Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack

[AE 87]

So many wacky points I hardly know where to start.

There is NOT evidence that gun control laws decrease gun murders. There IS evidence it doesn’t affect anything. Where there are gun bans, you are many more times to experience massively higher violent crime rates.

You realize 80% of handguns are semi-automatic just like AR-15s right? You’re talking about banning guns that look scary - functionally that does nothing.

More people are murdered with hammers every year than AR-15s.

If the school had an armed officer there and he didn’t do anything, he failed even worse than the local police and the FBI.

Sounds like you are suggesting a whole new meaning to the expression, "Ban Hammer"



Eeeeeyyyyooooo

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The local sheriff said they have gotten over 20 separate calls about Nikolas Cruz in the past year. I really feel for the parents down there. What a massive and total failure by law enforcement and the FBI. This is akin to having a known terrorist living in your community making terrorist threats and nobody cared. This shooting was totally preventable. Sad.

Most terroristic threat laws require a specific, not implied, threat to constitute a criminal offense. So I could hypothetically say “nothing would be better than killing everyone I know and I have 10,000 guns and a million rounds of ammo to make me happy” and that would not rise to an arrest-able offense.

Do I think that represents a reasonable gun owner? No. Should that behavior lead to a forfeiture of 2a rights? Maybe. I could get on board with that with proper due process. But that also crimps 1a rights with regard to sarcastic free speech etc. I damn sure wouldn’t want my above use of hypothetical speech being used to vacate my 2a rights.

Bottom line, peeps prior speech / actions may have been abhorrent but may not have actually violated a law. What is LE to do then? Make an arrest or seizure because it “feels right?”

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

There are left wing nut jobs who want to confiscate all guns. But I think the vast majority only want to try and remove large capacity magazines and semi-automatic guns. So that crazy people can’t kill so many so fast.

The problem is that 80% of guns bought for the home are semi-automatic. If you have to reload every few shots, that’s unworkable.

Bull. A murderer can kill just as many unarmed victims with multiple 10 round magazines as he can with multiple 30 round magazines.

Also...a shotgun used in that school instead would probably have injured and killed more than the AR did. Gonna ban semi auto shotguns then? Won’t change the rate of fire enough to matter if perp has to use a pump action.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Most terroristic threat laws require a specific, not implied, threat to constitute a criminal offense. So I could hypothetically say “nothing would be better than killing everyone I know and I have 10,000 guns and a million rounds of ammo to make me happy” and that would not rise to an arrest-able offense.

Do I think that represents a reasonable gun owner? No. Should that behavior lead to a forfeiture of 2a rights? Maybe. I could get on board with that with proper due process. But that also crimps 1a rights with regard to sarcastic free speech etc. I damn sure wouldn’t want my above use of hypothetical speech being used to vacate my 2a rights.

Bottom line, peeps prior speech / actions may have been abhorrent but may not have actually violated a law. What is LE to do then? Make an arrest or seizure because it “feels right?”

More news out today - the police made 39 separate VISITS to his house over the last few years due to all kinds of different things. Total and complete failure by local law enforcement and the FBI. If we want to get serious about stopping shootings and we can’t even stop a guy who is telling us he’s going to do it...gahhhhhhhh.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Bull. A murderer can kill just as many unarmed victims with multiple 10 round magazines as he can with multiple 30 round magazines.

Also...a shotgun used in that school instead would probably have injured and killed more than the AR did. Gonna ban semi auto shotguns then? Won’t change the rate of fire enough to matter if perp has to use a pimp action.

Oh trust me, I know all that, I’m just giving you their perspective.

“pimp action” - I can get behind that.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I agree with an Armed cop at every school. I am not sure what the answer is to the problem but we need to do something. I am tired of seeing these keep happening and nothing being done.

A cop at every school is needed, I agree. Dad but true. Keep in mind though. Some campuses have multiple buildings, with kids going to and from between classes, that can’t be locked down properly.

Schools need to be physically fortified to create true barriers to entry. Even then. That probably wouldn’t have prevented the last attack. That perp had intimate knowledge of the school and could easily have infiltrated as busses unloaded etc. Backpacks need to be banned from school also.

Those are just starters.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

A cop at every school is needed, I agree. Dad but true. Keep in mind though. Some campuses have multiple buildings, with kids going to and from between classes, that can’t be locked down properly.

Schools need to be physically fortified to create true barriers to entry. Even then. That probably wouldn’t have prevented the last attack. That perp had intimate knowledge of the school and could easily have infiltrated as busses unloaded etc. Backpacks need to be banned from school also.

Those are just starters.

But he should have never been given the chance. Felons can’t own guns. You can’t shoot up a place easily if you’re in jail. Making Terroristic Threats is a felony.

