Look you politicized the thread bro, others were just sending condolences......let it play it out.....geez man.
OT: Las Vegas Active Shooter
- Thread starter raulduke_007
- Start date
I do not want to take away from the tragedy of this event, but this post is the definition of ignorance. What he had is illegal. People who are willing to mass murder innocent people may not follow gun laws when obtaining their weapons.
So a tragedy happens involving fully automatic weapons. Not sure if they were modified to be fully automatic or if he somehow got his hands on a fully automatic weapon through black market.
Like clockwork the pro-gun and people in favor of some gun restrictions are at it. Can't we at least wait 24 hours to pray for the victims of this cowardly despicable act?
I understand the gun dialogue and think it is natural after an event like this but people need to stop deeming the other side stupid or ignorant.
Like clockwork the pro-gun and people in favor of some gun restrictions are at it. Can't we at least wait 24 hours to pray for the victims of this cowardly despicable act?
I understand the gun dialogue and think it is natural after an event like this but people need to stop deeming the other side stupid or ignorant.
I asked this earlier and no one ever answers. Do you have a link of where they've identified what was used?
This is the exact time to have this conversation. It's uncomfortable and it's awful, but this is exactly when we should be having the conversation.
I don't think they have put that out there. But from the audio, I don't think anyone is disputing that it was fully automatic.
No, youre answering your own question. Let's wait until we have information to have the conversation.
I disagree. It just happened. Give it a day before both sides start gnashing at one another. It's disrespectful to the dead and wounded. Our full attention should be on them and their families.
I don't have a link but heard someone interviewed on CBS news. Don't know the exact weapons but they were automatic rifles according to CBS news. I didn't say the time was wrong for this conversation but that each side should be respectful.
For instances, the people that deemed you and all liberals ignorant, don't seem to know the gun laws in Nevada.
Per Newsweek:
Nevada law does not require firearms owners to have licenses, register their weapons, or limits the number of firearms an individual posses. Automatic assault weapons and machine guns are also legal in the state as long as they are registered and are possessed in adherence to federal law, according to the National Rifle Association.
Nevada does not prohibit the transfer or possession of assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large capacity ammunition magazines. Local law enforcement issues concealed handgun licenses. Open carry is legal without a permit.
A normal person can get automatic weapons. It involves a huge fee and an ATF background check. Unless this guy is a certified gun dealer or has something to do with the military, he did not get an automatic weapon legally.
You assumed I didn't know that. I am aware but I have no idea what this guy's background is. He might be a gun dealer or do something with the military. We don't know yet unless you have heard something.
This is so true. Las Vegas will be added to Littleton, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Orlando, etc. in a continual line of firearms out of control. If anything, the outrage serves as a catharsis to return things to "normal."
Sandy Hook brought everyone together. A large majority of Americans wanting changes to gun control laws. Congress did nothing.
It's disgusting and anyone sticking up for the gun lobby should be ashamed of themselves.
Every civilized country in the world has stopped or slowed gun violence through sensitively gun legislation, not elimination of all guns, but sensible gun laws.
Anyone who denies that is a fool.
Every civilized country in the world has stopped or slowed gun violence through sensitively gun legislation, not elimination of all guns, but sensible gun laws.
Anyone who denies that is a fool.
Guns are not the problem. It is and always is a people problem.
Anyone determined to commit an evil act will obtain the means and opportunity.
Anyone determined to commit an evil act will obtain the means and opportunity.
By that logic, then why have any laws at all?
He had "converted" fully automatic weapons. These are illegal.
However, semi-auto guns are not. You can buy these and convert them pretty easily. That aside, you cannot regulate insanity and evil. One way or another crazy people will find a way to accomplish their sadistic ideas.
It's just sad. So very sad.
Could stop manufacturing them; will stop new weapons on the black market so hopefully numbers do gi down.
God: "Stop sending me prayers for the dead, the injured and their families. I keep letting these incidents happen so that you will do something about it...but you don't..no more prayers, my ears are closed"
Yeah, see for some reason people can't get this through their heads. The 2nd Amendment clearly gives individuals the right to own firearms. That has been upheld through Supreme Court rulings.
Due to this, Congress is limited on what kind of gun control measures it can pass (which is not the case in other countries). So, to get stricter gun laws like those overseas, there needs to be a constitutional amendment that alters the 2nd Amendment.
However, some people choose not to recognize this reality, and instead bang their heads against a wall, demanding instant, sweeping legislation. Sometimes in life, it you want to do something right, you have to do it the hard way.
This is completely false. Even the most basic, reasonable, and sane adjustments have been taken out by the NRA.
Again, use some common sense. In Europe they have knife attacks because guns are restricted. Do you think someone with a knife could kill 58 people and injure over 500 people by himself?
You'll have a better chance of becoming a citizen in Europe then take away my rights to bear arms
No, sorry, that's not completely false. You simply cannot pass the same gun laws here as you can overseas, as the Constitution is currently constructed. Most countries overseas require individuals to have a license to own guns. You can't do that here, due to the 2nd Amendment and subsequent court rulings. On top of that, most countries require an individual to demonstrate a need for a gun, and self-defense is often not an accepted need. Again, that would not be possible to do under the current constitutional framework.
It's simply intellectual laziness to blame everything on the NRA.
And going further down the common sense route, Europeans don't have the constitutional restrictions as we do in the United States, and thus can pass more comprehensive gun laws than we are currently capable of doing.
Can we stop with the fiction that our current gun policy is based upon rational disagreement? Can we acknowledge that our approach to gun ownership is nothing more than the NRA saying "We've bought off enough people to steer the law, and scared enough people to have political cover. You can't do anything about it because the victims of gun violence can't vote, so screw you." And they're right. Everything else is bunk.
