Another mass shooting in the U.S

StinkyMunkey

Sparks wrote: »

It really doesn't, because you're assuming car manufacturers are altruistic; they're not. I know I just gave the most famous example of that, but I thought it was sufficiently well-known that it didn't need that much elaboration.

Yes! We've had to fight them every step of the way on that.


I believe I just explained why that's simply not true.


The first one. I've tried to explain this before: muskets are basicly 50 calibre rifles firing dum-dum bullets. The Hague Convention banned that kind of thing from warfare as too horrible to use on people back when, frankly, damn little horrified anyone. If you had to pick one or the other to be shot with (and I can't think of why you'd have to, but for the sake of argument...), pick the AR-15 because you're more likely to survive.

Remember, the reason the US army uses the round used in the M-16 is not because it's lethal; it's because it takes the enemy soldier out of the fight, and it lets their soldiers carry more ammunition and be more accurate. Killing the enemy soldier is not required, and injuring them is better for the US army because then the other side needs to expend resources to care for their wounded.


Actually, not so much. More accurate at long range, yes, but its hard to be more lethal than a 50-calibre ball.


Don't have one.

Yes, my father made them and they had some childhood friends of mine in one.

Compared to three or four, yes. Compared to what was hoped for, no. Compared to Switzerland, not even in the same ballpark.


Yes, but not to where they wanted it; and sure, so long as it's free.


No, just most of them.


Yup. Most of the 200,000 firearms in Ireland are owned and used by farmers for farming. Then there are hunters and target shooters, and it wouldn't be their day job, but it would be their daily lives. And that's just Ireland.

/headdesk
So why have a law at all?
(BTW, they've broken several laws long before they pull the trigger...)


Except that you were saying that it didn't need someone to be hurt to fulfill that purpose.


/facepalm
If the problem is violence, then taking away an abused tool won't fix the problem.


Yes and yes, but they're different cultures.

Has it occurred to you that Ireland is wierd?
We're not the statistical norm, probably because for thirty years we had a rather serious domestic terrorism problem and we demonised firearms. Go anywhere in the continent and you get a completely different story.


The myth that you could stop him during a reload is why they banned high capacity magazines in NY...


That's as useful as arguing to ban kool-aid because of Jim Jones.


What are you calling for? And what's your evidence for that measure?


That's nice. Now explain what you mean in detail, because that's so vague and ill-defined that it's meaningless noise.

Lets approach it from a different direction, rather than going around in circles.

Do you believe that guns are part of the problem thats affect America in regards to mass shootings/gun crime?

I believe they are, but i dont believe they are the one defining factor. There is multiple factors involved.

I strongly believe in that people should be able to protect themselves in their homes. But i dont think they need a "military assault stlye semi atuomatic rifle" to do so. Maybe you do, but i dont and never will.

Instead of glorifying guns, proper education should be brought in to warn people about the dangers of guns (duh).

The gun culture aspect should be addressed, win peoples hearts and minds and you are half way there.

Are the laws in place in America fine, and carry on regardless?

Sparks

And that's without mentioning the Girandoni, which was basicly a .48 calibre repeating rifle with a 20-round magazine, and which was available in the US at the time of the drafting of the second amendment (it's most likely the air rifle Lewis & Clark used 15 years after the 2nd amendment was drafted, and it was originally brought into use in Austria a decade before the amendment was drafted, so it is definitely contemporaneous).

So that argument you sometimes hear about how the second amendment should only let people have the firearms available when it was drafted? Yeah, that wouldn't make things any safer, it'd make them far, far worse because firearms today aren't as lethal as they were back then.

Sparks

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Lets approach it from a different direction, rather than going around in circles.

I think we're more pointing out that your argument is flawed than going in circles.

Do you believe that guns are part of the problem thats affect America in regards to mass shootings/gun crime?

I think that that's not America's problem. I think America's problem is violence, not just the tools abused by violent people. And I don't think simple-minded bans of those tools will fix the problem because they don't address it.

But most of all, I think that nobody's gathering evidence to make decisions; they're just going with what their guts tell them. Which would be fine, if forty feet of hollow tubes filled with faecal matter was a good mechanism for making complex decisions...

I believe they are

Citation needed.

i dont believe they are the one defining factor

Citation needed.

There is multiple factors involved.

Citation needed.

The gun culture aspect should be addressed

Citation needed.

Are the laws in place in America fine, and carry on regardless?

That's the question you ask after you've done the research and identified the problem. You're a ways off from there yet.

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Lets approach it from a different direction, rather than going around in circles.

Rather than admit Sparks just schooled you. :pac:

Do you believe that guns are part of the problem thats affect America in regards to mass shootings/gun crime?

