables.

Stephen Paddock could store his guns securely.

6. Very heavy penalties for those breaking the above rules.

Stephen Paddock doesn't care, he shot himself.

None of those would prevent mass shootings - you're just like any other American gun nut, suggesting weak ineffective gun control measures which don't actual control anything.

Walter Bishop · 23-05-2018 5:41pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

None of those would prevent mass shootings, per above.

Right, but no-one's trying to prevent mass shootings entirely, just reduce them. The logic of 'no law can prevent mass shootings, therefore we can't try any laws at all' baffles me.

Why not introduce a few restrictions and see what happens?

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 5:43pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

None of those would prevent mass shootings.

Nothing is 100% but they would at least make it more difficult to carry out a mass shooting.

If Adam Lanza Mother's guns were better secured, maybe he mightn't have been able to get the guns that he used in Sandy Hook. Or maybe he would have gotten them somewhere else. Who knows. But at least make it difficult for fcukwits to get their hands on firearms.

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 5:44pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

None of those would prevent mass shootings - you're just like any other American gun nut, suggesting weak ineffective gun control measures which don't actual control anything.

Go ahead so, tell us your plan to prevent mass shootings.

And it has to be realistic. Go ahead.

wexie · 23-05-2018 5:58pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Go ahead so, tell us your plan to prevent mass shootings.

BattleCorp wrote: »

And it has to be realistic. Go ahead.

I don't think there is much of a way to prevent mass shootings, the measures you outlined might go some way towards preventing school shootings perhaps and that would certainly be worthwhile to look at.

But addressing gun violence in the US overall would take a very determined approach, probably over the course of generation(s). Or, more likely, several different approaches.

weisses · 23-05-2018 6:01pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Go ahead so, tell us your plan to prevent mass shootings.

And it has to be realistic. Go ahead.

Realistic is not what Americans want to hear when it comes to guns ... It would probably mean they have to give something up

Realistically you are fukced over there, caused by spineless politicians and an effective lobby mechanism.

steddyeddy · 23-05-2018 8:18pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

As a responsible gun owner myself, I think lots can be done to ensure that the guns don't end up in the hands of unstable people.

I'm fairly sure the laws in the US would not allow all of the following recommendations but here goes:

1. All firearms sales to be conducted through a registered firearms dealer.

2. All firearms to be registered in a National database linking the owner to the serial number on the gun.

3. All purchasers of firearms to be subject to a detailed background check including the ability to check medical history. Anything untoward and you don't get a gun.

4. All owners of firearms to undergo mandatory safety training in relation to their firearms.

5. All firearms to be securely stored in such a way as to prevent unauthorised access to the firearms by minors or other undesirables.

6. Very heavy penalties for those breaking the above rules.

That's just off the top of my head. As a gun owner I'm certainly not advocating guns for everyone. But like I said at the top of this post, many of my suggestions are probably against the law as it stands in the US.

Thanks for your answer. All good points to be honest.

A Pint of Goo · 23-05-2018 8:34pm

Let's turn it around here a bit, why are liberals so afraid of guns? Ok they kill but I can grab my kitchen knife and go on a rampage. Lets ban knives. 'Only' 130 people have been killed in Europe by muslim suicide driver so lets ban trucks. Let's ban pubs here because drunk paddies keep get smashed up in drunk driving accidents. There are scary things in the world, deal with it.

A gun is the most effective self defence weapon, hunters and farmers need them, people enjoy them for target shooting.

wexie · 23-05-2018 8:58pm

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Let's turn it around here a bit, why are liberals so afraid of guns? Ok they kill but I can grab my kitchen knife and go on a rampage. Lets ban knives. 'Only' 130 people have been killed in Europe by muslim suicide driver so lets ban trucks. Let's ban pubs here because drunk paddies keep get smashed up in drunk driving accidents. There are scary things in the world, deal with it.

A gun is the most effective self defence weapon, hunters and farmers need them, people enjoy them for target shooting.

Nobody is actually calling for guns to be banned though are they?

Cause I think we can probably all agree that doesn't really fit into Battlecorp's category of 'practical' solutions.

Even if you disregarded the very serious potential for mass civil unrest if it were ever mentioned in a serious way like

BabyCheeses · 23-05-2018 9:14pm

A Pint of Goo wrote: »

Let's turn it around here a bit, why are liberals so afraid of guns? Ok they kill but I can grab my kitchen knife and go on a rampage. Lets ban knives. 'Only' 130 people have been killed in Europe by muslim suicide driver so lets ban trucks. Let's ban pubs here because drunk paddies keep get smashed up in drunk driving accidents. There are scary things in the world, deal with it.

A gun is the most effective self defence weapon, hunters and farmers need them, people enjoy them for target shooting.

You never got around to pointing out a country which has banned trucks. I wonder why.

Theboinkmaster · 23-05-2018 10:14pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Go ahead so, tell us your plan to prevent mass shootings.

And it has to be realistic. Go ahead.

Ban all weapons other than certain hunting rifles and handguns - limit the rate of fire that guns are allowed.

That'd be a good start and don't tell me it's not realistic that's just a cop out - need to try harder.

