Another mass shooting in the U.S

mylefttesticle

Getting rid of guns will not fix the problem, maybe the over reliance on prescription drugs is a god way to start, that and the huge social and ecconomical divide that exists and motivates these crimes.

Hourglass Shrugged

mylefttesticle wrote: »

Getting rid of guns will not fix the problem, maybe the over reliance on prescription drugs is a god way to start, that and the huge social and ecconomical divide that exists and motivates these crimes.

I think if you make all drugs legal you will reduce the funding of criminal gangs who are by far the greatest cause behind the exorbitant murder rate in the US. That way, you may reduce the incentive to kill by a fraction. The US has lost the drug war. You can't beat back the black market.

Manic Moran

Hourglass Shrugged wrote: »

Possible scenario:

1. US bans assault rifles.

2. US government tries to confiscate assault rifles from registered assault rifle owners.

3. Some assault rifle owners don't want their assault rifles confiscated by the government because they don't want to lose the expensive rifles that they probably spent thousands on.

4. Some assault rifles owners search for alternate means of disposal of their assault rifles before they're confiscate; means that will give them some sort of return on their investment.

5. Some assault rifle owners try to sell their assault rifles on the black market (to god knows whom) before they're confiscated.

(Note: The vast majority of gun crime in the US is caused by criminals with illegally held guns bought on the black market or stolen. Most of the time these shooters have previous convictions.)

RESULT: Black market supply of assault rifles may increase giving criminals more access to assault rifles. Gun crime may increase as a result.

More likely there will be a spate of tragic boating accidents.

mylefttesticle

Hourglass Shrugged wrote: »

I think if you make all drugs legal you will reduce the funding of criminal gangs who are by far the greatest cause behind the exorbitant murder rate in the US. That way, you may reduce the incentive to kill by a fraction. The US has lost the drug war. You can't beat back the black market.

The world has lost the ''drugs war'', all these mass shootings have one thing in common, the loner (s) who feels isolated and neglected.

Hourglass Shrugged

mylefttesticle wrote: »

The world has lost the ''drugs war''

Agreed.

mylefttesticle wrote: »

all these mass shootings have one thing in common, the loner (s) who feels isolated and neglected.

The majority of shootings in the US are not caused by these "loner(s) who feel isolated and neglected". Criminal gangs are the biggest problem in the US and are the prime cause of most of these gun deaths. The US has around 9,000 gun related homicides a year. That's close to 25 gun deaths a day or one Sandy Hook each day.

mylefttesticle

Hourglass Shrugged wrote: »

Agreed.

The majority of shootings in the US are not caused by these "loner(s) who feel isolated and neglected". Criminal gangs are the biggest problem in the US and are the prime cause of most of these gun deaths. The US has around 9,000 gun related homicides a year. That's close to 25 gun deaths a day or one Sandy Hook each day.

Yes of course, but im talking about mass shootings and not your average daily gun crimes, as long as there is crime then there will be sporatic shootings, i think the percentage of gun related crimes in Ireland is about the same as the US when you take into account the population difference.

Hourglass Shrugged

mylefttesticle wrote: »

Yes of course, but im talking about mass shootings and not your average daily gun crimes, as long as there is crime then there will be sporatic shootings, i think the percentage of gun related crimes in Ireland is about the same as the US when you take into account the population difference.

~9,000 gun deaths, ~300,000,000 people. That's 9,000/300,000,000 = 0.00003. Ireland has ~4,000,000 people. So if the rate if gun related homicdes each year in Ireland is the same as the US then we should have 0.00003 X 4,000,000 = 120 gun related homicides, approx.

In reality, the number is closer to 50 gun related homicides in Ireland per year, so the rate of gun related homicides in the US is well over double the rate of gun related homicides in Ireland.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Double standards? If gun bans are the answer to mass murderous rampages why is an airsoft ban not the answer to assaults with airsoft guns?

Because airsoft guns aren't designed to inflict serious injuries?

Hourglass Shrugged

Ush1 wrote: »

Because airsoft guns aren't designed to inflict serious injuries?

They're not designed specifically to take your eye out either, but they can.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Because airsoft guns aren't designed to inflict serious injuries?

No, they are a military simulation tool used for training people to deal with urban environments and respond to and defend themselves as active shooters. Airsoft has more in common with Sandy Hook than shooting an AR-15 at a a range.

Yet according to some, owning an AR-15 and shooting at a range is the 'irresponsible' aspect of gun ownership. Never a word about people practicing how to avoid SWAT teams in realistic simulations. Funny that.

BattleCorp

MadsL wrote: »

Yet according to some, owning an AR-15 and shooting at a range is the 'irresponsible' aspect of gun ownership.

It's a pity that people are so hung up on banning guns as if that would be the solution to all the world's problems.

Maybe I'm in the minority but it seems pretty clear to me that the problem isn't the gun, it's the nut behind the trigger that is the problem.

The public are just as safe whether it's a .22 rifle or an AR15 if the gun is in the hands of a sensible, stable, safety conscious person.

InTheTrees

mylefttesticle wrote: »

i think the percentage of gun related crimes in Ireland is about the same as the US when you take into account the population difference.

Oh dear me no. Not even close. I think the puget sound/western Washington state is a similar population to Ireland.

We've had at least five gun deaths in the last week which included drive by shootings, burglaries, muggings, a bar fight and a few murders. And thats a normal week.

http://search.nwsource.com/search?query=shooting&sort=date&topic=Local&from=ST

How many in Ireland?

Ps. RIP Garda Adrian Donohoe. Very Sad.

pabloh999

MadsL wrote: »

No, they are a military simulation tool used for training people to deal with urban environments and respond to and defend themselves as active shooters. Airsoft has more in common with Sandy Hook than shooting an AR-15 at a a range.

