Another mass shooting in the U.S

Witcher

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Thanks for that good to know. To be fair I would counter that by saying if a regulation did come in for a time lock I'd have to say tough luck. Does seem unworkable in situations where the gun is needed for utility.

People would just stop putting it into the safe.

LowKeyReturn

Blay wrote: »

People would just stop putting it into the safe.

Those people would lose the licence.

Witcher

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Those people would lose the licence.

And how would they be detected? The Gardai can't even police the regulations as it is. I shoot with a group of 10-11 guys and not one of us has ever had the guards check our security. For all they know we just throw them under the bed.

BattleCorp

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Thanks for that good to know. To be fair I would counter that by saying if a regulation did come in for a time lock I'd have to say tough luck. Does seem unworkable in situations where the gun is needed for utility.

It's mad that all the emphasis when it comes to these types of discussions is on rules and regulations for us shooting enthusiasts. Yes, there have to be rules but we are the law abiding side of the equation.

It's the illegal guns that are the problem.

BattleCorp

Blay wrote: »

And how would they be detected? The Gardai can't even police the regulations as it is. I shoot with a group of 10-11 guys and not one of us has ever had the guards check our security. For all they know we just throw them under the bed.

They've checked my security. Maybe I just look dodgy. :D:D

LowKeyReturn

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's mad that all the emphasis when it comes to these types of discussions is on rules and regulations for us shooting enthusiasts. Yes, there have to be rules but we are the law abiding side of the equation.

It's the illegal guns that are the problem.

To be fair as it stands at the moment I agree with you.

BattleCorp

LowKeyReturn

BattleCorp wrote: »

Ah now that's a simplistic view and you know it. You can dig out the studies that ref the disconnect in gun related homicides. You are also unlikely to beat 20 people to death in under 5 minutes.

blatantrereg

Cartoons on a thread about kids being murdered. Nice.

Everybody knows the perpetrator needs to be held responsible in cases like this. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. "Guns don't kill people, people do" - obviously true, but they kill them much more easily and in greater numbers when they have guns.

I knew a guy who went on a rampage with a knife. He injured a few people. Nobody was killed. If he had a gun instead of a knife then I guess he would have killed several people. The way it happened, it might not have even made the local newspaper for all I know. Add a gun into the mix and you have something horrifying people all over the world.

That's the issue really.

BattleCorp

blatantrereg wrote: »

Cartoons on a thread about kids being murdered. Nice.

Everybody knows the perpetrator needs to be held responsible in cases like this. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. "Guns don't kill people, people do" - obviously true, but they kill them much more easily and in greater numbers when they have guns.

I knew a guy who went on a rampage with a knife. He injured a few people. Nobody was killed. If he had a gun instead of a knife then I guess he would have killed several people. Might not have even made the local newspaper for all I know. Add a gun into the mix and you have something horrifying people all over the world.

That's the issue really.

I didn't mean to cause offence. I was just trying to make a point that when any tragedy like this happens, it seems to be more about "guns r bad, M'kay" than on how to deal with what goes on in a person like Adam Lanza's head. I'm just as horrified as you are regarding what happened in Sandy Hook. I can't think of anybody in the shooting community who doesn't feel empathy for the people involved.

That said, this thread has long stopped being about the tragedy in Sandy Hook. It has morphed into a debate about gun control/gun ban etc, etc.

FISMA

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Personally I'd also have everything locked up in a gun cabinet that required notice to be given for it to be opened. Opening it outside of a specified period automatically calls the gardai.

Should we do the same to the medicine cabinet? Prescription drugs kill more Americans than guns.

LowKeyReturn

FISMA wrote: »

Should we do the same to the medicine cabinet? Prescription drugs kill more Americans than guns.

Go back two / three pages and have the entire car argument with yourself just insert prescription drugs. Personally I'd have thought the lack of prescription drugs probably kills more people than guns but then I'd be the one taking this completely off topic.

blatantrereg

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's mad that all the emphasis when it comes to these types of discussions is on rules and regulations for us shooting enthusiasts. Yes, there have to be rules but we are the law abiding side of the equation.

