Shooting in America

EuskalHerria

Internet Hero wrote: »

eh theres guns everywhere...theres no legal guns for everyone on in norway and there was one of the worst massacers there...stop being a politcal bureau..just be a human....

I never said that there are no guns anywhere else. I said that in a country where they encounter so many tragedies like this one but refuse to have a debate on gun control then it is to be expected that people over time will become less shocked by repetitive situations.

The incident you mentioned in Norway shook their country and the whole of Europe. I was shocked at such a horrific event. In the context of this situation and the tragic event in Norway, its fair to say that is was generally unexpected in a country like Norway which wouldn't have the lax stance on gun control that America has.

This is nothing political so I'm not sure why you've mentioned political reasons twice now.

Basically to explain it to you, when I was younger I touched a hot stove once and learned never to touch it again. America keeps experiencing tragedies like this but the aftermath is always outcry and never any action. Its like a kid who keeps touching the stove, so don't expect me to be shocked when its burnt.

Overheal

MadYaker wrote: »

owning fire arms

Other examples show that isn't the issue.

and having them readily available to anyone who wants them.

Simply not true. Ownership is regulated.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

There are guns everywhere.

There are killings everywhere.

There are even guns and gun killings in Ireland.

So it regularly impresses me that some Irish think they have the wherewithal to wag their finger.

The US's problems are the US's problems. I feel like people keep talking about it here because it distracts them from their own problems; almost like a kid in a broken home that reads superhero comics, but in a more contorted manner.

I know Americans aren't known for having a great sense of irony but I thought you would've picked up a little bit.

Killer Wench

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

America is one ****ed up place.
I know one could argue "well theres 200+ million people there, bound to be a few nutjobs!!" - but lets be real people. Its messed up. How many mass shootings has there been in the last decade say?

Over 300 million people. I believe it is about 330 million.


This was one shooting in a vast land with a huge population.

Logical_Bear

Overheal wrote: »

There are guns everywhere.

There are killings everywhere.

There are even guns and gun killings in Ireland.

So it regularly impresses me that some Irish think they have the wherewithal to wag their finger.

The US's problems are the US's problems. I feel like people keep talking about it here because it distracts them from their own problems; almost like a kid in a broken home that reads superhero comics, but in a more contorted manner.

in fairness overheal we dont see 2+ killing with guns.Most gun deaths here are targeted gangland killings.

Overheal

Logical_Bear wrote: »

in fairness overheal we dont see 2+ killing with guns.Most gun deaths here are targeted gangland killings.

As of yet. Just a few years ago there were hardly any killings in Ireland to speak of, outside of things that occurred in the 90s. During that timeframe posters loved to repost American tragedies under that context "sure isn't it great that doesn't happen here", and then it started happening there.

Mass killings aren't a phenomenon unique to the US. Possibly most recent was Anders Breivik in Norway, who killed 80 people.

It will be a sad day for Ireland when it turns out I'm right about that, too.

BrokenArrows

It will stop when some president has the balls to do something about the amount of guns in circulation.

They are not going to be able to do it over night. They just need to start somewhere.

Laws to begin with:
1) Only one gun allowed per person for personal protection.
2) Only one gun allowed per person for hunting. Person would need to prove that they actually hunt and would need to be renewed one a year.
3) Fully automatic and burst fire weapons are to be outlawed.
4) Military grade weapons are to be outlawed.
5) Carrying of weapons outside of the home to be outlawed.

Years after the above is working they could move to stop people having guns at all.

Overheal

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It will stop when some president has the balls to do something about the amount of guns in circulation.

They are not going to be able to do it over night. They just need to start somewhere.

Laws to begin with:
1) Only one gun allowed per person for personal protection.
2) Only one gun allowed per person for hunting. Person would need to prove that they actually hunt and would need to be renewed one a year.
3) Fully automatic and burst fire weapons are to be outlawed.
4) Military grade weapons are to be outlawed.
5) Carrying of weapons outside of the home to be outlawed.

Years after the above is working they could move to stop people having guns at all.

Possibly the largest number of gun homicides in the US occurs in New York, NY: a city where [in general (I'm being lazy and don't want to thoroughly research this point)] the ownership of any firearm is expressly forbidden. Try again. Gun laws aren't the issue.

Ireland also doesn't allow private gun ownership. Gun violence still occurs.

No, the source of gun violence must lie somewhere else, while it is not helped by the supply of guns. Have you tried looking at political, social, or economic factors? Education systems with high numbers of dropouts? Societal machinations that make people feel cornered and/or trapped?

