Las Vegas Shooting.

Condolences to the loved ones of the people (59 at the last count) killed in this horrific attack.
We wish the more than 500 injured a speedy recovery.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...e-investigating-shooting-mandalay-bay-n806461

 

Terrible outcome for those holidaying or even those who live there. Goes to show, there doesn't appear to be any "particular type" of person who would do something so horribly wrong and wantonly to so many innocents.

Thoughts, prayers and condolences to all those affected.

LS

 

So sad and senseless. One can only ask why?

 

Senseless killing of people who have only enjoyment in their hearts, and nothing to excuse wanton murder.
I honestly don't know how anyone can even think of doing something so atrocious -

My thoughts , too.

 

What sick unit does this sort of thing to innocent people enjoying themselves at a concert?
Condolences to the 59 dead and hope all goes well for the over 500 that are injured.
Being a parent myself Laura, I bet your friends were worried sick and luckily it worked out OK for them.

Hmmmm....... do you think the worst mass shooting ever will put gun control for military grade weapons on the political agenda?
In one of the articles I was reading US has 5% of the world population and 30% of all the firearms deaths and they were quoting 11,565 firearms deaths for the first 9 months of 2017.......amazing
https://twitter.com/gundeaths?lang=en

Here was an article in The Age newspaper illustrating why Trump is unlikely to act because according to the statistics the Las Vegas massacre is only a blip compared to total annual deaths
Check out the graphic representation in the link below it will surprise you
http://www.theage.com.au/world/here...e-us-obsession-with-guns-20171003-gyt7ys.html

 

The Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino is owned by MGM Resorts International which in 2013 had revenue of $9.810 billion. And yet someone managed to bypass security and carry 23 firearms into a room?
I hope there's a full investigation into how this was possible.
Something is very wrong. And almost 600 people are dead or injured.

 

Sad indeed.... shows how much political pull the gun lobby exerts
I can't think how bad it will have to be before any positive action is taken to limit high power firearms. One of our news programs last night did a live cross to some US reporter talking to a gun shop owner who was saying gun sales were up 10% since the shooting and a lot of people were stocking up on ammunition and many of the high power rounds were now out of stock......... simply amazing

Did you check out the graphic in my previous post (the last link)... it is a scary illustration of the statistics if you are an American
Here is the link again
http://www.theage.com.au/world/here...e-us-obsession-with-guns-20171003-gyt7ys.html

 

What did he bypass? There's no gun check at those hotels. The only real security is around the casinos, where the money's at.

 

Looks like they were legally modified semi auto AR-15 weapons. Not sure why the 'bump stock' is legal, I have no desire for one.

But, what 'law' can be added to make criminals obey the no murder law?

http://people.com/crime/bastille-da...ed-after-driver-plows-into-nice-france-crowd/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/world/europe/paris-shooting-attacks.html

Thoughts and prayers for all the people affected by this violence. If we need to pass laws, it should be done in a calm, well thought of manor, not in a 'knee jerk' 'we must do something' type of law.

 

Why on earth are such weapons allowed much less sold?

While we have some shootings here, I'm glad we have strictly enforced gun laws in Australia which is reflected by the amount of shootings here being minimal in comparison to other countries.

 

To be clear, this was not a "mass shooting".

It was a massacre.

 

Why have any laws? Criminals will defy them.

We need to quit beating around the bush and just acknowledge that people consider the occasional mass murder an acceptable price of freedom.

 

I own a semi auto AR-15. But it does NOT fire full auto. Legit sporting, hunting, self defense gun. With the 'bump fire stock', they are pretty much full auto, not sure why that is legal.

We seem to have a bunch of laws, that are not enforced. I don't see how passing new laws would help.

 

Actually, yes, that is freedom. Someone will abuse it. We could ban all knives, cars, trucks, propane, fertilizer, gas... True evil will find or make a way to do what they do.

