Armed March to DC on 4th July

My name is URL

lol.. I can see this backfiring in a big way.

All it'll take is some nutter wanting to make a point. Fire off a few rounds during the march and watch chaos ensue as people panic and shoot each other.

suicide_circus

Some folk'll never eat a skunk
but then again, some folk'll...

Rented Mule

The Hill Billy wrote: »

Sure as heck, there's a foot-tappin' tabaccy-chewin' chart-toppin' country & western song just waiting to be written about this.



If it wasn't for the fact that these guys probably couldn't spell "Pennsylvania Avenue", or "Washington" or "DC".

I'm just trying to figure out what rhymes with Pennsylvania.

mike65

Rented Mule wrote: »

Are you talking about 'gays' or 'guns' because that has a 'Westboro Baptist Church' vibe to it.

If one of those events could wipe out them too that would be fine with most of us.

mike65

Rented Mule wrote: »

I'm just trying to figure out what rhymes with Pennsylvania.

Gunmania?

I'll git maaaa banjeeeo!

Sarky

Could we at least wait and see if it degenerates into a violent yet darkly hilarious bloodbath before all this drawing of lines? It'll at least make you all look like your minds weren't already made up for or against gun control.

Boogietime

MadsL wrote: »

Why are you under some kind of illusion that legally held guns are the ones that are doing the killing in America? The line between truth and parody is absurdly blurred in this thread - most people posting here have no clue about how American gunowners actually behave - but then it is easier to laugh than to think.

That's a generalist statement. Please don't make these sort of biased comments on this paddy forum without adding "in my opinion" before. THanks!

Kirby

MadsL wrote: »

No, they must be hysterical scary scary things, instead of things that farmers use to kill vermin and protect themselves from intruders in rural locations.

Tools should not be 'normal' things, where would that end, people owning drills and the like.

A drill is a tool. It's function is to facilitate putting holes in things with a mind towards construction. It can be used to kill, but that is not it's function.....much like a spoon.

MadsL wrote: »

We could start talking about banning cars if you like based on the incidents of road deaths...we have had dangerous items in society for many years now.

A car is a tool for transport. That's its function. To facilitate transport. It can be used to kill but that is not it's function....much like a fork.

This where you argument falls down. Guns are weapons. Their only function is to kill. That it was they are designed to do. When a man shoots up a school, he is using the weapon in it's primary function....to kill.

They are tools of war and have no place in society. Much like explosives, mines, tanks, and other weapons of war. They should be controlled and the general public should not and need not have access to them.

Comparing guns to cars and drills is laughable.

kowloon

Rented Mule wrote: »

Are you talking about 'gays' or 'guns' because that has a 'Westboro Baptist Church' vibe to it.

We can only hope they turn up and try their usual nonsense...

FTA69

They are tools of war and have no place in society

Some guns are and some aren't. A 20 bore side by side shotgun loaded with 9-shot cartridges is no more a "tool of war" than anything else. It is in fact a small female/youth orientated shotgun which would be used primarily for clay pigeons or the shooting of birds. Likewise a .22 rifle is primarily used to shoot small vermin or food animals.

Guns are an integral part of hunting and getting rid of pests in rural areas. They are not all designed for harming other human beings. Comparing a farmer's shotgun with a weapon of war is like comparing a Ford Ka with a battle tank.

Similarly guns are already a part of Irish society but you don't hear any hassle or iminent societal collapse due to those owning them being responsible and law-abiding.

Foxhound38

MadsL wrote: »

Why are you under some kind of illusion that legally held guns are the ones that are doing the killing in America? The line between truth and parody is absurdly blurred in this thread - most people posting here have no clue about how American gunowners actually behave - but then it is easier to laugh than to think.

"Watch out! The socialist gubbernment are coming to take our guns and give them to Muslims so a caliphate can be set up in Americuh with Obama as Sultan! Better get off to live in the woods with the AR15 and the tinfoil hat"

- Internal monolouge, way too many American gun enthusiasts

Case in point: http://www.ktvb.com/news/Survivalist-group-planning-armed-compound-in-north-Idaho-187065631.html

dj jarvis

FTA69 wrote: »

Some guns are and some aren't. A 20 bore side by side shotgun loaded with 9-shot cartridges is no more a "tool of war" than anything else. It is in fact a small female/youth orientated shotgun which would be used primarily for clay pigeons or the shooting of birds. Likewise a .22 rifle is primarily used to shoot small vermin or food animals.