Downstairs theres an Automatic Shotgun, 2 AR's (1 is new, it's a .308!) and a handgun. Not that those are personally mine, but they are relatively accessible. Their access doesn't make me any more or less homicidal, however.

BrokenArrows

EZ24GET wrote: »

Guns are not the only means of committing murder. I think if you want to kill you will.

True but it requires more time and planning.
And generally people who do this **** its a moment of madness and anger.

If they had to go about planning something more complex they would probably snap out of it and realise what they are doing.

BattleCorp

The banning of guns doesn't prevent gun crime.

In the UK, they banned pistols after the Dunblane massacre in 1996.

Since then, the rate of gun crime in the UK has risen pretty much year on year and is far ahead of the rate when pistols were legal.

I'm not in favour of giving guns to everybody, that's for sure. There are plenty of people that shouldn't have access to a banana, let alone a gun.

But banning guns doesn't solve anything. If somebody is sane, sensible, a track record of staying on the right side of the law, and has a legitimate reason for having a gun (hunting, target shooting etc.), then I see no problem with them having a gun.

I agree with a previous poster who mentioned not allowing fully automatic firearms and burst fire firearms. Outside of the military, there is no legitimate need for civilians to have these firearms.

Knee jerk reactions to rare events doesn't make for good lawmaking.

Yakult

In other news today, Cats drink milk..


Guns + nutjobs go hand in hand in America. Yet it just remains the same. So it will keep happening if not more frequently.

Witcher

Overheal wrote: »

Ireland also doesn't allow private gun ownership. Gun violence still occurs.

You can own firearms here, but you can't walk in off the street and buy one off the shelf obviously...which is how it should be.

BrokenArrows

Overheal wrote: »

Downstairs theres an Automatic Shotgun, 2 AR's (1 is new, it's a .308!) and a handgun. Not that those are personally mine, but they are relatively accessible. Their access doesn't make me any more or less homicidal, however.

No it doesnt but if you were to have a moment of insanity and go nuts you could do alot of damage.

But if you didnt have access to any guns your moment of madness would result in probably nothing more than you throwing a hissy fit somewhere

Overheal

BrokenArrows wrote: »

No it doesnt but if you were to have a moment of insanity and go nuts you could do alot of damage.

But if you didnt have access to any guns your moment of madness would result in probably nothing more than you throwing a hissy fit somewhere

it would take some sure level of insanity to take the safety off an AR-15 and point it at someone.

BattleCorp wrote:

I agree with a previous poster who mentioned not allowing fully automatic firearms and burst fire firearms. Outside of the military, there is no legitimate need for civilians to have these firearms.

I disagree. The Second Amendment is designed as much to defend us from outside attackers, and to defend our selves, as it is for the people to have the right to defend ourselves against our government. An unarmed and naive populace is susceptible to slavery and tyranny at any time. Guns need to be regulated, and gun owners need to be responsible with their 2nd amendment rights; we should also, as Obama said during last week's debate, focus also on eliminating social/environment conditions which lead people to criminal and gun violence - like a broken education system that pushes millions of students to drop out of school to trade 'book smarts' for 'street smarts'. Restricting the ownership of weapon types only furthers this gap between civilian and military which further perpetuates the chances of a tyranny occurring, or just as bad, that the populace becomes effectively useless during an external incursion. Even the US Military can be brought to it's knees I fear, given the right leverage. Chances are more likely though that a situation would arise where the populace is unable to defend itself against it's own government.

Gee Bag

Overheal wrote: »

I disagree. The Second Amendment is designed as much to defend us from outside attackers, and to defend our selves, as it is for the people to have the right to defend ourselves against our government. An unarmed and naive populace is susceptible to slavery and tyranny at any time. Guns need to be regulated, and gun owners need to be responsible with their 2nd amendment rights; we should also, as Obama said during last week's debate, focus also on eliminating social/environment conditions which lead people to criminal and gun violence - like a broken education system that pushes millions of students to drop out of school to trade 'book smarts' for 'street smarts'. Restricting the ownership of weapon types only furthers this gap between civilian and military which further perpetuates the chances of a tyranny occurring, or just as bad, that the populace becomes effectively useless during an external incursion. Even the US Military can be brought to it's knees I fear, given the right leverage. Chances are more likely though that a situation would arise where the populace is unable to defend itself against it's own government.

