Gun Control

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

ancapailldorcha, describing an animal as innocent is the level of thinking I would expect from a child. Is a lion evil for killing and eating an antelope? Is a fish evil for eating an innocent fly? Ridiculous argument. Hunting for food is about as natural as you can get, far more so than the industrial slaughter that puts meat on shelves.

You keep repeating yourself in lieu of actually engaging with the point I made. The vast majority of the population can't hunt for pragmatic reason, hence the "industrial slaughter". Hunting is a pastime of people in the countryside and there's no justification for it as far as I can see.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You can claim that the government doesn't currently oppress its citizens? Do you feel that the intrusion into peoples electronic lives as surveillance isn't oppression? How about the numbers of people imprisoned on minor drug violations? Are these not examples of systematic denials of peoples rights and freedoms?

Of course it is. What difference do you think widespread firearm ownership will make? This happened on a massive scale in the US and guns made no difference whatsoever.

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You keep repeating yourself in lieu of actually engaging with the point I made. The vast majority of the population can't hunt for pragmatic reason, hence the "industrial slaughter". Hunting is a pastime of people in the countryside and there's no justification for it as far as I can see.



Of course it is. What difference do you think widespread firearm ownership will make? This happened on a massive scale in the US and guns made no difference whatsoever.

Hunting has many purposes, and it is certainly not restricted to people from the country. Beyond providing food, it is also useful for controlling populations of game animals, deer being an obvious example. Hunters are also more likely to engage in efforts at preserving natural environments, as opposed to farmers.

Why does hunting need to be justified? It has been a feature of human society since its inception. Clearly you take issue with the concept, fair enough, but that doesn't invalidate it. You have also yet to expand upon your concept of innocence for animals and the morality of hunting as you see it.

Widespread firearm ownership already exists. The number of gun deaths annually is largely made up of career criminals using illegally procured guns, suicides and accidents. You would favor restricting the rights of people are law abiding, responsible gun owners in the hopes of affecting those who already operate outside of the law. Please explain how you think that would be successful.

I think a citizen should be able to protect themselves and their property, using guns if need be. They should also face no barrier to hunting, target shooting or any other recreational activity involving firearms. If you want to impact gun violence, target the criminals who are responsible for conducting such acts. If you want to decrease the amount of suicides, work on providing more mental health care resources. Banning rifles because of cosmetic features, or limiting magazine capacity is not going to accomplish either those goals.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Why does hunting need to be justified? It has been a feature of human society since its inception. Clearly you take issue with the concept, fair enough, but that doesn't invalidate it. You have also yet to expand upon your concept of innocence for animals and the morality of hunting as you see it.

I don't believe that animals should be subject to death at the whims of sport hunters. I do concede your point regarding farmers and deer and would also add other exceptions like exterminators for example. However, I don't think people should be able to wander out into the countryside and gun down animals just because they want to.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Widespread firearm ownership already exists. The number of gun deaths annually is largely made up of career criminals using illegally procured guns, suicides and accidents. You would favor restricting the rights of people are law abiding, responsible gun owners in the hopes of affecting those who already operate outside of the law. Please explain how you think that would be successful.

Do you have a source for this?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think a citizen should be able to protect themselves and their property, using guns if need be. They should also face no barrier to hunting, target shooting or any other recreational activity involving firearms. If you want to impact gun violence, target the criminals who are responsible for conducting such acts. If you want to decrease the amount of suicides, work on providing more mental health care resources. Banning rifles because of cosmetic features, or limiting magazine capacity is not going to accomplish either those goals.

You didn't answer my question about government imprisoning people for drug violations and electronic snooping. What help did firearms provide victims here?

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

K-9, can't quote you because Boards is displaying incorrectly at the mo. The point made was that an oppressive government that would commit crimes and atrocities against its citizens couldn't arise in Europe, such that the idea of the citizenry needing an ability to protect themselves from a predatory government would be ridiculous. Clearly that has not been the case.

Ah yeah, just Bosnia and the old Yugoslavia was a poor example. Though look at East Germany, Romania and Poland, the regimes fell with little or no use of guns.