Think about what you are asking? Asking do guns play a role in shootings/gun crime is like asking if cars play a role in drunk driving deaths.

I believe they are, but i dont believe they are the one defining factor. There is multiple factors involved.

Of course. Who is disputing that with you?

I strongly believe in that people should be able to protect themselves in their homes. But i dont think they need a "military assault stlye semi atuomatic rifle" to do so. Maybe you do, but i dont and never will.

I have already shown you how a semi-automatic rifle is more suitable for a small framed woman than a handgun or shotgun. Did you forget that conversation?

Instead of glorifying guns, proper education should be brought in to warn people about the dangers of guns (duh).

Who disputes a gun safety campaign? But who is "glorifying" guns exactly? Other than Hollywood, and I'm sure you are a consumer of their output.

The gun culture aspect should be addressed, win peoples hearts and minds and you are half way there.

What does that mean "addressed" are you saying gun ownership is a "bad thing"?

Are the laws in place in America fine, and carry on regardless?

How would you define the "problem" you are trying to solve? What is it you want to stop/prevent?

CollardGreens

Do you believe that guns are part of the problem thats affect America in regards to mass shootings/gun crime?

I believe they are, but i dont believe they are the one defining factor. There is multiple factors involved.

Hi Stinky Munkey, I disagree. Only ONE factor I see, and it's a mean crazy person that wants to harm others. Some of them used a gun/guns. This list is numerous as to what other "weapon" they could have used.....least we forget 911.

StinkyMunkey

http://news.sky.com/story/1046594/sylvester-stallone-backs-assault-weapon-ban

Good old Rambo sums in up nicely

BattleCorp

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1046594/sylvester-stallone-backs-assault-weapon-ban

Good old Rambo sums in up nicely

It's all well and good to have celebrities say "ban assault rifles", but what exactly is an assault rifle?

Is it a fully automatic rifle or are you going to include semi automatic rifles in that category?

Or is an assault rifle a rifle of a certain calibre?

I'm not in favour of fully auto firearms being in civilian hands, but I wouldn't like to see semi automatic firearms banned. They have loads of legitimate uses.

Seeking to ban assault rifles without a definition of what an assault rifle does't make sense to me.

Witcher

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

http://news.sky.com/story/1046594/sylvester-stallone-backs-assault-weapon-ban

Good old Rambo sums in up nicely

'You can't hunt with it' Sly doesn't seem to know his arse from his elbow with firearms so him weighing into the debate doesn't really help the anti gun side. He probably thinks the rifles they're trying to ban are full autos like the M60 he used:pac:

If one anti gun person could stand up that had in depth knowledge of firearms, their function etc. and could form a proper argument that displays technical knowledge of firearms then maybe shooters would listen but when the anti gun side can barely draw a picture of a firearm it's hard to debate the issue properly or even take them seriously.

At least Sly touched on mental health issues;

"It's unbelievably horrible, what's happened. I think the biggest problem, seriously, is not so much guns. It's that every one of these people that have done these things in the past 30 years are ... crazy. Really crazy!

"And that's where we've dropped the ball: mental health. That to me is our biggest problem in the future, is insanity coupled with isolation."

That point seems to be falling by the wayside in a big way with the anti gun side in the US..their solution is 'Let them rot..just take the guns off them'..real civilised.

MadsL

Sly wrote:

"Unless you're carrying out an assault ... You can't hunt with it ... Who's going to attack your house, a (expletive) army?"

Sly wrote:

“Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you’re gonna have. It’s pathetic. It really is pathetic. It’s sad. We’re living in the Dark Ages over there.”

Sly has been a vocal supporter of the Brady campaign and yet...

"The Sheriff's Department indicates that Mr. Stallone applied for a CCW permit on September 29, 2004. He was issued a permit on November 30, 2004."

My eyes! The "Google"s, they do nothing!

MadsL

http://doena-journal.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/rambo_stats.jpg

StinkyMunkey

Coroners report on sandy hook:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248864/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Autopsy-report-reveals-26-victims-shot-times-EACH.html#axzz2JmhBwSPL

doesnt make for light reading

Tell me again just how non lethal the AR-15 is?

I want to be dazzled again with facts and figures about calibre and just how non lethal these pea shooters military assault style weapons are.

To quote "the worst I've seen". Sure what would he know?

MadsL

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Coroners report on sandy hook:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248864/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Autopsy-report-reveals-26-victims-shot-times-EACH.html#axzz2JmhBwSPL

doesnt make for light reading

Tell me again just how non lethal the AR-15 is?