BattleCorp · 23-05-2018 10:54pm

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

Ban all weapons other than certain hunting rifles and handguns - limit the rate of fire that guns are allowed.

That'd be a good start and don't tell me it's not realistic that's just a cop out - need to try harder.

A very large percentage of the 300,000,000 + guns are the types that you don't like. How do you remove them from circulation? How do you physically take them back from the American public? How do you get laws stopping new ones being issued? How do law enforcement and the military get guns when manufacturers go bankrupt by not selling guns to the public?

All very valid questions even if you don't think so.

How to do all that is on the shelf right beside world peace and the cure for cancer.

evolving_doors · 24-05-2018 6:40am

BattleCorp wrote: »

A very large percentage of the 300,000,000 + guns are the types that you don't like. How do you remove them from circulation?

How do you physically take them back from the American public? How do you get laws stopping new ones being issued? How do law enforcement and the military get guns when manufacturers go bankrupt by not selling guns to the public?

All very valid questions even if you don't think so.

How to do all that is on the shelf right beside world peace and the cure for cancer.

So how would you stop school shootings then?
Or is it just one of those things that's going to happen.

Theboinkmaster · 24-05-2018 12:32pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

A very large percentage of the 300,000,000 + guns are the types that you don't like. How do you remove them from circulation?

Don't try to - starting point is to step selling so at least the volume stops increasing. Then once that's done you could offer to buy them back or just start taking them from people. Or wait 50 years and most of them will be relics buy then.

How do you physically take them back from the American public?

How does law enforcement currently remove drugs or anything else that's illegal? Take them by force.

How do you get laws stopping new ones being issued?

What do you mean? Just create a law to ban them.

How do law enforcement and the military get guns when manufacturers go bankrupt by not selling guns to the public?

Take them into state ownership, like we did with the banks.

All very valid questions even if you don't think so.

How to do all that is on the shelf right beside world peace and the cure for cancer.

See above.

Billy86 · 24-05-2018 1:34pm

TeaBagMania wrote: »

I have no idea because I wasn't in the head of the person that designed them and im not going to pretend like I know

This might be of interest to you then.

The earliest depiction of a gun is a sculpture from a cave in Sichuan dating to the 12th century of a Chinese figure carrying a vase-shaped bombard with flames and a cannonball coming out of it. The oldest surviving firearm is the Heilongjiang hand cannon dated to 1288, which was discovered at a site in modern-day Acheng District where the History of Yuan records that battles were fought at that time; Li Ting, a military commander of Jurchen descent, led footsoldiers armed with guns in battle to suppress the rebellion of the Christian Mongol Prince Nayan.

Manic Moran · 24-05-2018 8:40pm

Don't try to - starting point is to step selling so at least the volume stops increasing. Then once that's done you could offer to buy them back or just start taking them from people. Or wait 50 years and most of them will be relics buy then.

Well, it would have to be a buyback, the 'Takings clause' prohibits the taking of property without just compensation, but OK, the US could probably afford to throw a couple billion dollars at the problem (Not counting enforcement, administration costs, etc). The AR-15 was first sold to the public 54 years ago, the AK-47 is now over seventy years old. One of the most popular pistol designs today in the US s the M1911A1 style .45ACP, entered sale 1924. (Original version pre-dates WW1). The Glock 17 is already over 35. I think you are dramatically underestimating both the service lifespan and viability of a well-maintained firearm.

How does law enforcement currently remove drugs or anything else that's illegal? Take them by force.

How well has that worked for us so far? I think most people have concluded that the war on drugs has been a bit of a failure so far, to the point that the solution is now acceptance and the creation of 'safe shooting spaces', so that folks can get their drug fix without annoying the locals by shooting up in the train stations or on the streets in front of city hall. One of the big issues is that we have this minor Constitutional protection against the government wandering into your home and taking anything by force, firearms or otherwise (That's before actually finding the things once you're in the door).

What do you mean? Just create a law to ban them.

Easier said than done. Some 40 States have a Constitutional right to arms and the trend has been to reinforce it, and there is the Federal protection as well. I honestly think cancer would be cured before anything approaching a ban on firearms would be possible. Almost no country has a complete ban on the things anyway, as the legitimate use for firearms to some extent or another is acknowledged widely.

Take them into state ownership, like we did with the banks.

Possible.

Most of your ideas are either unreasonably idealistic, or in practice implausible. Any practical/implementable solution to the US's violence problem must be predicated on the idea that there is a prevalence of firearms in society, anything else is basically wishful thinking. You can implement restrictions for acquisition, storage and type, but basic firearms such as semi-auto rifles, handguns and shotguns are not going to be removed from the streets.

Instead, however difficult it may be, the primary focus has to be on dealing with the motivations to undertake violence in the first place, and the effectiveness of protections when that fails.

wexie · 24-05-2018 8:44pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

Easier said than done. Some 40 States have a Constitutional right to arms and the trend has been to reinforce it, and there is the Federal protection as well.

Could you explain that to me please? ie. do not all states have a constitutional right to arms? And if so how does that work? Is the constitution not the constitution for all states?

And what about gun ownership in the rest of the states?

10 people shot dead in Texas

Comments