No prospective President or incumbent is going to ban all guns in the US. Seriously, that would be political suicide and isn't going to happen, so why people use that as a reason to oppose any legislation is beyond me. I suppose the scare tactics by the likes of the NRA are working.

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Overheal, by there words and actions, the anti-gun side has shown their desire to do everything they can to limit citizens ability to own firearms. Pushing legislation that would restrict sales of certain models based solely on meaningless cosmetic features, banning magazines, mandating that manufactures install ludicrous features, the list goes on and on. None of these efforts has had any impact on actual levels of gun violence mind you, just as various efforts to ban concealed carry in places like Chicago.

This is the same approach taken by those who would wish to eliminate abortion, or those who pursue efforts to disenfranchise voters. A continuous, persistent effort to accomplish those goals by passing laws that chip away at the fundamental right in small increments. While I don't agree with some of the things that the NRA does, I am glad that they exist to fight to protect against such efforts.

You made a relevant point that there are laws that cover motor vehicles and medical practices, just as there are for firearms. With all those laws in place, there are still tens of thousands of deaths annually. What new laws do you feel will prevent someone from killing themselves or a criminal from committing a crime? Easier just to pass laws making life more difficult for law abiding citizens.

Just on this, I thought non criminal related gun deaths had gone down over the last decade or so?

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't believe that animals should be subject to death at the whims of sport hunters. I do concede your point regarding farmers and deer and would also add other exceptions like exterminators for example. However, I don't think people should be able to wander out into the countryside and gun down animals just because they want to.



Do you have a source for this?



You didn't answer my question about government imprisoning people for drug violations and electronic snooping. What help did firearms provide victims here?

Your point, iirc, was in reference to the existence of government oppression, and the lack of existence in modern society. Those were examples of oppression that exists right now. They would not justify taking up arms to fight against, however to say that oppression doesn't exist and that it would impossible for it to develop further, to the point where an armed struggle could be necessary, is incorrect imo.

For an overview from Wikipedia,http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Homicides, it ties together various reporting from the CDC and FBI, among others. It shows that suicides account for the majority of gun deaths, followed by homicides. Of those homicides, the majority are committed between the ages of 15 and 34, which would fall into the profile for those engaged in gang activity, given the higher instance proportionately of events involving blacks.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf For 2010, table 18, on pg 83, has a breakdown of causes of death as they relate to firearms, referenced by the wiki entry.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables These are figures for 2010, referenced in the above wiki. The expanded homicide tables give a breakdown of the categories, broken down by age, race etc.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

Ah yeah, just Bosnia and the old Yugoslavia was a poor example. Though look at East Germany, Romania and Poland, the regimes fell with little or no use of guns.

No prospective President or incumbent is going to ban all guns in the US. Seriously, that would be political suicide and isn't going to happen, so why people use that as a reason to oppose any legislation is beyond me. I suppose the scare tactics by the likes of the NRA are working.

Nothing there rebuts my statement. Atrocities have happened in Europe multiple times in the last century, which clearly goes against what OscarBravo said earlier, where he stated that a tyrannical government could never arise in modern Europe. You continue to deride the reasoning behind wanting to maintain some ability for a citizenry to protect itself against its government, despite there being many, many examples happening right now of governments pursuing murderous agendas against their citizens. Syria, Sudan, Ukraine etc. To say this could never happen in a modern society, like Europe, ignores the events that happened in recent memory, like Bosnia, or if you want to stretch further afield, look at instances in South America,like Chile or Argentina. Different circumstances in each case certainly, but a common thread of the government murdering its citizens. The 2nd Amendment is meant to offer some protection against such a scenario arising.

Politicians won't pursue a policy of outright bans, they will chip away piece by piece, restricting access and making it more difficult for a person to legally possess a firearm. This is accomplished by legislation banning features, magazine capacity etc, none of which is apt to impact gun death statistics.

You are correct that gun deaths have been going down, as have murders overall.

Brian?

FISMA. wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

Unlike the US where a civilian owned "AK47" is usually a .22 rifle, te AK47s in Yugoslavia were the real deal deal.

What?

Add your reply here.

