Another mass shooting in the U.S

Witcher

I don't know what it is about these threads but they attract the highest percentage of people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about than any others I've seen on boards.

There are forums and threads on boards where I would be out of my depth and would have little or nothing to add to them...so I stay the fcuk away from them.

Personally, I've no problem with non shooters posting in threads like this but when they start contradicting shooters about what is or isn't an assault rifle, the legality if different firearms etc. and just generally spouting buzzwords they heard in the Daily Mail it's bollocks. I think there is enough technical expertise within the thread that we don't require the posters educated on firearms by the red tops to be chipping in 2c.

garv123

briany wrote: »

American gun laws and American gun culture has their bed pretty much made.
Mass shootings there aren't really news, they're just a fact of life, it would seem, a danger that must be considered every day. If you're paddling near the beach in Australia, watch out for box jellyfish. If you're paddling near the beach in America, watch out for white vans (with a sniper muzzle sticking out of a hatch in the side).

pfftt... Snipers never ever stick the muzzle out of a window/door/hatch.. Amateur mistake..

donvito99

Blay wrote: »

I don't know what it is about these threads but they attract the highest percentage of people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about than any others I've seen on boards.

There are forums and threads on boards where I would be out of my depth and would have little or nothing to add to them...so I stay the fcuk away from them.

Personally, I've no problem with non shooters posting in threads like this but when they start contradicting shooters about what is or isn't an assault rifle, the legality if different firearms etc. and just generally spouting buzzwords they heard in the Daily Mail it's bollocks. I think there is enough technical expertise within the thread that we don't require the posters educated on firearms by the red tops to be chipping in 2c.

Yes, so you are presumably a mechanic/Garda with an expert knowledge road safety. No?

Witcher

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes, so you are presumably a mechanic/Garda with an expert knowledge road safety. No?

Because that's completely relevant to what I said......

donvito99

Blay wrote: »

contradicting shooters... enough technical expertise within the thread

You sound like you speak for all shooters in this thread, and this is a thread about mass shootings in the US, which are by no means simply firearm related, so it's inappropriate to tell all "non-shooter" to feck off, especially when you and the others you are speaking for in this post spew out some tired talking point relating cars to guns.

LowKeyReturn

I'm really confused as to what people are advocating here - with some pretty ridiculous examples. Cars have a social utility vs the social cost as do guns, although many would argue a lower one. However both require restrictions.

You have to have a licence to drive a car along with various inspections of the car and penalties for violation of the laws surrounding use and ownership. The same is true for guns to a lesser or greater extent - although I'm lead to believe the restrictions are somewhat ineffective in some US jurisdictions. I'm happy for corrections on that but any chance we can put this analogy to bed?

Sparks, Madsl and Manic Moron et al are you suggesting that everyone should be armed? I'm a bit confused as to what your point of view is here and I am genuinely curious.

Witcher

donvito99 wrote: »

You sound like you speak for all shooters in this thread, and this is a thread about mass shootings in the US, which are by no means simply firearm related, so it's inappropriate to tell all "non-shooter" to feck off, especially when you and the others you are speaking for in this post spew out some tired talking point relating cars to guns.

I think if you read my post really carefully you'll notice that I said I said I have no problem with non shooters posting in the thread. Everyone's opinions are valid but on the technical aspects of firearms some opinions are more valid than others.

Find one post I've made in this thread comparing cars to firearms.

hooradiation

Blay wrote: »

I think there is enough technical expertise within the thread that we don't require the posters educated on firearms by the red tops to be chipping in 2c.

Oh come now, stupid talking points lacking in substance isn't something you have a monopoly on just because your opinion on guns is on the side of "they're awesome, shut up"

donvito99

donvito99 wrote: »

You sound like you speak for all shooters in this thread... the others you are speaking for in this post

Blay wrote: »

I think if you read my post really carefully you'll notice that I said I said I have no problem with non shooters posting in the thread. Everyone's opinions are valid but on the technical aspects of firearms some opinions are more valid than others.

Find one post I've made in this thread comparing cars to firearms.

You belittle all other's opinions in the immediate aftermath of your fellow "shooters" once again spouting the well worn nonsense that is guns can be equated to cars.

