WTF Denver shootings at Batman showing

[DaGaffer]

I agree, however a death is a death. If 1000 (random number pulled out of the air) people die a year by vehicle and 1000 people die a year from guns, what the difference? That is still 1000 deaths that could be avoided by banning vehicles. The fact that one is potentially pre-meditated is sort of moot when it comes to the outcome, someone dies.

Yes but I think the second part of my answer covers that. Cars are necessary, personal gun ownership isn't. Society has to make certain compromises between safety and utility in order to function, and the risk from cars (which in per capita terms is in constant decline) is a risk society accepts because the benefits outweigh the risks. For guns, the risks massively outweigh the benefits.

As I said above, I'm not actually anti-gun (I actually enjoy shooting), but I find this incredible mental blind spot Americans in particular have about guns incredibly infuriating, when the reality is really simple and obvious, the more guns that are available the more people are killed by them. Arguments about psychology, rights to bear arms, sports, personal defence, "responsible" gun owners, bad guys having guns and good guys not, are all rubbish. They're secondary effects.

 

[DaGaffer]

As for me? I used to be massively anti-gun ownership in the US. Now I'm older I'm pro-. I think that "the founding fathers" knew what they were doing...

The Founding Fathers did know what they were doing. What they were doing was trying to set up a semi-professional defence force instead of a standing army. Effectively they were trying to run a military a. on the cheap, and b. as a counter-weight to any attempt at a coup or other internal shenanigans. But the point was they weren't trying to create a society of individuals with guns, they were trying to create militias who kept their guns close (like the modern Swiss example). Since American society has given up on that idea, the constitutional justification for gun ownership is irrelevant. 300m Americans with 38 specials and civilianised AR-15s could no more stop the Chinese invading or their own military taking over, than we could with a Stanley knife and stick with a nail in it, because civilians aren't trained to so (no longer doing the whole "militia" thing) and don't have access to tanks and F-15s. We don't live in the 18th century any more so the right to bear arms is counter-productive.

 

[Mabs]

The Founding Fathers did know what they were doing. What they were doing was trying to set up a semi-professional defence force instead of a standing army. Effectively they were trying to run a military a. on the cheap, and b. as a counter-weight to any attempt at a coup or other internal shenanigans. But the point was they weren't trying to create a society of individuals with guns, they were trying to create militias who kept their guns close (like the modern Swiss example). Since American society has given up on that idea, the constitutional justification for gun ownership is irrelevant. 300m Americans with 38 specials and civilianised AR-15s could no more stop the Chinese invading or their own military taking over, than we could with a Stanley knife and stick with a nail in it, because civilians aren't trained to so (no longer doing the whole "militia" thing) and don't have access to tanks and F-15s. We don't live in the 18th century any more so the right to bear arms is counter-productive.

while that is all true, doesnt the National Guard kind of fill that spot now anyway ?

 

[Scouse]

That interpretation is up for debate Gaff (endlessly).

Ultimately, IMO, the US "right to bear arms" is about an individual's right to self-preservation and defence from oppression - whatever form that takes (governmental, for example).


Either way - as 99.99% of people who have a gun do so legally, non-violently and for hunting and/or sport - I can't reasonably punish those people for the 0.01% who are either mad or cunts...

 

[DaGaffer]

while that is all true, doesnt the National Guard kind of fill that spot now anyway ?

Yes. But actually the American Civil War is what put paid to the primacy of local militias in favour of professional troops anyway. The National Guard is a way of having a nominally "local" force under the full control of the federal military, which was exactly not the point of the original militias.

 

[Mabs]

Yes. But actually the American Civil War is what put paid to the primacy of local militias in favour of professional troops anyway. The National Guard is a way of having a nominally "local" force under the full control of the federal military, which was exactly not the point of the original militias.

im rusty on this so bear with me, but i thought national guard answered to the governor, only, not the government ? or is that a courtesy thing or what

 

[DaGaffer]

That interpretation is up for debate Gaff (endlessly).

Ultimately, IMO, the US "right to bear arms" is about an individual's right to self-preservation and defence from oppression - whatever form that takes (governmental, for example).

