Vegas

Originally Posted by deneng

What kind of sick ****s live in New Zealand?

Keep in mind that Dennie thinks you have a sick mind if you believe it's reprehensible to kill a million innocent people in a war of no strategic interest to the US. And Dennie thinks you have a sick mind if you think it's reprehensible to take kids fresh out of high school and force them to sacrifice their lives defending some Asian country halfway around the planet.

Originally Posted by fly135

The guy apparently was a law abiding gun owner up until this incident. Saying that law obeying gun owners don't do this is a pointless argument. The problem is the ubiquitous presence of guns in our society. Far too many to eliminate at this point regardless of how much legislating from the bench the SC does, as it did in 2008 to give you an individual right. Since this guy was law biding right up until the act it's likely that enhanced laws regarding background checks and mental issues would have not done anything to prevent this. But the individual right pretty much limits preventing mentally ill people from getting guns even after we know they have problems.

John we have laws to prevent the mentally ill from gun ownership. I believe you are making my point for me.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...tally-ill.aspx

Originally Posted by deneng

So in turn what new laws could you possibly put in place that are not already there and not infringe on the 2nd .

The 2nd was written 200 years ago, can you imagine writing a law today which would be applicable for the US environment in 200 years time? Might be time to reevaluate the 2nd and update it for today's enviroment.

Originally Posted by fly135

Keep in mind that Dennie thinks....

Its telling that he thinks NZ is a sick society when he thinks the murder rate is twice as much as the US. Then when the reality is the US has 5x the murder rate of NZ there is no self reflection about why that is, what that means or the need to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by ralph

The 2nd was written 200 years ago, can you imagine writing a law today which would be applicable for the US environment in 200 years time? Might be time to reevaluate the 2nd and update it for today's enviroment.

I would think that the best laws would be the ones that would stand against time. More legal guns less crimes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe.../#3d49db6f3f7c

Originally Posted by ralph

Its telling that he thinks NZ is a sick society when he thinks the murder rate is twice as much as the US. Then when the reality is the US has 5x the murder rate of NZ there is no self reflection about why that is, what that means or the need to do anything about it.

Take away the criminal element buddy. You will have less guns. By getting rid of guns you will not get rid of the criminals.

Originally Posted by fly135

Keep in mind that Dennie thinks you have a sick mind if you believe it's reprehensible to kill a million innocent people in a war of no strategic interest to the US. And Dennie thinks you have a sick mind if you think it's reprehensible to take kids fresh out of high school and force them to sacrifice their lives defending some Asian country halfway around the planet.

And John you would be speaking Japanese right now if we did not defend our country in WW2. You would not have to worry they would have given you a 4F. You have to be big enough to carry a rifle.

Originally Posted by deneng

John we have laws to prevent the mentally ill from gun ownership. I believe you are making my point for me.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-a...tally-ill.aspx

What basis do you have to say that this guy was mentally ill?

Originally Posted by deneng

Take away the criminal element buddy. You will have less guns. By getting rid of guns you will not get rid of the criminals.

It is simply not because of the guns. It is the constant moral decay our of society. People are being told it's okay to hate people on this list but people on this list are worth of diversity. We see violence everyday, it's glorified in gang culture, be it black, latino or the white kids. You're right, take away the guns we still have pieces of **** who will find new ways to kill. 65 gang related homicides over the weekend in Chicago & no one bats an eye. Some of the toughest gun laws in the country there & nothing changes, in fact its violence increases. DC, toughest gun laws in the nation, highest crime in the nation. This situation is actually a great argument against gun control & why it's worthless. Murder rates are better in Aus not because they took away the guns, but because Ausies aren't total *******s taught to hate each other over political differences, skin color, beliefs, etc.

Have any of you jumped on facebook & looked at the comments on any of the news feeds? That alone should tell you it ain't the guns, it's the ****ed up people

Re your Forbes link, once you have reached saturation adding more guns won't increase gun violence, other factors become the drivers.

But anyway, I've said my piece and stated my case, quite clearly you think arming more people will reduce gun violence and it seems the majority agree with you. I have a different view and i feel things will continue to get worse and worse unless you reverse course and change how society treats is people and limits it access to deadly weapons. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

What basis do you have to say that this guy was mentally ill?

I didn't . John brought it up.

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

What basis do you have to say that this guy was mentally ill?