 

"Self defense" conjures images of a dangerous environment. Unless everyone is toting guns in a threatening manner, I have difficulty comprehending why one would need a gun for self defense. Do you live in an environment that requires having a gun? If yes, then you would use it in self defense?

I still find that difficult to get my head around why people need guns.

Having "laws that are not enforced" makes no sense, unless there are certain criteria that must be met before they may be enforced(?).

 

Criminals will always defy laws, that's why there are laws to fine/incarcerate them if convicted of the crime.

Please explain "...occasional mass murder an acceptable price of freedom."

 

I don't know about where Fred lives but here you could be threatened or shot by someone in a road rage incident that someone else decided you took too long to pull away from a green-light.

Or maybe a thief has your house in mind for a little midnight shopping spree. They could be armed with a gun they stole from somebody else, and if you get up because you heard a bump in the night, yes , they may take aim at you.

My wife has protection in case anybody comes in on her while I'm on the road with some of my longer days' work.

If you look at some of the graphics already posted, 59 was a drop in the bucket of gun incidents for one year.
No one knows when they might be in a situation caused by somebody else, that turns dangerous.

 

I carry a gun every day for self defense. Search the youtube for random violent acts. Yes, I would use it if needed. Not likely, but you never know.

 

That's why stricter gun laws should be enforced. Having guns for "self defense" needing to meet strict criteria (e.g. police, defence force, licenced to carry for legal purposes - differ to hunting permits).

We have "Road Rage" incidences here mainly fueled by both parties losing it.

One needs to stay cool. I've had "road rage" incidences and at each instance have bowed out, left window closed and smiled nicely, waving other person on ahead or giving access for wherever/whatever it wanted to do (even when the other person was in the wrong) and allowed them to go on ahead (my reasoning being if they want to get into some accident, they were most welcome to do so without my involvement).

And if I had a gun, it becomes a shooting match?

But then the gun would have to be under my pillow, by my bed? That's insane. A gun in a house shouldn't be that accessible for safety reasons, particularly if there are kids around.

So thief comes in, takes aim at you while you're in bed, you can't access the gun right away, so best resolve (if can't safely and quickly exit scene) is to let thief take stuff while you keep your hands above your head...so what's achieved? What's the point of having the gun if you haven't immediate access?

But then if you did have immediate access, who shoots first?

Then there's a criminal element - can you justify that you didn't use excessive force by shooting the thief and injuring "it" perhaps fatally? I can open a "can of worms" here on the criminal scene and outcome - but won't.

Sorry, but with respect, it still doesn't make sense to have a gun for self defense even for my own safety...can't find justification even for my own safety if I were travelling (not that I would) in some dangerous place like Zimbabwe.

Being territorial, my house is secure, so there is no entry if I am home and I would know if someone has entered my house while I was out - in this instance, I would not enter the house but instead would immediately call for Police. When I travel, I am still security/safety conscious in/out of accommodation and when moving around which has redeemed me from trouble spots on occasion.

I have also chased a prowler one night when I spotted him in the front garden...he took off down the street when he suddenly saw me tearing after him. I guess going after him like a mad woman screaming like a banshee must have surprised him, causing him to run off. The police was called and when asked what I would have done had I caught up with him, I didn't have a clue, I was just so mad to find an intruder that I saw red.

A couple of months ago, I saw two men come down my driveway to my front door. I waited for their knock, when it didn't come, I came out from back, ending up some distance behind them which surprised them...they were trying to break in - full daylight attempt - I kept my distance, spoke loudly asking who they were and what they wanted with phone in hand then politely asked them to leave as the person they said were seeking didn't live here. I took advantage of being outside, kept a good distance, speaking loudly for all neighbours to hear and see me - I made them uncomfortable enough through exposure to have them leave while I continued talking with phone in hand. I'm not brave, just territorial. I won't tolerate nonsense, but also know how to speak with people

Shooting incidences (which would also bring about such a massacre as Las Vegas) because of gun laws in America I'll reckon far exceeds that of any country.

