Las Vegas mass shooting going on

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Rolling Stone wrote a good opinion article on what the gun lobby has left in their argument for more sensible gun control.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...excuse-w506851

I'd like to hear people thoughts on why gun-show loopholes or assault weapon bans aren't needed today, in addition to other common-sense legislation like large magazine bans, putting an end to sale of illegal modifications, etc.

Also, please read the damn article before commenting. Try not to fall into the nonsensical mindset that the "tyrant will get me otherwise".

There is no "gun show loophole" Gun shows are populated by licensed vendors who run your background there just like their shop . The loophole is a private citizen can sell to another private citizen. I wouldn't be against this leaving family members exempt so you could buy or gift your 15 yr old a .22. That said they call it a gun show loophole because if you want to sell your gun and you're a private citizen, you can find buyers at a gun show.

Large magazines bans are silly. Yes, these mass shootings are bad, but you're more likely to be killed by lightning than in a mass shooting. Want to dramatically decrease them, enforce people who have psychological issues that are dangerous to be restricted from access to guns. The magazine's are out there. The only ones who won't have them if banned are the good guys. There is no sale of illegal modifications. Only criminals do that now. And another law won't correct that.

So in sum, if you want to stop the vast majority of mass shootings, have psychologist and psychiatrists inform the government of who should not gave gun access. Also keep in mind, 98% of shooting are pistols, not rifles, and most are done by repeat gun felons. Keep those locked up with mandatory sentences and gum crime as a whole will plummet. None of these things liberals are for unfortunately but they actually would work and make sense.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

There is no "gun show loophole" Gun shows are populated by licensed vendors who run your background there just like their shop . The loophole is a private citizen can sell to another private citizen. I wouldn't be against this leaving family members exempt so you could buy or gift your 15 yr old a .22. That said they call it a gun show loophole because if you want to sell your gun and you're a private citizen, you can find buyers at a gun show.

Large magazines bans are silly. Yes, these mass shootings are bad, but you're more likely to be killed by lightning than in a mass shooting. Want to dramatically decrease them, enforce people who have psychological issues that are dangerous to be restricted from access to guns. The magazine's are out there. The only ones who won't have them if banned are the good guys. There is no sale of illegal modifications. Only criminals do that now. And another law won't correct that.

So in sum, if you want to stop the vast majority of mass shootings, have psychologist and psychiatrists inform the government of who should not gave gun access. Also keep in mind, 98% of shooting are pistols, not rifles, and most are done by repeat gun felons. Keep those locked up with mandatory sentences and gum crime as a whole will plummet. None of these things liberals are for unfortunately but they actually would work and make sense.

look, all this makes sense. Btw, I believe that universal background checks of private sales at shows are not active in every state. So while the majority of sales at shows are by FFLs, you can still as a private party, sell a firearm to another private party without completely knowing whether that person is allowed to own a firearm.

Here's an example:

http://archive.jsonline.com/news/cri...335806851.html


Look...there are other alternatives. What if we treat the gun ownership like car ownership? How about insuring against your potential liability of owning a gun?

Knowing you can get your pants sued off you for selling or owning a gun that is used to commit crimes may be a way to get reasonable gun ownership. Just a thought.

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

So in sum, if you want to stop the vast majority of mass shootings, have psychologist and psychiatrists inform the government of who should not gave gun access.

Anybody who wants to own a rifle is clearly INSANE

[SMiGGs]

This guy could have used a bomb or multiple small bombs, and could have killed half the the people there. He decided to use firearms for whatever reason. Look at the UK, they dont need firearms, they use vehicles to plow into crowds. I dont think gun control or making more laws helps. It only affects law abiding citizens.

I honestly think, it was a set up. Soon after the shooting hillary clinton tweeted about the NRA.

Info on the firearms he used are out. Please tell me why most his guns are AR-15s. They either have, bipods, front grips, an extended magazine, recoil stocks, and lasers lol.

Not only that, but the guy was able to successfully pick people off from a long distance, at an automatic fire-rate, and with a recoil bump stock. Dude knew how to compensate for windage and everything. No military training or police training or anything. His brother doesnt even look devastated during the interview. His brother literally said his brother eats burritos, while smirking.

To me it sounds like a gun-control set up, or maybe hillary getting back at the NRA for helping trump. IDK lol

[Haywood]

Originally Posted by fravel

Sweet strawman bro, I said nothing about a new world order, I spoke of history.

A few recent examples:

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

You can "IMO" all you want, but facts don't care about your opinions.