He decided to hang out a hotel room & kill a bunch of a people is usually a good indicator. Unless it was a false flag. Or ISIS. Or ANTIFA. Or vast right wing conspiracy. Or he had a lemon of a Malibu....

Originally Posted by ralph

Re your Forbes link, once you have reached saturation adding more guns won't increase gun violence, other factors become the drivers.

things will continue to get worse and worse unless you reverse course and change how society treats is people Hopefully I'm wrong.

That wraps it up.

Originally Posted by ralph

Re your Forbes link, once you have reached saturation adding more guns won't increase gun violence, other factors become the drivers.

But anyway, I've said my piece and stated my case, quite clearly you think arming more people will reduce gun violence and it seems the majority agree with you. I have a different view and i feel things will continue to get worse and worse unless you reverse course and change how society treats is people and limits it access to deadly weapons. Hopefully I'm wrong.

It might work in New Zealand bro. Your logic is not rational in my mind. I wish there were no guns. If Hillary would have won the election i was ready to go by a couple. My puppies keep me pretty safe.

Originally Posted by racer808

He decided to hang out a hotel room & kill a bunch of a people is usually a good indicator. Unless it was a false flag. Or ISIS. Or ANTIFA. Or vast right wing conspiracy. Or he had a lemon of a Malibu....

07 Sunsetter set him off. LOL.

Originally Posted by ralph

The 2nd was written 200 years ago, can you imagine writing a law today which would be applicable for the US environment in 200 years time? Might be time to reevaluate the 2nd and update it for today's enviroment.

The 2nd was not viewed as an individual right to gun ownership until 2008 when the SC decided that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was superfluous language and could be ignored.

Originally Posted by ralph

Re your Forbes link, once you have reached saturation adding more guns won't increase gun violence, other factors become the drivers.

But anyway, I've said my piece and stated my case, quite clearly you think arming more people will reduce gun violence and it seems the majority agree with you. I have a different view and i feel things will continue to get worse and worse unless you reverse course and change how society treats is people and limits it access to deadly weapons. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Kolin Kapernick agrees with you. I still think you are a good egg.

Originally Posted by racer808

It is simply not because of the guns. It is the constant moral decay our of society. People are being told it's okay to hate people on this list but people on this list are worth of diversity. We see violence everyday, it's glorified in gang culture, be it black, latino or the white kids. You're right, take away the guns we still have pieces of **** who will find new ways to kill. 65 gang related homicides over the weekend in Chicago & no one bats an eye. Some of the toughest gun laws in the country there & nothing changes, in fact its violence increases. DC, toughest gun laws in the nation, highest crime in the nation. This situation is actually a great argument against gun control & why it's worthless. Murder rates are better in Aus not because they took away the guns, but because Ausies aren't total *******s taught to hate each other over political differences, skin color, beliefs, etc.

Have any of you jumped on facebook & looked at the comments on any of the news feeds? That alone should tell you it ain't the guns, it's the ****ed up people

I don't think bringing up cities tough on gun laws is a great example. It isn't tough to drive a couple hours and buy one legally. Or from the guy who just did that. It would need to be nation wide, you know like the Australia one?

Originally Posted by deneng

And John you would be speaking Japanese right now if we did not defend our country in WW2.

What does this have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by deneng

You would not have to worry they would have given you a 4F. You have to be big enough to carry a rifle.

Are you grossly obese and have a problem with normal healthy people?

Sounds the terrorist thing may have some validity to it. Pics of him surfacing in the Philippines, sending large amounts of money over seas, spending his final days blowing money & living lavishly like a lot of terrorists have done before their act. Supposedly he left a note in the room but no one knows the contents of it yet.

Originally Posted by deneng

And John you would be speaking Japanese right now if we did not defend our country in WW2. You would not have to worry they would have given you a 4F. You have to be big enough to carry a rifle.

LOL

Originally Posted by fly135

What does this have to do with anything?

forget your prevagen? John, there was shooting in Las Vegas. 50 dead/500 injured. The left is already making noise about our gun laws ( I thought you followed this stuff?)

As Americans, we believe in arming our citizens. Mass (correct use of the word) gun ownership is why CONUS was not attacked in WW2. been documented by Japanese military.

Originally Posted by racer808

Sounds the terrorist thing may have some validity to it. Pics of him surfacing in the Philippines, sending large amounts of money over seas, spending his final days blowing money & living lavishly like a lot of terrorists have done before their act. Supposedly he left a note in the room but no one knows the contents of it yet.

he randomly shot and killed 59 and injured 500 more. It's terrorism, even if it's just because he hates country music.