I'm glad we have strict gun laws here...they should be even stricter as far as I'm concerned.

Cheers

LS

 

How about banning the 'bump-fire stock'? That's a bit of a blind spot there.

 

It's easy to ask "WHY". Is it not obvious that "WHY", especially in cases like this, will never have an answer that will satisfy the question. Pardon the pun but it is a loaded question that is probably rooted in peoples desire to pounce on whatever the answer is. I think that that desire to pounce is probably the same answer that answers the question "WHY". When human beings feel wronged or unheard, or bullied or disrespected, cheated, taken advantage of, singled out etc etc etc they get to the boiling point and just like water that reaches 212 degrees F they boil.

Why does water boil at 212? Why does it freeze at 32 degree? I think the answer is: because it does.

I think that there are fewer people than we believe that can resist being pushed to their boiling point. ( ask yourself what you might do if you witnessed a loved one being a victim of one of these people ) Just think about how common road rage has become as one of the frequent and common form of insanity that we see on TV often. Take away their guns and they will use a rented truck to mow down innocent people who then become victims of all that society has become. The best answer to "WHY" is because the "WE" and "US" in society is now about ME ME ME and if you don't like it then we get what we got: " Me against the world "

It's certainly sad and sick and wrong. But somehow the answers are not simple. I have no suggestions; just thoughts.

RIP to the victims and the innocent.

 

While one in the USA has the freedom to kill with or without consequences, where is the freedom of the INNOCENT ones being killed? The gun culture in the USA is abhorrent.... more guns than citizens.

 

It's stunning how Iceland has about the same ratio of guns per capita, yet they don't have the gun violence. Not only are guns the problem, but the culture in the U.S. is as well. Where socioeconomic disparity is greater, society is more degenerate.

 

A short history lesson:

The Second Amendment You Don't Know
By Saul Cornell
(Saul Cornell is the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University)

New York Daily News


In the coming months, as the nation begins a serious discussion about gun regulation, the meaning of the Second Amendment — the statement that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — will be much discussed.

It is vital that Americans separate myths from realities, because what many of us seem to have forgotten is that, in the vision of the founders of the United States of America, the right to bear arms carries with it enormous burdens and responsibilities.

In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it.

In 2008, a closely divided Supreme Court abandoned more than 70 years of precedent and for the first time in American history affirmed that the Second Amendment is about a right to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. Lost in most of the commentary then and now is that this is almost the exactly opposite of what James Madison, the primary architect of the amendment, intended, and is hard to reconcile with the way most ordinary Americans would have read it in 1791.

In 1776, most of the original state constitutions did not even include an arms-bearing provision. The few states that did usually also included a clause protecting the right not to bear arms. Why? Because, in contrast to other cherished rights such as freedom of speech or religion, the state could not compel you to speak or pray. It could force you to bear arms.

The founders had a simple reason for curbing this right: Quakers and other religious pacifists were opposed to bearing arms, and wished to be exempt from an obligation that could be made incumbent on all male citizens at the time.

When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those “militias” as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders’ vision.

Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.

These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy — a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it. (The guns required by law were muskets, not pistols. The only exceptions to this general rule were the horsemen’s pistols that dragoons and other mounted units needed.)

The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority. This was precisely what happened during Shays’ Rebellion, an insurrection in western Massachusetts that persuaded many Americans that we needed a stronger central government to avert anarchy.

Many people think that we have the Second Amendment so that we can take up arms against the government if it overreaches its authority. If that interpretation were correct, it would mean that the Second Amendment had repealed the Constitution’s treason clause, which defines this crime as taking up arms against the government. In reality, in the first decade after the Constitution, the government put down several rebellions similar to Shays - and nobody claimed that they were merely asserting their Second Amendment rights.