You're quoting dictatorships or communism where people don't have rights to protect themselves. This doesn't apply to the US nor is 2nd amendment ever going to get taken away. While I am for the 2nd amendment, I don't agree "that nothing can be done". It was just 1 1/2 years ago that the deadliest shooting happened in Orlando. Nothing was done. We will send our thoughts and prayers and move on and then this will happen again. The cycle continuously repeats itself. The bottom line the NRA has too much power in this country. I don't believe ANY lobby group, including the financial ones that brought down the economy, should have that much power and influence on Congress. They completely control people's votes based on how much money they give to support said representatives. Both sides of Congress agree we need stricter gun laws. Guess who keeps making it more difficult? The NRA. Sorry, this is not the way it supposed to work. You can't tell me that we can't do a better job of restricting access to guns to the mentally disabled, closing loopholes at gun shows, and limiting/restricting sales of certain automatic weapons? I just don't see how anyone needs a M16 for "hunting".

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by fravel

Why is this 'common sense'? What is a large magazine?



Did... and you know what? I can accept this as the price to pay for our freedom. Am I happy about it? Absolutely not - but freedom isn't free.

I've always felt that a magazine that holds 8 bullets is enough. I can't think of a scenario where you fire that many bullets, need more, and don't have time to reload. If 8 was good enough for our boys on Omaha beach (M-1 Garand), it's probably enough for the common guy (or gal).

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by SMiGGs

This guy could have used a bomb or multiple small bombs, and could have killed half the the people there. He decided to use firearms for whatever reason. Look at the UK, they dont need firearms, they use vehicles to plow into crowds. I dont think gun control or making more laws helps. It only affects law abiding citizens.

I honestly think, it was a set up. Soon after the shooting hillary clinton tweeted about the NRA.

Not only that, but info on the firearms he used are out. Please tell me why most his guns are AR-15s. They either have, bipods, front grips, an extended magazine, recoil stocks, and lasers lol.

Silly hillary doesnt know a silencer would fail due to overheat from an automatic fire rate. what an idiot.

Not only that, but the guy was able to successfully pick people off from a long distance, at an automatic fire-rate, and with a recoil bump stock. Dude knew how to compensate for windage and everything. No military training or police training or anything. His brother doesnt even look devastated during the interview. His brother literally said his brother eats burritos, while smirking.

To me it sounds like a gun-control set up, or maybe hillary getting back at the NRA for helping trump. IDK lol

Tin foil hat day today I see...

[SMiGGs]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Tin foil hat day today I see...

Location: Commiefornia

/argumentinvalid

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

I've always felt that a magazine that holds 8 bullets is enough. I can't think of a scenario where you fire that many bullets, need more, and don't have time to reload. If 8 was good enough for our boys on Omaha beach (M-1 Garand), it's probably enough for the common guy (or gal).

yeah, but you need a higher capacity to shoot today's super animals and all

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSimpsons...sault_weapons/

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by SMiGGs

Location: Commiefornia

/argumentinvalid

okay...sooo...do provide your evidence of how some government coverup and conspiracy was involved in this shooting. Go ahead we'll wait.

[Haywood]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

okay...sooo...do provide your evidence of how some government coverup and conspiracy was involved in this shooting. Go ahead we'll wait.

Actually, I think he was making fun of the guy's post by saying he's from California so his argument is invalid?

[SMiGGs]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

okay...sooo...do provide your evidence of how some government coverup and conspiracy was involved in this shooting. Go ahead we'll wait.

Like the same evidence youre providing everyone with..... Unless you were next to the guy, i doubt anything youre posting is bringing any validity. Only opinions on what the law should be.

Conspiracy or not, everything should be looked at. How do you pass an unfavorable law? By invoking fear in the people. Past civilizations have done this, why is our country an exception?
Ex. Patriot Act

Like i said my opinion. No need for insults just because someone doesnt agree with you.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

But you see...those examples, while likely correct are country built on long histories of autocracy, and brief chaotic periods of quasi-democracy. Would I trust those governments if I lived at that time with that history? Hello no

Why would one trust any government at any point in history? I'm not advocating for anarchy, as I see .gov as a necessary evil, but power corrupts. Those in power, given the opportunity, will do whatever is necessary to retain their power.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

But this country is not the same. What history since 1776 can you point towards where the government is moving towards doing something "egregious"? George Washington himself had the opportunity to be a tyrant, but he did not. That was a point in US history where the country was at the weakest and Washington at his strongest, and yet he relinquished and divested his powers. This is exactly why USA is NOT the same as the countries your listed.

Yes, and Washington was from the same stock of men that wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to ensure that those noble ideas would continue to guide the country after they were gone. In modern days its up to us as citizens to see that we continue to abide by them.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

There is no good reasonable freedom argument. The military is not staffed by conscripts, they are citizen soldiers. The police aren't conscripts, they are citizens and your neighbors, with active efforts to recruit from all aspects of society. I personally know military and police personnel. I can say without a doubt, tyranny is something they will not stand for, not stand with.

I tend to agree with your assessment of our military, but that doesn't mean the powers that be can't or won't try. Should the time come, we aren't going to be able to remove such a government by just asking nicely.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Just to quote the article:

I disagree with the assertion in the article, as there has been been lots of dissent toward the things the author mentions here.