All interpretations are up for debate, it just so happens that yours is wrong At no point does the Second Amendment refer to an individual's rights. And the arms bearing bit is specifically mentioned in relation to raising militias. Its in the same sentence. Americans have selectively chosen to interpret it your way, but constitutional scholars have long pointed out that this is a misrepresentation of the intent of the amendment. To be honest its very clear if you read the whole thing.

 

[throdgrain]

That interpretation is up for debate Gaff (endlessly).

Ultimately, IMO, the US "right to bear arms" is about an individual's right to self-preservation and defence from oppression - whatever form that takes (governmental, for example).
I agree with you scouse, but i would like to point out that if you have committed a felony in the US you are banned from owning guns permanently. Ironically by this law,I wouldn't beallowed any if I lived there!

Either way - as 99.99% of people who have a gun do so legally, non-violently and for hunting and/or sport - I can't reasonably punish those people for the 0.01% who are either mad or cunts...

 

[DaGaffer]

im rusty on this so bear with me, but i thought national guard answered to the governor, only, not the government ? or is that a courtesy thing or what

In peace time the Governor can mobilise the NG for internal state emergencies only. A Governor can't order his troops over state lines and can't order them to act against the Federal Government.

 

[Tuthmes]

Scouse, it's about the legal right to wear arms. Which (as throd immidiatly jumped on, calling me lefty) turns into a political debate in the USA the moment they can (freedom vs legislation). Which leaves the debate over why you would want wear weapons and the effect it has on society, completly in the dark. Infact I don't see why you couldn't be an "lefty" and still want to have those rights. But I guess it's because I'm from mainland Europe, where we don't have the simple view on live as right and left.

Or to put it short. I laugh at the idea of having a gun arsenal as a civil right and don't (and won't) see what it has got to de with politics at all.

Anyways, nothing wrong with having a hobby (although this old bean frowns upon this one). But does that mean you have to build up an arsenal of assault riffles and bring your guns to the pub? If you want to shoot paper and clay targets, goto a gun range, get your weapon there and have some fun. I could touch to subject of hunting, but as halve to forum is from Britain, I wont.

 

[Raven]

I actually think hunting should be banned, or tightly licensed. Any cunt can shoot at an animal but only people who know what they are doing can kill it cleanly and with the minimum of suffering to the animal. It is a necessity in this country for the good of the deer. They have no natural predators to kill the weak and the old so we (who removed the predator) have to do it for them.

 

[throdgrain]

He not only brought the political point up, which is a good one, he directly answered your question on why he wanted a gun.

He goes hunting. He shoots paper and clay targets. Nothing wrong with either of those things as hobbies.

Tuthmes old bean - you're so religiously hysterical over gun ownership you can't even read posts properly.




As for me? I used to be massively anti-gun ownership in the US. Now I'm older I'm pro-. I think that "the founding fathers" knew what they were doing...

I tried to quote this a minute ago on my phone and got it wrong, so I'll do it again now lol

My point was going to be, that in the US once you have committed a felony you are permanantly disqualified from gun ownership. So, the great irony is, I wouldnt be allowed to own guns over there, though I have a licence for my shotguns here.

 

[Mabs]

i dont see a problem with widespread limitations on "personal freedoms" to safeguard the majority of people.. speed limits anyone ?

 

[Ormorof]

i agree with tighter controls needed in the US, as far as I am aware (and im sure throd knows much more about this than most of us ) there are lots of random spot checks in the UK, lots of rules about not keeping gun + ammo together etc - this kind of sense seems to be missing in the US where a culture seems to have developed where no one is willing to take any responsibility for their own actions, like the case a few months ago where some kid shot his friend after playing Call of Duty, which was the games fault not the parents who left a loaded gun in a room with two small curious children

So while i remain anti gun in general as i dont see any purpose in owning a gun and frankly i am somewhat worried about the idea of some of the people i have met during my life owning guns, i also dont understand people who grow moustaches but i dont campaign for those to be banned either, thus i see no reason why my lack of comprehension should enforce restrictions on others (isnt that what religions are for?)

 

[DaGaffer]

I tried to quote this a minute ago on my phone and got it wrong, so I'll do it again now lol

My point was going to be, that in the US once you have committed a felony you are permanantly disqualified from gun ownership. So, the great irony is, I wouldnt be allowed to own guns over there, though I have a licence for my shotguns here.

