Machine gun fire into Las Vegas crowd at Route 91 music Festival

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roseeurekacross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously, my point is that up until Paddock brought his guns into the hotel, he was perfectly abiding by the law, right?
 
So what makes you think another law would have stopped him? He was a sociopath with plenty of money and time who did some extensive planning.
 
For starters, no one should have the kind of guns he had, or as many! Craziness.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The goal is not to eliminate illegal possession of guns. The goal is to reduce the number of guns. And a high cost of owning guns will do that.
Click to expand...
In other words, punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty, while the guilty remain unpunished.
 
I’m not suggesting taking the right to bear arms away. But to have safety regulations in place and a way to maintain and enforce those regulations.

I am no longer concerned about pandering to fanatical groups who are paranoid about the government taking over unless they own an arsenal big enough to defeat them.
 
We already do have safety regulations and agencies to enforce them. Try using them first before you start taking guns away from good people.

I saw your proposals on this thread. They would turn a right into a privilege.
 
Last edited:
Jig_Saw said:
There would be many more people selling heroin or meth if it is legal to do so. As far as your Mauser, I feel it should be registered, you should pay the appropriate insurance on it and if you wanted to pass it to your son, I don’t see a problem with that as long as the law following proper registration of the weapon are followed and the weapon remained legal for private ownership.
Click to expand...
My insurer would not pay a nickel toward the damages arising out of a gang war in Chicago. The gang members aren’t supposed to have guns anyway and won’t have insurance. So other than imposing a gift to insurers at the expense of the innocent, what does this insurance do?
 
It’s a right to bear arms. But a privilege to qualify for that right.

Just like a drivers license.

I’m just proposing a better means to regulate.
 
No, self-defense is a human right. You qualify for it by virtue of existing.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
That’s actually a good idea.

Still, trying to require gun owners to pay insurance for the cost of mass murders doesn’t sound like it would work.

I’m not a fan of guns, and I have never owned one.

But the United States does and should allow the right to have them. And personal protection and hunting are legitimate reasons to own guns.
Click to expand...
That is a matter of opinion.
But something does need to change. The number of mass killings with guns is becoming increasingly common. It’s basically two or three major instances every year. And that is becoming more important to avoid than the ease and privileged of owning guns.
Click to expand...
While mass killings do invite a public discussion on gun rights vs gun control, they really aren’t the main problem. 59 people where killed in Las Vegas four day ago and we haven’t stopped talking about it since. But do you know what else happened during those four days? 172 more people died from gun violence. And in the next four days there will be another 172 people killed. The real reason to do something about guns is these everyday shootings that happen without much fanfare. The mass shootings by comparison are just a drop in the bucket. But they do capture the world’s attention, so I guess that is a good thing. But I would not push the narrative too far that says mass shootings are the reason to address gun violence.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
If all guns needed to be rented, then I think it might be a good way to establish and regulate all of the requirements and regulations for gun use.
Click to expand...
I think you’re going to need to do a lot more than that. I heard on TV that Paddock had not only ammonium nitrate but 50 pounds of Tannerite. The Tsarnaevs’ bomb was made out of toy car parts and powder taken from legal fireworks and matches.

I think everyone knows, or should, that terrorists or criminals are going to have access to all the guns they want, regardless of what lawmakers do to innocent civilians’ ownership of firearms. And among the potential terrorists who somehow can’t buy guns as easily as they can now buy illicit drugs, there are other ways.

If Paddock had blown the am nitrate and Tannerite at the base of those flight fuel tanks nearby, he would not have killed 59 people. He probably would have killed 10,000, perhaps more.
 
The gun grabbers have lost and they just don’t know it. They’ve lost because of technology. As someone pointed out you can 3D print a gun. As this technology improves it will be way too easy for someone to print a high quality, reliable gun.

The only thing you could restrict is ammunition. Tyrannical states like California have already started. But the tyrants are never visionaries. The people will figure out how to make ammunition in possibly new ways.

It is possible that gun grabbers could, for a while, disarm decent folks and thus subject them to the deviant desires of the criminal class who will still be armed and dangerous. But it won’t last long.
 
You are not realizing the need to protect the innocent by establishing better regulations and a better way to enforce those regulations.

I’m not proposing we take away the right to bear arms, just the ability to aquire and posses those firearms, and which kind and how many are safe for the rest of society
 
rcwitness said:
I’m not proposing we take away the right to bear arms, just the ability to aquire and posses those firearms, and which kind and how many are safe for the rest of society
Click to expand...
Your first sentence contradicts your second. You are proposing taking away the right to bear arms.

The vast majority of gun murders are done by well know bad people. If you want to prevent them increase the number of executions for lesser crimes or lock them up for life. But people don’t seem to want to do that. They want to punish the innocent.

Events like Las Vegas are almost impossible to stop. They aren’t new either. The most deadly mass shooting in the US was in 1927. A school was bombed. Sometimes evil just has its day.
 
You denied an intent to take away gun rights while in the same sentence saying that you want to take away the ability to acquire and possess firearms.

How does that make any sense?
 
I think you are incorrect. The most deadly mass shooting was perpetrated by the US government at Wounded Knee as part of an attempt at disarming people.
 
rcwitness said:
You are not realizing the need to protect the innocent by establishing better regulations and a better way to enforce those regulations.

I’m not proposing we take away the right to bear arms, just the ability to aquire and posses those firearms, and which kind and how many are safe for the rest of society
Click to expand...
What regulation would have prevented Paddock’s massacre? As far as anyone now knows, he wasn’t on anybody’s radar screen for any reason. What new regulation would have prevented him from buying guns legally. He wasn’t a felon. He wasn’t a known terrorist with terrorist links. He wasn’t a mental patient.

And does anybody really think mandatory registration would change anything when mandatory tracking of opioid drugs is evaded daily?
 
exnihilo said:
The vast majority of gun murders are done by well know bad people. If you want to prevent them increase the number of executions for lesser crimes or lock them up for life. But people don’t seem to want to do that. They want to punish the innocent.
Click to expand...
I recall reading Rahm Emmanuel’s complaint that a big part of the problem in Chicago is that judges won’t imprison people who commit gun crimes. And he, of course, is as liberal as liberal gets.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top