Now generally speaking you’re right - you can’t stop everything. But law enforcement continues to fail in simply enforcing existing laws.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

But he should have never been given the chance. Felons can’t own guns. You can’t shoot up a place easily if you’re in jail. Making Terroristic Threats is a felony.

Now generally speaking you’re right - you can’t stop everything. But law enforcement continues to fail in simply enforcing existing laws.

I’ll have to research those 39 prior calls. But to reiterate, saying you will shoot up a school will get you arrested...saying you want to shoot up a school will not. Maybe the cops screwed the pouch...maybe they didn’t have evidence to make a lawful arrest. I dunno yet.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I think the big question is should guns be legal. Nuclear weapons are illegal for a reason. In the wrong hands they can do incredible amounts of damage. One could argue that same point for many types of guns albeit at a lower scale. I personally don't think all guns should be banned. I am fine with handguns, shotguns, and some hunting rifles provided that they are issued to someone after a pretty thorough background check and registration process. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why anyone needs semi automatic rifles for their own personal use though.

So what rifles will you, in your infinite wisdom, allow me to possess? Can I possess a semi-auto shotgun? A pump action shotgun? A semi auto pistol? Let’s set some parameters for reasonable discourse.

 

[WreckinGT]

So many wacky points I hardly know where to start.

There is NOT evidence that gun control laws decrease gun murders. There IS evidence it doesn’t affect anything. Where there are gun bans, you are many more times to experience massively higher violent crime rates.

You realize 80% of handguns are semi-automatic just like AR-15s right? You’re talking about banning guns that look scary - functionally that does nothing.

More people are murdered with hammers every year than AR-15s.

If the school had an armed officer there and he didn’t do anything, he failed even worse than the local police and the FBI.

I do agree that with handguns it should be a selection of handguns that are legally obtainable. Can you personally tell me why you need an AR-15? What do you do with it that makes it a necessity in your life?

Also, start giving some facts please. Go country by country and show that violent crime rates spiked significantly after gun control laws were passed and that the increases were likely caused by the gun control laws themselves. Do your own work to separate out the crimes that were not gun related at all like minor sexual offenses, and show that the actual violent crimes occurred simply because the victims did not have guns which they would have had if not for the gun laws. It would be a really interesting study to read.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I do agree that with handguns it should be a selection of handguns that are legally obtainable. Can you personally tell me why you need an AR-15? What do you do with it that makes it a necessity in your life?

Also, start giving some facts please. Go country by country and show that violent crime rates spiked significantly after gun control laws were passed and that the increases were likely caused by the gun control laws themselves. Do your own work to separate out the crimes that were not gun related at all like minor sexual offenses, and show that the actual violent crimes occurred simply because the victims did not have guns which they would have had if not for the gun laws. It would be a really interesting study to read.

There is not a big difference between any semi-automatic gun. Why do you not like AR-15s, because they look scary? They account for less than 2% of gun murders. More people are murdered with hammers. The fetish with AR-15 bans is weird.

Other countries don’t have the 2a history we do, so it’s easier to ban guns. We absolutely can’t ban guns, so even entertaining that thought is a waste of time. Look across Europe where they don’t have any guns - their violent crimes are many tines higher than ours. Again, we can’t ban guns - but if we did, do you really want several million more violent crimes per year?

Australia bought back a third of all guns in society and destroyed them - it had no discernible effect on gun murders.

Our gun murder rate is at THE LOWEST SINCE THE 1800s. THE. LOWEST.

Every gun death is terrible. But many more die due to opiods, DUI, and so on.

And this guy was a known terrorist that the FBI and Law Enforcement did nothing about. If we just enforced the laws we have, we could be much more safe.

 

[WreckinGT]

So what rifles will you, in your infinite wisdom, allow me to possess? Can I possess a semi-auto shotgun? A pump action shotgun? A semi auto pistol? Let’s set some parameters for reasonable discourse.

When you start classifying all guns it is obviously a bigger discussion. One that needs to be had. If you need a gun that can fire 80-100 rounds in a minute though then are living a troubled life. If you need to hunt with a semi automatic rifle then you are a sh***y hunter.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

When you start classifying all guns it is obviously a bigger discussion. One that needs to be had. If you need a gun that can fire 80-100 rounds in a minute though then are living a troubled life. If you need to hunt with a semi automatic rifle then you are a sh***y hunter.

With all due respect, this comment literally makes no sense. You could have a handgun that holds 10 rounds and be able to fire 80 rounds in a minute. Who is talking about hunting? LOL. We’re talking about people who want a gun at home for protection. Discussing what duck hunters need is silly.