*sigh*. People who are banned from owning a gun in the US can easily get one. Why? Because a legitimate customer can easily get one. Because there are 280 million guns in circulation. A bad person finds it very difficult to get hold of a gun in the UK, they find it a piece of piss in the US simply by force of numbers. Guns move from legitimate to illegitimate ownership with ease. In the UK, if you have a gun, you account for it to the police from purchase to disposal, and you're checked regularly to make sure you still have it and its locked up. None of that happens in the US. Once you've made the initial purchase, those guns are in the wild. I really don't understand how you can possibly think that's a good thing.

 

[Scouse]

i dont see a problem with widespread limitations on "personal freedoms" to safeguard the majority of people.. speed limits anyone ?

This is true. I find that the personal freedom of having children is correctly limited in China by the drowning of children, especially female ones.

Can't have a bazillion nips running around ruining the world for the majority can we, eh?

 

[Mabs]

the only other thing i would add in general, is , as far as im concerned...
(and this is mainly for the "hunting" argument)..

if you cant kill a rabbit/fox/dear/buffalo with this

then youre shit and shouldnt be doing it, you shouldnt need this to compensate

 

[JingleBells]

I saw this on another forum, and I think it sums up the madness of US gun laws:

We don’t yet know the details of when or how Holmes purchased the guns, but consider these scenarios:

If Holmes bought the guns in Colorado, he did not have to register them. The state prohibits gun registration.

Holmes reportedly drove up to the movie theater with his arsenal. That too was entirely legal in Colorado—as long as the guns are visible, you don’t need a permit. Permits are only required for concealed carry.

The assault weapons ban that expired under George W. Bush allowed Holmes to purchase the high-powered weapon that he reportedly used, an AR-15. President Obama campaigned on renewing the ban, but quickly dropped it from his agenda and “won’t even talk about” renewing it.

If Aurora had decided prior to this shooting that it wanted to enact tougher gun control laws, it wouldn’t have been allowed to. Since 2003 it has been expressly illegal for any local government or law enforcement agency in Colorado to “enact an ordinance, regulation or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase or possess under state or federal law.” (Nearby Denver has been contesting this law in court).

Holmes was arrested with an assault rifle, a shotgun, and two pistols. But authorities could have never noticed he was stockpiling weapons during his short time in Colorado, because it is prohibited for any law enforcement in the state to build databases of gun buyers or gun owners.

If Holmes bought the guns outside Colorado, there are no laws restricting bringing them into Colorado.

It could have been even worse—Republican state legislators have been pushing to allow the state Insta-check background system for gun buyers to expire. (They actually succeeded at this in 1999, and not long after a man purchased a 9mm gun despite an active restraining order against him by his wife, which would have otherwise disqualified his purchase. He used the gun to kill the couple’s three young daughters. The system was quickly re-instated).

As is typical, the NRA and other gun groups are largely responsible for funding the rollback. Since 1994, NRA Victory Fund has contributed $332,001.22 to Colorado state candidates. Since 2004, Gun Owners of America have contributed $75,847.83 to Colorado state candidates and since 2007, Pikes Peak Firearms Club has given $6,408 to Colorado state candidates.

 

[throdgrain]

*sigh*. People who are banned from owning a gun in the US can easily get one. Why? Because a legitimate customer can easily get one. Because there are 280 million guns in circulation. A bad person finds it very difficult to get hold of a gun in the UK, they find it a piece of piss in the US simply by force of numbers. Guns move from legitimate to illegitimate ownership with ease. In the UK, if you have a gun, you account for it to the police from purchase to disposal, and you're checked regularly to make sure you still have it and its locked up. None of that happens in the US. Once you've made the initial purchase, those guns are in the wild. I really don't understand how you can possibly think that's a good thing.

*sigh* and not every single felon wants to own a gun to go on rampages through bloody cinemas do they? Otherwise there really would be some carnage? And so I'm in America, as a felon I'm not allowed to own a gun, but I get one anyway, becuase as you say there are millions around, but then I get caught in possession of it, and I get myself in loads of trouble, so I dont really want to do it.

