Texas School shooting 19 children and 2 adults murdered

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119206879#Comment_119206879

Why do you have a gun?

Manic Moran

In my case, primarily for protection of self and family. I'm under no hard obligation to protect anyone else

Anything beyond that is a 'nice to have'. Wouldn't be my first firefight in either case. Or my second.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209315#Comment_119209315

You've been in firefights? Like military firefights or civillian crime firefights?

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119208188#Comment_119208188

Because I enjoy shooting. It's my hobby/sport.

I do target shooting mostly with a little vermin control the odd time. I've different guns for different activities. I grew up with guns. My dad did a lot of shooting (mostly hunting) so I grew up around guns.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209681#Comment_119209681

Sure. For fun, family craic, father son time etc.

Do you see school shootings, shopping centres shootings etc. as a price you're willing to pay for the craic you have with guns?

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119209732#Comment_119209732

Yep, for fun, family, craic, father son time etc. And I don't feel one ounce of guilt over that. Why should I? Sorry for pointing out the obvious but my guns haven't been used in a school shooting, shopping centre shooting or for any other illegal purposes for that matter. I'm a responsible, law abiding citizen. My guns are used for law abiding activities.

Me owning guns has absolutely nothing to do with school shootings. Nothing. Similarly, someone who is a responsible drinker should feel zero guilt/responsibility because someone else got behind the wheel drunk and killed someone.

Yes, measures need to be taken to ensure guns don't fall into the hands of crazy people. As a gun owner I completely agree that not everyone should have access to a gun and there should be measures in place to ensure people who have mental issues/intemperate habits shouldn't get their hands on a gun.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119210300#Comment_119210300

So just to confirm, when you said "yep" were you answering the question "Do you see school shootings, shopping centres shootings etc. as a price you're willing to pay for the craic you have with guns?"?

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211356#Comment_119211356

Absolutely not, don't try twist my words.

I'm being honest in my answers so I'd ask you not to try twist my words. You know very well that when I answered "yep", I was answering the question below, because I do use my guns for fun, family craic, father son time etc. And I make absolutely no apology for that.

Sure. For fun, family craic, father son time etc.

The above is exactly what I use my guns for. And the odd bit of vermin control.

Regarding your second question below, I see no correlation between me, a responsible, law abiding citizen using their guns lawfully and someone shooting schools or shopping centre. I thought I made that clear in my previous post. School shootings are nothing to do with me. But again you chose to ignore that and tried to twist my answer to the previous question.

Do you see school shootings, shopping centres shootings etc. as a price you're willing to pay for the craic you have with guns?

It's not as simple as 'If you don't give up your guns, you must not care about children'. That's a bullsh1t argument to make, but plough on if that makes you happy.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212311#Comment_119212311

I didn't twist your words. I asked you for clarification explicitly to know what you were saying "yep" to.

I suppose I presume the availability of guns is one of the main driving factors in the prevalence of gun deaths. Do you think that's a reasonable assumption?

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119211356#Comment_119211356

Is not Battlecorp in Ireland? Has his enjoyment of shooting resulted in school shootings, shopping center shootings, and the like? Or are you making a false equivalence?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212385#Comment_119212385

Not sure anyone said anything about anyone enjoying school shootings. If they did, be sure to quote the post...

BattleCorp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212367#Comment_119212367

Hopefully I've clarified your original question.

Being honest, the ease at which a crazy person can get their hands on a gun is a factor, for sure. I've no problem admitting that. Like I said earlier, not everyone should have access to a gun.

But the answer isn't to take all guns away. That's not a practical solution for the USA. We don't take all alcohol away just because some people can't act responsibly and drink and drive or go home drunk and beat the wife and kids. I'm in favour of laws that allow responsible people access to guns but has certain checks and balances that make it very difficult for a dodgy person to get a gun. And I also acknowledge that no system is 100% foolproof. The crazies will always get guns if they want them bad enough.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212401#Comment_119212401

I suspect you misread what I posted.

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119207710#Comment_119207710

I think its important to have people who understand firearms making the laws. Here seems to have taken the approach of "just make it look like something is being done". They dream up something stupid for show every few years. All it does is piss off gun owners and cause them to entrench and resist even the most common sense moves.

