Las Vegas Shooting.

You're right to bring the Amendment up, and as I noted earlier, personally, I still find it ambiguous and until it is clearly stated, I reckon there will continue to be division on its interpretation.

Education on firearms as I see it is not only on gun safety, it's the pros/cons of its use. That's the basis of education. With the gun culture and those who want a gun ban, it seems some sort of compromise may need to be reached to satisfy both sides.

Yes. Which is what has happened here. While there are restrictions to carrying knives, they are the most common weapon used and can't do as much damage as a firearm.

Our highest crime rate is attributed to drugs - not from any form of weapons, firearms being at the bottom of the ladder. Which is what we have argued in other posts within this Thread.

 

I have just been visiting family, and I could not believe a video

game that was being played- I think it was GTA5.
Now I could not help but relate that to this thread.
Most people have enough savvy to realise it is a game, but , honestly, I don't think games like this should be allowed.
Prudish ? Maybe, but over the years we have had censorship, which seems to be totally abandoned nowadays, and I can see where those with any grievance against anyone, and is not of sound mind, could quite possibly get the ideas in their head that could lead to these present day scenarios.
I could not believe the ability in the game to shoot and kill total strangers, and police, too, for absolutely no reason.
Perhaps these games are one of the reasons for such acts of total uncaring, unreasonable acts, and nothing to do with gun laws .....
What do you think ?​

 

Personally. I reckon you are so spot on.

Such games desensitise the player. This has been raised here and made a case in point by Police with concerns of how it affects children's attitudes. I reckon such games should be banned.

 

No right is unlimited. That's why we can't buy machine guns and RPGs.

It doesn't matter what 'many liberals' want, in all honesty. They can't get a gun ban at all due to the Constitution and the rulings of the Supreme Court. They have to play within the rules, like everyone else. It's the same reason ladies can still get abortions despite conservative wishes and desires.

They'll be forced to find a less effective one. If these mass murderers had fully automatic weapons, they could have killed far more people during their crimes. They had to settle for semi-automatic weapons, because that was what they could get. That's why Paddock had 'bump stocks' to increase his rate of fire. He had to make do.
Even you understand this.

 

I know the title of this thread is Los Vegas Shooting but it could just as easy have been Los Vegas Bombing or San Francisco Poison Attack or Houston Fire or any other event.

I remember around 30 years ago Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel to blow up the Murrah gov building. We.ve had 2 brothers with the pressure cookers bombs at the Boston Marathon. We had a bombing at the Olympics in Atalanta. We've had planes blown up. Philly Penn. had a whole city block burned down in a dispute between Police and the MOVE radical group. Waco Texas had a large compound burnt up in another dispute. Tokyo had sarin spread in the subway systems. We've had anthrax attacks. Shooting is just means for the demented folk to practice their terror.

People are caught quite frequently buying bombs from the FBI in stings that show just how far some folks will go to practice their destruction.
A couple cans of re-loading gun powder could do more damage than the bullets to be reloaded.

And then we have dealers selling drugs that kill more people than guns and car crashes.
If we are going to stop the 'killings' we have a lot to look at!

 

How do you compromise with these people?

Just Playing, not too many years ago you could legally buy a machine gun, so, gun rights can and have changed over the years. Actually, many people do legally own full auto weapons. I am not sure why you are trying to bring abortion into this conversation.

 

I would love to provide a solution, but wouldn't know how...I reckon that sunset clause in the former Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was perhaps put in as I noted earlier, for legislation drafters to have time in which to seek a compromise for both sides. Maybe a repeat for more time until something can be better accepted and defined?

Alternately, no compromise, but either Federal law dictating or what we did here, have all States agree to a uniform standard to be enforced. Joffa (Post #143) outlined how firearms are dealt with here and finished succinctly by stating what should be voiced: "SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT GUNS TO KEEP OUR CITIZENS SAFE"



[1] (the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Act (from what I’ve read) was enacted as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994)

 

Please, one "can of worms" at a time.

We're all struggling with this one.

 

Must be an extra-large can of worms then. Personally, I try not to put my 2 cents in anymore since it's no use. <<< Oops!!!

 

"Something needs to be done" is not really a practical thing. Perhaps something needs to be done keep law abiding citizens safe. Criminals simply by definition do not obey laws.

 

Care to elaborate on *perhaps something needs to be done keep law abiding citizens safe* Are you thinking of setting up well regulated militias in all states? Would you be willing to sign up for that due to your experience with guns? Oops!!