So if the Second Amendment does not have much to do about owning a pistol for self-defense, does that mean the founders did not esteem this right? Obviously the answer to that question is no. Not every right valued by Americans was expressly protected by a constitutional provision. The right of self-defense was part of the common law, a long tradition of rights defined by the English courts over a period of centuries.

But rather than invoke the Second Amendment in the coming months, Americans need to learn something about the historical origins of this part of our constitutional tradition. The bottom line is simple: the Second Amendment requires more gun regulation, not less.

 

I don't have a problem with banning the bump fire stocks. They can however be easily made in a home workshop, but there are other ways to bump fire a semi auto.

 

Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the US, I believe they have now had 500 gunshot victims for the year so far... For the most part, Europe has very restrictive gun laws, but mass shootings still happen. Is the gun at fault?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...n-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#4d23ff0c3f7c

 

The bump fire stocks became legal in Obama's rein. Modified to fire full auto is very illegal unless you are licensed to do so. (Private companies do make guns for LEO/military.)

I would lose no sleep if bump fire stocks were banned.

 

So, what else should be banned? Gasoline? Propane? Cars? Trucks? Planes? Acids? Fertilizer?

And we have had a war on drugs for many years, but drugs are still available. If people are willing to kill a bunch of innocent people, do you really think a law will stop them?

What law would be passed to make criminals follow laws?

 

Fred-G: "So, what else should be banned? Gasoline? Propane? Cars? Trucks? Planes? Acids? Fertilizer?"

The above items are not meant to kill, unlike GUNS. No comparison and totally unrealistic!

 

Actually, guns simply shoot a projectile at a target. Gas is meant to burn... So, what is your point?

 

From the time when man put together rules/laws to be followed towards Peace, safety of man, avoid chaos and so on, these have been broken and will continue to be broken by criminals for whatever reason (recidivism, mental illness, psychopath, the list goes on).

And because criminals will continue acting as though they are above the law, incarceration is the remedy, for a safer society.

Likewise, imposing gun law restrictions, minimises criminal events. Realistically, there will still be those bringing in, providing, buying illegal weapons here in Australia, but they are getting caught and gaoled for their troubles. Means one less gun on our streets.

 

No.

Greed of money speaks to those dealing in drugs, so they continue until caught regardless of a law.

Here we're dealing more with backyard operators with bathroom stills (who peddle dangerous drugs, more lethal than "pure" stuff bought on the streets). So part of the fight here is public education against drugs with full exposure publicity of what drugs are all about, the outcomes, meeting ex-drug addicts, an so on. In some instances, young people caught with drugs are generally given a scare by meeting convicts in gaol in conference, getting first hand information of the life they led and why these young people should think again about their future.

So it isn't only the law that can stops people from doing wrong but an education to influence change of direction to those who are looking to follow the wrong path.

 

So, again, laws don't stop illegal behavior. How do more laws stop behavior that is illegal.

 

They don't happen in Europe as often as you think. Where do you get that info, Fox perhaps? Again, it's the person behind the gun who is at fault. Are you excusing the criminal in Vegas who pulled the triggers is not a criminal, but you claiming that the guns went off on their own? Or that the criminal wanted to see the people *dance*?

GUNS ARE MEANT TO KILL!!! But don't forget that there is a shooter behind it!

 

By laws restricting/removal of access to the object used to cause the offence - e.g. fire arms - which is the basis of discussion brought about by the horrific massacre in Las Vegas.

Our guns laws tightened when we woke up to the need for gun restrictions following a gun massacre on our own soil a few years back in Tasmania[1]. We were devastated and refused to see a repeat, so the law was quickly passed here. How many times must a country have repeat situations before doing something about it? We didn't want a repeat and we're still pushing for tighter gun laws.