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119212881#Comment_119212881

What do you do if many gun owners refuse to be part of the process? The NRA should have been front and center of the process years ago. So you are immediately at an impasse where the main voice for gun owners won't co operate but laws are needed.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119215707#Comment_119215707

They were for a long while, at least until the early 1990s. The "Firearms Owner Protection Act" of 1986 was a deal which was made by both sides, both sides got something they wanted. Then both sides lost the plot and refused to talk to each other, fed off each other, and became more extreme. By 1994, the lines had become hard. I'm not an NRA member, I disagree with some of the ridiculous rhetoric coming from senior leadership and don't want to be seen as supporting it with my dollars, their good ideas are being overshadowed by more extreme statements. Unfortunately, the rules for voting are such that you have to be a member for years before you can vote. When 'sensible' things are proposed, such as 'free safety training for everyone' (Literally free, in this case, the taxpayer doesn't fund it), the opposition won't touch it because 'ugh, the NRA' or simply 'ugh, guns'. Similarly, after decades of saying 'this law you are proposing is stupid, it doesn't work, firearms don't work like you think, and we have over 30 years of proof of the futility of these laws you want in the various States', the pro-gun side have simply given up trying to talk to the wall and simply entrenched their position. One keeps one's hair better. On the one side you have folks arguing mechanics like "the firearm works no differently to what you want to not ban, this is how" and the other side is arguing emotionally, "weapons of war"!

It's worth noting that the current deal being talked about in Congress generally leaves the 'flagship' (i.e. attention-getting and extreme) positions of both sides behind. But neither side has abandoned their positions either. For example, Pelosi has described the deal as a first step towards strong restrictions in the future. Aaah... no. This fundamentally misses any understanding of the opposition's position and reinforces the 'slippery slope' argument.

BattleCorp

@Manic Moran Regarding Pelosi's statement, the exact same thing happens in Ireland.

We'll lose something else this year for sure.

kowloon

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216572#Comment_119216572

But it could well be something dumb that has no real-world effect. Like, why are some styles of grip restricted and some not? Does a more heavily raked grip make the bullets safer or something?

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216181#Comment_119216181

You still talk about both sides getting something they want. Surely everyone wants the same thing which is less dead kids. If I know people won't be harmed then I am all for tanks being available for sale. You can disagree with the NRA but they do and will continue to claim to speak for you and essentially be your voice in this. Gun owners need to be vocal about how they do not agree with this rhetoric as it is how they are represented and seen by the rest of the US and the world at large.

I mean I am presuming if you thought for a second that less guns would save lives you would be front in line fighting for legislation and ready to hand yours in as required? So if you take that you can absolutely see why people would support Pelosi's position. Talking about the effect of States laws when you have countries to examine will just seem like trying to avoid doing anything as that is what your position always seems to come down. We can't do anything because... Try something ffs. I have seen many on the anti gun side argue for mandatory training so that seems like an easy win if the NRA are for that as well. I get the NRA wanted more but that seems like a start (I am obviously presuming that the point of the suggestion wasn't to get kids who wouldn't see guns normally to get interested in guns).

I am sure there are some like Switzerland with high levels of gun ownership but I think the difference is that the overwhelming feeling from gun owners if mass shootings became a thing there would be that it sucks someone ruined this on everyone but accept gun laws need to come in.

@BattleCorp yeah you will likely lose something and well, essentially no one will care. I mean it is sad your hobby is effected but by and large most countries will not risk ending up like the US. The vast majority in this country would prefer laws that are too stringent than too loose in this regard. I believe you are responsible but laws can't be made on a person by person basis. I see the appeal in target shooting as a sport, I was an archer. We were always thankful that it was not an efficient weapon for killing people with en masse. I believe that it has been done with crossbows but that is also were legislation kicks in.

Manic Moran

You still talk about both sides getting something they want. Surely everyone wants the same thing which is less dead kids

We can agree on the desired endstate and disagree entirely on how best to achieve it. Sometimes these policy positions can be diametrically opposite and no compromise can be reached. Sometimes they are entirely unrelated, and both can be applied without affecting the other, in which case you get something like FOPA.

AllForIt

If the argument for gun ownership is for self protection, then you have to rationally say you have be able to protect yourself from 1 or more people attacking you with an AK-47.

How could you defend yourself from 1 or more people wielding a AK-47?

Surely it wouldn't be fair to only be able to attack back with an AK-47?

So I suggest schools should install ballistic missiles in their schools to defend themselves.

In which case everyone in the US should be able to buy ballistic missiles to defend themselves.

And how are you going to defend yourself from people wielding ballistic missiles?

Small scale nuclear missiles of course!

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119216788#Comment_119216788

"If I know people won't be harmed then I am all for tanks being available for sale."

They are for sale in Ireland and people are not harmed:

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/pics-have-a-bit-of-spare-cash-you-can-use-it-to-buy-this-tank-on-done-deal-559659

"I mean I am presuming if you thought for a second that less guns would save lives you would be front in line fighting for legislation and ready to hand yours in as required? "

I am presuming if you thought for a second that less cars on the road would save lives you would be front in line fighting for legislation and ready to give up your car?

"We can't do anything because... Try something ffs."