Yet according to some, owning an AR-15 and shooting at a range is the 'irresponsible' aspect of gun ownership. Never a word about people practicing how to avoid SWAT teams in realistic simulations. Funny that.

What in the name of god are you on about

InTheTrees

Ush1 wrote: »

Because airsoft guns aren't designed to inflict serious injuries?

They're Toys.

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

StinkyMunkey

InTheTrees wrote: »

Oh dear me no. Not even close. I think the puget sound/western Washington state is a similar population to Ireland.

We've had at least five gun deaths in the last week which included drive by shootings, burglaries, muggings, a bar fight and a few murders. And thats a normal week.

http://search.nwsource.com/search?query=shooting&sort=date&topic=Local&from=ST

How many in Ireland?

Ps. RIP Garda Adrian Donohoe. Very Sad.

More guns = a greater chance for more gun murders.

Ireland doesnt have the same gun culture as the states.

Buy back schemes from the government and tighter back round checks is the way to go.

InTheTrees

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

More guns = a greater chance for more gun murders.

Ireland doesnt have the same gun culture as the states.

Buy back schemes from the government and tighter back round checks is the way to go.

Yup. The culture cannot be changed overnight.

Background checks, safety education, testing and licencing. And then in 10-15 years there may be an improvement.

The confusingly worded (Yes, it is confusing, even though both sides claim its clear as day and supports their view.) 2nd Amendment needs to be junked at this point too.

We had a buy back day here in Seattle over the weekend where someone handed in a rocket launcher. There were also Gun Dealers buying what they could from the punters before they handed them in to the cops for the default $100.

pabloh999

The N.R.A versus America.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-nra-vs-america-20130131

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

No, they are a military simulation tool used for training people to deal with urban environments and respond to and defend themselves as active shooters. Airsoft has more in common with Sandy Hook than shooting an AR-15 at a a range.

Yet according to some, owning an AR-15 and shooting at a range is the 'irresponsible' aspect of gun ownership. Never a word about people practicing how to avoid SWAT teams in realistic simulations. Funny that.

Doesn't negate what I said.

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

aloyisious

And there I was listening to Wayne LaPierre on TV last night bragging about how some schools now had armed guards to prevent another massacre.

InTheTrees

aloyisious wrote: »

And there I was listening to Wayne LaPierre on TV last night bragging about how some schools now had armed guards to prevent another massacre.

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

Also at that jewish community centre that got shot up.

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

Sparks

InTheTrees wrote: »

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

No, there wasn't. There were two police officers outside, one who was on his lunch break, one who was there by chance, giving a traffic ticket. The guy coming back from his lunch break saw one of the shooters, shouted at him, and the shooter went back inside; at which point the police procedures say to stay outside and secure the building and wait for support - during which time most of shootings happened. Those procedures have since been changed, as you'd expect.

sgt.john

I agree that we need to keep guns away from some people like the guy at Sandy Hook elementary (I.e the mentally ill). I as a American and future soldier from the state of Texas do not agree that we should give up our guns to do so would make what men and women have died to protect for past 200 years a joke. we hold our freedoms dear and are willing to fight at the drop of a hat to protect 'em.

looksee

That is complete nonsense, and deluded nonsense at that.

sgt.john

How is it nonsense?

AnonoBoy

sgt.john wrote: »

I agree that we need to keep guns away from some people like the guy at Sandy Hook elementary (I.e the mentally ill). I as a American and future soldier from the state of Texas do not agree that we should give up our guns to do so would make what men and women have died to protect for past 200 years a joke. we hold our freedoms dear and are willing to fight at the drop of a hat to protect 'em.

Yeah, like what if the Queen of England came into your house and started messing up all your stuff? You'd need an assault rifle under your bed then so you would.

sgt.john

I don't care about the assault rifles ban 'em they were banned before, if that was the only thing on the table to be banned it would be no big deal, but it's not and that's the reason we are pushing against the proposed bans.

InTheTrees

sgt.john wrote: »

How is it nonsense?

It is nonsense...

Because you have already given up the "freedom" to have a barrel less than 16", and the "freedom" to have a grenade launcher, and the "freedom" to go full auto, and the "freedom" to use a supressor, and the "freedom" to have a stock on a pistol with a barrel less than 16", etc etc...

So it dosent look like you're holding your precious freedoms very dear does it, because nobody has been doing any fighting to protect them have they?

Also this macho puffed up sh*t about "defending freedoms" is absolute garbage. There IS gun control in the USA already so arguing that there isnt is nonsense.

So submit to a background check and get over it.

sgt.john

You can have a fully auto, But you have to give the government permission to come into your house and look around without a warrent, you can own a silencer you just have to again go through tougher registrations. You're right about the barrel thing though but do you think that stops use from owning longer barrel?

StinkyMunkey

InTheTrees wrote: »

It is nonsense...

Because you have already given up the "freedom" to have a barrel less than 16", and the "freedom" to have a grenade launcher, and the "freedom" to go full auto, and the "freedom" to use a supressor, and the "freedom" to have a stock on a pistol with a barrel less than 16", etc etc...

So it dosent look like you're holding your precious freedoms very dear does it, because nobody has been doing any fighting to protect them have they?

Also this macho puffed up sh*t about "defending freedoms" is absolute garbage. There IS gun control in the USA already so arguing that there isnt is nonsense.

So submit to a background check and get over it.

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

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

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

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

Sparks

InTheTrees wrote: »

So it dosent look like you're holding your precious freedoms very dear does it, because nobody has been doing any fighting to protect them have they?

Actually, they've had legal campaigning against all those things for the last decade or two from a dozen different bodies...