Another mass shooting in the U.S

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

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

Shocking that you're still bring up things like cars.

MadsL wrote: »

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

At the putting words in my mouth stage I see.

MadsL wrote: »

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

I haven't addressed it because I couldn't care less at this point. I was simply making a point to illustrate to you the very simple difference between a fake gun and a real one.

MadsL wrote: »

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

Do they not have psychiatrists there already? In what way are you going to restrict someone who wants a gun in the US when they are everywhere?

MadsL wrote: »

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

No necessity, but an airsoft rifle was not designed to inflict injury.

MadsL wrote: »

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

I have pointed out that it is a double standard as it is not comparing like with like.

If those guys you're talking about had real rifles do you not think they are infinitely more dangerous? Actually, I wonder how many people who shoot other people in America are clinically sane, I'm sure there is many of them.

StinkyMunkey

Blay wrote: »

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

Lol, anyone who doesnt agree with people having free accesss to lethal weapons is a "militant anti gunner", guess that makes us more dangerous, now imagine an anti gun nut with a gun. Great comeback, insult someone who doesnt agree with your views. Why not through up some more farcical comparisons, i could use a laugh.

Witcher

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Lol, anyone who doesnt agree with people having free accesss to lethal weapons is a "militant anti gunner", guess that makes us more dangerous, now imagine an anti gun nut with a gun. Great comeback, insult someone who doesnt agree with your views. Why not through up some more farcical comparisons, i could use a laugh.

If someone came on here and knew what they were talking about all the shooters here would listen to the proposals but there isn't one person who has argued against firearms on this thread that has a clue what they're talking about...not one. All that has been displayed by the anti gun side is complete and utter ignorance of firearms laws, the function of firearms, ammunition and various shooting sports.

I've been on this thread since the start along with several other people here and to have to defend the sport over and over and over and over and over and over and over against people who don't know their arse from their elbow gets tiresome...123 pages of posting 'Firearms have legitimate uses' etc quickly becomes a pain in the arse but I'm not going to walk away from the thread and have people spout crap and demonise my sport. Fcuk...that.

I don't know what your own interests are but imagine someone completely ignorant of it telling you how evil it was and demanding it be banned...now mulitply that by 100 and that is what this thread is like to read for a shooter.

Ush1

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

Yeah, well I did try an cover it in the whole hypothetical question.

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

You don't know much about lasers;
http://www.forensicssource.com/CategoryDetail.aspx?CategoryName=Trajectory-Reconstruction-Supplies

Or the concept of hypothetical situations.

BattleCorp wrote: »

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

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

But cars aren't designed to be lethal, that's the point. They are needed to get people around in a tangible, useful way.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Shocking that you're still bring up things like cars.

But don't you want to control objects? Or did I misuderstand you explaining how the object is the most important difference between the scenarios I mentioned. The rifle is fake, that's ok then. The gun in the nightstand is real, stop the potential murderer.

At the putting words in my mouth stage I see.

Oh I'm sorry, didn't you just say

Ush1 wrote: »

I believe such things are a danger and the general public would be better off without them.

So she's a danger huh?

I haven't addressed it because I couldn't care less at this point. I was simply making a point to illustrate to you the very simple difference between a fake gun and a real one.

Tell me, is it still armed robbery if you use a replica gun?

Do they not have psychiatrists there already? In what way are you going to restrict someone who wants a gun in the US when they are everywhere?

Do I have to go over all the ways guns are already restricted in the US? This isn't Somalia.

No necessity, but an airsoft rifle was not designed to inflict injury.

So that is your criteria. Would you also include hunting knives?

I have pointed out that it is a double standard as it is not comparing like with like.

You still refuse to see that the closest like for like is the airsofter and the rampage killer, not the old lady with a pistol. Hmmm.

If those guys you're talking about had real rifles do you not think they are infinitely more dangerous?

I find it hard to quantify "infinite", care to help?

Actually, I wonder how many people who shoot other people in America are clinically sane, I'm sure there is many of them.

'wonder' 'many' - could you be vaguer, I'm almost getting some kind of point.

Anyway, getting back to your gun ban. How will that work exactly?

StinkyMunkey

Blay wrote: »

If someone came on here and knew what they were talking about all the shooters here would listen to the proposals but there isn't one person who has argued against firearms on this thread that has a clue what they're talking about...not one. All that has been displayed by the anti gun side is complete and utter ignorance of firearms laws, the function of firearms, ammunition and various shooting sports.

I've been on this thread since the start along with several other people here and to have to defend the sport over and over and over and over and over and over and over against people who don't know their arse from their elbow gets tiresome...123 pages of posting 'Firearms have legitimate uses' etc quickly becomes a pain in the arse but I'm not going to walk away from the thread and have people spout crap and demonise my sport. Fcuk...that.