I'll also note that we had a similar situation leading up to the Revolutionary War. The British government did numerous things to the Colonies which could (or perhaps should) have fomented rebellion - but we didn't actually pick up our guns and fight until they moved to seize the armories at Lexington and Concord. If there's a second Revolutionary War I suspect that we will see it play out in a similar fashion.

[Flyingscotsman]

Originally Posted by SMiGGs

This guy could have used a bomb or multiple small bombs, and could have killed half the the people there. He decided to use firearms for whatever reason. Look at the UK, they dont need firearms, they use vehicles to plow into crowds. I dont think gun control or making more laws helps. It only affects law abiding citizens.

I honestly think, it was a set up. Soon after the shooting hillary clinton tweeted about the NRA.

Info on the firearms he used are out. Please tell me why most his guns are AR-15s. They either have, bipods, front grips, an extended magazine, recoil stocks, and lasers lol.

Not only that, but the guy was able to successfully pick people off from a long distance, at an automatic fire-rate, and with a recoil bump stock. Dude knew how to compensate for windage and everything. No military training or police training or anything. His brother doesnt even look devastated during the interview. His brother literally said his brother eats burritos, while smirking.

To me it sounds like a gun-control set up, or maybe hillary getting back at the NRA for helping trump. IDK lol

He used firearms because they are easily accessible!

[BayMoWe335]

First of all, this was tragic and everyone involved is a victim and it's completely unfair they had to go through this. Should never happen and I could never understand what the families are facing today. It's just awful.

That said, why does this get everyone so fired up? I hate the media and how they just proliferate the divisive narrative in our county.

Mass shootings are still super rare and even though this was tragic, it's far down the list of priorities.

Healthcare, human trafficking, child abuse, domestic violence, education, and even natural disasters are far more damaging than these one off tragedies. These things are sad, but 59 people dying in a one off tragedy doesn't need the full attention of the media and governments to avoid this. If you avoided every mass shooting in US history, you'd probably save what, 1,000 lives? It's just not a needle mover and the proposed "solutions" either won't work or will cause a myriad of unintended consequences.

I don't mean to sound insensitive; it's not that I don't care about the victims or don't think there needs to be some change...it's just that this is SO over the top in its coverage, outrage, and resources spent discussing it over and over while people literally starve to death or can't get the healthcare they need to have a BASIC existence.

Just because this happens, we don't have to start collecting everyone's weapons and repealing the 2nd amendment. Maybe it needs some tweaking, but this is not the #1 issue in our country.

Lord, people are stupid.

[cliverman]

Crazy question .....how did he get all that shit into his hotel undetected?

[CosmosMpower]

Originally Posted by SMiGGs

This guy could have used a bomb or multiple small bombs, and could have killed half the the people there. He decided to use firearms for whatever reason. Look at the UK, they dont need firearms, they use vehicles to plow into crowds. I dont think gun control or making more laws helps. It only affects law abiding citizens.

I honestly think, it was a set up. Soon after the shooting hillary clinton tweeted about the NRA.

Info on the firearms he used are out. Please tell me why most his guns are AR-15s. They either have, bipods, front grips, an extended magazine, recoil stocks, and lasers lol.

Not only that, but the guy was able to successfully pick people off from a long distance, at an automatic fire-rate, and with a recoil bump stock. Dude knew how to compensate for windage and everything. No military training or police training or anything. His brother doesnt even look devastated during the interview. His brother literally said his brother eats burritos, while smirking.

To me it sounds like a gun-control set up, or maybe hillary getting back at the NRA for helping trump. IDK lol

Not much aiming or compensating needed when you're shooting into a 22 acre area packed with people.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by cliverman

Crazy question .....how did he get all that shit into his hotel undetected?

Not hard. He has been staying there for 4 days already. More than enough time to move weapons through his bags daily...

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by cliverman

Crazy question .....how did he get all that shit into his hotel undetected?

Not a crazy question at all, but he could have done it easily. Nearly all weapons break down into component parts, and can be put in much smaller cases for transporting. He most likely broke the weapons down into their component parts (which is no different than simply disassembling the firearm for cleaning), and then reassembled them in his hotel room. Mags and ammo are easy too as those are small and can fit in anything.

With all the people coming in and out of hotels everyday, I seriously doubt anybody would pay the slightest bit of attention to a guy walking in/out a couple times with suitcases.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Haywood

Actually, I think he was making fun of the guy's post by saying he's from California so his argument is invalid?

no, you read it wrong. He said it's a conspricy. I called him out for wearing a tin foil hat. He automatically assumed that since I lived in California, I'm a communist. I then asked him to provide proof of what he's saying is true. I'm sure we'll be waiting a while to see proof.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by CosmosMpower

Not much aiming or compensating needed when you're shooting into a 22 acre area packed with people.

Careful now, this bitch dodged sniper fire and knows what she's talking about.

[cliverman]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Not hard. He has been staying there for 4 days already. More than enough time to move weapons through his bags daily...

Yeah - I guess your right. People wouldn't be suspecting someone to carry 18 guns and tons of ammo. Good point.