Guns are an integral part of hunting and getting rid of pests in rural areas. They are not all designed for harming other human beings. Comparing a farmer's shotgun with a weapon of war is like comparing a Ford Ka with a battle tank.

Similarly guns are already a part of Irish society but you don't hear any hassle or iminent societal collapse due to those owning them being responsible and law-abiding.

Some context please

Getting a firearm licence in the republic is much more difficult than getting a weapons licence in some US states - there is NO comparison

as for your claim that shotguns and .22 are not "really" killers ??
i have seen the damage a .22 round can do point blank to the head
trust me , its a killer
and a shot gun blast to the face will tickle ya some also

lax gun control leads to more violent and accidental deaths of young and old,
add to that, the "culture" of gun ownership in the US leads to an apx 30,000 gun deaths a year,

and in fairness its not just the US , European countries with high gun ownership have had their share of random school shooters , Finland has the highest gun ownership in Europe , and has suffered mass school shootings ( 3 in the last ten years ) , Germany has also had this problem.
both of these countries have lots of sport and hunting guns,

less guns = less deaths , It is that simple

FTA69

Some context please

I provided the context. The poster said "they have no place in society" when the fact is they already have a place in Irish society, namely that of hunting and pest control in rural areas. Shooting is an important economic and cultural pursuit in Ireland, and shotguns are often needed by farmers. My point is correct; they DO have a place in Irish society.

as for your claim that shotguns and .22 are not "really" killers ??

Never said that at all, you're strawmanning now. I said they "aren't tools of war". And that's a correct statement. A 20 bore shotgun isn't a "tool of war", it's usually a tool for target shooting and shooting pigeons. Big difference. I never said it couldn't be used to kill/hurt someone, rather that it isn't designed for that purpose and it's very rarely used for that purpose either.

The vast majority of gun murders in Ireland have been by drug dealers shooting each other with illegally-imported and illegally-held weapons such as handguns and machine pistols. Those in rural areas with legitimate access to firearms such as hunting rifles and shotguns have been responsible for few murders in comparison.

returnNull

dj jarvis wrote: »

less guns = less deaths , It is that simple

is it now?

Boogietime

returnNull wrote: »

is it now?

hurp a derp, took our jobs.

Yes, it is. Man provided you with straight facts, not rhetorical questions just to flame thread.

returnNull

Boogietime wrote: »

hurp a derp, took our jobs.

Yes, it is. Man provided you with straight facts, not rhetorical questions just to flame thread.

is that right?

Boogietime

returnNull wrote: »

is that right?

Yup. And when you'll be 10 you'll also understand why, Billy.

Manic Moran

leggo wrote: »

Why do people argue with gun owners/apologists? There's no point, they reject the premise of the argument to begin with (that guns are instruments created only to cause harm and/or death) so will never listen to reason.

Eh?

I've never claimed that about my firearms. Though I fully stand by those such as Sparks who have firearms specifically designed for target shooting, all but one of mine (a rimfire revolver) were originally designed for killing people, not even animals. Of course, I have only ever used them for recreational shooting, but I don't deny their design intent: Indeed, I keep one loaded for that express purpose.

My first problem is people who reject the premise that there's nothing wrong with killing per se, and that it is only murder which should be socially ostracized. Not all deliberate killing is murder. My second problem is with people who reject the premise that just because something originally has one purpose doesn't mean that it can't be most commonly used for another.

They are tools of war and have no place in society

Even if that were to be considered true, the ideological position rather fails flat in the face of human mentality. As long as there are the strong who prey on the weak, the firearm has a place outside of warfare.

NTM

dj jarvis

FTA69 wrote: »

Some guns are and some aren't. A 20 bore side by side shotgun loaded with 9-shot cartridges is no more a "tool of war" than anything else. It is in fact a small female/youth orientated shotgun which would be used primarily for clay pigeons or the shooting of birds. Likewise a .22 rifle is primarily used to shoot small vermin or food animals.

Guns are an integral part of hunting and getting rid of pests in rural areas. They are not all designed for harming other human beings. Comparing a farmer's shotgun with a weapon of war is like comparing a Ford Ka with a battle tank.