Witcher

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh come now, stupid talking points lacking in substance isn't something you have a monopoly on just because your opinion on guns is on the side of "they're awesome, shut up"

Yeah..lets all just spread false information on firearms. We're discussing the firearms laws in the US and to a lesser extent worldwide..I think having some people who know what they're talking about is helpful don't you?

hooradiation

Blay wrote: »

Yeah..lets all just spread false information on firearms. We're discussing the firearms laws in the US and to a lesser extent worldwide..I think having some people who know what they're talking about is helpful don't you?

I'd have to agree, but given that you're just making appeals to authority (in this case, your own) then really we're very short on said experts aren't we?

Witcher

donvito99 wrote: »

You belittle all other's opinions in the immediate aftermath of your fellow "shooters" once again spouting the well worn nonsense that is guns can be equated to cars.

I didn't belittle anyone's opinions. They're simply unhelpful. Some people do not know what they're talking about..it's as simple as that.

So you admit I never compared cars to firearms? Why then, was this crap directed at me?

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes, so you are presumably a mechanic/Garda with an expert knowledge road safety. No?

Witcher

hooradiation wrote: »

I'd have to agree, but given that you're just making appeals to authority (in this case, your own) then really we're very short on said experts aren't we?

Did I say I was amongst the ranks of these experts?

hooradiation

Blay wrote: »

Did I say I was amongst the ranks of said experts?

Well then, feel free to return to your earlier red top inspired bloviations, as people who "don't know what they're talking about" have such a proclivity towards.

Witcher

hooradiation wrote: »

Well then, feel free to return to your earlier red top inspired bloviations, as people who "don't know what they're talking about" have such a proclivity towards.

Never said I wasn't either:pac:

hooradiation

Blay wrote: »

Never said I wasn't either:pac:

Well then, you're left with no choice but to continue being utterly useless.
Have fun with that.

Witcher

hooradiation wrote: »

Well then, you're left with no choice but to continue being utterly useless.
Have fun with that.

Oh mercy...you've struck me down with your fearsome words. A cruel blow:pac:

Sparks

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm really confused as to what people are advocating here - with some pretty ridiculous examples. Cars have a social utility vs the social cost as do guns, although many would argue a lower one. However both require restrictions.

And nobody is arguing that no restrictions can apply to firearms (SCOTUS's judgements and the NRA's lobbying have all explicitly supported gun control measures).

The nature of those restrictions and their extent, however, should be open to informed debate because otherwise, you could introduce similar restrictions to any other aspect of life without debate. And it's a nasty, nasty place at the end of that road. And more mundanely, if you're going to introduce a legal measure, it should be based on good technical knowledge of the domain it applies to. Otherwise you wind up with things like the Canadian firearms registry, currently one of the record holders for the largest cost overruns on any computer project in history - the original cost was to be $119million with $117million coming from registration fees and $2million from taxes; by 2004, the total costs for the system were somewhere in the $2billion region, leading to the eventual scrapping of the system in 2012 (which has been temporarily suspended until they can decide what to do with the records it generated).

Sparks, Madsl and Manic Moron et al are you suggesting that everyone should be armed?

I'm not. I'm trying to point out that a simplistic view of the problem of violence in the US will not lead to an effective solution; that just saying it's the fault of firearms in and of themselves is incorrect and that all the available peer-reviewed evidence says it's incorrect; that past attempts to control that problem by banning firearms or classes of firearms have not worked. And on a side point, that our firearms laws, while they have basicly sound principles, are such an enormous mess that we really shouldn't be getting up on too high a horse about the nature of firearms ownership in the US, and we certainly can't compare the two systems directly or easily.

To be more direct, for the sake of discussion:

• Would I want to own firearms for self-defence here? No, I'd regard it as being a failure of our society if I had to.
• Would I own them if I lived in the US? Yes, but not because I'd want to, but because they have a massive problem with criminal violence and I'd want the most effective tools available for keeping my family safe (and yes, I'd start with solid doors and windows and alarms and locks, but I'd much rather have a tool and not need it than need it and not have it).
• Would I be willing to undergo licencing or other measures to get those tools? Yes, but not blindly - the idea of having a licence for a handgun for self-defence and then finding that a paper had printed my name and address in the wake of a school shooting, that's a pretty nasty nightmare but it's a long way from the realms of fantasy since it already happened to a lot of people only a few months ago, despite the point that it was about as ethical as it would have been to print the names and addresses of every muslim or arab in the US on September 12, 2001.
• Do I think Irish firearms legislation is acceptable? No, I think it's ridiculously badly written and it's in dire need of a restatement and some adjustments to (a) address the concerns expressed by the Law Reform Commission as far back as 2004 and those expressed more recently in the High Court by Charleton; (b) fix the obvious problems and gray areas in the legislation that we've known about for years or decades; and (c) bring us in line with the rest of the EU and eliminate the region-to-region variations in the way the firearms acts are enforced in Ireland.

