Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Texas School shooting 19 children and 2 adults murdered

Options
1424345474851

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    And as the older guns go out of circulation in the next 100 to 200 years, it will be pretty easy to replace them with 3D printed guns.



  • Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,577 Mod ✭✭✭✭2011


    Generally guns don’t get “sent back for destruction”. Why do you think this would happen?

    When someone dies what they leave behind is normally sold by those who inherit if they don’t want to keep it.

    Well if it is “rubbish” as you say then why hasn’t a law be passed in the US to make this happen? Regardless of the number of mass shootings in the states, the only “solution” they have is to arm more people and throw more guns into the mix. I’m sure you have noticed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,347 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    I suggested it could happen if relevant laws were introduced, I don’t expect it to happen. I also pointed out every time things are suggested people say oh it could’nt work and then got two posts in a row doing just that.

    things aren’t changing because there’s no options they aren’t changing because people are comfortable with the price that their society pays.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    The constant attacks on law abiding gun owners is really starting to grate at this stage. We obey laws, jump through whatever hoops that are put in front of us and yet are slurred as 'gun lovers' or that we 'don't care about dead kids because we want to keep our guns' by people like you.

    Let me ask you a question. What gun laws would you like to see in the US? Spell out the exact actions you would like to see happen?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,347 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    You don’t live in America so don’t be paranoid it’s clearly not aimed at you.

    I don’t think anyone should have a gun unless it’s specifically for hunting or sport and even then should be restricted and tightly licensed.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,333 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    OK. And many people in the US disagree with you and believe that personal protection is a very good reason to have a gun. In fact, over half the States have it written in their Constitutions. Not a generic 'right of the people', or 'right for an individual to have a gun' (Including those brings the number to 44 of 50), but a specific declared right of the individual to have arms for the purpose of his or her defense. Whatever solution you propose needs to reflect this reality.

    I don't know about you, but when I'm seventy years old, I suspect I'll be able to wield a SIG better than a baseball bat.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,347 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    I didn’t propose a solution because there won’t be one.

    when I’m 70 I won’t need to wield either a baseball bat or a sig so I’m comfortable knowing that’s not a worry.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The fact is that a person having a gun in their home is significantly more likely to die a violent death than otherwise. Inconvenient to your argument but a fact nonetheless.




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,333 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    It is, indeed, a fact. It is, indeed, a somewhat tautological fact, because homicide is a known likely result of firearms usage. It's kindof the point. You don't keep them around to tickle people. It is even more tautological given that one of the primary drivers for firearms possession in the US is criminal activity, reinforced even more by the fact that the majority of homicide victims are themselves criminals (Baltimore, ranked as the 4th most dangerous city in the US, makes its figures public, over 80% had criminal records, over half of them had criminal records involving firearms).

    It's like saying that the US has higher levels of motor vehicle fatalities than, say, France. We have a lot more cars and use them more. Someone who drives a lot is more likely to be killed in a road traffic accident than someone who uses the Paris Metro, and someone who drives with a deliberate disregard for the rules of the road is even more likely to be killed in a vehicle accident.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,393 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Let me ask you a question. What gun laws would you like to see in the US? Spell out the exact actions you would like to see happen?

    I would say that no person should legally possess a weapon that can injure or kill a human being at a distance.

    When a person is attacked at a distance, there is no way of defending themselves.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,196 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    OK. My next question was to ask how much inconvenience to yourself as part of this system to prevent a dodgy person getting a gun.

    And the second question was whether you would vote for your representatives if they vote to enact those laws? Bearing in mind that any laws will be portrayed as the worst possible thing to do and a definite step towards totalitarianism, by the right wing media and not far enough by the left wing media.

    Would you reward your representatives by voting for them next time they need a vote?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    That's pretty much all guns. Even a .22lr which is pretty much the smallest bullet commonly in use can kill people from a distance. The warning on the ammo box says it's dangerous out to a mile.

    Any other suggestions?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,443 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Black powder .22 (now considered .22 short) was developed for self-defence in the 1850s and wouldn't fly all that much faster than the primer-only .22s you would use for rats these days. It can all injure. You need to start considering pellet guns and paintball markers at that stage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp



    I'm answering these questions with an Irish head on me, not a US head. You have to remember that. Our cultures are nowhere near the same. So what seems reasonable to me may not be reasonable to someone in the US.

