Las Vegas Mass Casualty Attack

[northgajacket]

The number doesn't matter. Many Americans own more and aren't psychos. The intent of and actual use of them is what matters.

Sorry, I just have never understood the infatuation with having a bunch of guns.

 

[AE 87]

Evil has always and will always exist in the world.....until the return of Christ anyway. But I don't want to derail with religious debate.

The problem is that it's already a religious debate. Most advocates of gun control laws as a solution are arguing from faith.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Sorry, I just have never understood the infatuation with having a bunch of guns.

That is probably relative to a general lack of interest in any firearms on your part. Different makes and models offer different capabilities. I own several and would own twice as many if money was no object.

 

[LibertyTurns]

What's wrong with that?

The anti-profiling crowd is typically also the anti-gun crowd. We have a Republican socialized medicine, tax & spender in the White House that’s pro-America and anti-gun control. I think nationally we’re going to have a political short circuit.

 

[RonJohn]

I don't see a solution in our country since the subject of gun control has been debated and resolved, so far, through the ballot box. People seem to be voting that the freedom to own guns of almost any capability is worth the collateral damage of the deaths we see. I don't agree and don't own a gun. 90 people every day are shot in this country (60 are suicide attempts) so the impact of guns has been with us for a long time. The cynic in me says even if we were able to restrict guns effectively, people would resort to bombs or poison or something else.

I don't think many people look at is a freedom vs collateral damage any more than they look at cars as: Freedom to get where I need to go when I want to is worth 96 people per day dying in car accidents. I don't think that eliminating all legal guns in the US would be 100% effective in preventing shootings. I hasn't been 100% effective in Europe. Guns are simply tools. It isn't cynical to believe that if guns weren't available at all that people would use other tools to enact violence. Some tools, like bombs and poisons, could potentially be more effective and more deadly than guns.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I don't think many people look at is a freedom vs collateral damage any more than they look at cars as: Freedom to get where I need to go when I want to is worth 96 people per day dying in car accidents. I don't think that eliminating all legal guns in the US would be 100% effective in preventing shootings. I hasn't been 100% effective in Europe. Guns are simply tools. It isn't cynical to believe that if guns weren't available at all that people wouldn't use other tools to enact violence. Some tools, like bombs and poisons, could potentially be more effective and more deadly than guns.

Good points. Brings to mind a recent video I saw of several police, in another country (3rd world), dealing with a subject armed with a 5-6 inch knife. He may have been mentally ill but was sound of body. One bad guy vs about a half dozen cops armed with handguns and one cop armed with an AK47. The bad guy won the fight for about the first 60 seconds taking out the AK first before stabbing / slashing at least 3 other officers. Pretty sure the officer with the AK expired (one of the officers reportedly died), he was down for quite a while rasping with an apparent punctured lung. Bad guy was finally taken out of the fight after being shot multiple times.

The dude was severely "outgunned" but his will to kill completely overwhelmed the officers for several moments.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Sorry, I just have never understood the infatuation with having a bunch of guns.

I don't either, but then again, most people wouldn't understand my infatuation with GT sports

 

[Captain killem]

Automobile accidents kill more people per year than anything else so should they be banned also. 90% of them are caused by someone breaking the law ie speeding reckless driving dui texting. See that’s my point when we start banning things where do we stop.

 

[jeffgt14]

Still should raise a red flag. Nobody on earth needs that many guns.

I know a few people with that many guns but they weren’t all acquired in one year and they aren’t all assault rifles which is what would raise the red flag for me.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I know a few people with that many guns but they weren’t all acquired in one year and they aren’t all assault rifles which is what would raise the red flag for me.

Right, but then what? The FBI starts surveilling him, runs a back ground check on him, brings him in for interviews. 64 year old white male. No history of mental illness. No criminal history. No history of religious or political activism. No financial issues. No nothing. If there was anybody that we would sell a gun too in even the most strict of circumstances, it would have been this guy.

