The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread

[HTP99]

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

My Scout group took us to a shooting range, we shot proper hand guns.

[TikTak]

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

I'd tend to agree but in a place where they are so widely available and used, is education the key?

[Dagnir]

coldel said:

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

Depends on the country surely?

England - Agree
The US - My kids would 100% be trained.

[coldel]

HTP99 said:

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

My Scout group took us to a shooting range, we shot proper hand guns.

Again my opinion is this is completely unnecessary. Especially in the UK.

Although this is also very different to the scenario at hand where kids have easy access to semi automatic weapons away from ranges and the like.

[The Moose]

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

What if it’s for sport?

[coldel]

The Moose said:

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

What if it’s for sport?

Of course there may well be some VERY specific moments when a child is handed a gun to use and be trained to use. I don't know the laws around gun sports whether a 9 year old is legally allowed to use and compete in sports using deadly weapons so cannot comment.

But that is a very specific semantic and missing the general point, that in the 1st world there should not be a requirement for 9 year old's to be trained to use a deadly weapon as a general use.

[The Moose]

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

What if it’s for sport?

Of course there may well be some VERY specific moments when a child is handed a gun to use and be trained to use. I don't know the laws around gun sports whether a 9 year old is legally allowed to use and compete in sports using deadly weapons so cannot comment.

But that is a very specific semantic and missing the general point, that in the 1st world there should not be a requirement for 9 year old's to be trained to use a deadly weapon as a general use.

There is no requirement for a 9 year old to be “trained to use a deadly weapon as a general use”. And that’s not what you said in the first paragraph of yours I quoted.

Buying a gun for your kids and taking them to a range absolutely isn’t ‘frickin mental’.

Edited by The Moose on Thursday 11th April 13:41

[coldel]

The Moose said:

There is no requirement for a 9 year old to be “trained to use a deadly weapon as a general use”. And that’s not what you said in the first paragraph of yours I quoted.

Buying a gun for your kids and taking them to a range absolutely isn’t ‘frickin mental’.

Edited by The Moose on Thursday 11th April 13:41

The conversation developed and clearly you were aiming for a 'gotcha' by holding back the sport comment from your first reply. I then replied to say I couldn't comment as I do not know the rules of that.

However, my comment still stands, but you have to stay within the context within which it was made before you derailed it i.e. the context was general ownership of guns in the USA. Then, the point itself which was around the use of guns by kids even on a range (and clearly this was about general use of them in the USA in homes across the country). You even mentioned above it was about the bit you bolded, so do keep the context within which that comment was made part of the point as well.

I still think it is frickin mental (not 'freaking' if we are doing the semantics bit ) for ownership of guns and children being allowed to use them. I agree there could be very specific reasons kids might use one but that is very different to the context within which I said it was frickin mental.

if you want to debate the issue of 'should kids be allowed to use guns as part of a professional sports body under supervision and specific controls that are different to general home gun ownership in the USA' then happy to discuss that also, and will probably have a slightly different view on it.

[eharding]

The Moose said:

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

What if it’s for sport?

What, like Moose hunting?

[vaud]

The Moose said:

What if it’s for sport?

I was taught to shoot (air rifles, air pistols and .22 rifles) and trusted with my own air rifle from 11. All target shooting, did ok at local competitions (UK). Still quite enjoy it.

But there is a world of difference between a .22 single shot rifle and going to a range with an AR-15.

[The Moose]

coldel said:

The Moose said:

There is no requirement for a 9 year old to be “trained to use a deadly weapon as a general use”. And that’s not what you said in the first paragraph of yours I quoted.

Buying a gun for your kids and taking them to a range absolutely isn’t ‘frickin mental’.

Edited by The Moose on Thursday 11th April 13:41

The conversation developed and clearly you were aiming for a 'gotcha' by holding back the sport comment from your first reply. I then replied to say I couldn't comment as I do not know the rules of that.

However, my comment still stands, but you have to stay within the context within which it was made before you derailed it i.e. the context was general ownership of guns in the USA. Then, the point itself which was around the use of guns by kids even on a range (and clearly this was about general use of them in the USA in homes across the country). You even mentioned above it was about the bit you bolded, so do keep the context within which that comment was made part of the point as well.

I still think it is frickin mental (not 'freaking' if we are doing the semantics bit ) for ownership of guns and children being allowed to use them. I agree there could be very specific reasons kids might use one but that is very different to the context within which I said it was frickin mental.

if you want to debate the issue of 'should kids be allowed to use guns as part of a professional sports body under supervision and specific controls that are different to general home gun ownership in the USA' then happy to discuss that also, and will probably have a slightly different view on it.

I’m glad I got my frickin edit in there before you clicked the comment button

I don’t really post on here for gotchas - sports as a hobby is a very real use of firearms. Pointing out that kids can shoot sportingly (regardless of whether there’s a competitive element to it or not) isn’t a gotcha.

The problem I see around gun legislation in the US is that any legislation is seen as the start of a slippery slope. And can you blame people who hold that view? Take a look at the UK. It’s becoming harder and harder for people to enjoy the hobby to the point where shooting will essentially be out of reach either financially or practically.