Indeed, and they would be useful of the King of England ever tries to invade again

Suryavarman

I always find it amazing how people constantly bring up gun control as the solution to America's crime problem despite having no evidence to back up their opinion. That's generally because all the evidence contradicts their opinion though.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It will stop when some president has the balls to do something about the amount of guns in circulation.

They are not going to be able to do it over night. They just need to start somewhere.

The president doesn't have the power to do anything about gun control.

Laws to begin with:
1) Only one gun allowed per person for personal protection.

What's the reasoning behind this? To make sure my family was protected in the case of somebody breaking init would make sense to have a gun in every room of the house so that a family member could have access to a gun without leaving the room. It would also make sense for each person to have their own gun when they are away from home.

2) Only one gun allowed per person for hunting. Person would need to prove that they actually hunt and would need to be renewed one a year.

I don't know much about guns or hunting but I'm fairly sure that somebody would use a different gun depending on what they are hunting.

3) Fully automatic and burst fire weapons are to be outlawed.
4) Military grade weapons are to be outlawed.

Why? What reason is there for stopping people from owning these types of weapons? How can people be expected to defend themselves from their government without these types of weapons?

5) Carrying of weapons outside of the home to be outlawed.

So people don't need to protect themselves outside the home? Outside everybody is extremely polite to one another and violence never occurs? Why on earth should the carrying of guns outside of the home be illegal?

Years after the above is working they could move to stop people having guns at all.

What if the above doesn't work? And why shouldn't people be allowed to have guns at all?

Overheal

Gee Bag wrote: »

Indeed, and they would be useful of the King of England ever tries to invade again

Pot calling the kettle black. Remind me again what history did to Ireland? You took your country back from the English with guns and guerrilla tactics.

As Libya also exemplifies it need not always be an outside ruler. And the Libyans still required outside help to pull it off, because they were inadequately armed as a populace to fight back against the loyalists. This again underlines the purpose behind the 2nd amendment and why automatic/military weapons need not be categorically banned.

BrokenArrows

Protection against outside invasion! Bull****. Thats what the army and national guard is for.

Protection against the government! Bull****. You elect your government. If they ****up and turn on you thats your fault for electing them! Thats a terrible reason.

Protecting your self on the streets. Thats what the police are for.

If your reasons are anything to go by there is no need for the US to have an army or police force since the people can do the job themselves.

Witcher

Overheal wrote: »

Pot calling the kettle black. Remind me again what history did to Ireland? You took your country back from the English with guns and guerrilla tactics.

It's a joke from the Simpsons:)

BrokenArrows

Overheal wrote: »

Pot calling the kettle black. Remind me again what history did to Ireland? You took your country back from the English with guns and guerrilla tactics.

But we manage to get on fine day to day without everyone owning and carrying guns and we are right beside our previous invaders.

Witcher

BrokenArrows wrote: »

4) Military grade weapons are to be outlawed.

Please explain to us all what a 'military grade weapon' is.

Internet Hero

Blay wrote: »

Please explain to us all what a 'military grade weapon' is.

id say it must be guns the army would be using. like rockets and that kind of thing. not a like a rifle for hunting. hunters can have special rifles.

Suryavarman

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Protection against outside invasion! Bull****. Thats what the army and national guard is for.

What about when the army and national guard aren't enough?

Protection against the government! Bull****. You elect your government. If they ****up and turn on you thats your fault for electing them! Thats a terrible reason.

So apparently voters are equipped with the ability to see into the future and can tell if their government is going to turn on them. What about when the Government turns on a minority group? A group that wouldn't have the power to vote out the Government.

Protecting your self on the streets. Thats what the police are for.

And the police do a smashing job! I've never heard of somebody being raped or assaulted or murdered and it's all thanks to the police being everywhere all the time and making sure that a crime is never committed. Hurray for the police!

So to inject a dose of reality into the discussion but the police can't be everywhere and they can't help everyone that will ever need protection. Sometimes people need to defend themselves. Especially in rural America where police can be miles away from the scene of the crime.

If your reasons are anything to go by there is no need for the US to have an army or police force since the people can do the job themselves.

Or maybe having a well armed populace complements the police and army as well as stopping them from getting too powerful. Using your logic we don't need a fire brigade because some people have fire extinguishers in their home or business.

BrokenArrows

Blay wrote: »

Please explain to us all what a 'military grade weapon' is.

Something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun

Witcher

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun

How many people do you think own one of those in the US and how do you think they go about owning it?

Suryavarman

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun

Why should guns like that be banned? What crimes have been committed using that weapon?

PGA2020

Blay wrote: »

How many people do you think own one of those in the US and how do you think they go about owning it?

