Mass shooting in el paso

notobtuse

BattleCorp wrote: »

I haven't even thought about the left or the right. I don't give a sh1te about that sort of stuff. Both extremes are pretty much the same in my mind.

My point is about violence in movies. Many action films have people hunting people. Hundreds actually.

If you are going to ban movies with violence, your choice of movies will be fairly limited.

And when the violence is gone, what is next on the list to be banned?

Who said anything about banning the movie? Certainly not me. My post was to point out the sickness and hypocrisy of the Left and that the movie shouldn’t have been made in the first place given the currently political climate.

Gatling

skooterblue2 wrote: »

.
Take it up with the Registered Psychologist.

You said , they said .

That leaves us with you and the antedotal claims.


Nothing of which has anything to do with this particular thread

BattleCorp

martingriff wrote: »

I know what SCOTUS has said by there interpretation in a few years in may change. That's the thing with the US constitution being so old it is vague in todays terms (and in its day also) that anyone can say it means this

I'm open to correction but even if the American constitution was changed to remove the 2nd Amendment, I think that individual states have their own constitutions and many of them include the right to bear arms. They'd have to be changed also.

Maybe Manic Moran can clarify that one.

BattleCorp

notobtuse wrote: »

Who said anything about banning the movie? Certainly not me. My post was to point out the sickness and hypocrisy of the Left and that the movie shouldn’t have been made in the first place given the currently political climate.

Not allowing a movie to be made because of its theme is banning a movie before it is made. You are advocating censorship and I'm not a fan of that.

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Either way they dont seem to be keen on them else the place would be like Gaza

Why aint Ireland like Gaza then

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Once again it not the vast majority of the licensed holders you have to worry about ..... its the ones that illegally held that are causing most of the problems. Tackle them first.

I see this time and time again in relation to crimes and tackling crimes of that is bigger so tackle that first. I know this will be a radical thought but why not tackle gun control legal and illegal together at the same time multitask

notobtuse

BattleCorp wrote: »

Not allowing a movie to be made because of its theme is banning a movie before it is made. You are advocating censorship and I'm not a fan of that.

Please don't put lies in my mouth. It pretty much makes everything else you claim worthless. I said the movie shouldn't have been made in the first place... never did I say it should not have been allowed to be made or it should be censored. An apology would be nice but I doubt it would be forthcoming.

Gatling

Since the university of Texas shooting in 1966 the first real mass shooting there 1.5 million have been killed by firearms and another 500,000 injured .

And yet very little gun control

skooterblue2

banie01 wrote: »

You have said the bolded a few times now and you have yet to validate the claim.

I did ask you earlier, but it was likely missed given how busy this thread is.


Even those spree shooters with arguably "illegally obtained" weapons?
Weapons that they bought via illegal channels, rather than took from home?

(I am presuming you are referring to teens taking Father or older brothers weapons) If you were looking after your weapons properly they would be in gunsafes under lock and key as they should be. I do not have numbers to hand. But I am fairly sure there are more than 130 deaths due to mass shooting this year. I cannot find how many people died in regular shooting in the USA across 50 states yesterday but I am sure it is more than 130.

skooterblue2

Gatling wrote: »

Since the university of Texas shooting in 1966 the first real mass shooting there 1.5 million have been killed by firearms and another 500,000 injured .

And yet very little gun control

Define gun control once again.

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

Why aint Ireland like Gaza then

Dont worry we are getting there......

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Different country, different laws, different cultures. But when they were needed the RDF/LDF/FCA/SM all performed well to aid the civil power or in times of emergency when they were called up. I would rather live in a society with no guns at all but thanks to the criminal fraternity and paramilitaries and criminals disguised as paramilitaries and an ineffective justice system, we unfortunately have a short fall.