I want to be dazzled again with facts and figures about calibre and just how non lethal these pea shooters military assault style weapons are.

To quote "the worst I've seen". Sure what would he know?

If you want to use the emotional manipulation of the Daily Mail as the sole support of your arguments, go ahead. Just don't expect much respect for it.

In the meantime I'm still waiting for a response to the questions you have been asked about what controls exactly you are proposing.

In the meantime, emotive reporting gets us exactly nowhere.

Manic Moran

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Coroners report on sandy hook:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248864/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Autopsy-report-reveals-26-victims-shot-times-EACH.html#axzz2JmhBwSPL

doesnt make for light reading

Tell me again just how non lethal the AR-15 is?

I want to be dazzled again with facts and figures about calibre and just how non lethal these pea shooters military assault style weapons are.

To quote "the worst I've seen". Sure what would he know?

That's not a coroner's report, it's a coroner's press conference.

The point isn't that AR-15s are non-lethal. The point is that they are less lethal than other weapons which are not being villified (such as .308s) and no more lethal than wood-stocked .223s which also are not part of the current political discussion in the US

StinkyMunkey

Sparks wrote: »

It really doesn't, because you're assuming car manufacturers are altruistic; they're not. I know I just gave the most famous example of that, but I thought it was sufficiently well-known that it didn't need that much elaboration.

Yes! We've had to fight them every step of the way on that.


I believe I just explained why that's simply not true.


The first one. I've tried to explain this before: muskets are basicly 50 calibre rifles firing dum-dum bullets. The Hague Convention banned that kind of thing from warfare as too horrible to use on people back when, frankly, damn little horrified anyone. If you had to pick one or the other to be shot with (and I can't think of why you'd have to, but for the sake of argument...), pick the AR-15 because you're more likely to survive.

Remember, the reason the US army uses the round used in the M-16 is not because it's lethal; it's because it takes the enemy soldier out of the fight, and it lets their soldiers carry more ammunition and be more accurate. Killing the enemy soldier is not required, and injuring them is better for the US army because then the other side needs to expend resources to care for their wounded.


Actually, not so much. More accurate at long range, yes, but its hard to be more lethal than a 50-calibre ball.


Don't have one.

Yes, my father made them and they had some childhood friends of mine in one.

Compared to three or four, yes. Compared to what was hoped for, no. Compared to Switzerland, not even in the same ballpark.


Yes, but not to where they wanted it; and sure, so long as it's free.


No, just most of them.


Yup. Most of the 200,000 firearms in Ireland are owned and used by farmers for farming. Then there are hunters and target shooters, and it wouldn't be their day job, but it would be their daily lives. And that's just Ireland.

/headdesk
So why have a law at all?
(BTW, they've broken several laws long before they pull the trigger...)


Except that you were saying that it didn't need someone to be hurt to fulfill that purpose.


/facepalm
If the problem is violence, then taking away an abused tool won't fix the problem.


Yes and yes, but they're different cultures.

Has it occurred to you that Ireland is wierd?
We're not the statistical norm, probably because for thirty years we had a rather serious domestic terrorism problem and we demonised firearms. Go anywhere in the continent and you get a completely different story.


The myth that you could stop him during a reload is why they banned high capacity magazines in NY...


That's as useful as arguing to ban kool-aid because of Jim Jones.


What are you calling for? And what's your evidence for that measure?


That's nice. Now explain what you mean in detail, because that's so vague and ill-defined that it's meaningless noise.

I didnt reply to this because i thought you where pulling my leg. Im bored talking about cars - lets talk about guns.

So more accurate doesnt = more lethal. Er no.

http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/musket/rev_gun5.htm

I suppose if the guy stands still and isnt further than 40/50 yards away you might get lucky.

Tell you what you bring a musket to a gun fight:

http://insuremekevin.com/2013/01/23/muskets-versus-assault-rifles/

And ill bring this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xyj8y1Dup64

If the guy stops laughing at you long enough, you might get lucky.

The M16 isnt lethal - please im not retarded:

http://www.blindloop.com/index.php/2010/09/7-most-lethal-rifles-of-the-world/

Guess the hague Convention forgot to ban this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun

Are you messing with me?? The tactics you described WHERE NOT used by the US, but the viet cong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLF_and_PAVN_battle_tactics

To quote:

Booby traps and mines caused immense psychological pressure on US and ARVN troops and also inflicted numerous casualties. By 1970 for example, some 11% of fatalities and 17% of injuries inflicted on US troops were caused by booby traps and mines.[3] Identified by a variety of markers for friendly forces, these devices slowed operations, diverted resources towards security and clearance activity, damaged equipment and poisoned relations between soldiers and the surrounding civilian population.