I know quite a bit of us down here own one, but not too many in north texas. In south texas people carry guns around just as much as they do their iphone.

BrokenArrows

Blay wrote: »

How many people do you think own one of those in the US and how do you think they go about owning it?

It was just a quick Google to give an idea of the type of weapon I was referring to.

My point is there is no reason for someone to have anything like this.

Witcher

PGA2020 wrote: »

I know quite a bit of us down here own one, but not too many in north texas. In south texas people carry guns around just as much as they do their iphone.

Private citizens there own a full auto M249?

Suryavarman

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It was just a quick Google to give an idea of the type of weapon I was referring to.

My point is there is no reason for someone to have anything like this.

Well obviously there's a reason for people to have guns like this. That's why they buy them. What reason is there for banning weapons like this?

Witcher

BrokenArrows wrote: »

My point is there is no reason for someone to have anything like this.

That's just your opinion, if we start listening to everyone's 2 cents there wouldn't be any firearms.

PGA2020

Blay wrote: »

Private citizens there own a full auto M249?

Hahaha uh no. A gun just enough to kill a pig if its running toward you. Thats the gun we carry. An M249? This isn't the US Army. lol

Witcher

PGA2020 wrote: »

Hahaha uh no. A gun just enough to kill a pig if its running toward you. Thats the gun we carry. An M249? This isn't the US Army. lol

I asked someone how many people do they think own one an M249 and you said 'I know quite a bit of us down here own one, but not too many in north texas'...forgive my confusion:pac:

EZ24GET

We can apply for a conceal and carry permit. You take a little course and you get your permit. The guns we conceal are handguns. They are for personal protection. I'm not in the West or even the South but if you are night fishing and look up to see two guys eying you from up the bank it makes you feel better to know that you can, if necessary, have your gun out before they get down the bank. We aren't looking for confrontation but want to be ready if it comes. For the most part (and that is a vast majority) the people of the United States are law abiding citizens who obey the laws, that's why we buy our guns legally, take the required classes, get the proper permits, but there is an element who don't and never will no matter what laws or restrictions you pass.

PGA2020

Blay wrote: »

I asked someone how many people do they think own one an M249 and you said 'I know quite a bit of us down here own one, but not too many in north texas'...forgive my confusion:pac:

Oh yea, i thought a gun in general. My bad! :P

Spread

PGA2020 wrote: »

Oh yea, i thought a gun in general. My bad! :P

Right you MF up against the wall and spread 'em!

Only jokin'.

PGA2020

Spread wrote: »

Right you MF up against the wall and spread 'em!

Only jokin'.

Rather interesting joke! lol

poeticseraphim

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's the culture in America that is the problem, not the guns. There's a "stay hard in the yard" or "never back down culture" and this leads to problems.

There are over 260,000 licenced guns in The Republic of Ireland. We have never had a mass killing in this country apart from stuff connected to the Troubles. If it was the fault of there being so many guns, then we should surely have had several mass shootings by now.

This never makes headlines but 99.9999999999999 of gun owners in America didn't go on a rampage today.

Firstly I am so sorry it happened.


In Switzerland they don't have an army but a people's militia and almost every family must have a male member do some service. It requires them to have a gun in their abode or it used to). So MANY households have firearms in Switzerland. But they have nowhere near the crime rate.

It is not just the NUMBER of guns...but who is allowed to have them.

Getting a licence is a process in most countries.

They sell amo in wallmart...have you seen who shops at wallmart???

But yes you are correct ...culture does play a part. I am not certain we foreigners understand it. Also i am not sure in Ireland we can this is a small country we take for granted the sense of community and closeness. Everyone knows everyone. If there is tragedy we feel it. America is so huge they relate more to TV to reflect the national mood.


I think Americans on guns and shooting guns at people are two very different things though.

Farmers for example actually need one.

I have to say as a woman...if i lived in a neighbourhood with a high crime rate or rape rate i would think about it.

I would probably decide against it ..but i would think about it.

When you DO live in a society in which things like this happen ...perhaps it makes you think 'yes there are dangrous people with guns....i need a gun'.

There is logic to that as an individual and no logic to it as a society.

But the number of guns in other countries can be similar it just might be American culture.

I would be interested to hear what the Americans on here think it is.

Again I am very sorry.

poeticseraphim

Overheal wrote: »

There are guns everywhere.

There are killings everywhere.

There are even guns and gun killings in Ireland.

So it regularly impresses me that some Irish think they have the wherewithal to wag their finger.