Originally Posted by denverd1

As Americans, we believe in arming our citizens. Mass (correct use of the word) gun ownership is why CONUS was not attacked in WW2. been documented by Japanese military.

WW2 has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. Your claim about the association between gun ownership and the Japanese has nothing to do with Dennie's comment. And I'm also thinking that your claim is unsubstantiated drivel concocted in a gun rights argument.

Originally Posted by fly135

WW2 has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. Your claim about the association between gun ownership and the Japanese has nothing to do with Dennie's comment. And I'm also thinking that your claim is unsubstantiated drivel concocted in a gun rights argument.

typical

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

I don't think bringing up cities tough on gun laws is a great example. It isn't tough to drive a couple hours and buy one legally. Or from the guy who just did that. It would need to be nation wide, you know like the Australia one?

Do you really think ha gnangbanging thugs are heading to the burbs buying legal guns? Again trying to ignore the facts that pretty much prove the point. 98% of the guns recovered off criminals in 2016 were obtained illegally in Chicago.

How are those restrictive laws working in Europe. They've been sitting ducks for terrorists. You can't stop every murderer , or person hell bent on going on a killing spree. It's impossible. The fact of the matter these people exist in society . They are again a small negligible percentage of the actual general population. It's been proven over and over again. Legal gun owners as a whole are a responsible group. Their percentage involved in actual " gun related" crimes is a non existent. It's a non issue

There are hundreds of gun laws on the books . The enforcement of the laws is what's lacking.

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Do you really think ha gnangbanging thugs are heading to the burbs buying legal guns? Again trying to ignore the facts that pretty much prove the point. 98% of the guns recovered off criminals in 2016 were obtained illegally in Chicago.

How are those restrictive laws working in Europe. They've been sitting ducks for terrorists. You can't stop every murderer , or person hell bent on going on a killing spree. It's impossible. The fact of the matter these people exist in society . They are again a small negligible percentage of the actual general population. It's been proven over and over again. Legal gun owners as a whole are a responsible group. Their percentage involved in actual " gun related" crimes is a non existent. It's a non issue

There are hundreds of gun laws on the books . The enforcement of the laws is what's lacking.

So you think the illegally purchased guns were imported to the US from gun runners? Or were they bought 2nd hand from legal sales?

ByHANK BERRIEN October 3, 2017
Writing in The Washington Post, Leah Libresco, a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, the site run by famed statistician Nate Silver, admits that she reversed herself on gun control, evolving from blaming the NRA for gun deaths to realizing more stringent, blanket gun control was not an answer to gun deaths.

Libresco starts by confessing that before she started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate her, and she blamed the National Rifle Association for blocking the banning of assault weapons, restricting silencers, and shrinking magazine sizes.

Then she started analyzing data from the roughly 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and a light bulb went on. She writes that when she examined the evidence, “The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.”

Notably, Libresco dismisses the oft-stated myth that the tight gun laws in Britain and Australia had any relevance for America, as she writes, “Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans.”

Libresco continues, “When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an ‘assault weapon.’ It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.”

Libresco notes, “Silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.”

Some more reality: “Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them.”

Segueing to the next-largest set of gun deaths, young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides, and the tertiary set, women killed (mostly as the result of domestic violence), Libresco decides, “Few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.”

Libresco writes, “I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. … I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions.”

Suggestions?

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Libresco concludes: “We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.”

Originally Posted by denverd1

typical

LOL. So you run into people thinking you're full of s**t so much that it's a common occurrence.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

So you think the illegally purchased guns were imported to the US from gun runners? Or were they bought 2nd hand from legal sales?

Legal sales like if i go into a gun store as a responsible law abiding citizen my whole life buy say 3 guns for 800 bucks and go to the hood and sell them to the gangs for highest bidder? Is that legal?

Originally Posted by racer808

ByHANK BERRIEN October 3, 2017
Writing in The Washington Post, Leah Libresco, a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, the site run by famed statistician Nate Silver, admits that she reversed herself on gun control, evolving from blaming the NRA for gun deaths to realizing more stringent, blanket gun control was not an answer to gun deaths.

Libresco starts by confessing that before she started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate her, and she blamed the National Rifle Association for blocking the banning of assault weapons, restricting silencers, and shrinking magazine sizes.