Whats to know...! Guns kill and where designed to kill (basic i know, but hey i dont know what im talking about).

According to the pro gun side, only criminals and illegal guns kill (scratches head).

The nuclear bomb one nearly made me wet myself. People are talking about gun control and the pro gun heads come back with cars can kill O.o

And anyone who plays airsoft is really training to be a navy seal, doesnt matter that they dont own a gun.....!

Im all for debate, but deflecting and not answering peoples questions is not debate, its trying to ram your ideals down thier throat any dismissing and relevent points they might make.

Ush1

Can you please stop replying like that as it makes it very difficult to reply back.

Blay wrote: »

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

Yes, all have not been necessity to the general public. Shooting targets has been the sum of it.

Blay wrote: »

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

I've already covered these questions.

Blay wrote: »

This sentence makes no sense.

It's saying that those people have guns to injure and kill, that is not in doubt. i.e. more than shoot at targets.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

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

Interesting, and you said America is a violent country?

Witcher

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Whats to know...! Guns kill and where designed to kill (basic i know, but hey i dont know what im talking about).

According to the pro gun side, only criminals and illegal guns kill (scratches head).

The nuclear bomb one nearly made me wet myself. People are talking about gun control and the pro gun heads come back with cars can kill O.o

An anyone who plays airsoft is really training to be a navy seal, doesnt matter that they dont own a gun.....!

Im all for debate, but deflecting and not answering peoples questions is not debate, its trying to ram your ideals down thier throat and dismissing and relevent points they might make.

Nobody said they werent, a bow and arrow was designed to kill and in some places is still used for that but it has a sporting use, firearms are used to kill and also have a sporting use. What an item was designed to do doesn't have to be all that it is used for. The anti gun side don't want to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit in with their image of firearms owners sitting in a rocking chair stroking a gun saying 'We's gunna kill thuz people yessur':rolleyes:

Who said that? This debate on 'assault rifles' all stems from Aurora and Sandy Hook..James Holmes shouldn't have been sold those firearms and Adam Lanza killed his mother to get them but somehow people who have legitimate uses for firearms and have always been law abiding are now having to carry the can for them.

I never once mentioned cars or airsoft guns on this thread so I think that's misdirected there.

Anyone who asked a question of me on this thread got a straight answer.

.

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Whats to know...! Guns kill and where designed to kill (basic i know, but hey i dont know what im talking about).

Really depends what you point them now doesn't it.

According to the pro gun side, only criminals and illegal guns kill (scratches head).

What does "pro-gun" mean? So, is your proposition (seriously) to get rid of legal guns? If so, who will collect the illegal ones. And who here has said "only criminals and illegal guns kill"? Really. Quotes please.

The nuclear bomb one nearly made me wet myself. People are talking about gun control and the pro gun heads come back with cars can kill O.o

I mentioned cars to point out we prosecute the driver not the car. People here seem to be seeing the existence of guns to be a problem, not the illegal use of them.

And anyone who plays airsoft is really training to be a navy seal, doesnt matter that they dont own a gun.....!

Don't like people thinking your sport is something it isn't huh? Spare a thought for competition shooters.

Im all for debate, but deflecting and not answering peoples questions is not debate, its trying to ram your ideals down thier throat any dismissing and relevent points they might make.

I'm waiting for relevant points that are more constructive than ZOMG! Guns are lethal!!!! Or denial that the whole issue might be more complex than knee-jerk reactions will deal with.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Interesting, and you said America is a violent country?

Is there a point being made there?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, all have not been necessity to the general public. Shooting targets has been the sum of it.

My State gives me a constitutional right to 'recreation' with a firearm.

Witcher

Ush1 wrote: »

Can you please stop replying like that as it makes it very difficult to reply back.



Yes, all have not been necessity to the general public. Shooting targets has been the sum of it.



I've already covered these questions.



It's saying that those people have guns to injure and kill, that is not in doubt. i.e. more than shoot at targets.

Don't forget hunting:) Many sporting items aren't a necessity to the general public.

Where?

Obviously a person carrying a concealed firearm carries it to potentially kill someone in self defence...you don't have a CCW unless you're willing to use it.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

But don't you want to control objects? Or did I misuderstand you explaining how the object is the most important difference between the scenarios I mentioned. The rifle is fake, that's ok then. The gun in the nightstand is real, stop the potential murderer.

By murdering them I presume? Ah the irony.
Anyway, are you done deflecting or do you accept the difference between things designed to kill and things designed to transport people, amuse children, etc....?

MadsL wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, didn't you just say So she's a danger huh?

Absolutely, you don't consider guns dangerous?

MadsL wrote: »

Tell me, is it still armed robbery if you use a replica gun?