 

[northgajacket]

I know a few people with that many guns but they weren’t all acquired in one year and they aren’t all assault rifles which is what would raise the red flag for me.

That's what I meant. The amount of time and the kind of weapons should have been concerning.

 

[B Lifsey]

Folks I know with that many guns have a mix of historically significant, antique and/or specialty edition guns...a "collection" not just a heap of assault rifles.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Reports have been mixed. I think the sheriff said a couple days ago that the perp had been obtaining his weapons cache for over a decade. Seems it has also been reported he purchased many in the last year.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Folks I know with that many guns have a mix of historically significant, antique and/or specialty edition guns...a "collection" not just a heap of assault rifles.

Folks I know have a heap of "assault" rifles and a mix of some others. Ain't nothing wrong with them. Some are cops, some aren't, they just share enthusiasm for firearms.

 

[smathis30]

Automobile accidents kill more people per year than anything else so should they be banned also. 90% of them are caused by someone breaking the law ie speeding reckless driving dui texting. See that’s my point when we start banning things where do we stop.

Once the whole car thing was brought up, i figured this was gonna be said. cars are designed to bring people from one place to another. But you also have laws in place for who can get a license, continual testing for skills, mandatory training, mandatory registration and insurance as a way to mitigate risk, etc. Same things don't apply to guns. Which is weird to me because cars are designed to transport things, but guns are designed to well, kill things http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/
Not a big fan of assault weapons either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

Despite being only ~1-3 % of all guns, they make up nearly 15-25% of all mass shooting weapon choices. As we learned at VT with handguns, if there is a will and way to store amunition, there is a way. But limiting access to something that doesnt really offer a lot of benefits (what can an assault rifle do that either a hunting rifle can't do power wise or a hand gun can do with portability?) I really can't think of a situation where having an assault rifle is neccesary

Anyway, growing up in chicago definiely seen the negatives of attempting to do gun regulation. And seen the positives of less regulation when I lived in Oklahoma and could go hunting on the regular (I prefer bow hunting). I think regulation should be done, but Americas past with it, especially the previous Clinton led AW Ban, makes me wonder what really would be the best route. Slippery slope logical fallacy aside, based off the 94 banning of assault weapons, i really don't understand the hesitation for regulation. More Americans (on both sides) want to have handguns available than any other time in american history. We will never go full on Australia just due to how ingrained gun culture is in America. Both sides want guns, just the democrats want to be able to see if there is a way to reduce it as doing nothing hasn't really been working.

 

[AE 87]

Once the whole car thing was brought up, i figured this was gonna be said. cars are designed to bring people from one place to another. But you also have laws in place for who can get a license, continual testing for skills, mandatory training, mandatory registration and insurance as a way to mitigate risk, etc. Same things don't apply to guns. Which is weird to me because cars are designed to transport things, but guns are designed to well, kill things http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/
Not a big fan of assault weapons either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

Despite being only ~1-3 % of all guns, they make up nearly 15-25% of all mass shooting weapon choices. As we learned at VT with handguns, if there is a will and way to store amunition, there is a way. But limiting access to something that doesnt really offer a lot of benefits (what can an assault rifle do that either a hunting rifle can't do power wise or a hand gun can do with portability?) I really can't think of a situation where having an assault rifle is neccesary

Anyway, growing up in chicago definiely seen the negatives of attempting to do gun regulation. And seen the positives of less regulation when I lived in Oklahoma and could go hunting on the regular (I prefer bow hunting). I think regulation should be done, but Americas past with it, especially the previous Clinton led AW Ban, makes me wonder what really would be the best route. Slippery slope logical fallacy aside, based off the 94 banning of assault weapons, i really don't understand the hesitation for regulation. More Americans (on both sides) want to have handguns available than any other time in american history. We will never go full on Australia just due to how ingrained gun culture is in America. Both sides want guns, just the democrats want to be able to see if there is a way to reduce it as doing nothing hasn't really been working.