 

This is a thought terminating cliche. It means nothing.

 

No, I want to make people obey the laws.

 

Actually, is it not the definition of a criminal? One who does not obey laws?

 

Is that the reason you go open carry daily? Or does it make you feel more *macho* by doing so? Or do you live in a dangerous town with many criminals? How do you intend in getting people obey the laws? Is that not what the police is for?

 

We all know what a criminal is. Stating what is obvious to all contributes nothing of value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi

 

maybe harsher punishment for gun running and illegal firearms possession? if legal, then, much more.

 

Tend to agree with you. But even if it were to happen, I doubt it would be across all states in America. I reckon if anything were ever to happen, it would need to be Federal law to enforce it.

 

So does "just doing something".

 

I carry concealed. "macho"? Not sure what you mean. Any area can be dangerous. The police is for calling after a crime is committed in most cases.

 

What do you think universal conscription with attendant gun training would do?

 

Men and women? What of people with juvenile anger adhd or felony level convictions while a minor?

 

Gun running would normally be across state lines, so would be federal, and federal law trumps state laws. I am certainly in favor of prosecuting people who own guns illegally. (Assuming the laws are not changed to make legal owners illegal...)

 

Gunman Kills at Least 26 at Texas Church
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting.html

Please explain that to all those who are dead and will die, because your right to a gun was more important then their right to live.

Guns don't kill people. Gun owners do.

Guns are the drug of choice for those who desire the thrill of power without earning it legitimately.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment so that an armed militia could protect citizens. Today, the 2nd Amendment arms the criminals so they can kill the citizens

 

Arguments in this thread appear to be going in a loop.

The bottom line following this Texas shooting so soon after the former one in Las Vegas seems to resound the same question in various forms of what can be done?

Joffa, myself and others have used examples, statistics from surveys internationally and within USA, past news items re pros, cons, laws and possible solutions (compromises?).

As an Australian, a solution (which I know would take some doing if it ever were to occur in the U.S.) would be in line to what occurred here following the 1996 shooting in our Tasmanian state. As an Australian, former gun owner and shooter, Joffa gave a good viewpoint:

Personally, I reckon any change in gun laws that may be effective would need to be Federal, something noted in earlier posts. I have no further comments to add in this thread without being repetitious.

 

I said this many posts ago.

For those interested in arguments from both sides...
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/13786-the-founding-fathers-vs-the-gun-nuts

Interesting...
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

 

Said gunman was stopped by a citizen with an AR-15. Long before the police got there. I think your perception of the 2A is flawed. What about " The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"? It had nothing to do with protecting citizens. Criminals armed themselves with full auto weapons in France not too long ago. Did the 2A arm them?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-atta...tain-kalashnikov-ak-47-assault-rifles-1528834

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

He was not able to own a gun legally, but, who failed to report that? Yup, the gubment. We need new laws why?

 

That guy saved no one in that church. He shot the killer as he was walking out. He was done with all the killing. A call to the police would have had the same end result.

Mass shootings are rare in France. They're practically a daily occurrence here. A comparison you didn't intend, I'm sure.

 

How do you know he was done with the killing? Care to share how you know he was not simply going elsewhere to kill?

True, shootings may be rare in France, but, it shows, like the city of Chicago, that gun control does not stop gun crime.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ks-first-homicide-of-2017-20170101-story.html

As I have stated, Chicago has a very high gun crime rate. Gun control advocates will usually claim it is the easy availability to get guns in the surrounding areas that don't have such strick gun laws in place causing it. But, by why are the main crimes in Chicago, not the surrounding areas where guns are so much easier to get?

My point about the man being able to buy a gun legally, despite being technically able to buy it legally was to show how ineffective current laws are. So, how are passing more laws going to help? The Air Force SHOULD have flagged the guy as unable to purchase, but they did not.

 

His anger was directed at his ex-wife and in-laws, congregants of the church in which he committed his murder spree. If you have evidence he had additional animus or targets, please share.

New York has strict gun laws, perhaps more so than Chicago, and has less gun violence. It is also surrounded by states with restrictive gun laws. Furthermore, your idea that any law which does not produce perfect results is fundamentally flawed. It's a classic Nirvana fallacy. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Name one law that meets your standard. I'll wait. if you wish to argue the effectiveness of a proposed regulation, fine. A blanket dismissal of all action is risible.

 

He shot people before he went to the church. Nobody can know what his intentions were. He could have been going to get more ammo.