The US's problems are the US's problems. I feel like people keep talking about it here because it distracts them from their own problems; almost like a kid in a broken home that reads superhero comics, but in a more contorted manner.

This is true gun crime is everywhere. One of the worst incidents was in Norway recently and gun law there is different.

But per capita America is ahead.

This is an issue we really should deal with everywhere. We should not wag fingers but genuinely try to find a solution. Think of all the lives it would potentially save. So it is good to have the discussion. But in a non accusational way as that is not helpful.

Denying that there is a problem that is particular to America would be like denying that there is a problem of sectarian violence that is particular to Northern Ireland at times. Yes it does not reflect the goodness of most of the people in that region but there is an issue. And only in addressing it truthfully can it be dealt with.

Witcher

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Firstly I am so sorry it happened.


In Switzerland they don't have an army but a people's militia and almost every family must have a male member do some service. It requires them to have a gun in their abode or it used to). So MANY households have firearms in Switzerland. But they have nowhere near the crime rate.

It is not just the NUMBER of guns...but who is allowed to have them.

Getting a licence is a process in most countries.

They sell amo in wallmart...have you seen who shops at wallmart???

But yes you are correct ...culture does play a part. I am not certain we foreigners understand it. Also i am not sure in Ireland we can this is a small country we take for granted the sense of community and closeness. Everyone knows everyone. If there is tragedy we feel it. America is so huge they relate more to TV to reflect the national mood.


I think Americans on guns and shooting guns at people are two very different things though.

Farmers for example actually need one.

I have to say as a woman...if i lived in a neighbourhood with a high crime rate or rape rate i would think about it.

I would probably decide against it ..but i would think about it.

When you DO live in a society in which things like this happen ...perhaps it makes you think 'yes there are dangrous people with guns....i need a gun'.

There is logic to that as an individual and no logic to it as a society.

But the number of guns in other countries can be similar it just might be American culture.

I would be interested to hear what the Americans on here think it is.

Again I am very sorry.

Firearms ownership differs in its reasons all over the world really..

In America it's rooted in the notion of the frontier/self preservation and defending your own rights rather than having the state protect them. Americans see the gun as keeping them free, they don't believe in restricting who can and can't own them as that is saying one persons right to protect themselves and their rights is above another person's. Of course American shooters here can always correct me but this is how I understand it, I'm a shooter myself so I've engaged with American gun owners online, read articles and watched videos etc. on the subject.

Switzerland is different again; it's a sense of duty to one's society etc. that drives it. Very open attitude to firearms as you've stated, well known pic of a guy in a Swiss supermarket carrying the gun over his shoulder.

In Ireland there's no right to ownership..it's all very restricted..you have to have a legitimate reason and meet other conditions. Most people here will probably never even see a gun in their lifetime bar seeing them in the hands of the army doing cash transports or in parades etc.

poeticseraphim

Blay wrote: »

Firearms ownership differs in its reasons all over the world really..

In America it's rooted in the notion of the frontier/self preservation and defending your own rights rather than having the state protect them. Americans see the gun as keeping them free, they don't believe in restricting who can and can't own them as that is saying one persons right to protect themselves and their rights is above another person's. Of course American shooters here can always correct me but this is how I understand it, I'm a shooter myself so I've engaged with American gun owners online, read articles and watched videos etc. on the subject.

Switzerland is different again; it's a sense of duty to one's society etc. that drives it. Very open attitude to firearms as you've stated, well known pic of a guy in a Swiss supermarket carrying the gun over his shoulder.

In Ireland there's no right to ownership..it's all very restricted..you have to have a legitimate reason and meet other conditions. Most people here will probably never even see a gun in their lifetime bar seeing them in the hands of the army doing cash transports or in parades etc.

Maybe in Ireland we associate it with repression and terrorism.
You shoot ? Are you any good? I prefer archery myself...(i don't really know much about archery or firearms as if you can't tell).


It is true most Irish people fear guns maybe and even look down upon them. The saying 'get the gun out of Irish politics' well yes it should not be in politics. But there is a inference that guns are only owned by those who are up to no good or that a developed society should be above it.


The idea that they might have another purpose (a hobby or something) does not exist. We all have cars and they can have another purpose. But they are also dangerous as another thread on here tonight is a tradgic testament to. We have many hit and runs ....but our attitude to cars is different.