    First question.

    I'll jump through whatever hoops are put in place so long as I can get the firearm of my choice at the end of that process. If that's gun registration, background checks, talking to my doctor to ensure I'm not a looney tune, mandatory waiting period etc., then I'm fine with that.

    Second question.

    It all depends on what the laws are. If the Irish government introduce laws banning certain types of guns (I'm fine with fully auto being banned), then yes, they have absolutely lost my support. Even if it's a type of gun that I don't have, I'd still be against banning it because the government will come for one type of gun, get rid of that, then they'll go for something else until there's none left. They are doing this in Ireland right now. First it was the centrefire pistols, now it's the rifles, next it'll be the .22lr pistols, then the shotguns, then it'll be something else. That's why gun owners get so entrenched in not wanting to give an inch. Because if you give an inch, the government will take a mile.

    I'd like to think I'm sensible and can judge the effects of a proposed law for myself and not need to be told what to think by the right or the left. You'll never please both sides, like myself and yourself. I don't think we'd ever agree fully on gun control but that's ok too.

    Third question.

    If a political party stood up for gun owners, I'd have to look at their other policies because there's more to running a country than gun laws but I'd be more inclined to vote for them if their other policies weren't mad. In other words, two pretty similar parties with similar policies but one is pro-gun and the other is anti-gun, you wouldn't need two guesses to guess who I'd go for.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Good luck engaging in deer hunting, vermin control, and self defence with a pellet gun or a paintball marker. 😀



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,509 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The only way stop a bad vermin is with good vermin



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Well, I was trying to have an honest discussion but thanks for that contribution. 😀



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,443 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    It'd still fall under the definition of "something that could injure someone at range", which would make it a poor place to start for what's controlled.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    The suggestion to make guns illegal if they can kill or injure at range wasn't my suggestion. I think it's a stupid idea as pretty much all guns can injure someone at range and most can kill at range if you are unlucky enough to be hit.

    My suggestion is to ban nothing but put in place lots of hoops for potential gun owners to jump through to try and filter out the crazies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,443 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    I wasn't saying it was, I was pointing out that .22LR wouldn't even be the floor for restriction, taken further the suggestion could end up applying to paintball markers as technically they could injure someone at range. I don't think restrictions on the size of the round really work all that well. Ireland being a perfect example of where an arbitrary cutoff point for calibre has made nobody safer and was all for show.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,361 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Such a large section of the firearms industry is built on fantasy, driven by fear. That one will face a threatening situation that can only be dealt with a firearm. I find it instructive that there isn't a similar investment in medical training, to help potentially save a life, as there is in arming oneself. It's all nonsense really.

    Anything to avoid addressing the root causes of problems.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,084 ✭✭✭Sudden Valley


    Its odd that the gun lobby and the gun hobbyists are pushing others to come up with solutions while proposing not much themselves. To enjoy their hobby and ensure they endure no new restrictions themselves you would think they would be desperate tocome up with a workable solution and be proposing some new national laws, even weak ones. I read that in the US 75% of the homicides are gun related, canada has 37% and uk 4%. Perhaps the US should look at what Canada is doing to at least improve the situation rather thsn you know, do nothing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Yep, agreed.

    And Ireland has many examples of ridiculous firearms laws.

    Accidental laws such as the laws around restricted short firearms. The way the definition is worded, paintball markers have accidentally been included in that legislation.

    The toy crossbows in Ken Black's Toy Shop that shoot foam darts are technically restricted crossbows because no draw weight was written into the legislation.

    Zeroing a firearm outside of an authorised range is, according to the wording of the law, illegal although this again was by accident.

    My point is you need people who actually know about firearms to actually write the firearms legislation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,196 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Had it I'm my head you were living in America and giving an American perspective. Thanks for answering the questions anyway.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,333 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    You are making an assumption that we fear that one will face a threatening situation which can only be dealt with by a firearm.

    There are two errors in this assumption. The one is that we fear that we will face such a situation. If that were a genuine fear of mine, I probably wouldn't leave the house. And I'd barricade it. We do, however, acknowledge the possibility that we may encounter such a situation. Much as we may encounter a situation which requires the use of the fire extinguisher I keep in the kitchen. I don't think the chances are very high, the house is generally up to code and we're not idiots with the stove, but it would be foolish to deny the possibility. House fires happen. So do crimes against the person.