I have friends with assault rifles. They're all .22 caliber, unlike the military grade AK47 which is .556 (I think). Does that clear that up?

AbusesToilets

AK-47s are chambered in 7.62x39mm, more modern AK-74s come on 5.45x39mm. There are undoubtably .22 conversions out there for Aks, along with most rifles styles, however they would be far from the norm.

AbusesToilets

AK-47s are chambered in 7.62x39mm, more modern AK-74s come in 5.45x39mm. There are undoubtedly .22 conversions out there for Aks, along with most rifles styles, however they would be far from the norm.

Brian?

I've fired 3 AK47s. All using .223 ammunition. Google AK47 .223 . I'm my experience they are enormously popular.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

I've fired 3 AK47s. All using .223 ammunition. Google AK47 .223 . I'm my experience they are enormously popular.

Not disputing their existence, just commenting that they wouldn't be as typical

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Nothing there rebuts my statement. Atrocities have happened in Europe multiple times in the last century, which clearly goes against what OscarBravo said earlier, where he stated that a tyrannical government could never arise in modern Europe. You continue to deride the reasoning behind wanting to maintain some ability for a citizenry to protect itself against its government, despite there being many, many examples happening right now of governments pursuing murderous agendas against their citizens. Syria, Sudan, Ukraine etc. To say this could never happen in a modern society, like Europe, ignores the events that happened in recent memory, like Bosnia, or if you want to stretch further afield, look at instances in South America,like Chile or Argentina. Different circumstances in each case certainly, but a common thread of the government murdering its citizens. The 2nd Amendment is meant to offer some protection against such a scenario arising.

Politicians won't pursue a policy of outright bans, they will chip away piece by piece, restricting access and making it more difficult for a person to legally possess a firearm. This is accomplished by legislation banning features, magazine capacity etc, none of which is apt to impact gun death statistics.

You are correct that gun deaths have been going down, as have murders overall.

I'm not deriding you or your points, I'm pointing out that you aren't giving good examples of first world countries at all. I do accept that there is what we would call a paranoia in the US over this.

Unless there is a huge sea change in opinion on guns in America, they are going nowhere, and that change isn't going to happen. If high school shooting after another isn't going to change it, then it isn't going to change, because it doesn't seem to matter to people like you how many kids get shot, your right to defend yourself against Government tyrany is worth more than saving kids lives.

Murders are going down so it looks like legislation is working, but maybe they've gone down enough for some, an acceptable level of violence and deaths like Northern Ireland in the 80's.

Manic Moran

K-9 wrote: »

. If high school shooting after another isn't going to change it, then it isn't going to change, because it doesn't seem to matter to people like you how many kids get shot, your right to defend yourself against Government tyrany is worth more than saving kids lives.

I think that's a minority viewpoint, though. Most gun owners are more concerned about protecting themselves and their families, which includes their kids. Not disputing the validity of the government tyranny argument, but I suspect it's not really a common factor in the general discussion.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not deriding you or your points, I'm pointing out that you aren't giving good examples of first world countries at all. I do accept that there is what we would call a paranoia in the US over this.

Unless there is a huge sea change in opinion on guns in America, they are going nowhere, and that change isn't going to happen. If high school shooting after another isn't going to change it, then it isn't going to change, because it doesn't seem to matter to people like you how many kids get shot, your right to defend yourself against Government tyrany is worth more than saving kids lives.

Murders are going down so it looks like legislation is working, but maybe they've gone down enough for some, an acceptable level of violence and deaths like Northern Ireland in the 80's.

I don't personally have some fear of the government rounding me up, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing why the 2nd exists. Being able to defend oneself and property is the much more important aspect of the amendment, however that interpretation is secondary.

Better policing and mental health care will be the most effective tools at reducing the amount of shootings. Banning rifles with pistol grips or bayonet lugs will not.

Overheal

Re your last question toilet: I don't see the requirement for any heavy handed new law. The executive order carried out (expanded funding to mental health care, research grants to smart gun technology, etc) are as useful a step as any.