EZ24GET

It really isn't like we live in the lawless West. We have a lot of laws concerning guns and gun owbership. Here's a little bit from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Gun_laws
I think the last thirty tears has seen a rise in drug sales and drug abuse and a great deal of crime in the U.S. is either a direct result of drug manufacture and sales or an indirect result of using drugs.
It isn't the guns in someones locked gun case that cause the problems it's after someone has broken in and stolen the guns and sold thm to other criminals that are usually the problem and mentally ill who manage to get a hold of weapons.
Criminals will always find means to terrorize - law abiding citizens want some way of feeling protected.

Overheal

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Protection against outside invasion! Bull****. Thats what the army and national guard is for.

Regular army is not always effective. I could point back to the American Revolutionary War. Rank and File tactics and brightly colored uniforms against plainclothes civilians conducting hit and run skirmish warfare. And it's the same tactic that has proven reasonably effective at fighting - of all things - the United States Military, in Iraq and Afghanistan. The evidence is right in your face. Look at it.

Protection against the government! Bull****. You elect your government. If they ****up and turn on you thats your fault for electing them! Thats a terrible reason.

I believe they elected Hitler also. That worked out well? /Godwin

Protecting your self on the streets. Thats what the police are for.

The police do not, and can not, legally guarantee you from harm. We have proof of people trying to sue the police for failing to defend the life and safety of victims, by their grieved family members. These cases are almost universally thrown out of court.

If your reasons are anything to go by there is no need for the US to have an army or police force since the people can do the job themselves.

Again I will point back to Iraq. It took a matter of weeks, if that, to cripple the Iraq military. Tanks, Missile Sites, Aircraft, Regular Infantry. If that's all Iraq had, the war would've been over within 6 months. 8 years later, we still have a presence there. There are still people fighting in opposition there. I believe that our intelligence accounted for guerrilla fighting but considered it manageable. Believe me: if we knew how much of a problem the guerrilla war was actually going to be, we would have never gone in.

The US Military is formidable, but not invincible. If someone really wanted to pitch a war against the United States, there is no reason to believe they could not make it to a foothold in the US. Anybody who would try would do so with a concerted plan, much like Japan did. What if China manages to infect the US Military infrastructure and shut it down like a light bulb?

Even your body doesn't rely on one layer of protection against attacks. Your auto-immune system is so inter-layered and intricate that it takes a lot for something to actually cause you harm. Also, when you get cut, your platelets clot the wound and your cells heal the tissue. By your logic though, everyone is a hemophiliac. Let's see how long they last in a thorn bush.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

But we manage to get on fine day to day without everyone owning and carrying guns and we are right beside our previous invaders.

Not that its really my insinuation that England has future plans to re-invade Ireland, but again it wasn't that long ago that people were chucking bombs up in the north trying to get the six counties back. Tensions still exist to this day. Ireland's only real advantage against a foreign invasion is it's relative irrelevance in the world: you're hardly a geo-strategic asset. Centuries ago you were, but the world has changed a bit. Remaining neutral in WWII worked out for you, but have no doubt if things played out differently that Germany would have had no qualms about making Ireland part of its Reich.

Blay wrote: »

Please explain to us all what a 'military grade weapon' is.

Presumably anything that is designed with the express goal of warfare. Hard thing to generalize though. a P90 for instance is marketed as a Personal Defense weapon. You can buy a semi-automatic variant of this weapon (though it's expensive, and so is its ammo. You still want one though, because it's what they used on Stargate to fight aliens). Yet at the same time the weapon is as mentioned still employed by some military forces, making the definition a little hard to place a finger on. A stinger missile is a little less vague however, it pretty much has the sole purpose of taking an aircraft out of the sky.

Witcher

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Maybe in Ireland we associate it with repression and terrorism.
You shoot ? Are you any good? I prefer archery myself...(i don't really know much about archery or firearms as if you can't tell).


It is true most Irish people fear guns maybe and even look down upon them. The saying 'get the gun out of Irish politics' well yes it should not be in politics. But there is a inference that guns are only owned by those who are up to no good or that a developed society should be above it.


The idea that they might have another purpose (a hobby or something) does not exist. We all have cars and they can have another purpose. But they are also dangerous as another thread on here tonight is a tradgic testament to. We have many hit and runs ....but our attitude to cars is different.

I like to think I am anyway:P

Irish people tend to associate firearms with where they see them the most...films which is a minefield as far as information goes. You can't really blame people, it's never been easy to get firearms here and most people will be turned off by the application process which is probably what the government hoped to achieve.

MadsL

EuskalHerria wrote: »

However, in a country where any idiot can walk into a wall-mart and buy milk, bread and an assault rifle, don't expect people to act shocked when peoples lives are prematurely ended.