 

[DaGaffer]

*sigh* and not every single felon wants to own a gun to go on rampages through bloody cinemas do they? Otherwise there really would be some carnage? And so I'm in America, as a felon I'm not allowed to own a gun, but I get one anyway, becuase as you say there are millions around, but then I get caught in possession of it, and I get myself in loads of trouble, so I dont really want to do it.

But clearly millions of "felons" do get hold of guns and don't worry about it! The 10,000 homicides a year (which apparently aren't carried out by legitimate gun owners) are being committed by someone! And since nearly a third of all Americans have a criminal record, then unless everyone else (including all the kids) all own three guns each and are secretly committing thousands of murders and blaming it on those with criminal records, then the criminals have lots of guns, and yes, commit 10,000 homicides, more than 10 times the number as the whole of the EU (which has a 60% bigger population) Sorry, but that is carnage.

 

[throdgrain]

I actually think hunting should be banned, or tightly licensed. Any cunt can shoot at an animal but only people who know what they are doing can kill it cleanly and with the minimum of suffering to the animal. It is a necessity in this country for the good of the deer. They have no natural predators to kill the weak and the old so we (who removed the predator) have to do it for them.

Allow me to explain this so we are on the same page.

Hunting in GB consists of a few different catagories.

First is vermin, which is a list of animals to which DEFRA issue a annual "general licence" to shoot or trap in some instances. These include -

Woodpigeon
Collared Doves
Crows
Magpies
Rabbits
Foxes

plus some more. Until very very recently it was actually a landowners legal responsibilty to keep rabbit numbers under control. These animals can be shot with shotguns and suitable air rifles. It's not legal to hunt anything with a bow or crossbow.

Next catagory is Game birds, like pheasants and grouse. They have a hunting season for each species, they are not allowed to be shot outside that season, and you shoot them with shotguns, or hypothetically with a suitable air rifle, though it would be jolly bad form old boy

Then you have deer. These also have a strict hunting season, with the exception of Muntjac, who can be shot all year round.
To shoot a deer you first need a firearms certificate, with the correct calibre (read: big) on it. Unlike with shotguns, a UK firearms certificate is for each rifle you own, so you cant buy more as you want, only the specific stuff on the licence. You also have a specific amount of amunition you're allowed to hold, god knows why.

You then have to have completed a couple of courses, like this - http://www.dsctraining.org/ including knowing how to gut the deer, and then you have to be mentored by another shooter who already has all this, for a period normally of 6 months to a year.

So as you see, it's not exactly "Any cunt can shoot at an animal", far from it . You also have to have permission to shoot on the land you are shooting, regardless of the quarry or the weapon.

Hope this clears some stuff up

 

[Scouse]

Woodpigeon
Collared Doves
Rabbits

Have decided I wouldn't mind an air-rifle to go for rabbits and the like.

Funnily enough, I've not seen one since I was a kid - the time I was most exposed to all sorts of weaponry.

So then, Throddy. I want to keep costs down as far as possible but I don't want to buy utter shit. I'm responsible so I wouldn't mind training. I have no knowledge of the law.

Would I, for example, be able to go on a day's bike ride, air-rifle on my back, shoot a couple of rabbits for the correct skinning/gutting action and then come home to make a loverly pie without fear of every fucking plod on the planet stopping peaceful little me?

Instruction needed. If you want I can start a "lets go shooting" thread

 

[caLLous]

I would say start a thread. This place is renowned for thread derailment but asking advice about buying guns in a thread about a mass shooting has to be seen as bad form, doesn't it?

 

[soze]

From what I remember Air Rifles over a certain power now need a license, that might be lie it might just be that you have to buy it from a registered dealer now. And to ride with it on your back you will need it to be in some kind of bag or case. Armed police can and do get called to people shooting rabbits when some rambler see's a guy shooting rabbits with a rifle. So I would say shoot on private land (with permission) and keep it in a bag when riding in public to have an easy life.

 

[throdgrain]

No unfortunately not, you always need landowners permission to shoot any gun on any land. We used to have common land, that was for us peasants to graze our goats and hunt etc, but the Enclosures Act of around 1820 put paid to that. Unlike it the USA, where they do have such land, and lots of of it.