So the US where just out to injure Quote:

Numerous Western histories of the Vietnam War, some scholars argue, tend to assign the Vietnamese a secondary role in terms of the developments that led to victory by the North. For example, while American combat deaths are often referenced in the large number of Western histories, comparatively little mention is made of the 275,000 combat deaths suffered by the South Vietnamese, almost 5 times the American total. Just the evacuation of Da Nang in March 1975 cost the South Vietnamese an estimated 60,000 deaths, more than total US military losses for the entire conflict.[43]



The Taliban use the same tactics today. Now ask me how i know (assumed you asked).

I have a close personnal friend who serves in the british army, and served a tour in Afghanistan. His NCO was shot outside of the compound in the legs making a phone call (silly i know). I asked why notcenter mass for the kill, Guess what he said "injurying takes more out of the battle".

So this is not more accurate than a 50 cal musket fired ball, hmmmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet

Your father made an Ad. Well my father served 25 years in the RAF, not as a pilot (and yes he did see action, former yugoslavia anyone).

StinkyMunkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's not a coroner's report, it's a coroner's press conference.

The point isn't that AR-15s are non-lethal. The point is that they are less lethal than other weapons which are not being villified (such as .308s) and no more lethal than wood-stocked .223s which also are not part of the current political discussion in the US

Did he use an AR-15?

Did it create that carnage?

Is it the weapon of choice when going out to mass murder?

Do i think the AR-15 should be the only one banned, eh no.

Sparks

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

I didnt reply to this because i thought you where pulling my leg. Im bored talking about cars - lets talk about guns.

Do you often say you're bored of going round in circles when someone points out why your arguments are wrong?

So more accurate doesnt = more lethal. Er no.

Citation needed.

http://insuremekevin.com/2013/01/23/muskets-versus-assault-rifles/
I suppose if the guy stands still and isnt further than 40/50 yards away you might get lucky.

That's someone's personal blog post with his opinion. Do you have any actual evidence? Any facts, figures, studies that have undergone (and passed) peer review?

Tell you what you bring a musket to a gun fight

You realise a musket is a gun, right? And that most of the shootings you are so concerned about happen at ranges far less than 50 yards?

The M16 isnt lethal - please im not retarded

Nobody said you were, but I am beginning to think you are deliberately not reading. Or are not understanding what you read. And frankly, I don't buy into this game of me saying X, you saying I said Y and me then responding to your argument against Y. Either argue honestly, or stop wasting everyone's time and admit that you have no interest in actual discussion.

Your father made an Ad. Well my father served 25 years in the RAF, not as a pilot (and yes he did see action, former yugoslavia anyone).

Did you actually just make a "my dad can beat up your dad" argument, in response to an honest answer to a question you wrote?

What kind of nonsensical drivel are you wasting all our time with next?
What a waste of time this was!

StinkyMunkey

Anyway im done, im bored stating the obvious and having imformation that isnt relevent to the debate used.

Continue on without me.

StinkyMunkey

Sparks wrote: »

Do you often say you're bored of going round in circles when someone points out why your arguments are wrong?

Thanks, needed a laugh, and to that i bide you goodnight:).

BattleCorp

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Coroners report on sandy hook:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248864/Sandy-Hook-shooting-Autopsy-report-reveals-26-victims-shot-times-EACH.html#axzz2JmhBwSPL

doesnt make for light reading

Tell me again just how non lethal the AR-15 is?

I want to be dazzled again with facts and figures about calibre and just how non lethal these pea shooters military assault style weapons are.

To quote "the worst I've seen". Sure what would he know?

Here, I'll say it if this will make you happy.

Yes, guns can be dangerous. They can also be perfectly safe if they are in the right hands and used for lawful means.

But so can cars. They can be perfectly safe in the correct hands, but very dangerous in the wrong hands.

If a drunk driver kills somebody, you wouldn't be saying "ban cars", yet that is what happens to guns when somebody commits a horrible crime like Sandy Hook.

From my point of view, it isn't the guns fault, it's the person's fault. Same with a drunk driver, it isn't the car's fault, it's the person's fault.

Can you not see logic in the example that I have just shown?

Yes, guns can be dangerous and that is why we need some sort of gun control to stop them falling into the wrong hands. Gun control doesn't mean banning guns or certain types of guns, it means that we have to make more of an effort to ensure that they don't fall into the wrong hands.

StinkyMunkey, here is a question for you. Do you think it was a good idea for Dermot Aherne to ban high powered handguns in 2009 here in Ireland? Please answer this question for me.