What's an "assault rifle"? And which do they sell in Walmart? Any makes/models?[/QUOTE]

MadYaker wrote: »

this obsession with owning fire arms and having them readily available to anyone who wants them.

It's a right guaranteed by the constitution of the US, not an obsession.

EuskalHerria wrote: »

I never said that there are no guns anywhere else. I said that in a country where they encounter so many tragedies like this one but refuse to have a debate on gun control then it is to be expected that people over time will become less shocked by repetitive situations.

Ameica has debates over gun control all the time. Obama lifted a ban on handguns in National Parks brought in by Reagan. (Despite being branded anti-gun by Tea party wackos)

Basically to explain it to you, when I was younger I touched a hot stove once and learned never to touch it again. America keeps experiencing tragedies like this but the aftermath is always outcry and never any action. Its like a kid who keeps touching the stove, so don't expect me to be shocked when its burnt.

How do you propose America repeals the 2nd Amendment? And collects all the guns and then deals with the fact all the law abiding citizens give up their guns and all the criminals keep theirs?

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It will stop when some president has the balls to do something about the amount of guns in circulation.

See above, not the President's call.

They are not going to be able to do it over night. They just need to start somewhere.

Laws to begin with:
1) Only one gun allowed per person for personal protection.

One in the house, one in the truck is usually the way it works out here. What is the point in forcing people to move guns from one place to another all the time?

2) Only one gun allowed per person for hunting. Person would need to prove that they actually hunt and would need to be renewed one a year.

How do you "prove" you hunt? Go for a walk in field with a gun. You do know you don't always come back with anything when hunting. My Winchester will make a mess of the quail and a shotgun is not a nice way to kill a deer.

3) Fully automatic and burst fire weapons are to be outlawed.

Do you know what a class 3 and 4 Firearms dealer is?

4) Military grade weapons are to be outlawed.

I ain't buying anything that is below a standard to be described as "miltary grade", I'll pass on a cheap peashooter that will blow up in my hand. All properly functioning firearms are "military grade". Do you think S&W and Glock make "home" and "miltary" pistols?

5) Carrying of weapons outside of the home to be outlawed.

I find most of the snakes, bears, mountain lions and criminals tend to be outside of my house (I like it that way) but I also go out of my house from time to time.

Years after the above is working they could move to stop people having guns at all.

Great. The criminal elements will be delighted you just disarmed the population. They just tried that in Chicago, it ain't going well.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

No it doesnt but if you were to have a moment of insanity and go nuts you could do alot of damage.

But if you didnt have access to any guns your moment of madness would result in probably nothing more than you throwing a hissy fit somewhere

Is there petrol in your car? You can do a lot of damage with that (or the car) in a moment of madness.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

Protection against outside invasion! Bull****. Thats what the army and national guard is for.

Do you know what a militia is?

Protection against the government! Bull****. You elect your government. If they ****up and turn on you thats your fault for electing them! Thats a terrible reason.

Tell American founding fathers that, they seemed to think it important.

Protecting your self on the streets. Thats what the police are for.

Because someone hijacking your car will wait patiently whilst you dial 911 and the cops show up.

If your reasons are anything to go by there is no need for the US to have an army or police force since the people can do the job themselves.

Much of America is described as a "polite and well-armed" society. I don't see a lot of aggression here towards other people nor road-rage. The fact the "dickhead" you just yelled at may get very pissed off at your reference to his mother and the fact that he may have a loaded .45 in the centre console of his car means a lot of generally dick-ish behaviour doesn't happen.

Americans generally believe that they should firstly be able to defend their family, then themselves and call 911 when they can no longer do either. The fact it is common to have some military service means that generally speaking they are well-trained to do so.

Manic Moran

Madsl has made an excellent post, so I will not address what he already has. A couple of notes:

I'll pass on a cheap peashooter that will blow up in my hand. All properly functioning firearms are "military grade". Do you think S&W and Glock make "home" and "miltary" pistols?

Before moving to the abomination that is the California Safe Handgun Roster (which, contrary to the name, has little grounding on safety), the legislators around here went the other way and banned cheap handguns. Part of the rationale was the belief that criminals would purchase cheap, disposable firearms: Use it, then lose it. In practice, the noticable effect was that poorer people could less easily afford to buy a weapon to defend themselves with.

a P90 for instance is marketed as a Personal Defense weapon. You can buy a semi-automatic variant of this weapon (though it's expensive, and so is its ammo. You still want one though, because it's what they used on Stargate to fight aliens

Actually, I was surprised when I looked up a box of 5.7 recently. It's extremely cheap. Near as I can figure, the round has become very popular for plinking, especially when there was that shortage of 5.56 a year or two ago. You can get AR upper receivers in the calibre, for example.

