Yet another US college gun slaughter - "at least 10" killed in Oregan shooting

[two sheds]

Azrael - a question off to the side: do you agree with the NRA position that 'gun-free zones' are inherently unsafe?

 

[likesfish]

It's a feel good law that does nothing useful Sandy hook was gunfree and that didn't work.

Now banning moonbats shopping with an ak cause its their right one thing but claiming someplace is gun free but having no means to stop armed nutters bit useless.

 

[mauvais]

Also I forgot to add that there are plenty of grassroots campaigns to address road safety, including authoritarian ones like BRAKE and 20s Plenty, as well as those centred around individual responsibility like the IAM and RoSPA/RoADAR. These are much lower profile in comparison largely because the authorities are already inclined to act on it themselves - viz the bloom of 20mph residential limits as well as periodic modifications to the driving test - as well as that it's a problem that's likely to be eclipsed by technology in the medium term.

So, demonstrably wrong again on several counts.

 

[Azrael]

Mauvais & MrsDoyle, by issuing Personal Protection Weapons, ipso facto, the government accepts that guns are effective self-defense tools. If it didn't, it wouldn't issue the permits. Nor, during decades of direct rule, did the British government do anything to abolish defensive ownership and carry. Its infrequency does nothing to undermine the underlying justification, a justification that shows the British government doesn't believe its own arguments.

As for "gun-free zones," that's a misnomer if ever there was one. They're not gun-free; only law-abiding citizens are disarmed. Even so, I've nothing against them so long as they're secured, and everyone who enters is searched, as happens in courthouses, military bases, schools, and other sensitive areas. In other cases, any private organization should have the right to ban weapons on its property. Those who choose to enter despite that have effectively waived their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Idris2002]

Mauvais & MrsDoyle, by issuing Personal Protection Weapons, ipso facto, the government accepts that guns are effective self-defense tools. If it didn't, it wouldn't issue the permits. Nor, during decades of direct rule, did the British government do anything to abolish defensive ownership and carry. Its infrequency does nothing to undermine the underlying justification, a justification that shows the British government doesn't believe its own arguments.

You fucking fool. There are a lot of people on this board who have varying experiences of the north of Ireland. . . and they have equally variable opinions on same. But I'd wager every last one of them is going to shake their heads at your fucking ignorance.

Short answer: the infrequency with which PPW licenses were issued is not a sign that the UK government (or sections of it) did not believe its own arguments, it's a sign that those in charge of that aspect of the policy are very well aware that there are other things that have to be considered as well.

As in this case, for example:


The judge said that if officials had recognised that a real and immediate threat existed then the outcome might have been different.

However, he refused permission for a legal challenge to a decision not to issue him with a firearms certificate for a gun to protect himself.

The court heard that a certificate had been refused because of police intelligence that Mr Frazer had associated with paramilitaries.

Mr Justice Weatherup said there was no basis for overturning the decision in the light of the information available.

The judge added: "I am satisfied that the minister was entitled to conclude that the applicant was unfitted to hold a firearms certificate by reason of the police intelligence concerning paramilitary associations."

BBC NEWS | Northern Ireland | Protection move after court plea

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes, very important that people should be disarmed at military bases.

And no fighting!

 

[Idris2002]

Yes, very important that people should be disarmed at military bases.

And no fighting!

Vhy didn't you tell ze vorld, eh?

 

[mauvais]

Mauvais & MrsDoyle, by issuing Personal Protection Weapons, ipso facto, the government accepts that guns are effective self-defense tools.

Err yeah, that's why we have a military armed with guns. Noone is arguing that guns are not, in some context, effective self-defence tools. Just like noone argues that a tank isn't an effective weapon in a ground war. But it doesn't mean I get to have my own, you clown.

 

[8den]

At this point Azrael is either incredibly stupid or wilfully obtuse, and it's becoming increasingly obvious he is not worth engaging with.

For starts no one on this forum is arguing for an absolute blanket ban on firearms so his argument that people should be also working towards a automobile ban is disingenuous.

Yes more children are killed by automobiles than guns on the US. But how many children are killed in be vehicular homicides? How many children are killed when they find their parents car keys and go for a joy ride?