I commonly hear four arguments for the nearly-unlimited right to personal ownership of firearms. They are dumb:
1. Personal firearms are a bulwark against tyranny. If you think there is any cache of firearms that will save you and your family from a military we all frequently praise as "the most powerful fighting force ever created," you have watched Red Dawn one too many times. You are not Patrick Swayze or Rambo, and your tough-guy fantasies are not reason enough for more people to die every year.
2. I shouldn't have to give up my bitchin' guns because someone else is violent or crazy. Um, that's what society is -- a collective agreement to restrict some behavior in return for security and prosperity. The idea that the kids in Newtown or the concertgoers in Vegas shouldn't be alive because you like your stuff is breathtakingly selfish. I agree that your guns probably aren't a threat, but I can't drive 100 mph on I-69 because others who try it will kill someone. Get over it and join society.
3. You'll never get rid of bad guys with guns, so I need to have guns to protect myself. Surprisingly circular, and demonstrably untrue. It's true that there's TONS more guns here than elsewhere, but that's at least partially because we've spentlifetimes saying "there's too many guns." Everywhere that's mostly gotten rid of guns has been incredibly successful. This argument amounts to "I know there will be way fewer deaths, but without my gun there's an infinitesimally small increase in the risk that I'll be the victim of gun violence and won't be able to shoot back." First, that's not supported by data. Second, how many innocent Americans' lives will you sacrifice for a tiny risk to you? A risk (assuming it existed) that could be completely ameliorated by carrying other defenses, like a Taser or pepper spray. But carrying pepper spray doesn't make you feel like Clint Eastwood, right?
4. It's in the Constitution! This isn't really an argument. There's been lots of stuff in the Constitution that became a problem when it began being interpreted in a certain way. And there's lots of stuff that was in the Constitution until we changed it because whatever its value in the past, it wasn't working for us. Some people think gun control would require a constitutional amendment, and others do not. I don't care. Stuff should be in the Constitution because it's wise; it isn't wise just because it's in the Constitution.
I commonly hear four arguments for the nearly-unlimited right to personal ownership of firearms. They are dumb:
1. Personal firearms are a bulwark against tyranny. If you think there is any cache of firearms that will save you and your family from a military we all frequently praise as "the most powerful fighting force ever created," you have watched Red Dawn one too many times. You are not Patrick Swayze or Rambo, and your tough-guy fantasies are not reason enough for more people to die every year.
2. I shouldn't have to give up my bitchin' guns because someone else is violent or crazy. Um, that's what society is -- a collective agreement to restrict some behavior in return for security and prosperity. The idea that the kids in Newtown or the concertgoers in Vegas shouldn't be alive because you like your stuff is breathtakingly selfish. I agree that your guns probably aren't a threat, but I can't drive 100 mph on I-69 because others who try it will kill someone. Get over it and join society.
3. You'll never get rid of bad guys with guns, so I need to have guns to protect myself. Surprisingly circular, and demonstrably untrue. It's true that there's TONS more guns here than elsewhere, but that's at least partially because we've spentlifetimes saying "there's too many guns." Everywhere that's mostly gotten rid of guns has been incredibly successful. This argument amounts to "I know there will be way fewer deaths, but without my gun there's an infinitesimally small increase in the risk that I'll be the victim of gun violence and won't be able to shoot back." First, that's not supported by data. Second, how many innocent Americans' lives will you sacrifice for a tiny risk to you? A risk (assuming it existed) that could be completely ameliorated by carrying other defenses, like a Taser or pepper spray. But carrying pepper spray doesn't make you feel like Clint Eastwood, right?
4. It's in the Constitution! This isn't really an argument. There's been lots of stuff in the Constitution that became a problem when it began being interpreted in a certain way. And there's lots of stuff that was in the Constitution until we changed it because whatever its value in the past, it wasn't working for us. Some people think gun control would require a constitutional amendment, and others do not. I don't care. Stuff should be in the Constitution because it's wise; it isn't wise just because it's in the Constitution.
One more thing terrorists are using Vehicles now and what's the best way to stop a terrorist in a vehicle..... Is a firearm
I missed the part where it says you have the right to bear assault rifles in the constitution.
Here's a picture of a gun available when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Again, use common sense.
Because that's the type of firearm that was used in the time try to stay currentI missed the part where it says you have the right to bear assault rifles in the constitution.
Here's a picture of a gun available when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Again, use common sense.
Bodizephax
I've posted how many times?
A heartbreaking tragedy. My condolences to the victims family and friends.
I was up late last night when I saw this on the news. They said at least 2 dead. I wondered how that could be with so many shots fired but when I saw the news today it was upsetting to see the number of dead so much higher.
Are these killers possessed with evil? No other explanation in my mind.
So very sorry this happened.
I was up late last night when I saw this on the news. They said at least 2 dead. I wondered how that could be with so many shots fired but when I saw the news today it was upsetting to see the number of dead so much higher.
Are these killers possessed with evil? No other explanation in my mind.
So very sorry this happened.
I don't believe Red Dawn was out when the militias were fighting the Redcoats
95% of your post is hogwash
We can't stop, because it's not fiction.
Here is what you don't get. It's not the wisdom of the individual issue that's the problem. The problem is, if you disregard one portion of the Constitution, then you open up the door to disregard other portions of the Constitution.
In other words, if you say, "Screw the 2nd Amendment! Just pass whatever laws you need for gun control," the problem is somebody else could say, "Screw the 4th Amendment! Just pass whatever laws you need to arrest criminals." There IS a domino effect, and there ARE unintended consequences. That's why you have to deal with these issues through a very specific method.
What's the best way to stop a terrorist 32 stories up in a hotel room with 18-20 guns?
A good, short article on the subject.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Sadly very little in this case, but what you are proposing would not have prevented this.