Similarly guns are already a part of Irish society but you don't hear any hassle or iminent societal collapse due to those owning them being responsible and law-abiding.

so the highlighted part above is not inferring that they are "less dangerous" ?
a female weapon ?
come on , less back peddling please ,
and your statement " a weapon of war" - it does not make sense in this context - its a weapon , full stop, that kills , just like your weapon of war assertion.

as far as i know there are 80 million gun owners in the US , but no war is being raged there at the moment.
your point is null and void

murraykil

I don't like the idea of guns and a society that is armed to the teeth, but I don't think this woman should be denied her right to carry a concealed weapon.

Her story starts at about 4 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtbvBgfI0o8

After hearing her story I have been turned a lot on my point of view in relation to guns in American society; they may be a necessary evil for law-abiding citizens.

"It sure as heck would have changed the odds."

dj jarvis

Manic Moran wrote: »

Eh?

I've never claimed that about my firearms. Though I fully stand by those such as Sparks who have firearms specifically designed for target shooting, all but one of mine (a rimfire revolver) were originally designed for killing people, not even animals. Of course, I have only ever used them for recreational shooting, but I don't deny their design intent: Indeed, I keep one loaded for that express purpose.

My first problem is people who reject the premise that there's nothing wrong with killing per se, and that it is only murder which should be socially ostracized. Not all deliberate killing is murder. My second problem is with people who reject the premise that just because something originally has one purpose doesn't mean that it can't be most commonly used for another.



Even if that were to be considered true, the ideological position rather fails flat in the face of human mentality. As long as there are the strong who prey on the weak, the firearm has a place outside of warfare.

NTM

so does this mean we should have the same gun laws as the states ?
seeing there are strong who prey on the weak on this Island , or should we do what most other civilized nations do, and leave the up holding of the law to the persons allocated by the state to do this job ?

i have been attacked on nights out in Dublin by random idiots , if i was allowed to carry , i would have used it to defend my self , but maybe there was no real need

as i said , i have no issue with "working" guns in Ireland , but having it the way it is in the states would be a nonsense

no one needs an AR15 with extended mag , and been able to buy it from a dealer at a gun show with NO BACK GROUND CHECKS

less guns , less people being shot
fear of attack is not reason enough to want guns , FFS the US media has them all afraid of their shadows

laoch na mona

murraykil wrote: »

I don't like the idea of guns and a society that is armed to the teeth, but I don't think this woman should be denied her right to carry a concealed weapon.

Her story starts at about 4 minutes in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtbvBgfI0o8

After hearing her story I have been turned a lot on my point of view in relation to guns in American society; they may be a necessary evil for law-abiding citizens.

"It sure as heck would have changed the odds."

no there should be laws stopping lunatics like that getting a gun in the first place

murraykil

laoch na mona wrote: »

no there should be laws stopping lunatics like that getting a gun in the first place

There are such laws in place, in fact the number of laws is about 500 according to that piece. Typically criminals don't obey the law.

There is a criminal talking at about 3 minutes in about how the gun control laws only restrict the citizen.

leggo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Eh?

I've never claimed that about my firearms. Though I fully stand by those such as Sparks who have firearms specifically designed for target shooting, all but one of mine (a rimfire revolver) were originally designed for killing people, not even animals. Of course, I have only ever used them for recreational shooting, but I don't deny their design intent: Indeed, I keep one loaded for that express purpose.

My first problem is people who reject the premise that there's nothing wrong with killing per se, and that it is only murder which should be socially ostracized. Not all deliberate killing is murder. My second problem is with people who reject the premise that just because something originally has one purpose doesn't mean that it can't be most commonly used for another.

I'm not even bothering to argue. Not accepting the premise makes gun owners too stubborn to properly debate. While you might have felt that accepting the premise may have strengthened your argument...it really doesn't as it then only comes across as defending something which should not be put into the wrong hands and should thus be restricted, i.e. you make my point for me. Sound unfair? In this argument, it is. It's a black and white issue.

TheLB

dj jarvis wrote: »

no one needs an AR15 with extended mag , and been able to buy it from a dealer at a gun show with NO BACK GROUND CHECKS

less guns , less people being shot
fear of attack is not reason enough to want guns

The 2nd Amendment says:

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

It is included in the Bill of Rights - the amendments to the consitution designed to uphold the rights of the people. The Founding Father's had just fought a war with the tyrant king of England as they called him. They recognised that a time might come when the citizens of the new United States might have to rise up against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting etc. It is there specifically to protect the rights of the people, primarily through the 1st & 4th amendments.

