Sandy Hook familes sue...well, pretty much everyone

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

You've said absolutely nothing on topic and all you are doing is adding noise. On the other hand all my previous posts ARE on topic, excpet for the ones engaging with you. Therefore to save this thread (which you haven't read at all I suspect) more noise, welcome to my ignore list.

If you only bothered to read posts correctly, and learn to recognise context you might do better with forming an argument. As it is, you have had ample opportunity and failed entirely.

Nope, we were discussing the US constitution and how it may not have expected future gun advances.
You chirped up with a random quote from Jefferson that was neither in the constitution nor said anything about available or expected gun technology.
That's a proven off topic quote.
Now tell me again how your quote was on topic "because Jefferson said it".
Not surprised you want me on ignore when I slice through your irrelevant bluster like a Black Talon through ballistic gel...

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

3/4 of mass shooting in the US in the last 30 years were with legally held firearms.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
Scrutinize that please.

My god. A link, almost a point made. I'll bite.

Here's another statistic. In almost 95% of fatal car crashes, the car was legally owned.

Scrutinize that please and extrapolate the same conclusion that you are trying to make about guns.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

My god. A link, almost a point made. I'll bite.

Here's another statistic. In almost 95% of fatal car crashes, the car was legally owned.

Scrutinize that please and extrapolate the same conclusion that you are trying to make about guns.

Are you trying to pretend that the purpose of a car is to kill people, often the driver?
Then you'd have something to work with. For once.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Blatantly they are a means of recreation, they have been for centuries since man first learnt to build a slingshot and decided to a have a friendly game of who can hit the target first.

You appear to be confusing

rec·re·a·tion
ˌrekrēˈāSH(ə)n/
noun
activity done for enjoyment when one is not working.

with

toy
toi/
noun
1.
an object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.


I certainly do not feel that a child should play with a firearm, but there is no reason why anyone of a reasonable age should not enjoy safe and supervised recreation with a firearm. Thousands of tourist enjoy such recreation in the US every year with a very very low accident rate.

ok so they can be a means of recreation.

Certain people dont want more restrictive laws because that would take away their fantasy and pleasure, which is paramount.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Are you trying to pretend that the purpose of a car is to kill people, often the driver?
Then you'd have something to work with. For once.

Are you trying to pretend that the purpose of a gun is to kill people, often the owner?
Then you'd have something to work with. For once.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

ok so they can be a means of recreation.

Thank you for conceding the point.

Certain people dont want more restrictive laws because that would take away their fantasy and pleasure, which is paramount.

Any source for this quite assertive insight into the minds of gunowners, other than your own projections and prejudices?

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Are you trying to pretend that the purpose of a gun is to kill people, often the owner?
Then you'd have something to work with. For once.

Well pretty obviously they are. Did you ever stop to ponder why police officers and soldiers have guns? For recreational purposes?

Manic Moran

I really don't see why people are worked up over "The purpose of a gun is to kill people". Well, duh. What's wrong with that? So far, it's the best tool we seem to have come up with for defending ourselves. Once someone invents something better (Phasers set to stun?) I'm sure many civilians and police will move from firearms to that something else. Until that happens, however...

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well pretty obviously they are.

All of them? Are you sure?
http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/target-model.jpg
Designed for punching holes in paper at International competition level.
It is also obvious that shotguns are primarily designed for shooting birds in flight.
Need I go on?

Did you ever stop to ponder why police officers and soldiers have guns? For recreational purposes?

For self-defensive purposes ostensibly, I'm sure most of them (despite recent events) would assert that using their pistol is something they would only do in extremis when they were in fear of their or others lives. They don't hunt people.

Having an armed police force is primarily a deterrant.

Dan_Solo

Manic Moran wrote: »

I really don't see why people are worked up over "The purpose of a gun is to kill people". Well, duh. What's wrong with that? So far, it's the best tool we seem to have come up with for defending ourselves or killing other people.

FTFY.
Why pretend they are only used for "defense"? Are there any stats on how many civilians have saved themselves from a shooting by having their own firearm?

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

FTFY.
Why pretend they are only used for "defense"? Are there any stats on how many civilians have saved themselves from a shooting by having their own firearm?

Go find some. Report back.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

All of them? Are you sure?
http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/target-model.jpg
Designed for punching holes in paper at International competition level.
It is also obvious that shotguns are primarily designed for shooting birds in flight.
Need I go on?

Yes, please go on. Next tell us what AR15s and Desert Eagles owned by civilains in urban areas are "primarily designed for".
While you're at it, could you link to any mass murders performed with a .22 Olympic style rifle? Thanks.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Go find some. Report back.

Sorry, you're the guy who wants to prove my points for me. Doesn't work in reverse I'm afraid. Hard luck.

Sauve

Mod

MadsL and Dan_Solo,

For the love of jaysus will ye cut out the bickering. If y can't discuss something without poking at each other, then don't bother at all.

Thanks.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Thank you for conceding the point.



Any source for this quite assertive insight into the minds of gunowners, other than your own projections and prejudices?

To concede I'd first have to argue against.

My source is that as you say many people travel to shoot guns for pleasure, others have written their state constitution to identify them as a means of recreation.

Do you get pleasure from shooting firearms, and if so what firearms do you shoot, how many rounds might you use over an average session.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, please go on. Next tell us what AR15s and Desert Eagles owned by civilains in urban areas are "primarily designed for".

Recreation
Hunting
Collections of mint /rare objects (investments)
Home defense

Unless you really want to try and make the argument that everyone who owns an AR-15 or Desert Eagle is lining up to take potshots at the local school then really your argument is absurd that ownership = malicious intent.

While you're at it, could you link to any mass murders performed with a .22 Olympic style rifle? Thanks.

Your own link provides several examples of that caliber being used.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

I'm sure we could find the most unlikely things being used in mass killings if we stay at it long enough. Even cars.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

To concede I'd first have to argue against.

My source is that as you say many people travel to shoot guns for pleasure, others have written their state constitution to identify them as a means of recreation.

Do you get pleasure from shooting firearms, and if so what firearms do you shoot, how many rounds might you use over an average session.

Why is my recreational shooting a factor? Please, do explain why my legal actions are even being questioned? I'd be curious about what you are getting at.

MadsL

Sauve wrote: »

Mod

MadsL and Dan_Solo,

For the love of jaysus will ye cut out the bickering. If y can't discuss something without poking at each other, then don't bother at all.

Thanks.

Noted. Apologies.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Your own link provides several examples of that caliber being used.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

A .22 single shot rifle? Could you specify which mass killing used this type of rifle, or did you deliberately reference only the calibre to make a non-point?

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Recreation
Hunting
Collections of mint /rare objects (investments)
Home defense

People hunt in cities with Desert Eagle magnums? Mmmmk...
If they are for collection why do they need to be functional?
Home defense is sorta the same as "killing people" too TBH.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

A .22 single shot rifle? Could you specify which mass killing used this type of rifle, or did you deliberately reference only the calibre to make a non-point?

Single shot? Olympic rifles are bolt-action.

There are plenty of examples in your mapped link of .22 rifles being used.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

People hunt in cities with Desert Eagle magnums? Mmmmk...

Plenty of people in cities hunt with AR-15s. I'll be picking up some Elk meat later from a friend of mine that took her elk tag this year with her AR-15.

If they are for collection why do they need to be functional?

Really?
Would you collect a Ferrari with no engine? Would it be worth the same?

Home defense is sorta the same as "killing people" too TBH.

It patently isn't. And I speak from the experience of a friend who shot an intruder. She wanted him not to rape her, rather than have him dead. He survived three shots and did time for attempted rape and burglary.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Single shot? Olympic rifles are bolt-action.

There are plenty of examples in your mapped link of .22 rifles being used.

http://www.issf-sports.org/theissf/championships/olympic_games.ashx

Small bore, single loaded rifle in 5.6 mm (.22 Long Rifle) calibre

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Plenty of people in cities hunt with AR-15s. I'll be picking up some Elk meat later from a friend of mine that took her elk tag this year with her AR-15.

There were 2,000,000 AR15s produced for US domestic use just between 2000 and 2010. You reckon a lot of them are used to feed people?

MadsL wrote: »

Really?
Would you collect a Ferrari with no engine? Would it be worth the same?

Well I wouldn't collect Ferraris if they were banned as being of no benefit to society in comparison to their risk. If that makes the price drop, well, ah shuck?

MadsL wrote: »

It patently isn't. And I speak from the experience of a friend who shot an intruder. She wanted him not to rape her, rather than have him dead. He survived three shots and did time for attempted rape and burglary.

Ask for data, receive anecdote.
In any case, the gun is still designed to kill people, whether it completed the job or not or who was shot.

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

http://www.issf-sports.org/theissf/championships/olympic_games.ashx

Single shot doesn't mean they only fire once.

What is your argument exactly? Restrict US citizens to single-shot firearms?

MadsL

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There were 2,000,000 AR15s produced for US domestic use just between 2000 and 2010. You reckon a lot of them are used to feed people?

Well the one my friend owns produces delicious elk. There are 320 million people in the US. 2 million guns is peanuts.

Well I wouldn't collect Ferraris if they were banned as being of no benefit to society in comparison to their risk. If that makes the price drop, well, ah shuck?

I have a 'collectable' car to sell you. I'm keeping the engine, but pay me full price huh?

sk for data, receive anecdote.
In any case, the gun is still designed to kill people, whether it completed the job or not or who was shot.

You asked for me to agree with your 'sorta' equating of home defense with killing people. Clearly they are not the same. Any rational person would hope the intruder would flee rather than them having to shoot them in defense.

fryup

they should take the american senate to court for allowing their crazy gun laws to stand

MadsL

fryup wrote: »

they should take the american senate to court for allowing their crazy gun laws to stand

They are not laws, but constitutional rights. Which would involve a further amendment to change.

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

What is your argument exactly? Restrict US citizens to single-shot firearms?

Why would you assume I would single out US citizens?
For recreational shooting, why would you need more than a single shot firearm?

Ronin247

This whole argument reminds me of the old story of the alleged interview of a US General, not sure has it been mentioned as I didn't read the full thread.


"FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL REINWALD: We’re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and
shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That’s a bit irresponsible, isn’t it?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don’t see why, they’ll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL REINWALD: I don’t see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL REINWALD: Well, ma’am, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?"




Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.... lets ban people

Dan_Solo

MadsL wrote: »

Well the one my friend owns produces delicious elk. There are 320 million people in the US. 2 million guns is peanuts.

That's 2 million of one type of AR in one decade.
Never tasted elk myself. Is it like venison?

MadsL wrote: »

I have a 'collectable' car to sell you. I'm keeping the engine, but pay me full price huh?

You're repeating the same refuted argument here. If the buyer is banned from using the firearm, why would he be interested in the first place?

MadsL wrote: »

You asked for me to agree with your 'sorta' equating of home defense with killing people. Clearly they are not the same. Any rational person would hope the intruder would flee rather than them having to shoot them in defense.

Ah, so guns for home defence are only there to scare people off. Shoot them into the air, yeah? Don't tell the criminals mind you, or they'll know it's all a bluff!
C'mon off it. Whatever you "hope" for, the gun is designed to shoot people.

The Diabolical Monocle

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why would you assume I would single out US citizens?
For recreational shooting, why would you need more than a single shot firearm?

You can't go pew-pew-pew nanananananana with a single shot.

And after all - thats whats most important.

Dan_Solo

Ronin247 wrote: »

Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.... lets ban people

Couldn't get further from a logic argument there if you tried TBH.
We need people because that's, like, what we are.
We don't need large capacity large calibre firearms freely available to civilians because they are a net negative to society.

Dan_Solo

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

You can't go pew-pew-pew nanananananana with a single shot.

And after all - thats whats most important.

Well you can make the noise yourself while you learn how to hit a target.
(which apparently is what recreational shooting is about)

Manic Moran

Dan_Solo wrote: »

FTFY.
Why pretend they are only used for "defense"? Are there any stats on how many civilians have saved themselves from a shooting by having their own firearm?

Not specifically, because in order to be sure they would have been shot had they not used their own firearm, then they would have had to have not defended themselves and then gotten shot. We can only make estimates.

However, the closest figure we have available is "Defensive Gun Uses", which is basically how many times someone felt at risk and grabbed their weapon. It includes threatening and not shooting, shooting and missing, shooting and wounding, and shooting and killing.

The problem with that is that there is no reliable figure, with a massive range depending on quite how the question is framed. About the lowest figure is from an anti-gun group survey, about 70,000 a year. 100,000 or so is a more common low-end estimate. At the higher end, figures in excess of 3.5 million are touted.

The other problem appears to be that we don't really have modern figures available to us. Bureau of Justice Statistics stats from the late 80s, before the current wave of firearms prevalence amongst the citizenry, state about 85,000 a year, although those are based on a sample of reported crimes (about 3/4 of these were violent crimes) and not crimes which were averted and so not reported. The last time that the Dept of Justice took a look at the figures was 1994, the conclusion was that 1.5 million DGUs annually was probably about right. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
But, again, that was 20 years ago.

Ronin247

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Couldn't get further from a logic argument there if you tried TBH.
We need people because that's, like, what we are.
We don't need large capacity large calibre firearms freely available to civilians because they are a net negative to society.

Technically we do not need clothes, big cars, big houses so should they all be banned? A big car is a net negative due to the carbon footprint so lets ban big cars. It takes too much labour/ material to build a large house so everyone should only be allowed one that covers the basics?

Automatic firearms are perfectly legal and constitutionally protected by the second amendment in a democracy, you may not like it, but it is a democracy.The reasoning behind it in the American Constitution was supposedly that the only thing that would keep the Government in line was the fear of an armed militia.

Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.

The Diabolical Monocle

Ronin247 wrote: »

Technically we do not need clothes, big cars, big houses so should they all be banned? A big car is a net negative due to the carbon footprint so lets ban big cars. It takes too much labour/ material to build a large house so everyone should only be allowed one that covers the basics?

Automatic firearms are perfectly legal and constitutionally protected by the second amendment in a democracy, you may not like it, but it is a democracy.The reasoning behind it in the American Constitution was supposedly that the only thing that would keep the Government in line was the fear of an armed militia.

Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.

Yeah a militia from centuries ago, armed with blackpowder long arms that went something like this.

Loose !! ....kneel, ye powder, ye rod, ye leaden balles, ye flinte, stand, aim, hold, target within ye 100 paces .... Loose !!

Dan_Solo

Ronin247 wrote: »

Technically we do not need clothes, big cars, big houses so should they all be banned? A big car is a net negative due to the carbon footprint so lets ban big cars. It takes too much labour/ material to build a large house so everyone should only be allowed one that covers the basics?

Automatic firearms are perfectly legal and constitutionally protected by the second amendment in a democracy, you may not like it, but it is a democracy.The reasoning behind it in the American Constitution was supposedly that the only thing that would keep the Government in line was the fear of an armed militia.

Guns do not kill people, people with guns kill people.

Saying something refuted twice doesn't really make it magically true I'm afraid.
We need people. We do not need large capacity large calibre firearms in civilian ownership need. Nothing you have said changes that.
There's no denying they are currently legal and constitutional in the US. This isn't any case whatsoever that this is the right thing in modern times for the benefit of US society.

Dar

Dan_Solo wrote: »

This isn't any case whatsoever that this is the right thing in modern times for the benefit of US society.

Of course there's a case, just not one you agree with.

Dan_Solo

Ronin247 wrote: »

Technically we do not need clothes

Somebody hasn't been in Ireland in December, eh?

fryup

fryup wrote: »

they should take the american senate to court for allowing their crazy gun laws to stand

MadsL wrote: »

They are not laws, but constitutional rights. Which would involve a further amendment to change.

in which their senate were too chicken to change a few years back

Dan_Solo

Dar wrote: »

Of course there's a case, just not one you agree with.

Er, no, I'm right, times ten...
Have you any actual argument or are you just saying "you're wrong"?

SwiftJustice

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Yeah a militia from centuries ago, armed with blackpowder long arms that went something like this.

Loose !! ....kneel, ye powder, ye rod, ye leaden balles, ye flinte, stand, aim, hold, target within ye 100 paces .... Loose !!

I think the American Constitution is an amazing document. It was written in the 1700's and it provides freedoms to the people that people dictatorships today would die for. It was written by the very people who defeated the British 'tyrants' and they put checks and balances into the structure of government to ensure that a tyrannical government would never rise again.

The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which reaffirms the inalienable rights of the citizens. It protects the first amendment. If the 1st and 2nd amendments were in the Syrian contstitution we wouldn't be witnessing the bloodbath we see today.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

You can't go pew-pew-pew nanananananana with a single shot.