The Economist has a pretty good take on this (in my opinion, meaning I agree with a lot of it and it's the kind of discussion that I think should take place) - that what needs to be done is to learn more about the problem and possible solutions, but people don't want to; they've decided that they want to ban guns and now all the argument is trying to justify that position and there's no effort going into looking at other things that might help.

And personally, I look at the statistics of thirty-odd thousand people dying every year from gun violence or gun suicides in the US and I think that not asking why, just assuming that "why" is "guns" and trying to ban them before knowing the answer, is immoral and unethical for two reasons - firstly, it's group punishment of innocent parties for the actions of others; and secondly, it won't fix the problem so those pushing for it are saying, in effect, that they don't actually care about those thirty thousand lives lost every year.

LowKeyReturn

Thank you an excellent post imho and very informative.

I am slightly concerned that the phenomena of the media reporting crime in such a way that leads people to believe that crime is actually increasing when it falling, and that gun crime is a bigger problem than it actually is - is in runaway mode in the US. Do you really think it necessary to carry a gun if you lived in the US or would you just want one for home defence - the theory being that if someone broke in they would likely come prepared?

Surely the majority of the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US happen in particular areas?

Sparks

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Surely the majority of the 11,000+ gun homicides in the US happen in particular areas?

Primarily those are gang-related and happen in urban areas (according to the US DoJ). But those are the areas I'd wind up living in and travelling through if I did live there, by the nature of my profession (engineering). It's a moot point though, I just wouldn't live there (for entirely seperate reasons to do with things like healthcare and education costs).

MadsL

Sparks, Madsl and Manic Moron et al are you suggesting that everyone should be armed?

Let me refer you to my State Constitution;

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

My view is simply this, if the US was another culture this right would probably not be required, but we live in a polite, but well armed society. That means the expectation that if you fuck with someone, their property or their loved ones you can expect consequences. Often this means you will find the justice to be swift and pointy and travelling at you at over 700 mph. Now, if you find that overly 'macho' the truth out here is that you may find the little sweet old lady who house you burgled is also proficient in dealing with you with deadly force. Most of my elderly neighbours are armed.

Abridging the right of citizen to keep arms for defensive reasons in a state as rural as this, makes no sense - there are counties where the cops could arrive after an hour long drive at 25-35 mph down a dirt road. NM is simply vast.

As for hunting and recreation uses, is anyone seriously suggesting that hunters and target shooters are contributing to gangland gun deaths?

So that's my viewpoint. The right, if you wish, to defend yourselves against violence done to you, by deadly force if required. The right to hunt, the right to enjoy recreation use of a gun for sport. The ability (not right), after proficiency testing and checks, to carry a concealed firearm in public for defensive purposes.

My loud objection is to those who claim these rights somehow mean that gun-owners "do not care" about gun deaths. Which is a stupid a statement as I have heard, akin to saying that law abiding, non-speeding car drivers "do not care" about road deaths.

What will reduce gun deaths? That is a conversation worth having about how we as a nation we need to tackle the drugs war that is failing, and remove the need for drug smuggling and violence associated with drug profits. We need to fix the social structures that are failing and the lack of access to education for poverty stricken areas that result in gang membership, and fix the insane levels of (mostly) ethnic incarceration and recidivism over rehabilitation and return to normal society. We need rational immigration policies and proper amnesties for illegals to enable children of illegals to become productive citizens.

But the anti-gun lobby finds it easier to reach for a ban, a strategy that did not work with alcohol, drugs, or homosexuality rather than have a real conversation on the roots of gun violence.

LowKeyReturn

I'm not sure the reasoning employed makes as much sense in Irish or British culture. Rural farmers generally do have access to shot guns and are also similarly remote. There has been little cause of them to use them and there is more of a disposition to prioritise people over property in European cultures.

I'm still a bit confused as to your position, should everyone be armed in the US? Should they carry a weapon at all times?