Grayson

TheLB wrote: »

The 2nd Amendment says:



It is included in the Bill of Rights - the amendments to the consitution designed to uphold the rights of the people. The Founding Father's had just fought a war with the tyrant king of England as they called him. They recognised that a time might come when the citizens of the new United States might have to rise up against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting etc. It is there specifically to protect the rights of the people, primarily through the 1st & 4th amendments.

Really hate that phrase. makes it sound like they were the wisest of men. Instead of a group that hates paying taxes.

murraykil

Grayson wrote: »

Really hate that phrase. makes it sound like they were the wisest of men. Instead of a group that hates paying taxes.

Not many, if any, people like paying taxes! :pac:

It does seem though that they are held in such high regard that their opinions cannot be questioned.

FTA69

dj jarvis wrote: »

so the highlighted part above is not inferring that they are "less dangerous" ?

No it's a simple statement of fact that not every firearm is a "weapon of war". A 20 bore side by side isn't a weapon of war, it's a device for target and sport shooting.

- it does not make sense in this context - its a weapon , full stop, that kills , just like your weapon of war assertion.

It does when someone uses that term to erroneously describe all guns.

Whether you like it or not guns are an aspect of rural life and they are necessary. They are an important component of outdoor pursuits which is a big industry in Ireland. They are needed by farmers for things as basic as shooting rabbits or mink or to defend their livestock from dogs and foxes. They are needed by hunters to cull deer and procure game.

What you're coming out with is a blanket whinge categorising all of the above uses of guns as nonsense because it contradicts your notion that all guns are used for is to kill other people.

Promac

Manic Moran wrote: »

Eh?

I've never claimed that about my firearms. Though I fully stand by those such as Sparks who have firearms specifically designed for target shooting, all but one of mine (a rimfire revolver) were originally designed for killing people, not even animals. Of course, I have only ever used them for recreational shooting, but I don't deny their design intent: Indeed, I keep one loaded for that express purpose.

My first problem is people who reject the premise that there's nothing wrong with killing per se, and that it is only murder which should be socially ostracized. Not all deliberate killing is murder. My second problem is with people who reject the premise that just because something originally has one purpose doesn't mean that it can't be most commonly used for another.


Even if that were to be considered true, the ideological position rather fails flat in the face of human mentality. As long as there are the strong who prey on the weak, the firearm has a place outside of warfare.

NTM

Because the only way to deal with the very, very small minority of people in society who are violent is to arm everyone else.

Killing anyone is and always should be "socially ostracized". You can dismiss that as leftie liberal hippy **** or you can actually use your brain to think of scenarios where it's not some mindless zombie attacking your home so he can rape and eat your wife and kids.

"As long as there are the strong who prey on the weak, the firearm has a place outside of warfare."

This last statement absolutely reeks of insecurity and fear and inadequacy. The gun will not make you a big-man and will not protect you if your home is under attack. The simple fact is that your home will probably never be under attack. And if you live in a place where your home actually might be under attack - why the f*ck are you living there!? Any reasonable person would get the f*ck out of there rather than just get moar guns durr.

Just another Rambo-boner who likes to feel like TJ Hooker down the gun range on a Sunday.

StinkyMunkey

I fail to see why you need to bring your gun with you when your demonstrating. People will get the message without your carrying around a rifle or hand gun! What happened to chanting or good old fashioned placards?

I wouldnt bring a bag of spuds with me if i was going to protest against the price of them. Numbers will speak alot louder than a load of nut jobs carrying lethal weapons around in public.

dj jarvis

TheLB wrote: »

The 2nd Amendment says:



It is included in the Bill of Rights - the amendments to the consitution designed to uphold the rights of the people. The Founding Father's had just fought a war with the tyrant king of England as they called him. They recognised that a time might come when the citizens of the new United States might have to rise up against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting etc. It is there specifically to protect the rights of the people, primarily through the 1st & 4th amendments.

yea .......... so they really meant AR15's when they wrote that?
dream on
you always know a pro gun person is at a loss when they pull that crap out.

you do know it is in the bible that you can kill children and women.
just becasue something is written - does not make it just or right.

it boils down to statistics and dammed statistics - nations that have more guns , guns that are freely available - have more gun deaths

why is that so hard for some to get their heads around ?

pabloh999

TheLB wrote: »

The 2nd Amendment says:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


It is included in the Bill of Rights - the amendments to the consitution designed to uphold the rights of the people. The Founding Father's had just fought a war with the tyrant king of England as they called him. They recognised that a time might come when the citizens of the new United States might have to rise up against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting etc. It is there specifically to protect the rights of the people, primarily through the 1st & 4th amendments.