Then she started analyzing data from the roughly 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and a light bulb went on. She writes that when she examined the evidence, “The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.”

Notably, Libresco dismisses the oft-stated myth that the tight gun laws in Britain and Australia had any relevance for America, as she writes, “Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans.”

Libresco continues, “When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an ‘assault weapon.’ It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.”

Libresco notes, “Silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer.”

Some more reality: “Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them.”

Segueing to the next-largest set of gun deaths, young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides, and the tertiary set, women killed (mostly as the result of domestic violence), Libresco decides, “Few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.”

Libresco writes, “I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. … I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions.”

Suggestions?

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Libresco concludes: “We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.”

Sounds like a good sound basis to begin discussions with if you wanted achieve some changes. Gun sells would go down though and leftist would not have anything to complain about. Won't work because it has to deal with a rational conclusion and their would be less victims. The left loves victims.

Originally Posted by fly135

LOL. So you run into people thinking you're full of s**t so much that it's a common occurrence.

Anybody have a flyswatter?

Originally Posted by fly135

LOL. So you run into people thinking you're full of s**t so much that it's a common occurrence.

no, it's the typical response from you. completely ignoring the subject at hand so you can deflect or disprove a relatively minor point in a much bigger discussion.

I'd be all for tighter gun laws if there was one shred of evidence that it actually worked.

At the end of the day, I think we just want to be able to defend ourselves.

This discussion was settled in 1791.

Originally Posted by denverd1

no, it's the typical response from you. completely ignoring the subject at hand so you can deflect or disprove a relatively minor point in a much bigger discussion.

It only seems that way to you because you have no idea what you were replying to. IOW you ignored the subject of the matter that you replied to. I wasn't deflecting from anything. Sub topics occur in these kinds of threads all the time. You just jumped into one and had no idea what the subject was. Gun laws weren't even the issue.

Originally Posted by deneng

Legal sales like if i go into a gun store as a responsible law abiding citizen my whole life buy say 3 guns for 800 bucks and go to the hood and sell them to the gangs for highest bidder? Is that legal?

You're proving my point.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

You're proving my point.

I don't think i would do that, and never have heard of anyone else. You are living in fantasy.

Originally Posted by deneng

I don't think i would do that, and never have heard of anyone else. You are living in fantasy.

My point was that those "illegal" weapons came from legal sales in the US. Take away legal sales like that and they have to get them from somewhere else. Somewhere much harder.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

So you think the illegally purchased guns were imported to the US from gun runners? Or were they bought 2nd hand from legal sales?

Neither.

They are fruits of crimes like burglaries and thefts from normal hard working , gun owners . Coordinated thefts from shipping containers and railroad cars, as well as gun stores. In rare cases straw purchasers . Gun crime is rampid because punishments for being convicted are as little as probation . Just in the past year,5 straw purchasers were arrested . 3 of those 5 purchasers with already a case against them for straw purchasing in which they received probation . 2 of those purchasers guns were used to shoot an officer . Even with that they stil got double secret probation on the second conviction . It's terrible watching the court system

The huge chunk of guns being sold on the black market that made it back to our country came from the Obama regime.

Is you're argument that guns come from some kind of legal purchase , but end up in criminal hands after criminal acts , so we should punish, restrict, and limit the access to those who can legally own currently legally own them???????? It's somehow the legal owners fault ****bags get their hands on them ?

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Neither.

They are fruits of crimes like burglaries and thefts from normal hard working , gun owners . Coordinated thefts from shipping containers and railroad cars, as well as gun stores. In rare cases straw purchasers . Gun crime is rampid because punishments for being convicted are as little as probation . Just in the past year,5 straw purchasers were arrested . 3 of those 5 purchasers with already a case against them for straw purchasing in which they received probation . 2 of those purchasers guns were used to shoot an officer . Even with that they stil got double secret probation on the second conviction . It's terrible watching the court system

The huge chunk of guns being sold on the black market that made it back to our country came from the Obama regime.

Is you're argument that guns come from some kind of legal purchase , but end up in criminal hands after criminal acts , so we should punish, restrict, and limit the access to those who can legally own currently legally own them???????? It's somehow the legal owners fault ****bags get their hands on them ?