FTA69

MadsL wrote: »

What will reduce gun deaths? That is a conversation worth having about how we as a nation we need to tackle the drugs war that is failing, and remove the need for drug smuggling and violence associated with drug profits. We need to fix the social structures that are failing and the lack of access to education for poverty stricken areas that result in gang membership, and fix the insane levels of (mostly) ethnic incarceration and recidivism over rehabilitation and return to normal society. We need rational immigration policies and proper amnesties for illegals to enable children of illegals to become productive citizens.

But the anti-gun lobby finds it easier to reach for a ban, a strategy that did not work with alcohol, drugs, or homosexuality rather than have a real conversation on the roots of gun violence.

That's spot on to be honest. Violence within American society is not rooted in firearms, rather the reasons that you mentioned above. Places like Canada and Switzerland also have very high levels of gun ownership but aren't subject to the same level of violence due to the fact their societies on the whole are more inclusive and have less of the social cannibalism element.

LowKeyReturn

I'm also curious about that - what kind of restrictions are in place in Canada and Switzerland? (Sparks alluded to some) Do those cultures use them more for hunting and target shooting or is the US unique in the use of guns for primarily defence?

Sparks

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

is the US unique in the use of guns for primarily defence?

No, it's actually us and the UK who are (almost) unique in not permitting the use of firearms for self-defence; mainly from historical accident rather than any specific policy decision (there are specific decisions, but they followed established trends and codified them rather than setting them forth). Everywhere else in Europe from France to Russia to Finland to Italy has some sort of system of permitting firearms to be held for purposes of self-defence, though those systems vary widely in their details.

Hell, there are actually places in Europe today where the carrying of firearms is legally mandatory, though those are tiny oddities like areas on Svalbard outside of settlements, and for the same reason that pilots flying over Alaska were required to carry firearms until a few years back - bears.

None of which, btw, means that they're doing it right or that we're doing it wrong or that anything necessarily needs to change; it's just the way things are.

MadsL

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm still a bit confused as to your position, should everyone be armed in the US? Should they carry a weapon at all times?

If they wish. Some exceptions and controls are sensible - like not bringing firearms into bars or sporting events.

I'm not comfortable with some towns mandating that all homes need to have a gun as I think this is a personal choice.

LowKeyReturn

Interesting - I have to say I'm not convinced by the US model but certainly some food for thought. Thanks for your input folks.

MadsL

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

I'm not sure the reasoning employed makes as much sense in Irish or British culture. Rural farmers generally do have access to shot guns and are also similarly remote. There has been little cause of them to use them and there is more of a disposition to prioritise people over property in European cultures.

I didn't say that there was a huge cause to use them, just that they are there. But I see that you agree that rural dwellers should have access to firearms for protection.

If you think that British or Irish farmers live in "remote" locations you clearly have never seen much of the US. In some places it is possible to drive on a highway and still not see another soul for an hour or so. The US Southwest is vast and mostly empty.

LowKeyReturn

MadsL wrote: »

If you think that British or Irish farmers live in "remote" locations you clearly have never seen much of the US. In some places it is possible to drive on a highway and still not see another soul for an hour or so. The US Southwest is vast and mostly empty.

On that point I think you get to a stage where it becomes irrelevant - 30 minutes or 3 hours, you're still dead inside 2 minutes if that's the intention of the person on your property. Furthermore more remote countries like Oz don't have the associated issues of the US. I think you're right in that there are systemic issues that need to be addressed. I think it's probably better to compare the US with South Africa - I'd want to be armed wandering around SA so I suppose I do see your point to a certain extent.

Manic Moran

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Sparks, Madsl and Manic Moron et al are you suggesting that everyone should be armed? I'm a bit confused as to what your point of view is here and I am genuinely curious.

I do not.

I believe that almost everybody should have the opportunity to be armed, here in the US, given the realities of life here. I have no problem with the prohibitions on those who have proven unwilling to abide by the social mores (eg criminals) having forfeited that opportunity, or those who are simply unreliably capable of it (mentally ill/deficient). Those who do not wish to, obviously, it should not be forced upon them (The towns in the US where firearms ownership is mandated usually have very loose 'out' clauses). I have no problem with the current age restriction of 18 for the purchase of a firearm. And I have little problem with the concept of a short course and practical demonstration of ability before signing off on the idea of carrying a weapon in public as exists in most States. (Though the experience of some States like Vermont seem to indicate that it's not necessary.)

In other words, I think the current laws in the majority of the US (certainly there is room for some tweaking) form a reasonable balance between government restriction, and individual right.