Turning the question around, how come America has a higher ratio of offences by fire arms when compared to other countries? Definitely far more than Australia. Here's a comparison chart[2]:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/_BZ08Eld8uyBn-JxQ_J7zEvTjBI=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9371299/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg
[1] How Australian lawmakers responded to the country's deadliest mass shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/International...rys-deadliest-mass-shooting/story?id=50263959
[2] Source: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/charli...gazine-paris-office-attack-leaves-casualties/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/world/europe/paris-shooting-attacks.html

New York Times, and CBS sources. And I excuse nobody, a killer is a killer. And no, guns don't go off by themselves, that is just silly.

But, as a person who personally has shot well over a few thousand rounds at steel and paper targets, I don't see how guns are meant only to kill. Very simply, they shoot a projectile at a target.

Gas burns in a car, is the only reason gas exists is to burn people? Since you ask about my news sources, I must ask about yours.

Why do so most mass shootings in the US happen in gun free zones? Why do countries that have very strict gun laws have mass shootings?

Again, what law can be passed that will make criminals obey laws?

 

Wow, a Mother Jones link. But, from your second source:

 

As societies change, laws change.
When the US Second Amendment was penned, there where no ARs...
Stricter gun control doesn't mean you can't own a firearm.

 

I reckon we could pull comparison charts in debate to pros/cons of fire arm restrictions ad nauseum and you will still find America has the highest ratio of crimes due to fire arms in comparison to other countries. Definitely to Australia.

We have clubs here against gun restrictions so the debates rage on down here too, but whenever there are any incidents involving fire arms, it just strengthens our case to vote restrictions.

Fire arms in America appears to be more of a culture than anything else with a high bias to maintain fire arms regardless of anything that happens over there. Here it took that incident in Tasmania and that was it...we didn't need nor want repeats.

 

Fred, you can't have your cake and eat it too. A NAMBLA member can make the same argument for pedophilia and it's just as valid. Guns are not some super-magical and special things that are somehow an exception. You don't get to negate the foundation of law anymore than the rest of us.

 

In case you don't know, ISIS caused the Paris murders and also in other European countries. It seems that you are twisting the truth to your convenience and turn it into lies. Or you're hopelessly brainwashed.

 

This is a straw man argument. No one has made any such claim.

You carry a gun to protect yourself from armed people with ill intent, not because you don't want to be caught unequipped at an impromptu shooting match.

This is yet another straw man argument.

Do they? https://www.thetrace.org/2016/11/gun-free-zones-campus-carry-research/
https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...un-policy-and-research/_pdfs/GunsOnCampus.pdf

They tend to have far less mass shootings.

This is an illogical and meritless argument. It negates all laws.[/QUOTE]

 

Regardless of the anti-gun crowd's argument, in today's world, since I'm still allowed to possess firearms, I will. I have owned many over the years and none of mine has ever injured another person. But if some one had come on my property with ill intent, I would be having a heated discussion right then. I don't own any of the type used in recent years for these attacks on innocents, but according to our history plenty of mayhem was done when we had only muskets and single shot black powder rifles and pistols and even swords (I believe swords or something similar is still used by some terrorist today). And they have been known to use gas or diesel fuel and even cages dumped over a boat full of live people. Someone who is looking to kill has many options. Someone looking for defense has fewer!

Here's Florida's idea about home protection. And it goes further than just under your roof. Your car. Your business location.
Anywhere while traveling in-between and anywhere you have a legal right and purpose to be.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

One reason around here maybe why people don't start fights or threaten other people so much is because, hey, he might have a gun. And he might have a right to use it.

 

I got a kick out of that!

 

Correct...that's how it is here...it means it limits the type of weapon allowed to be possessed, who is allowed to have one and it being registered.

We are currently in a Gun Amnesty (which has been extended) for firearms to be surrendered to the Police.

So it isn't willy nilly type owned by every/any type of person. However, our current guns laws are still being reviewed to be made stricter.

 

Thank you JP...in point is my earlier Post re mass shooting in Tasmania 1996 which prompted tighter gun laws here:
How Australian lawmakers responded to the country's deadliest mass shooting
http://abcnews.go.com/International...rys-deadliest-mass-shooting/story?id=50263959