It's the illegal guns that are the problem.

Illegal guns are more of a problem. Any gun is a risk though.

The only gun I've fired was a legal licenced small bore rifle for shooting pests on a farm. That gun was also used by one teenage son of the farmer to shoot his other son in the leg. Legal gun. Small bore, and with a designated use. Still a problem.

The boy probably wasn't supposed to have access to the gun. However it can be hard to stop teenagers accessing things they aren't supposed to in their homes.

Firing a gun is fun. Most people who fire them aren't planning on shooting anybody. But it's not the end of the world if they can't have them.

It seems to be accepted that about 1% of people are psychopaths. Therefore it seems logical that at least 1% of people might decide to shoot someone else if they have access to a gun. Should the other 99% of people accept that they can't have guns because 1% of people might shoot someone? In my opinion they absolutely should. Just get a different hobby like.

Witcher

blatantrereg wrote: »

Illegal guns are more of a problem. Any gun is a risk though.

The only gun I've fired was a legal licenced small bore rifle for shooting pests on a farm. That gun was also used by one teenage son of the farmer to shoot his other son in the leg. Legal gun. Small bore, and with a designated use. Still a problem.

The boy probably wasn't supposed to have access to the gun. However it can be hard to stop teenagers accessing things they aren't supposed to in their homes.

You're right he shouldn't have. It ceased to be a licenced gun as soon as the teenager picked it up. Illegal for an unlicenced person to even hold a firearm. I sincerely hope his father lost that gun.

Should the other 99% of people accept that they can't have guns just because 1% of people might shoot someone? In my opinion they absolutely should. Just get a different hobby like.

No thanks.

LowKeyReturn

Blay wrote: »

You're right he shouldn't have. It ceased to be a licenced gun as soon as the teenager picked it up. Illegal for an unlicenced person to even hold a firearm.

Honest question - do estates that allow shooting (mostly clays) have a special licence to allow people to shoot their guns?

Witcher

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Honest question - do estates that allow shooting (mostly clays) have a special licence to allow people to shoot their guns?

If you're on a range or at a hotel that does clays etc. it's fine. Outside of that..in a field etc. only the licenced person can use the firearm.

blatantrereg

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

Honest question - do estates that allow shooting (mostly clays) have a special licence to allow people to shoot their guns?

You'd want to be very careful an a very good shot if you shoot a gun, especially if someone is holding it in front of their body.

(This is a very pedantic joke.)

BattleCorp

blatantrereg wrote: »

The boy probably wasn't supposed to have access to the gun. However it can be hard to stop teenagers accessing things they aren't supposed to in their homes.

If the gun was in a properly controlled safe, then no, the boy wouldn't have had access to the gun.

It seems to be accepted that about 1% of people are psychopaths. Therefore it seems logical that at least 1% of people might decide to shoot someone else if they have access to a gun. Should the other 99% of people accept that they can't have guns because 1% of people might shoot someone? In my opinion they absolutely should. Just get a different hobby like.

I doubt your 1% are psychopaths figure there. 310,000,000 people approx. in the US. Divide that by 100. Holy sh1t, they have some problem over there with over 3 million psychopaths.

I'd say the percentage of people who are psychopaths is a fraction of 1%.

blatantrereg

If you look up literature the consensus seems to be that about 1% of people are psychopaths. Some studies suggest it might be higher.

You're free to disagree anyway. I've no more qualification to discuss the figures than anyone else with Internet access. Look up literature on the subject and decide for yourself, if you're interested.

Sparks

LowKeyReturn wrote: »

What do you think would happen if you could buy a box of 100 rounds in Dunnes?

(a) Noone is suggesting we remove the controls on purchasing firearms and licences (though I am strongly suggesting that we need to revise them to fix various problems with the current system and to relax the requirements in some areas, like with sub-16 joule airguns);
(b) CCTV and now you know who's buying the ammunition.