BrokenArrows wrote: »

1) Only one gun allowed per person for personal protection.

Why? My preferred carry weapon might be a double-stack .45ACP, but it's a little bulky. In the nice warm California summers, I could well prefer the slimmer Browning Hi-Power, as it's more concealable under thin clothing. And since I can only reliably shoot one weapon at a time anyway, what will limiting the number of weapons I may own actually achieve?

How do you propose to legislate for dual-function weapons? For example, I may decide to participate in IPSC competition. Those firearms are quite effective for self defence as well, is the Kimber 1911 Gold Match II to be categorised as defence weapon or a sporting weapon?

2) Only one gun allowed per person for hunting. Person would need to prove that they actually hunt and would need to be renewed one a year.

The only common multi-function rifle for all sorts of different types of game is the AR platform, which can take multiple upper receivers in different calibres. Part of the reason it's the most popular semi-auto centrefire rifle in the US today. Only problem is, it's black and scary and usually the first thing in the firing line for banning. You are going to have a dilemma with this one.

3) Fully automatic and burst fire weapons are to be outlawed.

Since they were restricted in 1934, only two murders have ever been known to have been carried out with a legally-owned machinegun. (AKA "full-auto and burst"). One was carried out by a policeman using his issue weapon. This is a non-problem.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

America is one ****ed up place.
I know one could argue "well theres 200+ million people there, bound to be a few nutjobs!!" - but lets be real people. Its messed up. How many mass shootings has there been in the last decade say?

300+
311,591,917 - Jul 2011

My name is URL wrote: »

Are they not allowed to describe people as black these days?

An ethnic man.. ffs

we all have different ethnicity , all they are doing is making the word ethic unusable in polite conversation.

Even here we've falling into the habit of treating colour as a problem rather than as something that's really no more important than hair colour.
How many times have you heard a description of a missing person here that didn't describe their most easily recognised asset, their colour or whether they were swarthy or freckled ?

Capt'n Midnight

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's the culture in America that is the problem, not the guns. There's a "stay hard in the yard" or "never back down culture" and this leads to problems.
...
This never makes headlines but 99.9999999999999 of gun owners in America didn't go on a rampage today.

Population of US is 311 million so if only one in a million went on a rampage then it would be a daily event.

In which case your estimate of 99.9999999999999 ? would be out by a factor of one billion ( one hundred billion if you meant % ) - and that's before you consider that not everyone over there has a gun

yes I'm being pedantic but only 99.999 9% of US population didn't go on a rampage


And yes it's culture. Places like Canada , Scandanavia, Switzerland, Italy have similarly high gun ownership and hunting cultures and a tiny fraction of the carnage. But even they, like the UK , have mass murders because of easy access to long range weapons. If someone comes at you with a knife you have the possibility of running away or defending yourself with a stick.

coonecb1 wrote: »

I like Chris Rock's idea of making the guns freely available, but making the bullets cost at least a grand

Far too late for that

BattleCorp

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Population of US is 311 million so if only one in a million went on a rampage then it would be a daily event.

In which case your estimate of 99.9999999999999 ? would be out by a factor of one billion ( one hundred billion if you meant % ) - and that's before you consider that not everyone over there has a gun

yes I'm being pedantic but only 99.999 9% of US population didn't go on a rampage

Excellent maths skills there Capt.

On the Chris Rock idea of taxing bullets at $1,000 each, then I'd be fcuked.
I must have fired €1,000,000 worth of bullets this weekend.

CruelCoin

BrokenArrows wrote: »

It will stop when some president has the balls to do something about the amount of guns in circulation.

They are not going to be able to do it over night. They just need to start somewhere.

Laws to begin with:
1) Only one gun allowed per person for personal protection.
2) Only one gun allowed per person for hunting. Person would need to prove that they actually hunt and would need to be renewed one a year.
3) Fully automatic and burst fire weapons are to be outlawed.
4) Military grade weapons are to be outlawed.
5) Carrying of weapons outside of the home to be outlawed.

Years after the above is working they could move to stop people having guns at all.

If someone was breaking into my house with a knife/gun/crowbar in hand, i'd rather have that M4A1 than a piddling little single shotter tyvm.