This is particularly obtuse, what does it have to do with the price of bread? Which would you prefer to be robbed with, a fake or real gun?

MadsL wrote: »

Do I have to go over all the ways guns are already restricted in the US? This isn't Somalia.

So you think America has mental problems or gun problems or both?

MadsL wrote: »

So that is your criteria. Would you also include hunting knives?

Potentially, you are aware many types of knives are already banned?

MadsL wrote: »

You still refuse to see that the closest like for like is the airsofter and the rampage killer, not the old lady with a pistol. Hmmm.

I think the old lady with the pistol is more dangerous than the old lady with the fake gun, indeed with her eyesight and hearing she'd prolly blast the cat.

MadsL wrote: »

I find it hard to quantify "infinite", care to help?

Hmmm, more of something equals more of something?

MadsL wrote: »

'wonder' 'many' - could you be vaguer, I'm almost getting some kind of point.

Oh right, you don't think sane people kill other people with guns?

MadsL wrote: »

Anyway, getting back to your gun ban. How will that work exactly?

Was about to ask you the same thing about your pre-emptive psych analysis.:)

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

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

Why can't you just be honest about it.

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

I believe it was you who originally said the phrase.

Why can't you be honest about the purpose of guns? Why, why, why?

So you are asking me a logistics question? Has the problem now moved to logistics and you've accepted the fate of guns?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Is there a point being made there?

:pac: You're the one who "fixed my post".

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

My State gives me a constitutional right to 'recreation' with a firearm.

*slow clap*

........and?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

By murdering them I presume? Ah the irony.
Anyway, are you done deflecting or do you accept the difference between things designed to kill and things designed to transport people, amuse children, etc....?

Do you believe inanimate objects are intrinsically evil? Guns, Nunchucks, Ninja stars? Or is there perhaps some kind of, I don't know, controlling force behind them.

Absolutely, you don't consider guns dangerous?

Not if they are A. Not loaded B. Not pointing at anyone. C. Locked away.

This is particularly obtuse, what does it have to do with the price of bread? Which would you prefer to be robbed with, a fake or real gun?

Answer the question. Is it armed robbery or not? It is the person committing the act that is prosecuted, not the the object.

So you think America has mental problems or gun problems or both?

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth :rolleyes:
Guns already have restrictions in the US.
Now what further restrictions do you want to bring in?

Potentially, you are aware many types of knives are already banned?

Where? In the UK a screwdriver is a offensive weapon.

I think the old lady with the pistol is more dangerous than the old lady with the fake gun, indeed with her eyesight and hearing she'd prolly blast the cat.

What? Apart from being offensively ageist that has nothing to do with my point about who is more dangerous, the sociopath playing terrorist or the old lady with a pistol at home.

Hmmm, more of something equals more of something?

All you said was people who shoot people. Could we have some context for the point you are making?

Oh right, you don't think sane people kill other people with guns?

In what context? In self-defence? More power to them.

Was about to ask you the same thing about your pre-emptive psych analysis.:)

Already there in background checks and gun law. Will be strengthened by many of the presidential orders on mental health and gun background checks. Now, your blanket ban, how will that work?

StinkyMunkey

Blay wrote: »

Nobody said they werent, a bow and arrow was designed to kill and in some places is still used for that but it has a sporting use, firearms are used to kill and also have a sporting use. What an item was designed to do doesn't have to be all that it is used for. The anti gun side don't want to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit in with their image of firearms owners sitting in a rocking chair stroking a gun saying 'We's gunna kill thuz people yessur':rolleyes:

Who said that? This debate on 'assault rifles' all stems from Aurora and Sandy Hook..James Holmes shouldn't have been sold those firearms and Adam Lanza killed his mother to get them but somehow people who have legitimate uses for firearms and have always been law abiding are now having to carry the can for them.

I never once mentioned cars or airsoft guns on this thread so I think that's misdirected there.

Anyone who asked a question of me on this thread got a straight answer.

.

Sorry i was generalising about comparisions made in this thread. Ill not deny guns can be used for sport, hunting or recreation (firing range). And in an ideal world i think everyone should be able to have what they like, but we both know its not an ideal world.

Certain points pro gun supporters made are relevent (the state of the mental health service).

But others are blind and blame everything but the gun. Gun crime needs a gun, therefore it is the issue here.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

I believe it was you who originally said the phrase.

Why can't you be honest about the purpose of guns? Why, why, why?

So you are asking me a logistics question? Has the problem now moved to logistics and you've accepted the fate of guns?

I've posted the purpose many times. Hunting, self-defence, recreation/sport. My state also allows other lawful uses, so add vermin control and protection against wildlife/people when hiking in remote areas.

What is it that you think I'm being dishonest about? Really, I'd love to know.