Secondly the automotive industry is striving to ensure cars are safer and safer. Air bags, stronger car seats, crumble zones etc. While state and federal officials make laws to ensure driving is safer and safer. Reducing speed limits in residential and school areas,

Meanwhile the gun lobby maintains that any form oft restriction or gun control will not work or can't be enforced. If the auto industry operated the same way they'd still be demanding leaded petrol and a national blanket speed limit of 100mph.

The comparison with Nth Ireland is particularly specious. Govt allowed people who were the specific target of terrorism threats or that terrorists had made a legislate and credible threat to people in certain roles and positions.

Someone hiking in a remote part of Alaska has a legitimate reason to carry a weapon for protection against wild animal attacks (how ever rare) carrying a firearm in the middle of a city in case of bear attacks is not okay.

So just because the UK government allows a specific set of people firearms in very specific circumstances it does not mean everyone should be allowed carry a firearm for self defence.

Your arguments are increasingly tenuous and poorly thought out Azrael and I'd suggest you come up with a better argument than lecturing people about the troubles when any number of posters here are much more versed in the complexity of that situation. Similarly your pool and car analogues are so poorly thought out they'd be mocked in a middle school debate on the issue.

I have an aunt in the US who is posting guff on Facebook about how Obama shouldn't lecture people on gun control since he had armed guards. Your argument is about as nuanced as hers.

 

[likesfish]

from another site in a thread pointing out Toddlers shoot an american every week

why the fuck do you keep a 9mm pistoll in the kitchen drawer for emergancys?
My kitchen is in the direct path of anyone who'd break in through the garage, and has decent angles on the laundry room and microwave room, which both have big windows that could be broken through.

My house is also like 5-10 minutes away from a super high crime area and police don't bother patrolling into the area where my house is, so having a gun is a sensible precaution.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Love that logic. I'm in a lower crime area, so clearly I need a gun!

 

[8den]

No there's logic there, it could very convenient for someone breaking into your house from the microwave room (microwave room?!?) who didn't think to bring a gun with them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Mauvais & MrsDoyle, by issuing Personal Protection Weapons, ipso facto, the government accepts that guns are effective self-defense tools. If it didn't, it wouldn't issue the permits. Nor, during decades of direct rule, did the British government do anything to abolish defensive ownership and carry. Its infrequency does nothing to undermine the underlying justification, a justification that shows the British government doesn't believe its own argument

By issuing PPW licences the British govt acknowledged (and continues to acknowledge) the reality of armed political gangs with axes to grind. As for issuance being an acceptance of the effectiveness for self-defence for firearms, you are thinking too well of that govt. The main reason for PPW licences, beyond sectarian shenanigans between the police service and protestant paramilitaries, is because it's a fuckload cheaper to give someone a firearm, than to provide close protection to them. Effectiveness, my arse!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Microwave room = kitchen?

 

[8den]

Microwave room = kitchen?

Some people put their microwave in a different room because they think they are dangerous. This person may be one of those people. They keep a loaded handgun in their kitchen for safety as well so it's fair to say they're a complete fucking moron.

 

[MrSki]

Some people put their microwave in a different room because they think they are dangerous. This person may be one of those people. They keep a loaded handgun in their kitchen for safety as well so it's far to say they're a complete fucking moron.

Probably keep their gun in the microwave.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Some people put their microwave in a different room because they think they are dangerous. .

Ah ok. Safest thing in that case would surely be not to have a microwave. Mind you I guess everyone knows that microwaves are only dangerous to you if you're in the same room. Bit like guns.

 

[MrsDoyle]

so now we need microwave control laws?

tough on microwaves, tough on the causes of microwaves?

 

[likesfish]

Toddlers in the U.S. average one shooting per week this year

Toddlers shot someone every week in the states !

Although in a population of 360 million its apprantly not relevant as toddlers hardly kill anyone

 

[Azrael]

The point of the Northern Ireland comparison isn't that the country's a paragon, but that, in those extreme circumstances, the British government claim that firearms in civilian hands aren't appropriate or effective self-defense tools collapses. The extremity of the circumstances doesn't undermine that point, it reinforces it: a justification that can't survive extremes is no justification at all.

