Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
5 year old boy shoots his sister with his own rifle
Comments
-
No it's not. A lot of shooters in Ireland would have fired their first shots before they were even 10.
Just because it also happens here doesn't mean it's sensible.
I should clarify, I mean small kids like the 5 year olds mentioned in the OP. Teenagers is a different matter, they're much more mature. But I don't think it's responsible to even let a small child near a firearm even on a range, there's no need to introduce them to that sort of thing.Define an assault weapon.
My definition? Anything that isn't primarily designed for hunting, or sport use, that's not a handgun. Anything deisnged to kill humans, that's not a handgun.
Even with the caveat that my suggestions above will never happen :rolleyes: you can't expect Americans not to own handguns for self-defence at least in the next generation - in the US crime is much higher and it's probably justified for private citizens to wish to own a gun. But they should have to jump through hoops to get it in the interest of everyone's safety. You have to do more tests to drive a car and be older to drink alcolhol in the states than you do to own a gun which even with restricted magazine sizes can kill or maim scores of people.
Ideally, if you want to defend your home, buy a shotgun. They'll be considerably more effective against a burglar in a high-stress, probably dark environment of a house anyway.
For the record I don't own a gun, and probably never will, I have an interest in them and own an airsoft handgun, but it's nothing more than a sporting interest. I would never see the need to own one here for any sort of defence reasons. In the US, I can see there is a reason, because it's been bred into everyone that you must have one, and there's more guns than people in the place. You can't remove every gun from civilians and leave the criminals as well armed as they started. But you can tightly control them, even within the constraints of the constitution as I understand it.0 -
Quote from Crickett website:
(Click on rifles to see more colors)0 -
sdeire's postBut I don't think it's responsible to even let a small child near a firearm even on a range
Why not?My definition? Anything that isn't primarily designed for hunting, or sport use, that's not a handgun.
An AR15 is a sporting rifle just like an other .223 semi auto.I don't particuarly oppose handgun ownership anywhere - but a very large amount of due reason should be required.
Such as?You have to do more tests to drive a car and be older to drink alcolhol in the states than you do to own a gun which even with restricted magazine sizes can kill or maim scores of people.
It's no harder to get a firearms licence in Ireland than it is to get a driving licence;
Driving licence;
Theory tests
12 hours of lessons+ you have to drive accompanied
Driving test
Various forms
Checklist for a gun in Ireland;
Join a range
Competency
FCA1 Form
Security0 -
Why not?
I already qualified that remark.sdeire wrote:But I don't think it's responsible to even let a small child near a firearm even on a range, there's no need to introduce them to that sort of thing.An AR15 is a sporting rifle just like an other .223 semi auto.
...and a derivative of a miliatary-grade weapon which was civilianised and toned-down so that mere mortals could buy it to look like Chuck Norris did on the TV. We could disagree on that opinion all night, granted though.Such as?
Once again, I already qualified the remark, but as I edited my post a little, I'll re-evaluate:
If you want a handgun, to my mind, you would need to be a member of a shooting organisation and that would have to be the primary purpose for you to own it; or there would need to be a significant risk of armed crime against you. I would argue that in Ireland, there isn't a significant enough risk of that to allow 4,500,000+ people access to handguns. And this is very much the situation as is, and I'm happy with it.
I do respect that the situation in the US is different as I've talked about already.It's no harder to get a firearms licence in Ireland than it is to get a driving licence;
Driving licence;
Theory tests
12 hours of lessons+ you have to drive accompanied
Driving test
Various forms
Checklist for a gun in Ireland;
Join a range
Competency
FCA1 Form
Security
My quote referred to the US, not here. The fact that it's as "easy" to get a gun here as it is a driving license isn't essentially relevant, my point was that in the US, very little is required and moreover, the right in enshirned in law. There's no right to drive or drink enshrined there.0 -
My definition? Anything that isn't primarily designed for hunting, or sport use, that's not a handgun.
Bit of a nebulous definition, no? For what possible reason could you find a logic for allowing a Remington 700 in 30.06, a bolt action designed for hunting, and still banning a Springfield M1903, an older bolt action which fires the exact same round? Or for banning the AR15 while still permitting the Mini 14?
The problem is that the exact same features of ergonomics, reliability, precision, ballistics, cost, and overall effectiveness which makes a rifle appealing to a military are the exact same that make a rifle appealing to a civilian user.