They certainly have but but times of emergencies is a bit much. How many in those organisation have there guns outside when they are at work for the orgamisations so to speak. FCA do not have guns

banie01

skooterblue2 wrote: »

(I am presuming you are referring to teens taking Father or older brothers weapons) If you were looking after your weapons properly they would be in gunsafes under lock and key as they should be. I do not have numbers to hand. But I am fairly sure there are more than 130 deaths due to mass shooting this year. I cannot find how many people died in regular shooting in the USA across 50 states yesterday but I am sure it is more than 130.

So that's a no?
No you cannot present numbers to back up your thesis that illegally held firearms cause more deaths than legally held ones?

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

I see this time and time again in relation to crimes and tackling crimes of that is bigger so tackle that first. I know this will be a radical thought but why not tackle gun control legal and illegal together at the same time multitask

You mean why dont we send in the Police backed up with the US Army to collect all firearms regardless who owns them? Then let the FBI pick through them? Because legally obtained firearms are lawfully acquired by citizens as their rights to hunt and defend their property and families

skooterblue2

banie01 wrote: »

So that's a no?
No you cannot present numbers to back up your thesis that illegally held firearms cause more deaths than legally held ones?

I am working on it but google isnt presenting me with statics.

banie01

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am working on it but google isnt presenting me with statics.

So where did you get the notion that illegally held guns are more dangerous then?

Surely one would imagine that if licensed guns were as inherently safe and unlikely to be involved in the commission of criminality as the gun lobby would have the public believe, that the gun lobby would be broadcasting those numbers far and wide?

And as for your earlier statement regarding the gun safe and the locking away of firearms.
Whilst that is invariably a licensing requirement here in Ireland, very few states that I am aware of place any such requirement on US gun owners.
Not even trigger locks.

So if the person the guns were "taken" from in any such incidents had met their legal obligation, which included no actual locking away of the firearm.
How are legal firearms any safer?

Gatling

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Define gun control once again.

Strict ownership rules remove,
Severely restrict semi automatic rifles capable and the amount of ammunition you can hold at any time,
Reduce the cyclic rate of firearms available to buy ,
If your buying for home protection a revolver and 12 rounds should be enough.
No ownership for under 21's ,
No conceal carry .
No overt carry in public places.

Most hunters are happy to use bolt action rifles

martingriff

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm open to correction but even if the American constitution was changed to remove the 2nd Amendment, I think that individual states have their own constitutions and many of them include the right to bear arms. They'd have to be changed also.

Maybe Manic Moran can clarify that one.

Well true they would have to remove it as well you are right was not thinking of individual states. I don't think the 2nd amendment will ever be removed. I be in favour of licences to guns (different licence for different guns) restriction on what weapons someone can get unless shown to be needed. Mandatory training and guns and ammo only sold from registered places. A national gun register would be good but not sure it I see that happening. This should be done as part of a wider law on sentences for gun crimes for both legal and illegal guns. But again is the political will up for this

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Dont worry we are getting there......

We are no where near there more fear mongering

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You mean why dont we send in the Police backed up with the US Army to collect all firearms regardless who owns them? Then let the FBI pick through them? Because legally obtained firearms are lawfully acquired by citizens as their rights to hunt and defend their property and families

Did I say that please show me? Is that the only way you see to tackle it

skooterblue2

banie01 wrote: »

So where did you get the notion that illegally held guns are more dangerous then?

Surely one would imagine that if licensed guns were as inherently safe and unlikely to be involved in the commission of criminality as the gun lobby would have the public believe, that the gun lobby would be broadcasting those numbers far and wide?

And as for your earlier statement regarding the gun safe and the locking away of firearms.
Whilst that is invariably a licensing requirement here in Ireland, very few states that I am aware of place any such requirement on US gun owners.
Not even trigger locks.

So if the person the guns were "taken" from in any such incidents had met their legal obligation, which included no actual locking away of the firearm.
How are legal firearms any safer?

Illegal firearms are usually stolen from legally held licence holders. The only reason you would be having an illegal weapon s because you couldnt get a license due to a criminal background. The consequences of being stopped and asked to produce your gun and permit are less severe for having a legally obtained firearm than an illegally obtained firearm (10 years? open to correction).
As my old landlord used to say "a lock only prevents an honest man from stealing". IF you really wanted a fire arm that bad nothing would stop you stealing a fire arm. That gunsafe not only protects the gun but the owner and wold be thief. The legal owner has done their utmost to protect their fire arms.