For those who dislike the comparison, and those with other sources of childhood danger, just how exactly would you have the case against gun control argued? When you argue your positions, d'you not seek to highlight inconsistency and contradiction in your opponent's position?

And Idris2002, like I said before, if you can't discuss this without the attitude, let's not discuss it.

 

[Idris2002]

The point of the Northern Ireland comparison isn't that the country's a paragon, but that, in those extreme circumstances, the British government claim that firearms in civilian hands aren't appropriate or effective self-defense tools collapses. The extremity of the circumstances doesn't undermine that point, it reinforces it: a justification that can't survive extremes is no justification at all.

For those who dislike the comparison, and those with other sources of childhood danger, just how exactly would you have the case against gun control argued? When you argue your positions, d'you not seek to highlight inconsistency and contradiction in your opponent's position?

And Idris2002, like I said before, if you can't discuss this without the attitude, let's not discuss it.

What makes you think I want to discuss anything with you?

 

[two sheds]

As for "gun-free zones," that's a misnomer if ever there was one. They're not gun-free; only law-abiding citizens are disarmed. Even so, I've nothing against them so long as they're secured, and everyone who enters is searched, as happens in courthouses, military bases, schools, and other sensitive areas. In other cases, any private organization should have the right to ban weapons on its property. Those who choose to enter despite that have effectively waived their right to keep and bear arms.

Sorted then, just like UK laws which I like - in theory whole country's a 'gun-free zone'. Anyone with valid reason to have guns (hunters, olympic shooters I can't think of any other at the moment) can have them on the way to hunting or olympic shooting, anyone else who goes out in public with a gun is assumed to be going to use it to (for example) rob someone.

Seven years in pokey sounds good to me. Particularly for the white right-wing 'right to carry' arseholes who take their rifles out in public just to threaten people.

 

[Almor]

The point of the Northern Ireland comparison isn't that the country's a paragon, but that, in those extreme circumstances, the British government claim that firearms in civilian hands aren't appropriate or effective self-defense tools collapses. The extremity of the circumstances doesn't undermine that point, it reinforces it: a justification that can't survive extremes is no justification at all.

Well, I wouldn't put too much faith in the British government's claims for or against the effectiveness of personal firearms tbf, they make plenty of pretty shit claims, arguments, and decisions.
Do you have any sources to support their claims, does the british government provide any sources to support their claims?

I've been reading a book by someone who claims to have been active in the IRA, and he claims that where he was involved they actively targeted people with personal firearms because they were the kind of people that the IRA considered itself to be at war with.
I haven't read any examples yet in the book where a personal firearm was used effectively in defence against IRA attacks, so far the only thing preventing successful killings has been bad luck or the incompetence of the attackers, they weren't in the habit of arranging duels against members of the british government.

 

[Azrael]

What makes you think I want to discuss anything with you?

Erm, you replying to my post. If you don't want to talk, fine by me; in future, please don't waste both our time by giving that impression. Thanks.

Almor, already linked to Kleck's research on the efficacy of armed self-defense. SFAIK, similar research hasn't been done in Northern Ireland, and given the secrecy of PPWs, and the kind of targeted threat that terrorists present, it's reasonable to take Kleck's research into encounters between criminals and citizens as more representative of the general effectiveness of defensive gun use. I raised NI specifically to highlight British government inconsistency on legal carry. It may of course be the case that they're generally wrong, but the available research doesn't bear that out.

 

[Idris2002]

Erm, you replying to my post.

I see, you're one of those people who has difficulty interpreting social cues, like being told that you're a "fucking fool".

In general, there's a strong whiff of "angry, ignorant teenager" about your posts. Your comments on the differences between NI gun law and the rest of the UK shriek of the poor adolescent fool who denounces his father as a hypocrite after he is told by his smoker father that he (the adolescent) should not also be smoking.

What this sort of kid fails to realise is that the parent is telling him not to smoke because he, the parent, is already in the hole to the tune of two packs a day for thirty-odd years, and doesn't want to see his angry, ignorant child going down the same road.