Sparks

blatantrereg wrote: »

The only gun I've fired was a legal licenced small bore rifle for shooting pests on a farm. That gun was also used by one teenage son of the farmer to shoot his other son in the leg. Legal gun. Small bore, and with a designated use. Still a problem.

You realise you just confessed in public to a serious criminal act, right?

Just get a different hobby like.

Because you broke the law, we should give up an Olympic sport?

Sparks

blatantrereg wrote: »

Everybody knows the perpetrator needs to be held responsible in cases like this. It's nonsense to suggest otherwise. "Guns don't kill people, people do" - obviously true, but they kill them much more easily and in greater numbers when they have guns.

Dublin, London, Belfast, Tokyo, New York, Boston and dozens of other cities all have had experiences that show that the idea that that's only true of guns is incorrect, as well as the idea that guns are the easiest way to do that, and the idea that you kill the largest number of people with guns if you're a sociopath. Bombs and poison (and other unanticipated terrorist attacks like the WTC attacks) are more effective and cause more casualties. The reason you see such high casualties associated with guns is because people are lumping in suicide, gang-related killings and individual homicides with mass shootings as though they were all the same kind of thing instead of being several different problems with unrelated root causes linked only by the means employed.

I knew a guy who went on a rampage with a knife. He injured a few people. Nobody was killed. If he had a gun instead of a knife then I guess he would have killed several people.

And if he'd had a pressure cooker and some fireworks? Or some castor beans and basic chemistry knowledge? Or some basic chemicals and slightly more advanced chemistry knowledge?

Add a gun into the mix and you have something horrifying people all over the world.
That's the issue really.

No, it's really not, because the bit you have to add into the mix to horrify people all over the world is media coverage. The casualty rate in Chicago is about the same as Sandy Hook every month if not higher, and with kids not much older. Do you see the world talking about the need to prevent 14-year-olds being shot in Chicago or do you see them talking about white kids being shot in Newtown? Both are equally horrible; but the media picks and chooses which it thinks it can generate more ad revenue from, so we don't hear much from Chicago even with the current US President's links to the place.

So the "horror" aspect of it isn't really something to use as a guideline for social policy, unless you like the idea of giving that much power to Rupert Murdock.

blatantrereg

Sparks wrote: »

You realise you just confessed in public to a serious criminal act, right?


Because you broke the law, we should give up an Olympic sport?

Nope. Shooting a brick in a field didn't strike me as a serious crime.

People shooting other people is the cause for concern.

Sparks

blatantrereg wrote: »

Nope. Shooting a brick in a field didn't strike me as a serious crime.

It might not strike you as a serious crime, but your opinion of what is and is not a serious crime is pretty worthless when the law specifically states that what you did is called possession of an unlicenced firearm and carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of up to €10,000 (section 2 of the Firearms Act). You were also target shooting outside of an authorised range; that's a separate offence with a sentence of up to seven years in prison and fines of up to €20,000 (section 4A(20) of the Firearms Act). And the licence holder did not comply with the terms of his licence; at a minimum that's his firearm confiscated, his licence rescinded (and forget getting another one) and probable charges of endangering a minor and running a target shooting range without authorisation (again, up to seven years in prison and €20,000 in fines); and to top it off, the teenager who fired the rifle was guilty of half a dozen specific offences from those mentioned above to discharging a firearm recklessly (section 8 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act as amended in 2006, that's seven years in prison and €5,000 in fines).

All told, that's an adult lifetime in prison time and more money than most people make in a year before tax.

And as to it not being serious, have you any idea the damage a .22lr round will do to a teenager's femur and the kind of lifelong mobilty problems that would bring? Or how easy it would be to sever the femoral artery and how fast that would kill them?

Or did you think it was a toy you were mucking about with?

blatantrereg

Sparks wrote: »

Dublin, London, Belfast, Tokyo, New York, Boston and dozens of other cities all have had experiences that show that the idea that that's only true of guns is incorrect, as well as the idea that guns are the easiest way to do that, and the idea that you kill the largest number of people with guns if you're a sociopath. Bombs and poison (and other unanticipated terrorist attacks like the WTC attacks) are more effective and cause more casualties. The reason you see such high casualties associated with guns is because people are lumping in suicide, gang-related killings and individual homicides with mass shootings as though they were all the same kind of thing instead of being several different problems with unrelated root causes linked only by the means employed.