Then the person who took them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The auld "it slipped into me" bag defense isnt up for debate here.

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

So where did you get the notion that illegally held guns are more dangerous then?

Surely one would imagine that if licensed guns were as inherently safe and unlikely to be involved in the commission of criminality as the gun lobby would have the public believe, that the gun lobby would be broadcasting those numbers far and wide?

And as for your earlier statement regarding the gun safe and the locking away of firearms.
Whilst that is invariably a licensing requirement here in Ireland, very few states that I am aware of place any such requirement on US gun owners.
Not even trigger locks.

So if the person the guns were "taken" from in any such incidents had met their legal obligation, which included no actual locking away of the firearm.
How are legal firearms any safer?

Just on this point.
I have spent some time looking for hard numbers to support the "illegal guns" argument.

Given the reliance placed upon the "fact" that it's criminal elements with illegally obtained firearms that are much more the issue than legally held ones.

There is a huge and very glaring lack of any supporting data for that thesis.
There is a prisoner survey from 2004 that does hold that depending upon the state, 40% to 60% of convicted felons obtained their firearms illegally.
Illegally however does not mean via the black market, it can simply mean misrepresentation of facts at the point of purchase.

However while I can find that survey used as a reference on Politifact, I can't find the raw survey.

This data only applies to crimes where there has been an actual conviction.
The unsolved rate or any without a conviction are explicitly excluded

That the best data for this available is seemingly 14yr survey of felons is worrying given that the Gun Lobby always shout about the illegal guns.

If the illegal guns are such a huge driver of shootings, where is the actual data supporting that thesis?
A lot of very certain statements that it's the criminals that are the issue but no actual data.

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

Did I say that please show me? Is that the only way you see to tackle it

That is what I construed tackling both problems at the same time. You want to collect guns both legal and illegal? I couldnt see any way how you could convince either party to hand them without breaking the second amendment. You are not going to have the illegal guns handed in an amnesty (because I wouldnt trust the police) and I would expect the legal owners to put up an all out defence.

The only way to go after that is to take weapons by force. Unless you had some other idea of how to get law abiding citizen to give up their rights?

banie01

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Illegal firearms are usually stolen from legally held licence holders. The only reason you would be having an illegal weapon s because you couldnt get a license due to a criminal background. The consequences of being stopped and asked to produce your gun and permit are less severe for having a legally obtained firearm than an illegally obtained firearm (10 years? open to correction).
As my old landlord used to say "a lock only prevents an honest man from stealing". IF you really wanted a fire arm that bad nothing would stop you stealing a fire arm. That gunsafe not only protects the gun but the owner and wold be thief. The legal owner has done their utmost to protect their fire arms.

Then the person who took them should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The auld "it slipped into me" bag defense isnt up for debate here.

This is waffle tho.
If I own a gun in Ireland I am legally obligated to ensure my home is alarmed and that I have adequate and secure storage for my firearm.
Indeed best practice here would usually dictate that the weapon is stored partly broken down.

In the US I have no such obligation.
So my son could take my firearm from wherever I keep it without my knowledge.
Use it, and the 1st I know about it is when the search warrant is executed.

Gun control isn't just about people not getting guns.
It's also about ensuring those that do have them, secure and control them adequately.

The fact that in the example above the gun lobby will claim "illegally held" firearm is just highlighting the hypocrisy involved.

An illegally held firearm isn't just one bought on the black market.
It's one bought by a mother and registered to her name, but used by her son. Dad's gun, just borrowed it and so on.

In a jurisdiction where there is no lock and key requirement, gun control needs to be aware of that and not label each instance as "illegal" to strengthen that stance on the part of the NRA et al.

skooterblue2

banie01 wrote: »

Just on this point.
I have spent some time looking for hard numbers to support the "illegal guns" argument.