Also, regarding "cars kill more people", that is not the case in Tennessee apparently: the compiled stats show that the vehicle death rate and the gun death rate intersected in 2014, with those trends expected to continue (growing rate of gun deaths and a shrinking rate of vehicular deaths).

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/state/More-people-shot-to-death-in-Tennessee-than-killed-by-vehicles-366343241.html?d=mobile

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't personally have some fear of the government rounding me up, but that doesn't prevent me from recognizing why the 2nd exists. Being able to defend oneself and property is the much more important aspect of the amendment, however that interpretation is secondary.

Better policing and mental health care will be the most effective tools at reducing the amount of shootings. Banning rifles with pistol grips or bayonet lugs will not.

I suppose you are looking at it from an overall point of view, whereas if I look at more background checks as one issue, I cannot see how they will affect you're rights under the 2nd.

AbusesToilets

I have no issue with improving background checks, to include allowing private parties to access the database. I don't think is some magic bullet of legislation that is going to make a massive impact on gun violence, it is an issue that requires better resource investment. Continuously punishing people who are already obeying the law in an effort to impact those who do not is ludicrous.

K-9

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p029399x/episodes/downloads

Good BBC World Service podcast on the history of the NRA and how they developed into such a successful lobbying group from what was basically a recreational & hobby organisation 40 years ago. It's about 20/25 minutes long but features a couple of prominent members to give an idea of where they are coming from. Don't agree with them but they are a highly effective political lobbying machine!

Ozymandius2011

There are 33000 shooting related deaths in 2013. Most of those would be alive where guns unavailable. Some might be alive if Dylan Roof's background check had not been curtailed by South Carolina law, which requires the applicant to get his gun back within 3 days if the background check is not completed within that time.

Polls consistently show that even GOP voters and NRA members support background checks on all gun purchases. The GOP in Congress are beholden to donations by the gun lobby.

Manic Moran

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

There are 90,000 shooting related deaths in the US each year. Most of those would be alive where guns unavailable. Some might be alive if Dylan Roof's background check had not been curtailed by South Carolina law, which requires the applicant to get his gun back within 3 days if the background check is not completed within that time.

Polls consistently show that even GOP voters and NRA members support background checks on all gun purchases. The GOP in Congress are beholden to donations by the gun lobby.

Where do you get 90,000 from?

As I have said in the past, just because we support background checks on all gun purchases doesn't mean we'll support any background check legislation which comes forward. If it's a bad method of doing it, I'll oppose it, and so did my colleagues. After the Manchin-Toomey bill failed (The one supposedly with 90% support), there was an election the following year. An astonishing number of people seemed to not have minded that their congresscritters voted against their desires. It was an undesirable way of getting to the end-state. There was a counter-proposal put forward by a Republican which would achieve the same result, it was not taken up and lost in the hype of the Presidentially-supported bill.

"Donations" and "Money" isn't it. That same bill saw Bloomberg (Anti-gun millionaire) alone donate $12m to the campaign to pass just that bill. The NRA's political contributions in all of the 2013-2014 election cycle was under $1m. Microsoft threw 2.25 million in its own lobbying. So far this cycle, Environment America has put more lobbying dollars in to achieve its goals (Environmental legislation) than the NRA put in for the entire previous election cycle.

It's not the money. It's something that the politicians care far more about. It's the voters.

One in five gun owners go as far as to donate money, one in five called or wrote their congressman about the background check bill. That's nearly 20 million voters (Remember, NRA membership is under 5 million). One in ten supporters of the bill called or wrote their congressman, and one in about 25 actually cares enough to donate money. Finally, when it comes down to it, we vote. Pro-gun voters are more likely to cast their ballot on the issue than anti-gun voters. Not least, because the laws affect the former and not the latter.

With such a huge block of the voting population being gun owners, (and a few more not owning but supporting in principle), politicians have to be very careful not only about what legislation they propose and support, but how they set about proposing it. Otherwise those ballots don't come in, regardless of the money spent.

Ozymandius2011

Correction 33000 in 2013.

Care to explain what your problem with background checks is?

JPNelsforearm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Correction 33000 in 2013.

Care to explain what your problem with background checks is?

11,000 gun deaths, suicide doesnt count.

Ozymandius2011

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

11,000 gun deaths, suicide doesnt count.

To me they do count.

Manic Moran

In the meantime, significant legal events have taken place in the 4th Circuit yesterday. http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Opinion.pdf , which has kicked the case back to the District court with the admonition that they got it wrong.

In the Blue Corner were Maryland, New York, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachussets, D.C, and Oregon.

In the Red Corner, we found West Virginia, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Kentucky and Wyoming.

At issue: Are "assault weapons" such as the AR-15, and their associated 20-round+ magazines weapons which are covered under 2A, and what level of scrutiny should the law be assessed under?

Held that such weapons are "not dangerous and unusual", and are "commonly held for lawful purposes", that they provide advantages over other sorts of weapons for lawful activities (Such as self defense and hunting, citing a BATF report), and that the 'strict' level of scrutiny should be applied. (Also held that retired cops can be exempted from the law, but that's not so controversial).

So yet again, we have another circuit split which the Supreme Court will have to deliberately ignore if it wants to keep avoiding the issue. Fourth took particular issue with the Seventh's handling of a similar case.

JPNelsforearm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

To me they do count.

You cant blame gun control on people killing themselves, if someone wants to off themselves they will do it.
Look at the stats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

JPNelsforearm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O5rDDvVJwU

How is this possible, center-fire pistols are banned in Ireland...

oscarBravo

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

How is this possible, center-fire pistols are banned in Ireland...

Ah, the old "banning firearms doesn't prevent criminals getting firearms, therefore there's no point banning firearms" argument.

How about this: "banning murder doesn't prevent murder, therefore there's no point banning murder"?

It's a pretty facile argument when you actually bother to think about it, isn't it?

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, the old "banning firearms doesn't prevent criminals getting firearms, therefore there's no point banning firearms" argument.

How about this: "banning murder doesn't prevent murder, therefore there's no point banning murder"?

It's a pretty facile argument when you actually bother to think about it, isn't it?

No, firearms are tools, in of themselves they are harmless, you are talking about banning an object vs "banning" a persons actions that results in the death of another person. And its a false equivalency to link laws around murder of a human being vs laws governing possession of objects/personal freedom to use said objects in a way that causes no harm to anyone.

Its just nanny statism

AbusesToilets

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, significant legal events have taken place in the 4th Circuit yesterday. http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Opinion.pdf , which has kicked the case back to the District court with the admonition that they got it wrong.

In the Blue Corner were Maryland, New York, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachussets, D.C, and Oregon.

In the Red Corner, we found West Virginia, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Kentucky and Wyoming.

At issue: Are "assault weapons" such as the AR-15, and their associated 20-round+ magazines weapons, covered under 2A, and what level of scrutiny should the law be assessed under?

Held that such weapons are "not dangerous and unusual", and are "commonly held for lawful purposes", that they provide advantages over other sorts of weapons for lawful activities (Such as self defense and hunting, citing a BATF report), and that the 'strict' level of scrutiny should be applied. (Also held that retired cops can be exempted from the law, but that's not so controversial).

So yet again, we have another circuit split which the Supreme Court will have to deliberately ignore if it wants to keep avoiding the issue. Fourth took particular issue with the Seventh's handling of a similar case.

Be nice if the SC could knock down the ridiculous laws restricting rifles based on cosmetics that are on the books in these states. California's laws worked a treat in San Bernardino

JPNelsforearm

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Be nice if the SC could knock down the ridiculous laws restricting rifles based on cosmetics that on the books in these states. California's laws worked a treat in San Bernardino

Everyone knows pistol grips, FDE/black polymer and picatinny rails increase the lethality of rifles...

Manic Moran

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Correction 33000 in 2013.

Care to explain what your problem with background checks is?

I have no problem with background checks. I have a problem with the proposed system which required that one involve a private third party (for a fee), and many had a problem with the fact that it maintained records for the government. I'm inclined to lean towards the latter being an issue as well, though it's less of a factor for me.

I would be quite satisfied with a system which merely required someone selling a firearm to call the same NICS system that firearms dealers already call to do a background check. Which, oddly, was the gist of the counter-proposal I had mentioned which was ignored.

Brian?

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

No, firearms are tools, in of themselves they are harmless, you are talking about banning an object vs "banning" a persons actions that results in the death of another person. And its a false equivalency to link laws around murder of a human being vs laws governing possession of objects/personal freedom to use said objects in a way that causes no harm to anyone.

Its just nanny statism

Are you actually serious? Ireland has some of the tightest gun laws in the world. That's what makes the shooting today so noteworthy. The worst mass shooting in Ireland since the troubles ended; 1 dead and 2 injured. That's what tight gun control gets you.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

Are you actually serious? Ireland has some of the tightest gun laws in the world. That's what makes the shooting today so noteworthy. The worst mass shooting in Ireland since the troubles ended; 1 dead and 2 injured. That's what tight gun control gets you.

You mean criminals able to use illegally acquired guns with ease?

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You mean criminals able to use illegally acquired guns with ease?

With ease? Is that what you think? I'd like to see the evidence that the guns were obtained and used "with ease".

Worst mass shooting in Ireland this century: 1 dead, 2 injured.

Phoenix AZ has a population about the same as Ireland, how many shootings in either this week?

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

With ease? Is that what you think? I'd like to see the evidence that the guns were obtained and used "with ease".

Worst mass shooting in Ireland this century: 1 dead, 2 injured.

Phoenix AZ has a population about the same as Ireland, how many shootings in either this week?

There doesn't seem to be a huge difficulty in procuring illegal firearms in the country, going by the reported statistics.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/latest-statistics-show-increase-in-gun-crime-1.2369732

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/grcs/gardarecordedcrimestatistics2009-2013/

Improving economy allowing the drug trade to make a comeback, with the attendant rise in related crime. Not sure about Phoenix, saw reporting of 2 incidents, one involving a drive by, another a shooting by police.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

Phoenix AZ has a population about the same as Ireland, how many shootings in either this week?

Oh, definitely Phoenix. But you have to take the bad with the good. How many women in Ireland defended themselves with a firearm as this Phoenix woman did this week?

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-west-valley/el-mirage/police-man-shot-killed-in-front-of-children-in-el-mirage-home-woman-questioned-and-released

walshyn93

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, the old "banning firearms doesn't prevent criminals getting firearms, therefore there's no point banning firearms" argument.

How about this: "banning murder doesn't prevent murder, therefore there's no point banning murder"?

It's a pretty facile argument when you actually bother to think about it, isn't it?

Except simply owning a gun doesn't hurt anyone whereas murder always does. Your comparison isn't as water tight as you thought it was.

walshyn93

Brian? wrote: »

Are you actually serious? Ireland has some of the tightest gun laws in the world. That's what makes the shooting today so noteworthy. The worst mass shooting in Ireland since the troubles ended; 1 dead and 2 injured. That's what tight gun control gets you.

It could have easily been 50 people dead and you well know it. It depends on the motive of the shooter how many people die, not the gun laws in that jurisdiction. Those people ran out a side door and if it had been an ISIS attack there likely would have been another AK47 waiting for them. Gun laws notwithstanding. We also have an open border with Northern Ireland where 22 calibre semi-auto rifles are legal for personal protection.

I think you'll find that the reason we and other civilised countries have so few loons gunning people down and stabbing them is because we actually keep people like that in mental institutions whereas in the States they're just doped up on looney pills and left to roam the streets. From living in an American city the sheer number of crazies you see in day to day life is just absurd.


But to be clear I don't necessarily advocate legalising guns in Ireland just in America. America already has a lot of guns so banning them would be stupid. Ireland doesn't have that many so it makes sense to try and keep it that way. If the balance ever swung so far in favour of the criminals then I would change my position.

Brian?

My point is that in Ireland criminals have guns. They have a very difficult procuring them and use them to kill other criminals, by in large. It's highly unusual for a crime like this to occur. Are our tight restrictions on guns the only reason? No, they're not. But they help. It takes time and large sums of money to get an AK here, much harder for a teenager with a chip on his soldier to get his hands on one and walk into a school shooting.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

My point is that in Ireland criminals have guns. They have a very difficult procuring them and use them to kill other criminals, by in large. It's highly unusual for a crime like this to occur. Are our tight restrictions on guns the only reason? No, they're not. But they help. It takes time and large sums of money to get an AK here, much harder for a teenager with a chip on his soldier to get his hands on one and walk into a school shooting.

The statistics are showing a rise in gun crime in the state, so your assertion that they are difficult items for criminals to procure would seem to be dubious. The laws on the books did not prevent these criminals from committing a brazen shooting in public, but they certainly make it extremely hard for a shooting enthusiast to enjoy their sport.

K-9

Something like that attack yesterday is going to happen with liberal or strict laws, whereas I'd say mass shootings in schools are less likely in stricter regimes.

AbusesToilets

K-9 wrote: »

Something like that attack yesterday is going to happen with liberal or strict laws, whereas I'd say mass shootings in schools are less likely in stricter regimes.

There is some truth to that, however there is a large media factor that plays into mass shootings, one that is not present elsewhere to the extent it is in the US.

JPNelsforearm

K-9 wrote: »

Something like that attack yesterday is going to happen with liberal or strict laws, whereas I'd say mass shootings in schools are less likely in stricter regimes.

Using Aus and NZ as an example, Australia imposed strict gun laws after Port Arthur, NZ didnt, both have experienced similar drops in gun crime and a complete lack of mass shootings. Anti personal freedom adherents would have you believe that the lack of a mass shooting is down to gun control, as opposed to downward trends in Western society in general, as regards violence.

K-9

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There is some truth to that, however there is a large media factor that plays into mass shootings, one that is not present elsewhere to the extent it is in the US.

Well if you go back to the first high profile cases, naturally they attract huge media and political focus, same as Dunblane or Norway. So the question has to is it just media fuelling these copycat murder sprees or are there other factors, the gun culture in America one of them?

Overheal

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Everyone knows pistol grips, FDE/black polymer and picatinny rails increase the lethality of rifles...

Do they somehow not increase the effectiveness of the weapon? Devils advocate. Easier grip less recoil and more shots between reloads.

ChicagoIrish

America doesn't have a problem with guns. If you want some proof, just look at switzerland. Every man is REQUIRED BY LAW to own a gun ISSUED BY THE ARMY and it's one of the most crime free countries in the world.
America's real problem is mental health (for mass shootings, which might i add are a small percent of all gun deaths) and gangs (the bulk of gun deaths in america).
if you want more proof, look at england. gun restrictions are extremely tight, but it's still extremely violent, just with knives instead of guns.
just my two cents.

Brian?

Overheal wrote: »

Do they somehow not increase the effectiveness of the weapon? Devils advocate. Easier grip less recoil and more shots between reloads.

They do, that's the point of the pistol grip AFAIK.

Brian?

ChicagoIrish wrote: »

America doesn't have a problem with guns. If you want some proof, just look at switzerland. Every man is REQUIRED BY LAW to own a gun ISSUED BY THE ARMY and it's one of the most crime free countries in the world.
America's real problem is mental health (for mass shootings, which might i add are a small percent of all gun deaths) and gangs (the bulk of gun deaths in america).
if you want more proof, look at england. gun restrictions are extremely tight, but it's still extremely violent, just with knives instead of guns.
just my two cents.

Have you actually compared the gun control laws in Switzerland and the USA? I have, it's on this thread somewhere. Switzerland actually has much tighter gun control laws than the USA, it's a strawman used by pro gun rights advocates to blur the issue.

ChicagoIrish

Brian? wrote: »

Have you actually compared the gun control laws in Switzerland and the USA? I have, it's on this thread somewhere. Switzerland actually has much tighter gun control laws than the USA, it's a strawman used by pro gun rights advocates to blur the issue.

in what way are swiss gun control laws significantly more stringent than american gun laws? assault rifles aren't banned in switzerland (and it's not like you need much more for a school shooting) and many american counties (my own included) have "assault weapon" (dont confuse it with assault rifle, assault weapon is a political term) bans, which bans guns based on appearance.
im half swiss so i would know about these things.