And if he'd had a pressure cooker and some fireworks? Or some castor beans and basic chemistry knowledge? Or some basic chemicals and slightly more advanced chemistry knowledge?


No, it's really not, because the bit you have to add into the mix to horrify people all over the world is media coverage. The casualty rate in Chicago is about the same as Sandy Hook every month if not higher, and with kids not much older. Do you see the world talking about the need to prevent 14-year-olds being shot in Chicago or do you see them talking about white kids being shot in Newtown? Both are equally horrible; but the media picks and chooses which it thinks it can generate more ad revenue from, so we don't hear much from Chicago even with the current US President's links to the place.

So the "horror" aspect of it isn't really something to use as a guideline for social policy, unless you like the idea of giving that much power to Rupert Murdock.

Control over what information is presented to people is a massive issue alright. I share your concerns about that in an abstract sense.

I don't think you're right about bombs and poisons though. They aren't likely to be highly effective for untrained users. Arbitrary example: The Unabomber committed 16 bombings. He was something of a technical wiz as far as I remember, and his long-term success at evading capture suggests intelligence and deliberation in his actions. How many people did he kill? 3.

How many people were killed by the two bombs detonated at the Boston marathon? 3 as well.

Organised terrorist groups aren't such good examples in the context. They would be expected to have a level of sophistication in their training for one thing. For another they aren't always aiming to kill. Nonetheless it's worth mentioning that over 100 members of the IRA blew themselves up accidentally while deploying bombs. The IRA had sophisticated and experienced bombmakers.

As regards poison, nothing at all springs to mind in terms of mass poisonings unsanctioned by government and without the victims' consent.

A second point is that bombs and poisons aren't fun. They just don't have the same appeal for random lunacy. The idea of shooting or throwing something at something appeals to lots of humans. We're pretty good at it too. Other apes display dexterity far above our capabilities in climbing trees, but are bloody awful when they try throwing things. Humans can throw stones forcefully and accurately at moving targets on the other hand, and experience a particular satisfaction when we hit the target.

Finally, bombs and poisons require a much higher level of planning to use. You would need to sit down with a clear head and a clear plan a bombing. On the other hand a gun is something that it's easy enough to kill with in a temper.

blatantrereg

Sparks wrote: »

It might not strike you as a serious crime, but your opinion of what is and is not a serious crime is pretty worthless when the law specifically states that what you did is called possession of an unlicenced firearm and carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of up to €10,000 (section 2 of the Firearms Act). You were also target shooting outside of an authorised range; that's a separate offence with a sentence of up to seven years in prison and fines of up to €20,000 (section 4A(20) of the Firearms Act). And the licence holder did not comply with the terms of his licence; at a minimum that's his firearm confiscated, his licence rescinded (and forget getting another one) and probable charges of endangering a minor and running a target shooting range without authorisation (again, up to seven years in prison and €20,000 in fines); and to top it off, the teenager who fired the rifle was guilty of half a dozen specific offences from those mentioned above to discharging a firearm recklessly (section 8 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act as amended in 2006, that's seven years in prison and €5,000 in fines).

All told, that's an adult lifetime in prison time and more money than most people make in a year before tax.

And as to it not being serious, have you any idea the damage a .22lr round will do to a teenager's femur and the kind of lifelong mobilty problems that would bring? Or how easy it would be to sever the femoral artery and how fast that would kill them?

Or did you think it was a toy you were mucking about with?

Weird post.

Shooting a brick in a field didn't strike me as a crime nope. Don't really see how an accident could have occurred. I was invited to do so by a member of the family that owned both the gun and the field, and I didn't question it. You knew that already though. Not sure what your hysterics are about. Trying to make a point, trying to intimidate me, or you just like dramatics? I'm guessing all three?