If you think guns only have the purpose of killing people then it is you being wilfully dishonest.

As for the fate of guns I'm asking you to explain how your gun ban will work again...you don't seem to have too many answers.

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

But others are blind and blame everything but the gun. Gun crime needs a gun, therefore it is the issue here.

If it also needs a person to pull the trigger then the gun is not the only issue.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

*slow clap*

........and?

You would remove that right I take it. How?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Do you believe inanimate objects are intrinsically evil? Guns, Nunchucks, Ninja stars? Or is there perhaps some kind of, I don't know, controlling force behind them.

Where did I state guns were running around by themselves shooting people. They are a handy tool however if you did want to.

MadsL wrote: »

Not if they are A. Not loaded B. Not pointing at anyone. C. Locked away.

Wow we agree. Non accessible they are even safer!

MadsL wrote: »

Answer the question. Is it armed robbery or not? It is the person committing the act that is prosecuted, not the the object.

I honestly have no clue what youre babbling about now.

MadsL wrote: »

And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth :rolleyes:
Guns already have restrictions in the US.
Now what further restrictions do you want to bring in?

I'm not a fan of guns period and the arguments for them are not very convincing to me. Unless you need one I dont think you have one.

MadsL wrote: »

Where? In the UK a screwdriver is a offensive weapon.

Ireland, does that answer your question. I presume America has restrictions also?

MadsL wrote: »

What? Apart from being offensively ageist that has nothing to do with my point about who is more dangerous, the sociopath playing terrorist or the old lady with a pistol at home.

The one with the real gun is more dangerous. Who do you think would win of they were in a room together?

MadsL wrote: »

All you said was people who shoot people. Could we have some context for the point you are making?

I cant make it simpler. I think more guns is a bad thing.

MadsL wrote: »

In what context? In self-defence? More power to them.

No, and self defence is a slippery term. Your psych check ignores the number of people that are sane who shoot people. Do you have any stats to backup the violent gun crimes in America were commited by people with mental illness?

MadsL wrote: »

Already there in background checks and gun law. Will be strengthened by many of the presidential orders on mental health and gun background checks. Now, your blanket ban, how will that work?

So what about people who aren't crazy that kill people, or the ones that GO crazy?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

I've posted the purpose many times. Hunting, self-defence, recreation/sport. My state also allows other lawful uses, so add vermin control and protection against wildlife/people when hiking in remote areas.

What is it that you think I'm being dishonest about? Really, I'd love to know.

If you think guns only have the purpose of killing people then it is you being wilfully dishonest.

As for the fate of guns I'm asking you to explain how your gun ban will work again...you don't seem to have too many answers.

My point is yet again they are inherently lethal. You get that yeah?

So are you happy with that and would like me to look at a process or are we still talking concepts?

MadsL

Ush. I have asked you several times now to explain how your position would work in practice.

You say you are not in favour of guns being owned by the American people.

1. How would you remove this provision from the US Constitution?
2. If you were successful, how would you remove this from the individual States Constitutions?
3. If you were successful, how would you physically remove these guns from the people?
4. How would you then address the fact that illegal guns remain at large?
5. How would you identify legitimate uses?
6. Would you enact stronger measure than Ireland does, or similar measures?
7. How would you enforce the no guns rule? What sanctions would you impose?

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

inherently lethal.

That is a logical impossibility. Guns do not fire themselves. Poisons do not jump down people's throats. Cars do not drive themselves into pedestrians.

Inherently lethal? 95% of people who are shot survive.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

Ush. I have asked you several times now to explain how your position would work in practice.

You say you are not in favour of guns being owned by the American people.

1. How would you remove this provision from the US Constitution?
2. If you were successful, how would you remove this from the individual States Constitutions?
3. If you were successful, how would you physically remove these guns from the people?
4. How would you then address the fact that illegal guns remain at large?
5. How would you identify legitimate uses?
6. Would you enact stronger measure than Ireland does, or similar measures?
7. How would you enforce the no guns rule? What sanctions would you impose?

Do you accept the difference between things designed to injure and things that aren't? Ive asked that several times also.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

That is a logical impossibility. Guns do not fire themselves. Poisons do not jump down people's throats. Cars do not drive themselves into pedestrians.

Inherently lethal? 95% of people who are shot survive.

Inherently dangerous if it makes you feel better?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety#section_1

The mindset is that firearms are inherently dangerous

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Do you accept the difference between things designed to injure and things that aren't? Ive asked that several times also.

Why are you so hung up on this. I don't know what it is that you think I am in denial about?

But while you figure it out, does this look "designed to injure" to you?

http://www.eberlestock.com/2006%20red%20usa%20logo1.jpg

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Inherently dangerous if it makes you feel better?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_safety#section_1

You do realise that dangerous and lethal are two separate things.