And after all - thats whats most important.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well you can make the noise yourself while you learn how to hit a target.
(which apparently is what recreational shooting is about)

Nice to see your arguments simply reduce to ridicule. Convincing.

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Yeah a militia from centuries ago, armed with blackpowder long arms that went something like this.

Loose !! ....kneel, ye powder, ye rod, ye leaden balles, ye flinte, stand, aim, hold, target within ye 100 paces .... Loose !!

Did you miss the part where pointed out automatic weapons were already invented.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Saying something refuted twice doesn't really make it magically true I'm afraid..

That's me off the hook then.

fryup wrote: »

in which their senate were too chicken to change a few years back

When?

The Senate doesn't typically form amendments, non of the 27 have been formulated that way.

fryup

MadsL wrote: »

When?

The Senate doesn't typically form amendments, non of the 27 have been formulated that way.

they had the opportunity to change it but did a u-turn at the last minute

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/04/senate-vote-background-checks/64331/

The Diabolical Monocle

SwiftJustice wrote: »

I think the American Constitution is an amazing document. It was written in the 1700's and it provides freedoms to the people that people dictatorships today would die for. It was written by the very people who defeated the British 'tyrants' and they put checks and balances into the structure of government to ensure that a tyrannical government would never rise again.

The 2nd amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which reaffirms the inalienable rights of the citizens. It protects the first amendment. If the 1st and 2nd amendments were in the Syrian contstitution we wouldn't be witnessing the bloodbath we see today.

All very true but none of it sides with the gun nuts.

You might note that it refers to freedom to bear arms - yet anti-tank systems aren't frequently available in walmart. Surely thats breaking the American peoples constitutional rights.

Time and change trumps everything ... even amendments to constitutions written in a time before your great great great grandfather.

The Diabolical Monocle

MadsL wrote: »

Nice to see your arguments simply reduce to ridicule. Convincing.



Did you miss the part where pointed out automatic weapons were already invented.

You think Im being ridiculous in my arguments .... interesting.
Anyhoo, tell me of these automatic weapons that were already invented at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.

Im guessing they involved at least one turning handle and possibly some water cooled steam powered brass cogs.

Aye - Tis a fine weapon but sure it is not goode for shooting up ye picture house English.

ScumLord

MadsL wrote: »

Do you consider an off-road vehicle a "toy"?

Unless you need it to survive then yes, it's a complete toy.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I really don't see why people are worked up over "The purpose of a gun is to kill people". Well, duh. What's wrong with that? So far, it's the best tool we seem to have come up with for defending ourselves. Once someone invents something better (Phasers set to stun?)

... Or civilised society. :pac:

It is pointless trying to convince Americans that they shouldn't have a country polluted with guns, but it's a culture thing. Ireland came out of hundreds of years of being oppressed by a country that used its military might to get it's way. America didn't really have to suffer that in the same way we did, the gun gave America it's freedom whereas in Ireland the gun kept us in line. Our civil war is just about out of living memory and you can still see the bullet holes in buildings from that conflict, whereas in America time allowed for the living memory of people that suffered the gun to pass into legend.

At the end of the day America and Europe are at very different stages in their development. Europe is still getting over the effects of the gun and war, America hasn't had to suffer it's full effects in a long time.

All I can think as a European is that at least it's happening thousands of miles away from me.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

All very true but none of it sides with the gun nuts.

As always, when unable to make a coherent and practical argument, resort to name-calling.

You might note that it refers to freedom to bear arms - yet anti-tank systems aren't frequently available in walmart. Surely thats breaking the American peoples constitutional rights.

Nothing in the second amendment prevents either individual states or Federal Govt passing restrictions, as evidenced by the restrictions on fully automatic firearms. It is up to the Supreme Court(s) to determine if the legislation violates the 2nd Amendment.

Time and change trumps everything ... even amendments to constitutions written in a time before your great great great grandfather.

Consider how few of them have required changes.

MadsL

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

You think Im being ridiculous in my arguments .... interesting.
Anyhoo, tell me of these automatic weapons that were already invented at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.

Im guessing they involved at least one turning handle and possibly some water cooled steam powered brass cogs.

Aye - Tis a fine weapon but sure it is not goode for shooting up ye picture house English.

Do you even read my posts? I even quoted you.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93470553&postcount=122

9 rounds a minute would have been shock and awe in the 1720s.