A well regulated militia?
I wonder if large groups of Muslim Americans:eek: got together stockpiling weapons to form their own militia, just to, you know, keep the US gov in check how that would go down in US media
Hmmm..

dj jarvis

FTA69 wrote: »

dj jarvis wrote: »

No it's a simple statement of fact that not every firearm is a "weapon of war". A 20 bore side by side isn't a weapon of war, it's a device for target and sport shooting.



It does when someone uses that term to erroneously describe all guns.

Whether you like it or not guns are an aspect of rural life and they are necessary. They are an important component of outdoor pursuits which is a big industry in Ireland. They are needed by farmers for things as basic as shooting rabbits or mink or to defend their livestock from dogs and foxes. They are needed by hunters to cull deer and procure game.

What you're coming out with is a blanket whinge categorising all of the above uses of guns as nonsense because it contradicts your notion that all guns are used for is to kill other people.

a whinge ? becasue i dont agree with your gun utopia crap ?
give me a break.
i understand the use for working guns , as i have said , im talking about gun ownership in the US , ya know , the place where the demo is going to be,
where the vast majority of guns are kept for safety and security AKA kill buglers and black people .

and in fairness you are on a loser if you are trying to infer that sporting and farming weapons are never used in crimes,
all guns are not for killing people , that much is true , but you are forgetting they can be , and there is the root of the problem
its not the gun , its the owner , and its the law that allows anyone to buy them is the real issue

its not much of a issue here becasue its not "easy" to obtain a licence.

and we have a winner ;-)

hatrickpatrick

MadsL wrote: »

Those incidents were the majority of the gun deaths in the US were they? Do tell me more...

These incidents would not have been able to happen at all if the people responsible hadn't had easy access to weapons.
Owning a firearm should be an exception, not the norm. You should have to prove yourself trustworthy to get one rather than prove yourself untrustworthy after you've been given one.

Manic Moran

so does this mean we should have the same gun laws as the states ?
seeing there are strong who prey on the weak on this Island , or should we do what most other civilized nations do, and leave the up holding of the law to the persons allocated by the state to do this job ?

That seems to me to be a decision best left in the hands of the individual countries, no? Ireland is not the US, in any sense from arms proliferation to police response times.

i have been attacked on nights out in Dublin by random idiots , if i was allowed to carry , i would have used it to defend my self , but maybe there was no real need

Perhaps. Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it. When used, however, the attack generally comes to a conclusion one way or the other pretty rapidly.

fear of attack is not reason enough to want guns , FFS the US media has them all afraid of their shadows

What better reason can there be? Or are you saying that people are not attacked in the US?

it really doesn't as it then only comes across as defending something which should not be put into the wrong hands and should thus be restricted, i.e. you make my point for me. Sound unfair? In this argument, it is. It's a black and white issue

I do not deny the potential for misuse. Do you deny the potential for positive use?

Because the only way to deal with the very, very small minority of people in society who are violent is to arm everyone else.

Nothing has yet proven more effective at it. Statistics are all well and good, but if you find yourself one of the unlucky ones to be suffering the attentions of a member of that very, very small minority of people, one would expect that your opinion on how well you should be able to defend yourself is likely to become very acute. Relying on the statistical likelihood of being a victim is basically saying "it's fine for X many people to be killed/raped/robbed/kidnapped/carjacked/whatever since it probably won't be me."

Killing anyone is and always should be "socially ostracized".

No, it's not. Why do we let the police and army have guns then? Even Pope John Paul II weighed in on this, saying killing is acceptable if necessary.

Killing =/= muder. It may be better if not required in the first place, but it's not necessarily wrong.

This last statement absolutely reeks of insecurity and fear and inadequacy.

Or of reality. Find me any sizeable society on the planet where the firearm is not used as the ultimate guarantor of the freedom and protection of the citizenry. I believe you'll find that the true point of contention is over how much the citizenry should be forced to rely upon a subset of society to protect them from those who would otherwise impose their will. In the Republic of Ireland, the dominant thinking is that the Gardaí and Army are the extent of that subset. Go North of the border and that is extended a little bit to the PSNI, the Army, and just over 2,000 persons issued concealed weapons permits for personal protection. In the US, everyone is granted the ability to be self-reliant within certain pre-requisites. (eg mental health, criminal record).

yea .......... so they really meant AR15's when they wrote that?

So you want to put a time/date stamp on the Bill of Rights? Does this mean that freedom of speech does not apply to the Internet, Television, or even anything written on paper by a ball-point pen?

NTM

c_man

seantorious wrote: »

I'd give a **** but these people are separated from us by an ocean, if they want to shoot up schools let them.

Yes, the tens of millions of gun owing Americans are all mad for shooting up their local schools. You tell 'em.

Good lord, the sheer venom and insults thrown at gun owners in debates just fuels the hysteria around the issue.

Promac

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nothing has yet proven more effective at it. Statistics are all well and good, but if you find yourself one of the unlucky ones to be suffering the attentions of a member of that very, very small minority of people, one would expect that your opinion on how well you should be able to defend yourself is likely to become very acute. Relying on the statistical likelihood of being a victim is basically saying "it's fine for X many people to be killed/raped/robbed/kidnapped/carjacked/whatever since it probably won't be me."

That's not even close to logical. Arm everyone and the chances of you being a victim in this way go up since guns would be far more readily available to the people who would misuse them and, therefore, your chances of being the victim increase. And if you ever are the victim then you can be damn sure the attacker is not alone and you are - criminals generally aren't too stupid and don't go around attacking people alone usually. Unless you're very, very lucky, you'll still be dead or raped or carjacked. This is all ignoring the fact that very, very few people are ever attacked by hordes of gun-toting psychos... outside the average 80s action movie.

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, it's not. Why do we let the police and army have guns then? Even Pope John Paul II weighed in on this, saying killing is acceptable if necessary.

Killing =/= muder. It may be better if not required in the first place, but it's not necessarily wrong.

We let trained members of the security forces handle the guns because it's their job. Civilians have other jobs and defending society from itself is not one of them - that's why there's a yellow tape around crime scenes - civilians are morons who tend to f*ck things up. Civilians get drunk and go out shooting their guns in the yard. They get drunk and angry at each-other and shoot before sobering up. They leave guns lying around for kids to shoot each-other with. 150 kids dead every year because of gun accidents in the US and you still think it's ok to let any f*ckwit who wants one have a gun? At the very least they should be able to pass a basic IQ test and a questionnaire about why they want one. But, no, it's all about your "right" to defend yourself from aliens or whatever. Who cares if your gun gets stolen and used to force rape someone or kill a kid? It's an acceptable trade-off for you being able to go down the gun range on a sunday and look like Arnie with your armalite.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Or of reality. Find me any sizeable society on the planet where the firearm is not used as the ultimate guarantor of the freedom and protection of the citizenry. I believe you'll find that the true point of contention is over how much the citizenry should be forced to rely upon a subset of society to protect them from those who would otherwise impose their will. In the Republic of Ireland, the dominant thinking is that the Gardaí and Army are the extent of that subset. Go North of the border and that is extended a little bit to the PSNI, the Army, and just over 2,000 persons issued concealed weapons permits for personal protection. In the US, everyone is granted the ability to be self-reliant within certain pre-requisites. (eg mental health, criminal record).

NTM

You gonna talk about switzerland or that place with the mandatory gun policy?

Let's talk common sense - if you're a criminal and looking to rob someone, are you gonna go to a place with more guns than people or somewhere else less armed? It's certainly a deterrent, I'll give you that. But If they made landmines mandatory in every yard I'm sure there'd be a lot less fcking burglaries there too - there'd just be a lot more paraplegic children around as well.

A better idea is to make the place safer through policing and education and removing the reasons why people want to burgle in the first place. But people like you will never focus on that side of it because The Criminal is a big bad guy with a big gun who will rape your entire family if you don't have a gun collection. And it's nothing at all to do with Rambo. Definitely not. No way man. This armalite just happens to make me look cool totally by coincidence.

lightspeed

murraykil wrote: »

Like people using their arms to march instead of their legs? That would be interesting. How long is this march? Not too far probably, a couple of blocks most likely. It's on the 4th of july too! There are great parties in the USA on this day! Anyone around for it?

Id say it will be ripping good fun. Loads of americans with their guns drawn getting drunk arguing who was the greatest american patriot from George washington to George Bush.

How could anything go wrong?

Manic Moran

Promac wrote: »

That's not even close to logical. Arm everyone and the chances of you being a victim in this way go up since guns would be far more readily available to the people who would misuse them and, therefore, your chances of being the victim increase.

The choice of weapon used doesn't necessarily have any correlation to the statistic of numbers of crimes. Although almost 70% of murders in the US are carried out by firearm (which makes sense, as that's what it's there for), less than half of both robbery and assault are carried out by firearm. The Guardian is nice enough to tabulate it all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

The common ground is that likely in all cases, by presensce of firearm, knife, syringe, or simple muscle and bulk, the aggressor believes himself to be at an advantage over his victim. Indeed, according to the FBI's data, http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table_19_rate_number_of_crimes_per_100000_inhabitants_additional_information_about_selected_offenses_2011.xls, the most common method used in a robbery was the bare hand.

And if you ever are the victim then you can be damn sure the attacker is not alone and you are - criminals generally aren't too stupid and don't go around attacking people alone usually.

I'm not sure I'd give criminals quite that much credit. In any case, there are plenty of cases of effective defensive use of a firearm against either singular or multiple offenders.

We let trained members of the security forces handle the guns because it's their job. Civilians have other jobs and defending society from itself is not one of them - that's why there's a yellow tape around crime scenes

Actually, that's not quite true. Although it's their job, it is not their responsibility. Try suing the Gardaí for failing in their responsibility protect you when you are assaulted. The only person truly responsible for your safety is you (or your guardian/parent). Regardless about Ireland, this is set law in the US, they have no duty to protect you, the individual. The yellow tape around crime scenes is indicative of the fact that the police failed in their job to protect, otherwise there wouldn't have been a crime scene to tape off to begin with. They do their best, and after the event they track down and help bring to justice offenders when they fail to prevent. This, however, doesn't do the offended party much good at the time.

- civilians are morons who tend to f*ck things up. Civilians get drunk and go out shooting their guns in the yard. They get drunk and angry at each-other and shoot before sobering up. They leave guns lying around for kids to shoot each-other with. 150 kids dead every year because of gun accidents in the US and you still think it's ok to let any f*ckwit who wants one have a gun?

They do. I don't argue that. After all, they're human.

You gonna talk about switzerland or that place with the mandatory gun policy?

Only if it comes up in conversation.

Let's talk common sense - if you're a criminal and looking to rob someone, are you gonna go to a place with more guns than people or somewhere else less armed? It's certainly a deterrent, I'll give you that. But If they made landmines mandatory in every yard I'm sure there'd be a lot less fcking burglaries there too - there'd just be a lot more paraplegic children around as well.

Land mines are fairly non-discretionary, and a faulty analogy. But the burglary rate comparison is interesting. Although the US has a slightly higher burglary rate, the amount of times that a burglar and homeowner actually encounter each other is substantially lower: Burglars don't like getting shot, so they take greater effort to make sure the home is empty. Lower chance of the two meeting results in it being safer for everyone.

A better idea is to make the place safer through policing and education and removing the reasons why people want to burgle in the first place. But people like you will never focus on that side of it because The Criminal is a big bad guy with a big gun who will rape your entire family if you don't have a gun collection. And it's nothing at all to do with Rambo. Definitely not. No way man. This armalite just happens to make me look cool totally by coincidence.

Interesting how we both look at the same requirement, and come to a different solution. I fully agree with your that the best idea to reduce crime is to reduce the causes of crime, and this includes education, social programs, and other things which cost craploads of money, lots of time, and do not provide particularly immediate tangible outcome for the politicians to be able to boast about in the next election cycle. Unfortunately, people like you look at the tools of the crime, not the cause. Until proper education, programs, and the other things which cost money and time are implemented and have effect, private citizens should have the opportunity to take whatever measures they need to to ensure their enjoyment of life as they mind their own business.

NTM

JD DABA

All thats needed is a turning down of the Gun dial.

From chain fed twin mounted m60's and .50's..... down to ar15's ...... and now a notch or two further down to small capacity bolt action rifles, shotguns and .22 pistols.

They'll still stop burglars and kill animals.

No reason beyond those two, if you're in civil war with the US military it won't be making any difference if your rifle is 30 round capacity semi automatic or something much less badass. Neither is going to stop a humvee patrol with helicopter support.

adamb1888

thats just looking for trouble

Promac

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, that's not quite true. Although it's their job, it is not their responsibility. Try suing the Gardaí for failing in their responsibility protect you when you are assaulted. The only person truly responsible for your safety is you (or your guardian/parent). Regardless about Ireland, this is set law in the US, they have no duty to protect you, the individual. The yellow tape around crime scenes is indicative of the fact that the police failed in their job to protect, otherwise there wouldn't have been a crime scene to tape off to begin with. They do their best, and after the event they track down and help bring to justice offenders when they fail to prevent. This, however, doesn't do the offended party much good at the time.
NTM

You seem like a reasonable guy but you're not looking at your own argument with open eyes. There's a huge overtone of defending guns no matter what and searching for a suitable argument to do so. It's very similar to the religious peoples' arguments. They already believe in god and they need a suitable argument to justify it. You already own and enjoy guns and need justification for them to be freely available. And you're arguing against a complete ban on guns when I haven't actually seen anyone here put that forward as a possibility. "Working" guns and police guns are fine in my opinion. Even necessary as a deterrent sometimes.

The problem I, and the huge amounts of people like me, have with the system in America is that any ould maniac can go down to the gunshop and get an Armalite automatic weapon with any number of extended mags and ammo to fill them. There are all sorts of mods and attachments you can get to make that Armalite a far more efficient weapon too. Sights and rails and stocks and whatever. All designed to make that weapon better at killing people. There's no justification for that. You can argue that you need a gun for protection. Let's say we both accept that a concealed carry is sometimes necessary for protection and compare that with the fully pimped out AR15. No-one needs that for home defence or hunting and you are not, under any circumstances, gonna carry that around with you as protection - the gun alone would be grounds for someone to rob you.

You and I (and everyone else) know that you're not interested in having a gun for protection. It's a toy to look at and play with and pose with. The people who pimp out their AR15s are proud of them. It's their prized possession and they show them off to each-other. That's got nothing to do with defence or utility. It's just a d1ck slinging contest. These people are putting drum magazines and bipods on them and they hang out at the gun range in camo gear and boots and tactical sunglasses pretending they're all bad-a$$. I know some of them and they're ridiculous.

But whatever, it doesn't affect me because I live in a sane country and I've said pretty much everything I have to say on this one so good luck to you in your little fort there.

MadsL

I support the right of someone to own a firearm because I personally know someone who defended herself in her own bed from a rape attempt, shooting the guy three times whilst he was on top of her. He survived.

She is neither stupid, nor a hillbilly, nor irresponsible nor rabid. Unsuprisingly, she still owns a gun. There are millions of American women just like her who also own guns for such a terrible, if rare, incident.

The gun control posters on here are so afraid of rational reasons like this to own a gun that they parody and insult millions of safe sensible gun owners. And are afraid to accept that these people are simply normal ordinary people. Cartoons are easier to argue with.

JD DABA

What caliber stopped said rapist/vampire ?

MadsL

JD DABA wrote: »

What caliber stopped said rapist/vampire ?

Vampire? More nonsense.

He got two .22 slugs in the chest, one in the ass. Passed out on the lawn as a package for the cops.

JD DABA

There we go then, a .22 is sufficient for home defense.

Witcher

JD DABA wrote: »

There we go then, a .22 is sufficient for home defense.

At point blank range...and the guy was still alive even after that...well enough to make it back outside. .22 is insufficient for home defence, I wouldn't stake my life on it.

JD DABA

Blay wrote: »

At point blank range...and the guy was still alive even after that...well enough to make it back outside. .22 is insufficient for home defence, I wouldn't stake my life on it.

It stopped the criminal.
Its capable of stopping a criminal.

If stopping a criminal is the definition of sufficient home defense.
Then the 22 satisfied this criteria.

Witcher

JD DABA wrote: »

It stopped the criminal.
Its capable of stopping a criminal.

If stopping a criminal is the definition of sufficient home defense.
Then the 22 satisfied this criteria.

He was still alive and capable of exiting the house..I don't consider that 'stopping' a criminal.

My definition of 'stopping' the individual in that situation would be him lying dead on the bedroom floor. Consider if it was your wife in that situation..would you be happy with the guy being well enough to walk away?

.22 is in no way sufficient for home defence..the gun in this case was likely right to his chest when it was fired and he still survived. Rare that you'll hear of people keeping them for defence in the US, they just haven't got the stopping power required.

This is your life and wellbeing on the line here and probably that of your wife and children too. Do these mean that little to you that you would arm yourself with one of the most anaemic rounds available?

crybaby

I have watched videos of people like this walking around parks with their assault rifles on their shoulders causing needless panic and worry amongst people just to show off their rights.

What a bunch of knobs, they live in one of the most gun friendly nations in the world yet they love to act like they live in some oppressed regime.