That's why the term "assault weapon" was invented in the first place. The firearms world didn't have the term because there was no requirement for professionals to distinguish between rifles on that basis of anything other than mechanism and ballistics.But they should have to jump through hoops to get it in the interest of everyone's safety. You have to do more tests to drive a car and be older to drink alcolhol in the states than you do to own a gun which even with restricted magazine sizes can kill or maim scores of people.
Nobody has proposed criminal or mental health background checks to get a driver's license, and there is no recognised right to drive a car. The concern with firearms isn't that people need to pass a test to use them, they are very easy to use. The real concern is "who is using them."Ideally, if you want to defend your home, buy a shotgun. They'll be considerably more effective against a burglar in a high-stress, probably dark environment of a house anyway.
I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never actually researched the issue, and factors varying from overpenetration, spread, terminal effect, identification and engagement aids, and so on which have resulted in the modern semi-auto rifle being considered to be the best weapon to use in a typical US house?
NTM0 -
.
We'll leave the 5 yo using a gun thing as it's more down to an individual parent to decide for their own child....and a derivative of a miliatary-grade weapon which was civilianised and toned-down so that mere mortals could buy it to look like Chuck Norris did on the TV. We could disagree on that opinion all night, granted though.
An AR15 throws the same round, the same speed as a sporter .223 It's no more dangerous than any other semi auto...they're even available in Ireland.If you want a handgun, to my mind, you would need to be a member of a shooting organisation and that would have to be the primary purpose for you to own it
The only difference between that and what exists now is that you would have to fill in a form or two. At the end of the day you're still depending on people to not be a lunatic with the gun when they leave the range so you've achieved nothing.0 -
-
Anybody check out the new .22 pistol round that can pass through 13 inches of ballistic gel ,
Most military rifles are an evolution of civilian hunting since smooth bore black powder rifles not the other way around
Doesn't really matter with the size of the round all bullets kill not the guns
95% of people that are shot survive providing they get prompt medical assistance.0 -
I am quite aware that militias still exist. They are becoming popular once again after Timothy McVeigh nearly put them out of business. The constitutional right was drafted in a time when militias were widespread and vital. Now they are not.
Huh? Then why use State resources training them? Clearly there is requirement/use for them.
I lifted this from a comment elsewhere but it expresses it well.A “well-regulated militia” was to substitute for a standing army. The Founding Fathers were deadly serious about the “well-regulated” idea and the requirement that every free man between certain ages was to be part of the militia. In the debate over the 2nd Amendment, the major issue was not if all men should be forced to be part of the militia, but how, if at all, those who had religious objections to fighting could be exempted. The final result stripped any clause dealing with religious scruples against fighting.
In fact, in substituting for a standing army, various states already had requirements. “It was a long-standing law in Massachusetts not only that every man could be armed but had to be to protect the colony from invasion; local communities paid for guns for men too poor to afford them. Virginia also mandated ownership of firearms.” --(Triumvirate, by Bruce Chadwick p. 58--a book on how the Constitution was approved).
Virginia’s proposed bill of rights “connected the individual’s possession of firearms to the militia. It stated that “the people have a right to bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural safe defense of a free state.” Chadwick, p. 59.
It is patently obvious that this language was lifted almost bodily for the 2nd Amendment.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
That may well have been the case in 1776.
This is 2013.
Tbh, I don't think they had arming 5yr olds in mind when they drew that bill up. Anyone who gives a 5yr old a lethal weapon is retarded , supervised or otherwise. I'd not let my child play with a knife, traffic, bleach, drive a car, climb a 30 foot tree, play with fire, play with electricity or anything else that would greatly increase their chances of being injured. There is enough things it the world that can harm them without tempting fate.
If people must show a child how to use a lethal weapon, at least wait till their a little older. I don't understand the need to teach a child how to use a lethal weapon, but then again each to their own.
In Ireland you have to be 11/12 to use a BB gun (correct me if I'm wrong), I think that a kid should be at least that age before they are allowed to use a lethal weapon.0 -
-
StinkyMunkey wrote: »Tbh, I don't think they had arming 5yr olds in mind when they drew that bill up. Anyone who gives a 5yr old a lethal weapon is retarded , supervised or otherwise. I'd not let my child play with a knife, traffic, bleach, drive a car, climb a 30 foot tree, play with fire, play with electricity or anything else that would greatly increase their chances of being injured. There is enough things it the world that can harm them without tempting fate.
If people must show a child how to use a lethal weapon, at least wait till their a little older. I don't understand the need to teach a child how to use a lethal weapon, but then again each to their own.
In Ireland you have to be 11/12 to use a BB gun (correct me if I'm wrong), I think that a kid should be at least that age before they are allowed to use a lethal weapon.
I'm teaching my sixteen year old how to safely shoot and unload and make safe a gun because she may someday come across one unsupervised. I'd like her to know what makes holes in people and what makes it not make holes in people.
If a twelve year old is safer than a five year old pretty much depends on the parent's supervision and the child, rather than their age, wouldn't you say? Just as a firearm's lethality depends where you point it.0 -
I'm teaching my sixteen year old how to safely shoot and unload and make safe a gun because she may someday come across one unsupervised. I'd like her to know what makes holes in people and what makes it not make holes in people.
If a twelve year old is safer than a five year old pretty much depends on the parent's supervision and the child, rather than their age, wouldn't you say? Just as a firearm's lethality depends where you point it.
I don't see a problem teaching a 16 teenager how to handle a gun safety. Sounds like common sense if she is gonna be exposed to the.
You have childern, are you telling me a 5 year old is as mature and has as much understanding as a 11/12 yr old....? My eldest son just turned 7, the difference between his understanding now and 2 yrs ago is night and day. He was never left alone at the age of 5. Now he plays in his room or goes out and plays football on the green in front of my house - that didn't happen 2 yrs ago.
Anyone giving a loaded gun to a 5 yr old needs to see a physiatrist and probably should not be allowed around childern.0 -
StinkyMunkey wrote: »I don't see a problem teaching a 16 teenager how to handle a gun safety. Sounds like common sense if she is gonna be exposed to the.
You have childern, are you telling me a 5 year old is as mature and has as much understanding as a 11/12 yr old....? My eldest son just turned 7, the difference between his understanding now and 2 yrs ago is night and day. He was never left alone at the age of 5. Now he plays in his room or goes out and plays football on the green in front of my house - that didn't happen 2 yrs ago.
Anyone giving a loaded gun to a 5 yr old needs to see a physiatrist and probably should not be allowed around childern.
Not what I said. I said the maturity level of the child varies from child to child. There is no reason why a child of 5 should not shoot a rifle responsibly under adult supervision. Leaving a child alone with a gun that was not double checked as safe or locked away was the cause of this tragedy, not the act of shooting the gun under supervision. In fact leaving a five year alone full stop is idiotic. But feel free to conflate that with children being taught how to shoot as the problem.0 -
-
Just because it also happens here doesn't mean it's sensible.I should clarify, I mean small kids like the 5 year olds mentioned in the OP.I don't think it's responsible to even let a small child near a firearm even on a range, there's no need to introduce them to that sort of thing.Ideally, if you want to defend your home, buy a shotgun. They'll be considerably more effective against a burglar in a high-stress, probably dark environment of a house anyway.The original idea, of course,
Do you know more then Einstein about physics too?1. No kids near guns. EVER. It's not responsible to teach them how to use them, it is completely, utterly and indefensibly STUPID.2. No guns in public. EVER. Concealed carry and all of that maybe, but never, EVER open carry.
Hmmm.3. No assault weapons. EVER.4. Remove the right to bear arms. It was written 230 years ago when a bolt action rifle hadn't even been invented, yet alone automatic assault weapons.
Add to that, if you can pull the right to bear arms, why can't you pull the right to free speech, or free assembly, or the right to petition or any of the other fundamental freedoms defined in the same place, and which could have cases made for removal (as the War on Terror has so repeatedly proved over the last decade or so).It's oudated, stupid, moroninc, and needs to be removed from a majority of people who think it's sensible because because the ridiculous notion was bred into them. It's not even their fault that they are so staunch about it.
Do you want to go tell the sovereign nation with the largest military force on earth that they have to do what you say? Because I need a few minutes to go get the popcorn...people will keep getting shot by the hundred thousand load every year.
Which means, if you ban firearms successfully, you can probably save about 500 lives a year. Of course, the pro-ban camp in the US say firearms are only used in valid, him-or-me acts of self defence 90,000 times a year, so while you'll save 500 lives, you're going to introduce 90,000 beatings, rapes and murders.
The math sucks, doesn't it?StinkyMunkey wrote: »In Ireland you have to be 11/12 to use a BB gun (correct me if I'm wrong)0 -
UrbanSea wrote:I thought I'd misread this article, namely the bits in bold.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Manic Moran wrote: »In fairness, it seems a number actually do try their luck. Then they get refused, nothing happens, and presumably a number then go off the grid and get their firearms on the black market.
Where would U.S black market guns come from?0 -
-
Okay, but don't you think that "it happens here" combined with "we don't have kids shooting each other" means that there's something more complex than "guns are evil" going on?
No, I don't. America's problem with gun culture is deep-rooted and rotten to the core.To clarify, that's what we're all talking about.
ClarifiedOthers disagree. I'd rather my son took up target shooting than hurley, for example, because (a) there's less chance he'll be injured, and (b) it's better for teaching control over one's emotions, as opposed to hurling or football where our second lesson from the Christian Brothers was on waiting for the ref to turn away before elbowing the other six-year-old in the ear (the first was on how to relocate our fingers if they were dislocated).
And I think that's irresponsible. A differing opinion, just as different to yours as an above poster feels one child can be different to the other.[/quote]It never, ever, ceases to amaze me how people get wound up over rifles and handguns, but dismiss shotguns so blithely. If you knew much about firearms, it would be the other way around - shotguns should scare the living poop out of you. Imagine being shot by a .50 calibre rifle and you're terrified; but people never seem to remember that a shotgun is a .73 calibre firearm, and at the ranges you're talking about, even birdshot won't have spread out by the time it hits whomever you're shooting at so they'll get the full impact of being shot by the equivalent of a .73 calibre hollowpoint round. There's less oomph behind it than the .50 calibre - but not enough to make much of a difference if you're the one with the ducks-eye-view of the shotgun blast.
Fair enough, you know more about it than I do. I don't claim to be an expert.
Even if you allow handguns, I would have hazarded that more harm than good is done by an abundant presence of the gun in society at large. I would have argued the opposite than you have below, I think that 90,000 figure in particular relating to home defences sounds way off but I wouldn't mind seeing the source.I'm sorry. You've never owned a firearm, you're not a constitutional scholar, a lawyer, or a supreme court judge, and you don't know enough about firearms to think a shotgun is more dangerous than an AR-15, but you do know enough to know better than the majority decision of the Supreme Court of the United States?
Nope. Informed opinions only.Do you know more then Einstein about physics too?
Nope.You don't want guns you can see, but you're okay with everyone having a gun so long as you don't see them until someone opens fire?
Hmmm.
Open carrying does very little other than glorify the gun and is the tool of a gun rights advocate. Tactically, having a weapon exposed rather than concealed would be more advantageous, but come on, how often are you going to need it? Weigh that risk against the number of people who, even in the US, you scare ****less by having it.
Look at any number of gun rights types on youtube and you'll see from their discussions, usually with the Police, that people can get concerned and call the cops when they see open carry (obviously, depending on the type of weapon and person, as well as location and other factors.)Define "assault weapon",
Already have above.At the time it was written, repeating rifles with 20-round magazines were in active service. Semi-automatic and fully automatic firearms were not unimaginable at the time.
Source?Add to that, if you can pull the right to bear arms, why can't you pull the right to free speech, or free assembly, or the right to petition or any of the other fundamental freedoms defined in the same place, and which could have cases made for removal (as the War on Terror has so repeatedly proved over the last decade or so).
I talked about it, not once did I suggest superceding the US constitution, even if I think differently to the majority. In fact, I went so far as to acknowledge that changes in the swathes I would like to see will - not might not, but will not - ever happen. I attribute this to multiple generations worth of handed-down shortsightedness and stupidity that has led to a probably irreperable gash in American society which depends on the gun. You'll tame North Korea, the Taliban and every extremist east of Ankara before you fix that shít.
Do you want to go tell the sovereign nation with the largest military force on earth that they have to do what you say? Because I need a few minutes to go get the popcorn...
See above. And there are seven countries (Source) with larger armies, perhaps without so many aircraft carriers. But not, it is't my intention to provide such entertainment, gruesome and adrenaline-ridden though it may be.30,000. 20,000 of whom are suicides. 6,000 of which are gang warfare. 3,500 or so of which are classed as homicide which includes everything from premeditated murder and deaths during the commission of crimes through to acts of self-defence which resulted in the death of the assailant because the victim shot them. And 500 or so accidental deaths.
Wrong.The US homicide rate, which has declined substantially since 1991 from a rate per 100,000 persons of 9.8 to 4.8 in 2010, is still among the highest in the industrialized world. There were 14,748 homicides in the United States in 2010, including non-negligent manslaughter.[37] (666,160 murders from 1960 to 1996).[38] In 2004, there were 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 persons, roughly three times as high as Canada (1.9) and six times as high as Germany (0.9).[39][40] A closer look at The National Archive of Criminal Justice Data indicates that per-capita homicide rates over the last 30 years on average of major cities, New Orleans' average annual per capita homicide rate of 52 murders per 100,000 people overall (1980–2009) ranks highest of U.S. cities with average annual homicide totals among the 10 highest during the same period
SourceWhich means, if you ban firearms successfully, you can probably save about 500 lives a year. Of course, the pro-ban camp in the US say firearms are only used in valid, him-or-me acts of self defence 90,000 times a year, so while you'll save 500 lives, you're going to introduce 90,000 beatings, rapes and murders.
The math sucks, doesn't it?
Source?Wrong. We have no lower age limit. If you could get a newborn to hold one at a shooting stall in a funfair, it's perfectly legal to do so.
Correct, and something that probably shouldn't change for a BB gun or airsoft device. A firearm is a totally different story, in my opinion. (And that's all this is, an exchange of opinions.)
The major and overriding problem in the US with guns is their complete and utter reliance on the gun, rather than other thing like common sense, as a nation. Again, the blame for this probably lies in the history books rather than with living persons.
That, and they're just plain trigger happy. For example, the police in LA fired more shots in a single incident in 2011 than every police officer in Germany combined in the same YEAR.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/46907/us-police-fire-more-bullets-month-germans-use-year0 -
And I think that's irresponsible. A differing opinion, just as different to yours as an above poster feels one child can be different to the other.I would have argued the opposite than you have below, I think that 90,000 figure in particular relating to home defences sounds way off but I wouldn't mind seeing the source.Nope. Informed opinions only.how often are you going to need it?Look at any number of gun rights types on youtubeAlready have above.Source?Wrong.Source?Correct, and something that probably shouldn't change for a BB gun or airsoft device. A firearm is a totally different story, in my opinion. (And that's all this is, an exchange of opinions.)
Point being that if you're going to point at US law and say it's stupid, you look a bit silly if you don't know the weird quirks of your own law; and that if we have laws like that and don't have the gun violence problems the US has, perhaps the problem is just more complex than the mere possession of firearms; perhaps you have to take into account social, legal and cultural factors.0 -
[QUOTE=sdeire;84599179
That, and they're just plain trigger happy. For example, the police in LA fired more shots in a single incident in 2011 than every police officer in Germany combined in the same YEAR.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/46907/us-police-fire-more-bullets-month-germans-use-year[/QUOTE]
From the above comment, am I correct in thinking that it's the person behind the gun that is the problem, rather than the gun itself?0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »Primarily, corrupt dealers. Accounts for somewhere just over 50% of them. Straw purchases (people who legally buy a gun then give it to someone else) are about 25%, theft is about 10-15%. Not sure where the rest come from.
Why are corrupt dealers not being hunted down and severely punished?
Its almost like the authorities hands are tied when it comes to protecting the public from guns.Congress has passed a series of laws in recent years that allow easy access
to guns and restrict law enforcement’s ability to go after traffickersSince John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, more Americans have been shot
and killed on our own soil than in all the 20th-century wars combined
Almost 1,000,000 gun deaths in 30 years :eek:
or
3400 terrorism deaths- where are American priorities?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
BattleCorp wrote: »From the above comment, am I correct in thinking that it's the person behind the gun that is the problem, rather than the gun itself?
Not sure why it matters anyway. One bullet or 90, there is no such thing as overkill. As Sheriff Judd of Florida said after being asked why they shot a Mr Freeland 68 times (out of 110 shots fired), "quite frankly, we weren't taking any chances. It was all the bullets we had, or we'd have shot him some more".
The law distinguishes between justification for lethal force, or not. There is no such thing as 'less dead' because of fewer bullets being used.Why are corrupt dealers not being hunted down and severely punished?
It's a good question, and one which many people wonder. But it is evidence that maybe we should start with enforcing the laws we already have, and seeing what sort of a difference that makes.How do honest hard working Americans like yourself not protest and demand change?
Mainly because it's not quite as simple as that anti-gun website would have us believe. I note, for example, that it doesn't point out that the ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police (The US's largest police union) both support the Tiahart Amendments. The trace data for firearms is being shared with law enforcement agencies as it is, they see no benefit to making the information publicly available as it simply hinders their work.So little or no gun restrictions in certain states, fuel the flood of illegal guns to the big cities NYC/L.A etc causing untold misery and murder.
That's not what the article says. It points out that the Minnesota ATF office is woefully underfunded and understaffed, and it is unable to carry out its duties of enforcing the laws as it stands, not that the laws are lax. This matches up with the Attorney General's testimony a few months ago who, when asked why the various criminals who failed a background check were not prosecuted (It's a felony), responded that he simply had to prioritise his resources. Again, it's a case of maybe we should actually try enforcing the laws currently extant. Unfortunately, that costs money, and it's much cheaper (and better press) to pass a new law and issueing a press release with a photo of the signing ceremony.
NTM0 -
This thread highlights the biggest problem with any kind of debate on gun reform in that you have gun owners, users and advocates defending their right to have access to guns and arguing vehemently that guns themselves aren't the problem.
Posters who's avatars show them firing guns, mods of military and shooting forums, experts on firearms. Knowledge of weapons makes them experts and so they believe this somehow validates their opinions and makes their view more valuable because they can they know all the acronyms and can tell you at what range you can hit a target with gun Y and how gun X has 32 rounds in a magazine as opposed to gun Z which has 12.
It's their interest, their passion. They are going to defend it and logic will have no place in their argument. It's a personal issue not an academic one for them. If you want a reasoned debate and solution to alcoholism, you don't ask the people stumbling out of pubs their opinion. You don't ask bankers their opinion on banking reform.
People look out for their own interests and gun users are no different to any other group. Any law that takes their guns from them is a bad one, guns aren't the problem and have nothing to do with shootings in schools, etc. You are biased when it comes to this subject.0 -
This thread highlights the biggest problem with any kind of debate on gun reform in that you have gun owners, users and advocates defending their right to have access to guns and arguing vehemently that guns themselves aren't the problem.
Posters who's avatars show them firing guns, mods of military and shooting forums, experts on firearms. Knowledge of weapons makes them experts and so they believe this somehow validates their opinions and makes their view more valuable because they can they know all the acronyms and can tell you at what range you can hit a target with gun Y and how gun X has 32 rounds in a magazine as opposed to gun Z which has 12.
It's their interest, their passion. They are going to defend it and logic will have no place in their argument. It's a personal issue not an academic one for them. If you want a reasoned debate and solution to alcoholism, you don't ask the people stumbling out of pubs their opinion. You don't ask bankers their opinion on banking reform.
People look out for their own interests and gun users are no different to any other group. Any law that takes their guns from them is a bad one, guns aren't the problem and have nothing to do with shootings in schools, etc. You are biased when it comes to this subject.
So, you think it a good idea that people who do not know what they are talking about set the rules for people who have some expertise.
Sounds like a good system, why don't we let people who are computer illiterate censor the internet?0 -
This thread highlights the biggest problem with any kind of debate on gun reform in that you have gun owners, users and advocates defending their right to have access to guns and arguing vehemently that guns themselves aren't the problem.
Oddly, on the other side of the equation, there are also people who have no particular knowledge of firearms, no particular interest in gaining any experience in them, and little practical knowledge of the legal issues, who seem to have no problem in arguing vehemently that no good can come from firearms.Posters who's avatars show them firing guns, mods of military and shooting forums, experts on firearms. Knowledge of weapons makes them experts
Certainly it means we're more likely to know what the hell we're talking about.and so they believe this somehow validates their opinions and makes their view more valuable because they can they know all the acronyms and can tell you at what range you can hit a target with gun Y and how gun X has 32 rounds in a magazine as opposed to gun Z which has 12.
I submit that doesn't make our view more valuable, but it does place, in our mind, the thought that one cannot simply discard our opinions without coming up with a damned good reason to, for example, as to why, say, one believes that an AR is a lousy home defense weapon in the US, when those of us who know about such things disagree.It's their interest, their passion.
It's also my job. Uncle Sam pays me a few dollars to know which end of the rifle the bullets come out of, and which tool is appropriate in what circumstance. (that's why I'm mod of the military forum, and not rec..Food and Drink) However, yes, it is also an interest in my case.They are going to defend it and logic will have no place in their argument.
With respect, I defy you to go back over every one of my posts in the three firearms threads currently ongoing and find something I have stated which is 'illogical'. We may disagree in opinion on relative merits or on moral grounds (eg do the merits of private firearm ownership outweigh the liabilities), but since, as you point out, we know what we're talking about, it's pretty rare that you'll ever see something illogical come from us.It's a personal issue not an academic one for them. If you want a reasoned debate and solution to alcoholism, you don't ask the people stumbling out of pubs their opinion. You don't ask bankers their opinion on banking reform.
I submit that the firearms problem in the US is actually a sociological one, not a technical one. We definitely have a significant criminal violence issue. We may have a suicide issue (though we apparently aren't far off many other first world countries). Unlike bankers, who can enrich themselves at the expense of others, I'm not sure how legal private firearms ownership enriches myself at the expense of anyone (excepting if my enrichment is at the expense of a malfeaser who threatened me: we already have a framework in place set by the legislature as to when we can use them). But the firearms work fine, there's no need to ask us to fix our own problem, because there isn't one.People look out for their own interests and gun users are no different to any other group. Any law that takes their guns from them is a bad one, guns aren't the problem and have nothing to do with shootings in schools, etc. You are biased when it comes to this subject.
Yes, we are. This does not make us wrong. In all the arguments which have been put forward on this board, from the moral "The militia argument is outdated" to the technical "magazine-fed rifles are useless in the house" to the legal "assault weapons must be banned" to the policy-related "store guns at a club, not at home", and very rarely has there been a causal relationship or correlation demonstrated between the claim and its effect, beyond the concept of 'self-evidency' (It is obviously so, so it must be right). We have responded with legal precedent, practical realities, and moral argument of our own, which is at best barely acknowledged, and at worst totally ignored, by people such as yourself who are so sure we are wrong.
So you will forgive us if we dig our heels in and are obstinate in the face of such irrationality.0 -
Advertisement
-
This thread highlights the biggest problem with any kind of debate on gun reform in that you have gun owners, users and advocates defending their right to have access to guns and arguing vehemently that guns themselves aren't the problem.Knowledge of weaponsmakes them expertthey believe this somehow validates their opinions
That somehow an uninformed opinion from someone who doesn't know enough about the subject to know what's dangerous and what's not; what has been tried in the past and why, and what parts worked and what parts didn't; or even what the very terms they're using mean - that their uninformed opinion is somehow better?They are going to defend it and logic will have no place in their argument.0 -
-
Sorry, I know a few of you have responded to this post but I can't let it go without getting my speak in.This thread highlights the biggest problem with any kind of debate on gun reform in that you have gun owners, users and advocates defending their right to have access to guns and arguing vehemently that guns themselves aren't the problem. .
I'm not defending my right to have a gun. I live in Ireland so I've no right to have a gun. The Gardaí allow me the privilege of having one, well, more than one actually. They are the tools of my sport, the same as football boots and hurleys are tools for another sport. As long as I behave myself and act safely, responsibly and lawfully, what's the problem?
America is a different kettle of fish, they have a lawful right to have a gun. You mightn't agree with it, but it's there and is unlikely to be changed any time soon.
Of course I am going to defend the sport that I am passionate about. The same as Pat Spillane would defend GAA if I told him that it was sh1te and dangerous to play.
Target shooting in Ireland has had way way way less injuries and fatalities than GAA but yet nobody says ban GAA. I'm not knocking GAA, I'm just stating a fact.Posters who's avatars show them firing guns, mods of military and shooting forums, experts on firearms. Knowledge of weapons makes them experts and so they believe this somehow validates their opinions and makes their view more valuable because they can they know all the acronyms and can tell you at what range you can hit a target with gun Y and how gun X has 32 rounds in a magazine as opposed to gun Z which has 12..
Sorry if I'm not allowed to say this but that's a dumbass statement above. Of course someone who knows about a gun can have an opinion about guns because they know what they are talking about.
Why did the Government call in doctors, psychiatrists, and such when they were consulting about the abortion laws. They called them in because they knew what they were talking about.
Now, not everyone with a gun is an expert, but there are some out there that know what they are talking about.It's their interest, their passion. They are going to defend it and logic will have no place in their argument. It's a personal issue not an academic one for them. If you want a reasoned debate and solution to alcoholism, you don't ask the people stumbling out of pubs their opinion. You don't ask bankers their opinion on banking reform. .
Yes, of course I will defend my sport. Here is some logic for you.
Would you ban something if it killed people? Probably yes if it happened often, and probably if it happened occasionally too for that matter.
Would you ban something if nobody got killed and nobody got injured? Probably not eh. I mean it's safe, nobody gets hurt.
The above seems logical to me. What do you reckon?
Yet here in Ireland, nobody was ever murdered with a legally held centre fire pistol, nobody injured with a legally held centre fire pistol and nobody was robbed with a legally held centre fire pistol and yet they were banned to cut down on gun crime. Where's the logic in that?
That's the logic that we in the shooting community have to put up with.People look out for their own interests and gun users are no different to any other group. Any law that takes their guns from them is a bad one, guns aren't the problem and have nothing to do with shootings in schools, etc. You are biased when it comes to this subject.
I make no apology for looking out for my own interest. Any law that takes my guns away from me is a bad one because I'm a law abiding citizen, safe, responsible and I do as I'm supposed to do with my firearms and use them for the purpose they were intended for, target shooting.0 -
Mardy Bum, you're touching on the core of the issue TRADE.
There's dominant posters on this website that won't Thank You nor have Thanks You for that. But I will and I have.
The gun lads have said the NRA is not influenced by gun manufacturers. They seem to believe that gun corporations are some benign groups that have no real influence. Americans just love guns it seems. Major corporations have a huge amount of influence in America (not just guns I might add). The NRA pays off politicians who then swing votes. Democracy in action. The gun lads will say that the NRA grassroots members would be of the same opinion however most politicians who voted against the background checks recently have lost support. So why would they vote? Well to get voted in in America you need lots of money. This money comes by and large from corporations. Therefore these corporations basically own the politicians and pull the strings. The gun corporations and the NRA have very close ties and both are out for one thing. Profit.0 -
The gun lads have said the NRA is not influenced by gun manufacturers
I have said that the gun manufacturers are not necessary for the NRA to wield the influence it has over US politics, given the relative contributions of both money and votes from the manufacturers and the NRA membership.This money comes by and large from corporations. Therefore these corporations basically own the politicians and pull the strings
This is true, but the NRA is a corporation. And one larger than any firearms manufacturer absent the effect of government (eg military) contracts.0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »I have said that the gun manufacturers are not necessary for the NRA to wield the influence it has over US politics, given the relative contributions of both money and votes from the manufacturers and the NRA membership.
This is true, but the NRA is a corporation. And one larger than any firearms manufacturer absent the effect of government (eg military) contracts.
Funny how they only contribute the odd million here and there during presidential races ,
The Nra do a great job over all promoting firearms and shooting sports world wide ,and promote the safe use of fire arms for young and old0 -
http://news.sky.com/story/1088445/boy-3-shoots-himself-dead-with-uncles-gunA three-year-old Florida boy has died after shooting himself with a gun he found in his uncle's backpack, authorities said.
The shooting occurred in a bedroom Jadarrius Speights shared with his uncle at an apartment complex in Tampa.
Authorities said the uncle, 29-year-old Jeffrey D Walker, had been charged with culpable negligence.
Police said Walker has a concealed weapons permit.
Hillsborough County sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter said the uncle was not in the room when the shooting happened, but the child's parents were there.
The boy was taken to a hospital where he died.
..... Don't even know what to say...0 -
http://news.sky.com/story/1088445/boy-3-shoots-himself-dead-with-uncles-gun
..... Don't even know what to say...
Tragic, and the uncle is an idiot. But can we put this in context?
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=0/KhacN4N52&_program=wisqars.dd_details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=1&age2=4&agegp=1-4&deaths=1394&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1ageðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=0/KhacN4N52&_program=wisqars.dd_details10.sas&_service=&type=U&prtfmt=STANDARD&age1=5&age2=9&agegp=5-9&deaths=758&_debug=0&lcdfmt=lcd1ageðnicty=0&ranking=10&deathtle=Death0 -
I'm also staggered that a 3 year old had the strength to pull the trigger.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
Just to say, the following had to happen for this child to shoot himself.
1. The gun had to be loaded.
2. Any safety had to be disengaged
3. If semi-auto the slide needed to be racked to chamber a round.
4. A force of 4-5 lbs of pressure needs to be put on the trigger
5. The child needs to point the gun at himself.
What this probably means is the uncle had a loaded gun with the safety off with a round in the chamber and he left it unattended in a house where a 3 year old could get access to it.
Holy fuck, this guy is doing time.0 -
-
Wtf? My 10 year old is not allowed play video games with guns, but some kentucky fried retard given their 4 year old a real rifle as a gift. He kills his sister with it and they say its an accident? Not in my book. Parents should be jailed for this.0
-
Wtf? My 10 year old is not allowed play video games with guns, but some kentucky fried retard given their 4 year old a real rifle as a gift. He kills his sister with it and they say its an accident? Not in my book. Parents should be jailed for this.
The uncle in the pistol incident has been charged with culpable negligence. That's a 3rd degree felony and he could serve up to five years.
By the way no-one in this thread is arguing that the parent in the rifle case should not be jailed.0
Advertisement