If you was into it, I would suggest buying an air rifle, joining a air rifle club, (theres quite a lot around) and learning to shoot, then see if you can gain permission to shoot anywhere. Some places, like where I live, are really really hard, other more rural locations are easier. Either way, it will normally involve a bit of door knocking and being friendly to farmers, unless you're lucky enough to own some land or know someone who does.

As far as rifles go, a .177 is a good bet, as they have a much flatter trajectory that a .22, so are easier to use at varying ranges. Shooting an air rifle really teaches you about balistics! If your .22 air rifle is zeroed at 20 yards to hit a target accurately at 35 yards would require 2 or 3 inches of holdover, not easy, particularly when you consider that a rabbit requires a head shot for a reliable one shot kill , and that area is roughly the size of a 10p peice. So buy a decent gun and practice until you can hit a 10 p piece at a variety of ranges - not easy!

A scondhand rifle is a good bet if you want to save money, but this website shows some decent stuff http://airgunbuyer.com/ makes like BSA and Weihrauch and Air arms are all good bets.

 

[Raven]

Allow me to explain this so we are on the same page.

Hunting in GB consists of a few different catagories.

First is vermin, which is a list of animals to which DEFRA issue a annual "general licence" to shoot or trap in some instances. These include -

Woodpigeon
Collared Doves
Crows
Magpies
Rabbits
Foxes

plus some more. Until very very recently it was actually a landowners legal responsibilty to keep rabbit numbers under control. These animals can be shot with shotguns and suitable air rifles. It's not legal to hunt anything with a bow or crossbow.

Next catagory is Game birds, like pheasants and grouse. They have a hunting season for each species, they are not allowed to be shot outside that season, and you shoot them with shotguns, or hypothetically with a suitable air rifle, though it would be jolly bad form old boy

Then you have deer. These also have a strict hunting season, with the exception of Muntjac, who can be shot all year round.
To shoot a deer you first need a firearms certificate, with the correct calibre (read: big) on it. Unlike with shotguns, a UK firearms certificate is for each rifle you own, so you cant buy more as you want, only the specific stuff on the licence. You also have a specific amount of amunition you're allowed to hold, god knows why.

You then have to have completed a couple of courses, like this - http://www.dsctraining.org/ including knowing how to gut the deer, and then you have to be mentored by another shooter who already has all this, for a period normally of 6 months to a year.

So as you see, it's not exactly "Any cunt can shoot at an animal", far from it . You also have to have permission to shoot on the land you are shooting, regardless of the quarry or the weapon.

Hope this clears some stuff up

Yes I know that, by saying "any cunt can shoot at a deer" I mean they literally can. Point and fire but it takes someone who knows what they are doing to actually do it right. I know someone who has spent nearly a full day tracking a badly shot deer because some "cunt" didn't shoot it right. They had a license for the rifle they were using and had permission to shoot on the land, it was fully legal.

 

[throdgrain]

Yes I know that, by saying "any cunt can shoot at a deer" I mean they literally can. Point and fire but it takes someone who knows what they are doing to actually do it right. I know someone who has spent nearly a full day tracking a badly shot deer because some "cunt" didn't shoot it right. They had a license for the rifle they were using and had permission to shoot on the land, it was fully legal.

Hate to say it but, it can happen

 

[Tuthmes]

That interpretation is up for debate Gaff (endlessly).

Ultimately, IMO, the US "right to bear arms" is about an individual's right to self-preservation and defence from oppression - whatever form that takes (governmental, for example).


Either way - as 99.99% of people who have a gun do so legally, non-violently and for hunting and/or sport - I can't reasonably punish those people for the 0.01% who are either mad or cunts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.

Granted that's about 100.000 people and taken from two periodes (2000 and 2007). Then again, i'm quite sure not every ~300 million inhabitants of the USA has a firearm. So 100k people beeing shot by firearms every year. You do the math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicide

Right up there with the rest of the continent

 

[soze]

Unless they are all legally owned guns then it does not matter. If you want a complete ban then it needs to be proved that Gun Control can not work. Most of the guns used to kill here are illegal and there is no reason to assume that America would be any better at stopping illegal guns. In fact with the massive land borders they share they would probably be worse. So gun related death stats when a majority I bet would be drug related killings with illegal guns do not prove that guns should be made well illegal.

 

[Gray]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18957991