I certainly never indicated that the guy being shot in the leg wasn't serious. I used that to support the notion that any gun presents a risk.

Sparks

blatantrereg wrote: »

I don't think you're right about bombs and poisons though. They aren't likely to be highly effective for untrained users.

What do you call a suicide bomber? I'm pretty sure they're fairly untrained by definition!

How many people were killed by the two bombs detonated at the Boston marathon? 3 as well.

Boston was highly publicised. The bombs that went off every day for the previous week in Pakistan in the runup to the elections weren't; they were killing up to fifty people at a time and injuring hundreds.

Organised terrorist groups aren't such good examples in the context.

If the context is mass killings, whom else do we look at?

As regards poison, nothing at all springs to mind in terms of mass poisonings unsanctioned by government and without the victims' consent.

Tokyo should jump immediately to mind, along with the most prolific mass killer in the UK's history...

A second point is that bombs and poisons aren't fun.

The psychology of the people who do these kind of insane things is not generally defined by wanting to have fun. The teens in the school shootings you're thinking of when you think that are the very rare exception. Generally these are nutters who think they have a "mission" - see the mass shooting in Norway (where, again, a bomb was used).

Finally, bombs and poisons require a much higher level of planning to use. You would need to sit down with a clear head and a clear plan a bombing. On the other hand a gun is something that it's easy enough to kill with in a temper.

Which would account for the individual homicides in the statistics; not the mass killings, which are almost always planned, if not fantasied about for months by those who carry them out.

blatantrereg

Sparks wrote: »

It might not strike you as a serious crime, but your opinion of what is and is not a serious crime is pretty worthless when the law specifically states that what you did is called possession of an unlicenced firearm and carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of up to €10,000 (section 2 of the Firearms Act). You were also target shooting outside of an authorised range; that's a separate offence with a sentence of up to seven years in prison and fines of up to €20,000 (section 4A(20) of the Firearms Act). And the licence holder did not comply with the terms of his licence; at a minimum that's his firearm confiscated, his licence rescinded (and forget getting another one) and probable charges of endangering a minor and running a target shooting range without authorisation (again, up to seven years in prison and €20,000 in fines); and to top it off, the teenager who fired the rifle was guilty of half a dozen specific offences from those mentioned above to discharging a firearm recklessly (section 8 of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act as amended in 2006, that's seven years in prison and €5,000 in fines).

All told, that's an adult lifetime in prison time and more money than most people make in a year before tax.

And as to it not being serious, have you any idea the damage a .22lr round will do to a teenager's femur and the kind of lifelong mobilty problems that would bring? Or how easy it would be to sever the femoral artery and how fast that would kill them?

Or did you think it was a toy you were mucking about with?

I don't like the idea that you're allowed access to a gun. Your posts here seem pretty rabid, and I'm not even sure what you're so wound up about.

Sparks

blatantrereg wrote: »

Weird post.

Wierd law.
I did say it needed fixing, didn't I?

Shooting a brick in a field didn't strike me as a crime nope.

But it is. One with pretty serious penalties and where the office of firearms range inspector was created with powers of warrantless entry and search to detect it.

Don't really see how an accident could have occurred. I was invited to do so by a member of the family that owned both the gun and the field, and I didn't question it.

They didn't have the legal right to do so and you didn't have the legal right to accept. Ignorance isn't a defence either.

Trying to make a point

Yes, several. Firstly that you've a strange disconnect between your position on firearms and your behaviour towards them; secondly that you don't know or care what the law currently is; and thirdly that you're not very serious about obeying it.

And yet, this entire thread's happily saying that the americans are stupid for not banning guns, that they're dangerous and must be controlled, that more laws are needed and so on.

Do you not get mental whiplash trying to keep both of those things in your head at once?

Sparks

blatantrereg wrote: »

I don't like the idea that you're allowed access to a gun. Your posts here seem pretty rabid, and I'm not even sure what you're so wound up about.

...says the chap who has just said he has illegal access to a firearm under conditions so safe that only one teenager has been shot under them. :rolleyes: