Shooting in California

Jelle1880

BattleCorp wrote: »

I live in Ireland. Shooting is my sport/hobby. I stand up for the vast majority of gun owners who are fully licenced law abiding citizens.

I don't stand up for ar5eholes who commit crimes with their firearms and the full weight of the law should be thrown at them.

When it comes to debate about terrorists, criminals and guns, licenced gun owners are thrown into the mix when it's nothing to do with them.

The amount of legally licenced gun owners who commit crimes is a tiny tiny minority. Over 99% of us live normal, law abiding lives, we just happen to enjoy shooting. It's fully licenced and regulated here in Ireland.

Banning guns because of the actions of so few seems unfair in my opinion.

A tiny minority of gun owners commit crimes with their firearms and there is a clamour to ban guns.

A tiny minority of Muslims commit terrorist crimes. There's not much of a clamour to ban Muslims.

So as a gun owner would you not say that the government has an obligation to ensure that only normal, law abiding people get their hands on a gun ?

I'm not familiar with the law in Ireland but I assume a background check is part of the process ?

BattleCorp

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So as a gun owner would you not say that the government has an obligation to ensure that only normal, law abiding people get their hands on a gun ?

I'm not familiar with the law in Ireland but I assume a background check is part of the process ?

Yes, I agree that the Government should only allow normal, law abiding people to get their hands on a gun and yes again, we do have background checks.

You can't legally get a gun in Ireland for self defence. That's not allowed.

You can't legally get a gun in Ireland just because you want one. You must be able to show the Gardai that you have a legitimate use for one such as target shooting, hunting, vermin control etc.

Then you have to fill in an eight page form in which you must tell the Gardai who your doctor is and that you are giving them permission to check up on you. In reality, I've no idea if the Gardai follow up on this with every application. You must also provide two references to your character etc.

We also have secure storage rules over here for rifles and pistols, that means approved gun cabinets. If you have more than one shotgun, you must have a safe too. They can insist that you have a monitored alarm on your house etc.

We are also very limited in the type/calibre of firearms that we are allowed to licence.

The whole process can take up to three months, and longer in some cases.

fed up sick and tired

wes wrote: »

You complain about cheap insults, while doing exactly that in regards to other posters. Its amazing that you are guilty of exactly what your accusing other posters of doing. Seriously the amount of hypocrisy is truly stunning.

You're easily stunned.

There are others with whom I have no points of agreement, but who can make their point, and allow me to make mine. No problem there whatsoever.

I don't represent the growing tendency in our society and discourse, of shutting down opposition to the received wisdom of the politically-correct agenda. Ask Ann Cryer for the negative consequences of that.

I just won't tolerate specific ignorant fools who try to curtail free discussion with the typical tactical insults of the so-called 'liberal' tendency. The fact that they aren't smart enough to pull it off is just worse for them.


.

JustShon

BattleCorp wrote: »

There's not much of a clamour to ban Muslims.

There kind of is a clamour to "ban" Muslims. There are people clamouring to have them all deported or to have the hijab banned in public or even more extreme steps depending on how crazy you want to get.

I also can't agree with that image. It's a false equivalency. If I tried to kill dozens of people with just a baseball bat, knife or piece of string I wouldn't get very far.

I'm not part of the ban all guns brigade by any means, I'd like to try target shooting someday and could definitely see myself enjoying it as a hobbie but I don't think those two points in particular have much weight, sorry.

Hyzepher

The NRA are so biased and profit blind that they see no issue with allowing suspected terrorists - currently on no-fly lists - to have the right to buy weapons.

These are people who are viewed as such a threat that the authorities do no allow them in a plane. The NRA want the right for gun companies to sell to these people upheld.

The NRA aren't interested in their members or the general public. They are interested in profits for gun companies and maintaining power over elected officials.

If they were interested in people then I can't see how they wouldn't support background checks, the banning of armour piercing ammunition and the control of assault weapons. Apparently 90% of their members support tighter gun control but still they oppose it.

The NRA are part of the problem.

wes

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

You're easily stunned.

There are others with whom I have no points of agreement, but who can make their point, and allow me to make mine. No problem there whatsoever.

Hard to believe that considering the language you are using.

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

I don't represent the growing tendency in our society and discourse, of shutting down opposition to the politically-correct agenda.

You called people "enablers of fascism", how is that no trying to shut people up?

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

I just won't tolerate ignorant fools who try to curtail free discussion with the typical tactical insults of the so-called 'liberal' tendency.

So you calling people ignorant fools, and then accusing other of using insults. The fact that you don't see anything hypocritical about this, is again stunning. The old saying of those in glass shoes shouldn't throw rocks comes to mind.

JustShon

wes wrote: »

The old saying of those in glass shoes shouldn't throw rocks comes to mind.

Glass houses man, it's glass houses...

Otherwise I agree with you.

wes

JustShon wrote: »

Glass houses man, it's glass houses...

See this is what happens when you watch Cinderella one times to many.

BattleCorp

JustShon wrote: »

I'm not part of the ban all guns brigade by any means, I'd like to try target shooting someday and could definitely see myself enjoying it as a hobbie but I don't think those two points in particular have much weight, sorry.

Target shooting is great craic and very competitive if you take it seriously. It's expensive though.

The problem is that although you say you don't want to ban all guns, what guns do you want to ban? What would that ban achieve?

The reason that pro-gun groups such as the NRA won't give an inch is because if they do give an inch, then the authorities will come back for more.

This happens in Ireland. In 2009 we pretty much lost centrefire pistol target shooting. Did it stop any deaths........... no, not one. There is no record of licenced pistols being used to commit a crime here in Ireland, ever. So banning something that wasn't a problem achieved what? It stopped law abiding target shooters from taking part in that section of the sport. Did it affect criminals, absolutely not. They never bothered licencing their guns in the first place.

Quite recently the Gardai came after more guns, they wanted .22 pistols pretty much gone, most types of shotguns, all semi-auto centrefire rifles and so on..........gone. All the shooting bodies came together and put up a united front and argued our case. We managed to save most of our sport although no new licences will be issued for semi-auto centrefire rifles until further discussions take place. What will that achieve, absolutely nothing. Licenced semi-auto centrefire rifle owners aren't committing crimes with their guns.

Banning guns only affects law abiding licence holders. It does feckall to stop criminals or terrorists.

JustShon

BattleCorp wrote: »

what guns do you want to ban?

I think you mistook me. I don't want guns banned. I think we're good as we are here in Ireland and in the US it would be massively impractical.

I'm more in favour of strict checks prior to issuing a gun license, which I'm given to understand we already have here but it's quite lax in the states.

Do I think stricter checks for gun licenses will stop mass shootings? God no. The problem runs much deeper than that. It's a fraction of a step in the right direction though.

Copa Mundial

Pretty damning cover page from the Daily News over there.

BenedrylPete

It wont change in Usa. Heres why.

Before any tightening of gun laws, anyone with any reason first has to wade through:

• conspiracy nuts/race war/online special forces types.
• the ones who genuinely dont get this foreign concept.
• the ones who know but just dont care/can't be bothered.
• the ones who pretend to care but like playing soldiers too much.
• those who make profit.
• billy-bob/bubba types.
• industry/political circles.

Many of the above have knee-jerk rhetoric, jingoism and partially true arguments on their side, and are only too happy to cloud and confuse the issues.

Includes a large portion of simpletons too. Good luck convincing them that shiny things and explosions might be bad sometimes.

Also, you're going to have some time amending a constitution which many stupidly believe can't be amended ... while quoting amendments.

And on top of all that its now become something of a personal identity/political sport issue between two tribes, with both sides not wanting their team to lose.

BattleCorp

JustShon wrote: »

I think you mistook me. I don't want guns banned. I think we're good as we are here in Ireland and in the US it would be massively impractical.

I'm more in favour of strict checks prior to issuing a gun license, which I'm given to understand we already have here but it's quite lax in the states.

Do I think stricter checks for gun licenses will stop mass shootings? God no. The problem runs much deeper than that. It's a fraction of a step in the right direction though.

There are improvements needed on firearms laws here in Ireland but I'll agree with everything that you have said.

Apologies for taking you up wrong.

Dohnjoe

fed up sick and tired wrote: »

I hope Nodin, Alastair, and their ilk are absorbing all of this, though I doubt it.

Stifling debate by cheap insults, smearing people with hysterical name-calling who don't share your world-view, derailing the discussion with loaded but irrelevant questions - profiling of a sort...

you are enablers of fascism.

Might want to take your own advice there..

JustShon

BattleCorp wrote: »

Apologies for taking you up wrong.

No worries man

JPNelsforearm

Copa Mundial wrote: »

Pretty damning cover page from the Daily News over there.

HAHA, Islamic terrorists attack, "LETS MAKE THIS A POLITICAL GUN CONTROL ISSUE"

JustShon

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Islamic terrorists attack

Has it been confirmed that they're Islamic terrorists?

JPNelsforearm

JustShon wrote: »

Has it been confirmed that they're Islamic terrorists?

Yes

Copa Mundial

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

HAHA, Islamic terrorists attack, "LETS MAKE THIS A POLITICAL GUN CONTROL ISSUE"

It's reported that one of the guns was purchased legally, so while it's arguably a terribly vague connection between the shooting and gun control laws it's a connection nonetheless.

fed up sick and tired

I didn't want to derail the thread, so anyone who wants to take this to pm, I will be happy to do so.

JustShon

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Yes

Source?

Jelle1880

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

HAHA, Islamic terrorists attack, "LETS MAKE THIS A POLITICAL GUN CONTROL ISSUE"

I wouldn't be surprised if they got their guns quite easily and completely legal.

Walmart for example. Or maybe a gun convention where background checks are not needed.

They are quite fast with changing the debate to gun control but it's a valid issue.

Amazingfun

JustShon wrote: »

Source?

:pac: try reading the very thread you're "contributing" to......

The Randy Riverbeast

JustShon wrote: »

Source?

Supposedly he was a Muslim, although we don't know if it was religiously motivated as before it seemed like there was an argument, it looked a bit too well prepared to be a spur of the moment.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-syed-farook-had-traveled-to-saudi-arabia-married-appeared-to-live-american-dream-co-workers-say-20151202-story.html

Its good news for the Trump and followers who wish to implements policies from 1940s Germany. At least he integrated well into American society, if in doubt shoot it up.

ceadaoin.

I'm sure that if the motive is confirmed to be ideological, posters on here will be rushing to blame US foreign policy. For some reason, it seems American victims of terrorism aren't deserving of the same sympathy as others. It's always their own fault somehow

RasTa

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

HAHA, Islamic terrorists attack, "LETS MAKE THIS A POLITICAL GUN CONTROL ISSUE"

Of course, it's too easy for any nutjob to get automatic weapons.

Just limit everyone to handguns and be done with it

JustShon

Amazingfun wrote: »

:pac: try reading the very thread you're "contributing" to......

I've seen plenty of speculation based around the fact that these people seemed middle eastern but no direct confirmation that they're Islamic extremists.

Try being civil.

Amazingfun

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Supposedly he was a Muslim, although we don't know if it was religiously motivated as before it seemed like there was an argument, although it looked a bit too well prepared to be a spur of the moment.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-syed-farook-had-traveled-to-saudi-arabia-married-appeared-to-live-american-dream-co-workers-say-20151202-story.html

Its good news for the Trump and followers who wish to implements policies from 1940s Germany. At least he integrated well into American society, if in doubt shoot it up.

His own father and apparently everyone who knew him says so, but hey, what do they know?

Trump didn't shoot anyone, and so far he is the only politician I have ever seen express actual and genuine concern and sympathy for everyday victims of violence, the people who don't have big political movements (funded by George Soros) behind them. I am sure he is very sad to see yet more innocents die at the hands of these psychos.

Trump is also the only one with a solid plan on how to combat this problem.

I can't wait til he is President of The United States.

Jelle1880

Amazingfun wrote: »

His own father and apparently everyone who knew him says so, but hey, what do they know?

Trump didn't shoot anyone, and so far he is the only politician I have ever seen express actual and genuine concern and sympathy for everyday victims of violence, the people who don't have big political movements (funded by George Soros) behind them. I am sure he is very sad to see yet more innocents die at the hands of these psychos.

Trump is also the only one with a solid plan on how to combat this problem.

I can't wait til he is President of The United States.

His plan is to give more guns to more people. Is there a set amount of guns that will solve this issue ? When they reach 1 billion guns the amount of mass shootings will drop ?

That's not a plan, that's pandering to his hardcore republican fanbase.

If he is the only politician you've seen to show sadness you need to open your eyes.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amazingfun wrote: »

His own father and apparently everyone who knew him says so, but hey, what do they know?

Trump didn't shoot anyone, and so far he is the only politician I have ever seen express actual and genuine concern and sympathy for everyday victims of violence, the people who don't have big political movements (funded by George Soros) behind them. I am sure he is very sad to see yet more innocents die at the hands of these psychos.

Trump is also the only one with a solid plan on how to combat this problem.

I can't wait til he is President of The United States.

Well nobody else has managed to do much about stopping shootings. With his comments about the Paris shootings I dont see anything changing.