While I don't have a name for the simple fact that laws don't stop criminals, it seems to be obvious, as by definition, criminals do not obey laws.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-violence-chicago-new-york-los-angeles-met-20150918-story.html

It seems better policing might be in order, not really new laws. Honestly, I think the Superintendent is blaming lax state laws for his city's failure. You know, lots of large and small towns in states with very lax gun laws have MUCH lower gun crime rates the Chicago.

 

Here's your answer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago#Crime
All of which has nothing to do with the Las Vegas Shooting...

 

https://www.armedwithreason.com/reb...biding-citizens-argument-against-gun-control/

 

Just a few flaws in that. How does a law 'hurt' anyone? The 2A is protected under the Constitution, something like speeding is not. Speed limits don't hurt me, but cars with over 500 horse power are legal. Nobody seems to have an issue, only people who speed are ticketed. Plus, by your definition, rapists, murderers, and thieves have already violated laws, thus their name... so saying they rarely obey the laws makes no sense.

Not all laws are good, not all are bad. Reverse your thinking, and tell me how 'We must pass some law to prevent (insert said issue)' works with it. How does that law improve social outcomes?

The fact that criminals don't obey laws is fundamental in seeing what is going on.

"Definitionally, criminals don’t follow laws. This is no more a meaningful statement about social realities than the observation that dogs bark or cats meow, so it is baffling that gun proponents view this as an acceptable rejoinder in political debate."

So, if criminals don't obey the laws, who does?

 

Another point, people who are law obeying citizens have the right to bear arms. No criminal should be able to restrict that right. Rape, robbery, all that criminal activity does not involve a right enumerated by the Constitution.

Should the 1A be interpreted to the old printing press? Or, have rights expanded with the modern mediums?

 

Ask those who were subject to Jim Crow laws or the Nuremburg laws.

I didn't say they rarely obeyed laws in general. Feel free to quote where I did so.

Easy. We must pass some law to prevent drunk driving. DUI laws have reduced the incidence of drunk driving, along with the resulting deaths, injuries and associated mayhem, even though there are some who still disregard the law. I would again ask you to explain why any laws should exist since any law can be transgressed but I suspect you will continue to dodge me on this. Quid pro quo. Tit for tat.

That statement is true. Repeating a flawed premise ad nauseam does not make it so.

You keep repeating this thought terminating cliche to avoid real debate. Criminals do not universally disregard all laws, so laws do in effect restrain even criminals.

Are you certain? Quote the portion of the 2nd Amendment that covers it.
You do understand it's not unlimited, though. One cannot legally purchase RPGs, SAMs, hand grenades and certain other arms. Federal, state and local governments can restrict the arms rights of convicted criminals.

What criminals are doing that, and how? Real world examples are a plus.

Really? Are you sure?

If this is a rejoinder to any statement I've made, quote it.

 

Don't know how I missed this news item...and I'm sure somewhere in this thread someone posted those who have a mental illness cannot purchase firearms?

Please, correct me if I am wrong!!!

Now, read this from:

time.com › Politics › White House
http://time.com/5011519/texas-church-shooting-mental-health-donald-trump/

"President Trump Blamed the Texas Shooting on 'Mental Health.' But He Made It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns"
By Tessa Berenson November 6, 2017

"President Trump said the Texas church shooting was largely a “mental health” problem, but at the beginning of his presidency he rolled back a regulation that would have made it harder for people with histories of mental illness to purchase guns...

...We have a lot of mental health problems in our country, as do other countries. But this isn’t a guns situation..."

Hmmmm.

"...not a guns situation."

Then, what is it if those with a mental condition are allowed to purchase firearms?

Please explain...someone....anyone...!

 

Some people speak of this law without saying/ knowing what is actually in the law. I have no dog in this fight, but I do see in this case the ACLU in on the side of some individuals who could be wronged by the older phrasing of the law. I do note the ACLU by def is only siding with any 'Americans' who have had abuse against their rights. This shooter had violence in his history and if brought on by a mental illness it is not the kind of case the law has been established or revised for.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-nixed-gun-control-rule/

 

If one cannot manage his own affairs, then perhaps one should not be able to hold the power of life and death in his hands. Just sayin'

 

In the last couple revisions of that law, 'his own affairs' doesn't means 'all' of his own affairs, only certain circumstances were needed, which did not mean they were unable to handle other certain aspects of their life quite normally. Go read the law.

 

You'll have to forgive me if I set too high a bar for access to deadly weapons.