FISMA

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's the offending ammendment:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Its pretty clear that you can interpret it in any way that suits you! :eek:

Not if you do your homework.

I am willing to bet that the US Constitution, the Second Ammendment, or the Federalist papers were not on the leaving cert, were they?

Who is the militia?

Is is state run, like the Pennsylvania National Guard? Is it state sanctioned? Or is it the people, plain and simple?

According to George Mason, the militia IS the people.

You should really do your homework for this time period, it is fascinating and hits home to "Catholics" and "highlanders" who, by English common law were: subject to gun confiscation, not allowed to keep arms at home, not allowed to bear them on their person outside of the home, and not allowed to use arms in order to create a citizen's militia to ensure freedom.

Again, don't take my word for it, study your history.

That's what the founding fathers wrote about. That's why they had a second amendment.

Here are a few quotes that back my position on the Second Amendment.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

pabloh999

Whats this "militia" about?
And what are they supposed to do?

If its to protect the general public/citizens from a (imaginary)tyrannical government then yea thats a great idea.

So go out buy an Ar15/powerfull handgun/whatever, grand your ready to hold your own against the oppresive regime
But what if your government has attack drones armed with hellfire missiles?
Or Apache helicopter gunships?
Or stealth bombers
Or nuclear bombs?

damn, back to the drawing board, meanwhile the American bodies keep piling up.
So, to protect yourself against an imaginary enemy an obscene amount of Real life citizens are getting gunned down every day

MadsL

pabloh999 wrote: »

Whats this "militia" about?
And what are they supposed to do?

If its to protect the general public/citizens from a (imaginary)tyrannical government then yea thats a great idea.

So go out buy an Ar15/powerfull handgun/whatever, grand your ready to hold your own against the oppresive regime
But what if your government has attack drones armed with hellfire missiles?
Or Apache helicopter gunships?
Or stealth bombers
Or nuclear bombs?

damn, back to the drawing board, meanwhile the American bodies keep piling up.
So, to protect yourself against an imaginary enemy an obscene amount of Real life citizens are getting gunned down every day

You might have noticed a few lads with AKs keeping the US Army busy in Afghanistan this last while.

"obscene amount of Real life citizens are getting gunned down every day"

Seem to also be a few getting gunned down in Ireland - why is that do you think?

What is an "obscene" number in your view, what would be an "acceptable" number?

pabloh999

Id say 31000 gun deaths last year pretty unacceptable.
Is it acceptable to you? Yes/No?

But honestly explain about the militia? Who would the militia protect ya from?

pabloh999

MadsL wrote: »

Seem to also be a few getting gunned down in Ireland - why is that do you think?

Ah now your just being silly
Usa murder rate 4.8/100k
Ireland 1.2/100k

mike65

The thing about the murder rate by gunfire in Ireland and the USA, is that in one its not systemic.

MadsL

pabloh999 wrote: »

Ah now your just being silly
Usa murder rate 4.8/100k
Ireland 1.2/100k

But gun control prevents all shootings, no?

pabloh999

MadsL wrote: »

But gun control prevents all shootings, no?

who said that
Whats the story with the militia? Who would they protect ya from?

MadsL

pabloh999 wrote: »

who said that

So there are other factors at work in the murder rate other than comparative levels of gun control?

Whats the story with the militia? Who would they protect ya from?

The people have the right under the Second Amendment to defend themselves, the Seond Amendment doesn't concern itself with from whom, although given the historical context it is to prevent the excesses of Government having an unfair burden on the people.

Who does the Constitution of Ireland intend to defend the people from when it states that an Irish citizens home is inviolable?

Dyr

MadsL wrote: »

Who does the Constitution of Ireland intend to defend the people from when it states that an Irish citizens home is inviolable?

Americans

Sparks

pabloh999 wrote: »

But what if your government has attack drones armed with hellfire missiles?
Or Apache helicopter gunships?
Or stealth bombers
Or nuclear bombs?

The British had a pretty large, well-armed, well-trained army, one of the most potent navies in the world and even the beginnings of one of the first air forces. The Irish had a few stolen pistols and rifles.

Thing is, a few stolen pistols and rifles might not be any good against an armoured car, but they're pretty effective when you show up in the armoured car's driver's bedroom at three in the morning and shoot him in the head as he sleeps. Next thing you know, we've got the Free State (the history after that point isn't pleasant, but the point is that we couldn't be living in the country we're now living in if that initial fight wasn't winnable).

It's called asymmetric warfare these days. In 1776, it was called something else, but it was exactly the same principle.

Why people can't keep that in mind when pondering how three hundred million guns can be used in the doomsday scenario the second amendment was written for, I don't know.