Ah, the old knee jerk reaction, that always works!

I am all for doing something workable (in the US where the problem is) but sadly the suggestions I have heard would not have any chance of working. There are so many guns in circulation in the US it is simply impossible to put the genie back into the bottle. Every time well intentioned people in the US make suggestions about gun restrictions it drives gun sales the through the roof.

To bring in workable restrictions that would have the desired impact first you need to engage with people that have some knowladge of firearms. Sadly this is rarley the case, hence some of the nonsense posted on this thread by those that have no firearms knowladge whatsoever.

"I have seen many on the anti gun side argue for mandatory training so that seems like an easy win if the NRA are for that as well."

I am all for this and have completed many firearms safety courses. But all these do is prevent gun related accidents, the do not prevent deliberate acts.

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219471#Comment_119219471

Just on the gun sales go up thing, yes they would spike massively but over time with less guns getting into the system the numbers would come down, laws need to be made to protect people in the future too not just right now, if done restrictions would save lives of people whose parents aren’t born yet.

after restrictions were brought in we would be subjected to idiots shouting look it hasn’t worked whenever there is a mass shooting but of course we won’t see the numbers coming down for a while. That’s okay with me though, I’m happy to let them rant and stamp their feet.

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219529#Comment_119219529

"....but over time with less guns getting into the system the numbers would come down..."

This will mean that there total number of guns in circualtion will increase at a slower rate, it will not reduce the number of guns out there!

"after restrictions were brought in...."

You will have a civil war on your hands! I agree with you that the situation in the US is out of hand, I agree that it would be highly desirable to reduce the number of guns in circualtion and the ease of access to guns. I just don't know how this can be achieved without even more gun related deaths. Simply banning guns will not work, in fact it won't even be possible to get this passed into law. I know all the arguements about how it worked in other countries (such as Austrulia) etc. but the in the US far too many have a very, very different outlook.

You may find this video on gun control helpful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0&t=334s

Christy42

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219471#Comment_119219471

Cars are literally the back bone of our economy in the modern era, guns are a hobby outside of farmers protecting land which I am fine with. Ireland and I presume other countries have done incredible work in ensuring car safety standards go up and that we have safer drivers on the road. Less than half they were in the mid 00s and hopefully we can keep improving this. Unfortunately it is always going to be harder to make guns safer than cars as the gun is designed to do damage while the car has it as a side effect. I would absolutely have been up for further controls of my archery equipment if it was shown to be dangerous up to potentially getting rid of it.

Also there is a single tank for sale in Ireland so "they" is not accurate and the gun doesn't work. I am definitely for the sale of guns that don't work.

Sandy Hook was a decade ago. Knee jerk does not seem like the correct phrase there. I disagree slightly on the training not preventing intentional acts. It is another hoop to jump through and can be used to generate a healthier view of guns. However it will not prevent a lot of intentional acts which is why gun control should also be needed. If the NRA want to post their own reasonable restrictions backed by pro gun politicians then I am all for it instead of asking why the anti gun side didn't ask us. I am pretty sure under the last administration you would have had a majority of pro gun politicians that would have signed up for it and can't imagine the anti gun side would have opposed them.

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219875#Comment_119219875

I disagree on the gun numbers, eventually the older ones go out of circulation and aren’t replaced. As I said it has to be long term thinking, nothing is going to happen quickly and kids will keep getting murdered and gun lovers will continue to blame absolutely anything but the weapons.

Overheal

..

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219887#Comment_119219887

"Ireland and I presume other countries have done incredible work in ensuring car safety standards go up and that we have safer drivers on the road."

Yet cars kill so many every year....

"However it will not prevent a lot of intentional acts which is why gun control should also be needed."

Agreed, that was exactly my point.

"If the NRA want to post their own reasonable restrictions backed by pro gun politicians then I am all for it instead of asking why the anti gun side didn't ask us."

We both know they won't.

Anyway I agree with you that it would be better if there were less guns in circulation in the US and if they made it more difficult for the insane and the paranoid to arm themselves. I just can't see how this can be achieved.

2011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119219896#Comment_119219896

Eventually, yes but how many generations do you think that will take? Even a badly maintained gun can last for hundreads of years.

I have personally shot Lee-Enfiled rifles that are more than 100 years old and they are in prefect working order.

salmocab

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119220398#Comment_119220398

Well it depends on the laws obviously but as people die their weapons could be sent back for destruction if the heirs aren’t allowed them for whatever reason. I keep hearing how these laws could never work, they worked elsewhere with spectacular results but no, cant be tried in America because somehow they are a different people to everyone else on the planet. It’s all rubbish floated by gun lovers to keep their guns at whatever cost, some dead kids that’s fine they aren’t my kids so I’ll keep my guns.