 

[WreckinGT]

Australia bought back a third of all guns in society and destroyed them - it had no discernible effect on gun murders.

You keep saying this but im not sure where you are getting it from.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ck-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html

Last year a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed that in 1996, Australia had had 311 murders, of which 98 involved guns. In 2014, when the population had increased from about 18 million to 23 million, 238 people were murdered, 35 by guns.

In other words, the likelihood of being murdered by gunshot fell by 72 per cent in that period, from 0.54 to 0.15 per 100,000 people, Reuters said.

Also, its worth noting that Australia's overall homicide rate is currently the lowest it has been in the last 25 years and your favorite stat, the violent crimes rate has plummeted.

 

[WreckinGT]

With all due respect, this comment literally makes no sense. You could have a handgun that holds 10 rounds and be able to fire 80 rounds in a minute. Who is talking about hunting? LOL. We’re talking about people who want a gun at home for protection. Discussing what duck hunters need is silly.

Then that handgun should be banned. What are you confused about?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Then that handgun should be banned. What are you confused about?

It’s not me that’s confused. Semi-automatics are what 80% of people buy at home. If you have to reload after every few shots, you’re dead. You won’t ban semi-automatic guns, it’s what everyone buys.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You keep saying this but im not sure where you are getting it from.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ck-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html


Also, its worth noting that Australia's overall homicide rate is currently the lowest it has been in the last 25 years and your favorite stat, the violent crimes rate has plummeted.

It’s not related to the gun ban. Their decrease in gun murders is commensurate with ours and every other developed country during that time frame. Our gun murders are at THE LOWEST SINCE THE 1800s. And our gun ownership has ballooned. So by your logic then obviously we should have triple the guns we already have to lower the gun murder rate further.

Australia’s violent crime rate is no different than ours. They also have a lot more guns than places like Great Britain. They just bought back a third of them. But they still have a ton of guns. They don’t have a gun ban like much of Europe.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

When you start classifying all guns it is obviously a bigger discussion. One that needs to be had. If you need a gun that can fire 80-100 rounds in a minute though then are living a troubled life. If you need to hunt with a semi automatic rifle then you are a sh***y hunter.

The round count you cite covers the vast majority of all firearms.

Please explain your stance on hunting. Do you hunt? Do you realize targets sometimes move, the wind and range are easily misread? If you only wound the game you are after (it happens to good hunters sometimes too) would you rather not have the ability for a follow up shot to prevent the animal from dying a slow painful death as you attempt to follow the blood trail (not easily done)?

What about home defens? Do you realize homes are invaded in this country by violent individuals? More frequently than school shootings. Why is the life of my family worth less than innocent lives at a school? My kids are school age. Would their death at our home at the hands of violent offenders be more palatable to you than their deaths at school?

Seems to me you are just anti-gun. If so fine. Many of my friends and coworkers are. But you should be honest and own it.

In the latest school attack a book bag was utilized to conceal the weapon. Every year bookbags are used to sneak in firearms at schools across the country. One instance of this occurred in Gwinnett County the day after the attack in Florida. They are also used to smuggle in a wide variety of illegal drugs in schools.

http://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/...g-gun-gwinnett-school/Mm7gedZTN1pnWEHaOUoFBI/

Will you back a ban on bookbags at school? I support such a ban. Will without doubt make schools safer and is far more easily done than confiscating millions and millions of firearms from lawful citizens.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Latest news is the multiple people called the FBI, and they did nothing. One guy called the FBI and told him his name, who he was, all the guns he owned, his erratic behavior, and threats to shoot up a school. The FBI did nothing about any of the tips.

 

[LibertyTurns]

OK, I’ll put boundaries on my statement. Of the things that are legal to possesses like a car or a gun, is the item responsible for its use or the operator?

Clearly it’s not legal to possess nuclear weapons.

I would have thought this would be a fairly easy question to answer without having to sidestep.

I think the big question is should guns be legal. Nuclear weapons are illegal for a reason. In the wrong hands they can do incredible amounts of damage. One could argue that same point for many types of guns albeit at a lower scale. I personally don't think all guns should be banned. I am fine with handguns, shotguns, and some hunting rifles provided that they are issued to someone after a pretty thorough background check and registration process. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why anyone needs semi automatic rifles for their own personal use though.

Guns are already banned from school campuses. Someone tell me if there’s an exception in some state somewhere. Clearly that ban has failed so let’s replace it with a bigger, better ban.

Second question, why would a second bigger, better gun ban be better than the ban we already have that isn’t working because criminals choose not to follow the rules? There are law abiding citizens out there that can follow the rules pretty good & then criminals that don’t seem to be able to follow them at all.

Maybe we should focus on the criminals and not the law abiding citizens for once?