Given the reliance placed upon the "fact" that it's criminal elements with illegally obtained firearms that are much more the issue than legally held ones.

There is a huge and very glaring lack of any supporting data for that thesis.
There is a prisoner survey from 2004 that does hold that depending upon the state, 40% to 60% of convicted felons obtained their firearms illegally.
Illegally however does not mean via the black market, it can simply mean misrepresentation of facts at the point of purchase.

However while I can find that surgery used as a reference on Politifact, I can't find the raw survey.

This data only applies to crimes where there has been an actual conviction.
The unsolved rate or any without a conviction are explicitly excluded

That the best data for this available is seemingly 14yr survey of felons is worrying given that the Gun Lobby always shout about the illegal guns.

If the illegal guns are such a huge driver of shootings, where is the actual data supporting that thesis?
A lot of very certain statements that it's the criminals that are the issue but no actual data.

I am looking at it again and alll I am finding is statistics from lobby groups but I cannot find clear cut statistics. If you feel the need to mispresent information then you are probably a criminal, the same with sending your new girlfriend to buy a weapon but gun retailers can invalidate this application based on feeling uneasy. You know what I mean, She is buying it but he is obviously directing the sale?

skooterblue2

martingriff wrote: »

We are no where near there more fear mongering

That is right because all I get are stats from lobby groups on either side.

banie01

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am looking at it again and alll I am finding is statistics from lobby groups but I cannot find clear cut statistics. If you feel the need to mispresent information then you are probably a criminal, the same with sending your new girlfriend to buy a weapon but gun retailers can invalidate this application based on feeling uneasy. You know what I mean, She is buying it but he is obviously directing the sale?

Well to my way of understanding data, (and on a professional level, statistics were part of my bread and butter employment for 15yrs) that paints the gun lobby as criminals.

The very best data they can present is a 15 year old survey of convicted felons that gives a range of 40-60% of firearms related convictions being commissioned with illegally held firearms.

If there was any data that presented a better or more certain image of criminal firearms use the gun lobby would be singing it from the rooftops.

There is no better data than that @50% of firearms offences 15 years ago were by illegally obtained firearms.
None.

skooterblue2

Gatling wrote: »

Strict ownership rules remove,
Severely restrict semi automatic rifles capable and the amount of ammunition you can hold at any time,
Reduce the cyclic rate of firearms available to buy ,
If your buying for home protection a revolver and 12 rounds should be enough.
No ownership for under 21's ,
No conceal carry .
No overt carry in public places.

Most hunters are happy to use bolt action rifles

Like fupp you are going to get agreement to that.
You cannot say you can join the military at 17 but we dont trust you to own a weapon until 21.
how are you going to reduce the cyclic rate of firearms?
That will never ever fly in the states. Best of luck finding a congressman to carry that one and second it.

martingriff

skooterblue2 wrote: »

That is what I construed tackling both problems at the same time. You want to collect guns both legal and illegal? I couldnt see any way how you could convince either party to hand them without breaking the second amendment. You are not going to have the illegal guns handed in an amnesty (because I wouldnt trust the police) and I would expect the legal owners to put up an all out defence.

The only way to go after that is to take weapons by force. Unless you had some other idea of how to get law abiding citizen to give up their rights?

Well first of all I do not see the 2nd Amendment ever been removed so no you would not be taking guns of people have it legally. I am on tightening up gun law with guns and ammo only allowed to be sold in registered places, licences for gun ownership. a national register. Law that guns must be stored properly and penalties if they are not. Restriction on carrying guns in certain places. A restriction on the purchase of certain guns unless you can show why you want them.

As for illegal guns it would mean more police on the streets more power against gangs and maybe it might help an amnesty on giving up illegal guns. A whole lot better then just your idea but you already knew that

Gatling

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You cannot say you can join the military at 17 but we dont trust you to own a weapon until 21.

You cannot drink till your 21 in parts
You can get married at 12 years old but yet can't drink but you can own a gun