Nahhh
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...e-about-crime/

So your link is basically confirming the facts I laid out. Thanks

Originally Posted by xstarrider

Do you really think ha gnangbanging thugs are heading to the burbs buying legal guns? Again trying to ignore the facts that pretty much prove the point. 98% of the guns recovered off criminals in 2016 were obtained illegally in Chicago.

How are those restrictive laws working in Europe. They've been sitting ducks for terrorists. You can't stop every murderer , or person hell bent on going on a killing spree. It's impossible. The fact of the matter these people exist in society . They are again a small negligible percentage of the actual general population. It's been proven over and over again. Legal gun owners as a whole are a responsible group. Their percentage involved in actual " gun related" crimes is a non existent. It's a non issue

There are hundreds of gun laws on the books . The enforcement of the laws is what's lacking.

The "laws" work fine in Japan, Canada, and plenty of other nations around the world.

I am pro-right to bear arms, but lax gun laws and legal ownership did nothing to make the victims in LV any safer. And I don't subscribe to the belief that more arms make me any safer (I own two handguns, a rifle, and a shotgun). Our philosophy that "let's keep flooding the market with more arms and ammo so we can outarm the bad guys" is seriously flawed and has created unintended consequences.

Originally Posted by wake77

The "laws" work fine in Japan, Canada, and plenty of other nations around the world.

I am pro-right to bear arms, but lax gun laws and legal ownership did nothing to make the victims in LV any safer. And I don't subscribe to the belief that more arms make me any safer (I own two handguns, a rifle, and a shotgun). Our philosophy that "let's keep flooding the market with more arms and ammo so we can outarm the bad guys" is seriously flawed and has created unintended consequences.

You're right they do. And in many more countries those gun laws are used to suppress the people. Without the USA most of the countries would be under other countries rules by now. If we weren't around Europe would be Russia alreead

Originally Posted by xstarrider

So your link is basically confirming the facts I laid out. Thanks

You obviously didn't read the part about how many"illegal" guns come from legal gun owners, and that entire article is basically bashing careless gun owners which really goes against your entire last parapraph.

Originally Posted by fly135

It only seems that way to you because you have no idea what you were replying to. IOW you ignored the subject of the matter that you replied to. I wasn't deflecting from anything. Sub topics occur in these kinds of threads all the time. You just jumped into one and had no idea what the subject was. Gun laws weren't even the issue.

and I'll be ignoring you going forward

Originally Posted by denverd1

and I'll be ignoring you going forward

Too bad you can't take it backwards as well. No thrill for me dealing with you getting your panties in a wad.

Originally Posted by racer808

This discussion was settled in 1791.

It certainly was. You can't fix crazy. That's what we're dealing with here. No amount of background checks, waiting periods, mental evaluations, magazine capacity regs or anything else could've prevented this tragedy. As mentioned before, people will use any means necessary to do incredibly stupid things if that's what they want to do.

You can google how to make pipe bombs pretty easily. Are we going to outlaw pipes??

Looking more & more like a left wing crazy pissed about the election. Stock piling 33 guns alone since the election? It's like the left acknowledges they're crazy & should be kept away from guns and thus can't fathom the rest of us can be around them. No different than when leftist politicians are caught on tape calling their supporters too stupid to take care of their own lives & need the left to do it for them (which they're correct on that part)

Originally Posted by racer808

Looking more & more like a left wing crazy pissed about the election. Stock piling 33 guns alone since the election? It's like the left acknowledges they're crazy & should be kept away from guns and thus can't fathom the rest of us can be around them. No different than when leftist politicians are caught on tape calling their supporters too stupid to take care of their own lives & need the left to do it for them (which they're correct on that part)

Any proof? Or just more right wing conspiracy? Like I said above, it is pretty dead even if not slanted in the right's favor for stuff like this. I said above as well, it doesn't matter as anybody that is willing to do this is so far gone that political allegiances don't come into play for me. Even if this guy said "I did this in the name of Donald Trump", I wouldn't be sitting here saying it is a problem with the right.

Originally Posted by racer808

Looking more & more like a left wing crazy pissed about the election. Stock piling 33 guns alone since the election? It's like the left acknowledges they're crazy & should be kept away from guns and thus can't fathom the rest of us can be around them. No different than when leftist politicians are caught on tape calling their supporters too stupid to take care of their own lives & need the left to do it for them (which they're correct on that part)

SMH

http://www.snopes.com/las-vegas-shooter-trump-protest/

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

SMH

http://www.snopes.com/las-vegas-shooter-trump-protest/

One, snopes has been busted multiple times with an agenda. Two, it's been all over the news this morning he's been collecting guns since 83 but since Oct 2016 he purchased 33 "assault" rifles. You've got the most myopic view I've come across. Once the left is done politicizing this and making it about guns the truth will quietly come out.