    The second is that it can only be dealt with by a firearm. This certainly isn't true either. A large angry dog, for example, can often lead to a positive outcome, if you happen to be in a position where you can/want to deal with owning a large angry dog. However, for many people a firearm may be the best solution to the problem at hand, for whatever situation they happen to find themselves.

    Whether or not I, or anyone else, have received any medical training is irrelevant to the topic at hand. However, in the event that I do shoot someone, I am both equipped and trained to render immediate aid pending the arrival of EMT.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    I'm a gun hobbyist and I've posted some suggestions in this thread, things like background checks, all sales through FFL dealers, mandatory waiting periods etc.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    I used to live in the US in the 90's back when I had a Green Card. About an hour outside of San Francisco. Never owned a gun while I was over there but I did go to a range a few times. I've been in a couple of houses over there where the owners had over 200 guns each. It was their hobby, collecting guns. Many were well over 100 years old and some were close to 150 years old.

    I know I'm in the minority here but I see nothing wrong with collecting guns, using them safely for sport or fun. If I was in the US, I've no doubt that I'd be a supporter of having them for self defence but that's not allowed here. I'm not a member of the NRA but I did do a NRA Range Officers Course here in Ireland about 10 years ago, maybe more. The laws changed (ITAR) and the NRA are no longer allowed to do the Range Officer courses here in Ireland as far as I'm aware. I could well be wrong on that though. While there are some, lets call them 'outspoken' people in the NRA, they actually do a lot of good too. They are one of, if not the largest provider of gun safety training in the world.

    Many Americans tend to look at gun control measures as being measures that take away some of their rights. And nobody wants to give away some of their rights.

    US gun owners rightfully don't trust their government. I don't even trust the government here in Ireland when it comes to firearms. You know why? Experience. Even here in Ireland we had things like the Temporary Custody Order 1972 where all guns (excluding shotguns) and ammo above .22lr had to be surrendered to the Government for a period of one month. (S.I. No. 187 of 1972) Some of these guns have never been given back to their owners. It took court cases, some as late as the naughties to get some of it back.

    Gun owners are continually losing something, and rarely gain anything. In Ireland centrefire pistols were grandfathered in 2008 meaning no new licences can be granted. What did that achieve? Fcukall apart from destroying a sport. It certainly didn't make anybody safer. No legally held centrefire pistol was known to have been used in a crime since the Civil War yet when a criminal stole a firearm from a PSNI Officer in Northern Ireland and used it to kill someone down here, it was used as a reason to get rid of centrefire pistols. You know who can't get a centrefire pistol now - law abiding target shooters. You know who can get a centrefire pistol now - criminals.

    Someone I know recently had the licences for two guns refused. The Gardai had no legal justification for refusing the licences. The guy is a very active competition target shooter (both National and International) and had a legitimate reason for getting the two firearms. The guy went to court and won. He was granted the licences on the instructions of the judge. These kinds of things happen quite regularly here unfortunately.

    I could go on and on regarding cuts to our sport/hobby etc. but it's actions like those above that have gun owners not wanting to give an inch. Because if they give in and endorse some sensible gun control measures, that won't be the end of the process. The Government will be back looking for more.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,443 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Refusal of licences in the hope you'll just give up is a pretty regular thing in Ireland. They try to make cost a barrier to licencing. Then they waste everyone's time and the licence gets awarded in or before the court appearance. This varies wildly by Garda district, with some Supers being fairer than others.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,774 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    The application forms used to get lost pretty regularly too until we got the ability to complain to the Data Commissioner under GDPR rules.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,361 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    On balance, the vanishingly small chance you would face a situation in which you might use a firearm defensively would not justify keeping them in general circulation, if it were possible to remove them .

    The point about medical training is not irrelevant. Guns are marketed to the masses as a necessity. The whole when seconds matter, the police are minutes away. People buy into a fantasy of needing them to feel safe, yet readily ignore other avenues that would likely be far greater benefit towards that goal. Having guns is a hobby, and as enjoyable as it may be, one that shouldn't be allowed to stand in the face of greater public well being. I say that as someone who's likely shot more rounds than the rest of this entire website combined.



Advertisement