 

[8den]

The point of the Northern Ireland comparison isn't that the country's a paragon, but that, in those extreme circumstances, the British government claim that firearms in civilian hands aren't appropriate or effective self-defense tools collapses. The extremity of the circumstances doesn't undermine that point, it reinforces it: a justification that can't survive extremes is no justification at all.

I'm sorry but that point all I can say is "pants".

No one is saying that there is never any justification to own a firearm. What has been said is in the circumstances that a dangerous terrorist organisation is specifically targeting you possessing a licences firearm that you are trained to use is understandable. IN THOSE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. this point has been explained to you so many different ways by so many different posters your clinging to this compassion is becoming tragic.

For those who dislike the comparison, and those with other sources of childhood danger, just how exactly would you have the case against gun control argued? When you argue your positions, d'you not seek to highlight inconsistency and contradiction in your it.

We'd prefer you to Argue the what you feel are the merits of your position without specious comparisons and fallacious reasoning.

 

[Idris2002]

I'm sorry but that point all I can say is "pants".

No one is saying that there is never any justification to own a firearm. What has been said is in the circumstances that a dangerous terrorist organisation is specifically targeting you possessing a licences firearm that you are trained to use is understandable. IN THOSE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. this point has been explained to you so many different ways by so many different posters your clinging to this compassion is becoming tragic.





We'd prefer you to Argue the what you feel are the merits of your position without specious comparisons and fallacious reasoning.

Your dad catches you smoking and he says no way,

THAT HYPOCRITE SMOKES TWO PACKS A DAY

 

[likesfish]

Couple of times in the early days ira men came to grief trying to kill off duty udr men and at least one loyalist mob took to its heels when a pistol was discharged at them

 

[Azrael]

My good Idris, if the usual social cues applied here, it'd be a mass brawl. It often is regardless, but I've found that good discussion can still be had. Obviously not with you. Well OK, we're both good with that, moving on ...

8den, if British policy were consistent on both sides of the Irish Sea, you'd be right. It isn't, so you're not. No one's disputing that PPWs are exceptional, they clearly are: the point is that an exception that applies in Northern Ireland doesn't apply in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is "may issue" (and has quite a few more active carry permits than theoretically may issue states like New Jersey and Maryland), whereas the mainland is no-issue.

By itself, this isn't a major issue, but it combines with other indicators, like, yes, those armed bodyguards, that undermine the claims of governments the world over that armed self-defense is ineffective. Not just a greater evil than banning defensive carry, but ineffective. We're entitled to our own views, not our own facts.

 

[8den]

My good Idris, if the usual social cues applied here, it'd be a mass brawl. It often is regardless, but I've found that good discussion can still be had. Obviously not with you. Well OK, we're both good with that, moving on ...

8den, if British policy were consistent on both sides of the Irish Sea, you'd be right. It isn't, so you're not. No one's disputing that PPWs are exceptional, they clearly are: the point is that an exception that applies in Northern Ireland doesn't apply in Great Britain. Northern Ireland is "may issue" (and has quite a few more active carry permits than theoretically may issue states like New Jersey and Maryland), whereas the mainland is no-issue.

By itself, this isn't a major issue, but it combines with other indicators, like, yes, those armed bodyguards, that undermine the claims of governments the world over that armed self-defense is ineffective. Not just a greater evil than banning defensive carry, but ineffective. We're entitled to our own views, not our own facts.

Well I must say for a conservative you're incredibly green recycling the same tired long debunked points.

Yes Northern Ireland is the exception, because the situation was exceptional and not the norm.

Similarly armed bodyguard for heads of state and the like are understandable when there is a active and real threat to their person.

Carrying a gun because you are protecting yourself from wild bear attacks if you live in a remote part of Alaska makes perfect sense, carrying a gun to protect yourself from Bear attacks in the middle of Manhattan is an entirely different proposal.

Furthermore this goalpost shifting pointing towards Northern Ireland has little or nothing to do with mass shootings in the US and US gun law. Or are you really suggesting that there are any real comparisons between violence in Belfast circa 1980 and in the US today?