Originally Posted by racer808

One, snopes has been busted multiple times with an agenda. Two, it's been all over the news this morning he's been collecting guns since 83 but since Oct 2016 he purchased 33 "assault" rifles. You've got the most myopic view I've come across. Once the left is done politicizing this and making it about guns the truth will quietly come out.

One, where is your proof that he is a leftist?

Two, why the **** does it matter?

Originally Posted by ralph

Is that why we have no laws about drug control?

you're proving my point

Originally Posted by racer808

One, snopes has been busted multiple times with an agenda. Two, it's been all over the news this morning he's been collecting guns since 83 but since Oct 2016 he purchased 33 "assault" rifles. You've got the most myopic view I've come across. Once the left is done politicizing this and making it about guns the truth will quietly come out.

Just because I don't go flying off the rails before facts come out means I'm myopic? Wasn't this guy an ISIS guy yesterday? Or has that ship sailed?

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Just because I don't go flying off the rails before facts come out means I'm myopic? Wasn't this guy an ISIS guy yesterday? Or has that ship sailed?

The facts are never going to come out cause he wasn't acting alone. Get with it already

freemasons?

Originally Posted by racer808

The facts are never going to come out cause he wasn't acting alone. Get with it already

And Sandy Hook never happened.

Originally Posted by fly135

The guy apparently was a law abiding gun owner up until this incident. Saying that law obeying gun owners don't do this is a pointless argument. The problem is the ubiquitous presence of guns in our society. Far too many to eliminate at this point regardless of how much legislating from the bench the SC does, as it did in 2008 to give you an individual right. Since this guy was law biding right up until the act it's likely that enhanced laws regarding background checks and mental issues would have not done anything to prevent this. But the individual right pretty much limits preventing mentally ill people from getting guns even after we know they have problems.

The fact that a law abiding citizen can at any time become a murderer the complex part of this. Until this incident, that was very rare.

I don't agree however that the problem is guns. The problem is many people are evil. Guns or no guns they will kill, and thats the problem you can never solve. Even if you could remove every gun from our country, there are still trucks, knives, planes, bombs, etc..... People are evil, and the increased level of anger in our country is fuel on the fire.

Originally Posted by ralph

There has been 274 multiple shootings so far this year, major ones like this seem to happen every year or so. What strategy is being used to change the environment where these things keep happening? Nothing. It will continue until something changes in society which stops producing angry unstable people and the ready access to guns.

There is just no will to tackle it, the problem is too deep rooted in society.

Mark my words, this will happen again within 12 months or so.

It happens everyday in Chicago. Multiple people murdered everyday. It's also illegal to possess a gun in Chicago.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

And Sandy Hook never happened.

Believe what you want, we know Sandy Hook happened. **** you're all over the place.

Do you believe our Gov is corrupt & becoming more fascist?

Originally Posted by shawndoggy

freemasons?

Ha! thanks for making things a tad lighter

Originally Posted by jarrod

The fact that a law abiding citizen can at any time become a murderer the complex part of this. Until this incident, that was very rare.

I don't agree however that the problem is guns. The problem is many people are evil. Guns or no guns they will kill, and thats the problem you can never solve. Even if you could remove every gun from our country, there are still trucks, knives, planes, bombs, etc..... People are evil, and the increased level of anger in our country is fuel on the fire.

If it's a given that people are evil, then guns enhance the level of damage that evil can do. If the goal is to provide as many deadly options as possible then it makes sense to frame the argument as you have. Sure he could have hijacked a plane, but that option is getting more difficult. Sure he could have driven a truck into the crowd, but unlikely to have 50 dead and hundreds injured. Yeah he could have tossed knifes (or forks, but not sporks) out the hotel window, did we have to include knifes? OK, a bomb would have worked. But if everyone had to use bombs, maybe that would allow us to focus on a specific method to identify problem people before the actual attack. Right now there's no 2nd argument supporting bomb makers.