I remember my first beer.

 

[Captain killem]

Chiraqs gun control has worked so well hasn’t it. See this is the problem criminals will never follow laws and regulations, when you attempt to disarm people the criminals have free reign. Th police are not here to provide security for you and yours 24 hours a day. I would rather me be able to protect my family and property unless an armed guard is allowed to each person. Criminals are the problem, yet some advocate against harsh penalties. See you can’t have peace and we all sit around a campfire and sing kumbiya as long as there is criminals.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Once the whole car thing was brought up, i figured this was gonna be said. cars are designed to bring people from one place to another. But you also have laws in place for who can get a license, continual testing for skills, mandatory training, mandatory registration and insurance as a way to mitigate risk, etc. Same things don't apply to guns. Which is weird to me because cars are designed to transport things, but guns are designed to well, kill things http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/
Not a big fan of assault weapons either.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/20...many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

Despite being only ~1-3 % of all guns, they make up nearly 15-25% of all mass shooting weapon choices. As we learned at VT with handguns, if there is a will and way to store amunition, there is a way. But limiting access to something that doesnt really offer a lot of benefits (what can an assault rifle do that either a hunting rifle can't do power wise or a hand gun can do with portability?) I really can't think of a situation where having an assault rifle is neccesary

Anyway, growing up in chicago definiely seen the negatives of attempting to do gun regulation. And seen the positives of less regulation when I lived in Oklahoma and could go hunting on the regular (I prefer bow hunting). I think regulation should be done, but Americas past with it, especially the previous Clinton led AW Ban, makes me wonder what really would be the best route. Slippery slope logical fallacy aside, based off the 94 banning of assault weapons, i really don't understand the hesitation for regulation. More Americans (on both sides) want to have handguns available than any other time in american history. We will never go full on Australia just due to how ingrained gun culture is in America. Both sides want guns, just the democrats want to be able to see if there is a way to reduce it as doing nothing hasn't really been working.

An assault rifle is just a rifle. It's no different than a handgun. Which we should call an assault handgun to be consistent and wrong. Rifles just look scary, that's it.

Australia was able to buy back one-third of their guns. But it had no measurable effect on gun deaths. If you look at the chart from several years before the buyback until now, you'd never be able to guess what year the buyback was.

Assault guns (to again be wrong but use the term people love) will never go away. Because semi-automatic guns is nearly all people buy. If you had a gun in your house for protection, 2 guys break in to rob you, and you have to reload every couple shots - no way. You might as well not have a gun.

In terms of background checks, they are much more stringent than driving. Nobody does a background check for driving a car. Nobody does a mental health check for driving a car. Now having said that, this guy had no mental health issues or anything, so it didn't matter anyway.

Countries with no guns have double the violent the crime we have. So all this hand wringing about gun deaths isn't the whole story. If we swapped crime stats with the U.K. , we'd have 30,000 gun deaths gone each year - but we'd have TEN MILLION more violent crimes.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

As a side note driving a car is not listed in our bill of rights....possessing and carrying weapons is.

We can have a huge discussion on the "need" for semi-auto rifles, commonly referred to incorrectly by liberals as "assault weapons".

If multiple peeps break into my home, semi-autos are the best defense period. Does this happen a lot? Subjective. Does it happen? Absolutely.

 

[A Love Supreme]

As a side note driving a car is not listed in our bill of rights....possessing and carrying weapons is.

We can have a huge discussion on the "need" for semi-auto rifles, commonly referred to incorrectly by liberals as "assault weapons".

If multiple peeps break into my home, semi-autos are the best defense period. Does this happen a lot? Subjective. Does it happen? Absolutely.

Obviously driving a car is not listed in the bill of rights because people weren't driving when the bill of rights were written.
My question to you is, Do you think it's possible there can be some form of gun regulations to try to prevent mass shootings from happening without violating the 2nd Amendment?