Guns are a tool. A large portion of the US population believe guns are cool. Shooting guns is incredibly good fun (and extremely frustrating like golf on occasion!!).

Guns also provide a layer of safety/security that just isn’t practical any other way - for my work, I am on occasion in remote locations on my own with some very dangerous animals close by (mountain lion, grizzly bear, moose etc). If I had a problem without a firearm, real help would be 30+ mins away and that’s if the helicopter is available.

This whole blanket guns = bad mentality needs to change. Irresponsible ownership of guns = bad is what the message should be.

I have a bunch of guns. I also have little kids. My guns can not be accessed by my kids and they are also taught the basics of gun safety. I also own the rifle my kids will learn to shoot with…but that was by chance - I won it in a raffle!

[andyA700]

coldel said:

HTP99 said:

coldel said:

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Because in general kids at 9 years old living in a 1st world country shouldn't need to know how to handle and fire a deadly weapon. Just my opinion of course.

My Scout group took us to a shooting range, we shot proper hand guns.

Again my opinion is this is completely unnecessary. Especially in the UK.

Although this is also very different to the scenario at hand where kids have easy access to semi automatic weapons away from ranges and the like.

Back in the 70's, there were shooting ranges using live ammunition (usually .22 clips of five) at virtually every fairground, including seaside piers.

[The Moose]

vaud said:

The Moose said:

What if it’s for sport?

I was taught to shoot (air rifles, air pistols and .22 rifles) and trusted with my own air rifle from 11. All target shooting, did ok at local competitions (UK). Still quite enjoy it.

But there is a world of difference between a .22 single shot rifle and going to a range with an AR-15.

Of course. In the same way that it is not wise to pass your drivers test and immediately go and daily a Ferrari, one should graduate from a .22 (bolt) to larger caliber, faster rate of fire guns.

[mickk]

andyA700 said:

Back in the 70's, there were shooting ranges using live ammunition (usually .22 clips of five) at virtually every fairground, including seaside piers.

Top prize was a goldfish, average life span of that goldfish = 24 hours.

[hidetheelephants]

A majority of the US population want more gun control, the NRA and gun/ammo industry pay republicans large amounts of money to stop it happening. There's a reasonable compromise to be had between the insanity of no effective regulation as in red states like Texas and the UK where people were denied their hobby because pandering to tabloid rubbish was easier than correcting the faults in gun licencing.

[Mortarboard]

The Crumbly's actions (and inaction) were pretty egregious, and absolutely facilitated their sons actions.

There's plenty of situations in the US where bar staff are held accountable for not cutting off drunks, and the drunks subsequent actions.

M.

[alabbasi]

hidetheelephants said:

A majority of the US population want more gun control

In my experience, most Americans have very little interest in additional government control of any kind. A good example of this pertaining to firearms is the pistol brace laws that suddenly turned law abiding citizens who legally purchased them into felons overnight. The law was subsequently blocked.

[KaraK]

The Moose said:

Take a look at the UK. It’s becoming harder and harder for people to enjoy the hobby to the point where shooting will essentially be out of reach either financially or practically.

It isn't something that floats my boat particularly but I've known several people over the years here in the UK that do shooting of some form and not one of them has ever complained about the restrictions here or wished they were reduced. Yes there's non-trivial expense, and practicalities that have be borne, but the same is true of any (for want of a better word) "dangerous" hobby. Motorsport can (and often is) dangerous - and many of the safety-focussed requirements that come with participating beyond arrive and drive karting are expensive, and/or require participants to jump through various hoops to prove they can do so safely, same is true of the more casual incarnation of the petrol head. You want to just go for a drive on the public roads you have the be licensed, you have buy or rent a vehicle, that vehicle needs to be a certain level of roadworthiness etc.

So, accepting that shooting as a sport/hobby is a legitimate use of guns, even the sorts of guns that could be used (or misused if you prefer) to hurt, even kill people, and with yourself being someone who enjoys that sport/hobby where's the trade-off point for you personally?

If we go from a hypothetical 0 - no restrictions, guns are cheap and readily available and within financial reach of pretty much anyone who isn't on the breadline to a 10 - guns are very expensive, only those with a high disposable income (say.. earning $100k+ a year) can likely afford to buy and run them, and you have to undergo substantial vetting before purchase, and they have to be securely stored when not being used in an approved sporting environment. Let's ignore any slippery slope or anything like that, and say that you're the one writing the laws and only you can change them - where do you sit?

[MKnight702]

The Moose said:

coldel said:

Now, thats not to say that parents buying guns, taking kids to shooting ranges, etc isnt just frickin mental, I agree with you on that, but hey thats America for you.

Why? I was taught to shoot (and gun safety/gun handling) at 9 or 10 years old.

Same here, my dad and granddad drilled safety into me at every turn. (The fact that my Dad's father was killed in a shooting accident helped). But teaching children how to shoot safely is a good thing, safety learned as a child will stay with you a lifetime. This unfounded horror of guns displayed by many on here is odd, at the end of the day it is an inanimate object no more, no less. The issue is always with the person operating it as with everything from a hammer to a truck.

[bigandclever]

MKnight702 said:

unfounded

There's quite a good example in your own anecdote.