Again I have no idea how it would be possible to eliminate guns from a huge country full of them. But that doesn't mean you can't be honest that the proliferation of weapons in our or any society increase deaths. The idea that you can tackle a problem by throwing out the problematic factors that you don't want addressed and focus on the one's that don't isn't a path to a solution. I see news reports of toddlers shooting people with guns. Are they evil? Or is it the gun that's evil? Or can guns kill even when there is no evil involved?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-olds-s...ry?id=50160633

Originally Posted by cwb4me

It happens everyday in Chicago. Multiple people murdered everyday. It's also illegal to possess a gun in Chicago.

I don't think it can possibly be illegal to possess a gun anywhere after Heller.

Do you have a citation to authority for this proposition?

Originally Posted by fly135

If it's a given that people are evil, then guns enhance the level of damage that evil can do. If the goal is to provide as many deadly options as possible then it makes sense to frame the argument as you have. Sure he could have hijacked a plane, but that option is getting more difficult. Sure he could have driven a truck into the crowd, but unlikely to have 50 dead and hundreds injured. Yeah he could have tossed knifes (or forks, but not sporks) out the hotel window, did we have to include knifes? OK, a bomb would have worked. But if everyone had to use bombs, maybe that would allow us to focus on a specific method to identify problem people before the actual attack. Right now there's no 2nd argument supporting bomb makers.

Again I have no idea how it would be possible to eliminate guns from a huge country full of them. But that doesn't mean you can't be honest that the proliferation of weapons in our or any society increase deaths. The idea that you can tackle a problem by throwing out the problematic factors that you don't want addressed and focus on the one's that don't isn't a path to a solution. I see news reports of toddlers shooting people with guns. Are they evil? Or is it the gun that's evil? Or can guns kill even when there is no evil involved?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/year-olds-s...ry?id=50160633

By the way the shooter owned a plane ;-) And the last truck driving murdered killed more than 80 people.

Thank you John. Appreciate your perspective.

Originally Posted by jarrod

By the way the shooter owned a plane ;-)

seems like he could've caused more damage with it rather than guns

Originally Posted by racer808

Believe what you want, we know Sandy Hook happened. **** you're all over the place.

Do you believe our Gov is corrupt & becoming more fascist?

I trust the police footage and the officers judgement when they say it's one shooter on camera in the heat of the moment, not right wing conspiracy theorists like you.

Originally Posted by jarrod

The fact that a law abiding citizen can at any time become a murderer the complex part of this. Until this incident, that was very rare.

I don't agree however that the problem is guns. The problem is many people are evil. Guns or no guns they will kill, and thats the problem you can never solve. Even if you could remove every gun from our country, there are still trucks, knives, planes, bombs, etc..... People are evil, and the increased level of anger in our country is fuel on the fire.

Agreed. Best form of gun control is to check yourself and friends
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMWHjWU_fcc

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

I trust the police footage and the officers judgement when they say it's one shooter on camera in the heat of the moment, not right wing conspiracy theorists like you.

Most good sheeple do

Facebook spread misinformation.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechc...hat-went-wrong

Originally Posted by racer808

You're right they do. And in many more countries those gun laws are used to suppress the people. Without the USA most of the countries would be under other countries rules by now. If we weren't around Europe would be Russia alreead

Amazing that you believe that owning a gun or the ability to own a gun makes you any more free than someone in a country where they cannot.

History is not on your side when it comes to your Russia hypothesis. The Soviet Union collapsed without the aid of the US.

Originally Posted by wake77

Amazing that you believe that owning a gun or the ability to own a gun makes you any more free than someone in a country where they cannot.

History is not on your side when it comes to your Russia hypothesis. The Soviet Union collapsed without the aid of the US.

You should probably go read up on Russia, Holmes. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Here's the best thing too, your wishes for gun laws simply aren't going to happen.

[QUOTE=wake77;1968633]Amazing that you believe that owning a gun or the ability to own a gun makes you any more free than someone in a country where they cannot.

American gun owners represent the largest army in the world. So yes...I would say that. Forget domestic terrorists and the a-hole that shoots up a concert for a second. We have the ability to fight government, which is why the 2cd exists in the first place, and those entering this country to do us harm. For a lot of people that's a far fetched thought. But I'd rather have that deterrent, and the ability to do something should it ever happen.

Originally Posted by racer808

You should probably go read up on Russia, Holmes. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

Here's the best thing too, your wishes for gun laws simply aren't going to happen.

I think you need a brush up on history if you think the US collapsed the USSR.

Any update on the shooter being Bernie Sanders?

Originally Posted by denverd1

seems like he could've caused more damage with it rather than guns

Sounds like he had an escape plan and actually thought he was going to make it out

Originally Posted by joeshmoe

Sounds like he had an escape plan and actually thought he was going to make it out

I saw this headline but the article did not give any details on why they think he was going to escape or how they think he planned to do it.

I am curious what he was doing in the hour from when the shooting stopped to when the police busted into his room.

[QUOTE=jarrod;1968638]

Originally Posted by wake77

Amazing that you believe that owning a gun or the ability to own a gun makes you any more free than someone in a country where they cannot.

American gun owners represent the largest army in the world. So yes...I would say that. Forget domestic terrorists and the a-hole that shoots up a concert for a second. We have the ability to fight government, which is why the 2cd exists in the first place, and those entering this country to do us harm. For a lot of people that's a far fetched thought. But I'd rather have that deterrent, and the ability to do something should it ever happen.

With all this feel good "too many guns here" rhetoric, people have completely lost sight of why we have 2nd in the first place. I fear that we're not far from serious legislation that lays the groundwork for disarming us as a country.

Definitely not happy with Vegas shooting, but we need to keep a bigger perspective on guns and what they mean to us as a country.

[QUOTE=denverd1;1968656]

Originally Posted by jarrod

With all this feel good "too many guns here" rhetoric, people have completely lost sight of why we have 2nd in the first place. I fear that we're not far from serious legislation that lays the groundwork for disarming us as a country.

Definitely not happy with Vegas shooting, but we need to keep a bigger perspective on guns and what they mean to us as a country.

So you agree with the black lives matters protest shooting cops? That's what exercising your 2nd amendment right in the form you're talking about looks like.

[QUOTE=denverd1;1968656]

Originally Posted by jarrod

With all this feel good "too many guns here" rhetoric, people have completely lost sight of why we have 2nd in the first place. I fear that we're not far from serious legislation that lays the groundwork for disarming us as a country.

How often do you train with your well regulated militia? I know a lot of gun enthusiasts. Most are hunters, some are plinkers, a few are collectors. None are members of a well regulated militia.

[QUOTE=shawndoggy;1968659]

Originally Posted by denverd1

How often do you train with your well regulated militia? I know a lot of gun enthusiasts. Most are hunters, some are plinkers, a few are collectors. None are members of a well regulated militia.

No where in the 2nd amendment does it say you have to be a meme we of well regulated militia to own guns. It just says that the individual need the right to maintain guns in order for a well regulated militia.

Originally Posted by jarrod

By the way the shooter owned a plane ;-) And the last truck driving murdered killed more than 80 people.

Thank you John. Appreciate your perspective.

If trucks were the preferred method of mass killing then barriers would be more in use. Planes are a pretty high barrier to entry. He owned a plane and didn't use it. He chose to use guns. The bottom line is that guns are the easy to obtain and hard to defend against. And that's what makes them so dangerous. Like I've always said... they are far too many guns in this country to eliminate, but I see a huge lack of intellectual honesty in the gun apologists.

A lack of intellectual honesty is the biggest barrier to people coming together in agreement about the problems we face. If we could all come together and face the issues honestly then our collective morality would decide the appropriate solution. It's not a matter of what's the right solution. But a matter of being honest about our morality and what it dictates.

The same people who feel no complicity in gun crimes while owning guns often support drug laws. How is the drug user any different from the gun owner WRT a threat to society? Do we arrest the drug user because drug use is linked to crime? Then why not arrest the gun owner because possession of a gun is linked to crime? Do we arrest the drug user because his purchase of drugs supports the widespread use and distribution of drugs which result in some users committing crimes? Well supporting the gun industry supports the widespread use and distribution of guns which result in some owners committing crimes. The guns don't kill people narrative is an example of stonewalling. It's stating the obvious to pretend that guns are innocuous and perfectly harmless objects, which is intellectually dishonest. Same with drugs. Drugs don't do anything on their own. If drugs are so dangerous then why do drug users need to use guns?

With all this feel good "too many guns here" rhetoric, people have completely lost sight of why we have 2nd in the first place. I fear that we're not far from serious legislation that lays the groundwork for disarming us as a country.

Zero probability. None. Perhaps banning bump stocks or silencers at the very most. Seems reasonable. Is there a good argument to keep them?