'Active shooter' near Las Vegas casino

[attrayant]

Why not ban certain religions that seem to be made to kill people?

Because we don't persecute entire segments of the human population based on something that "seems" to happen.

[sambum]

4 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Because we don't persecute entire segments of the human population based on something that "seems" to happen.

 

I must admit to being confused!

[attrayant]

As I've already said, less than 100 people per year on average are killed in mass-shooting incidents in the United States.

And as I've already asked, why are you trying to limit the discussion to mass shootings?

We can narrow down even further, and say only two people per year are killed in mass shooting incidents while swimming between the hours of 2 and 6 pm. There, now guns seem positively innocent!

[attrayant]

I must admit to being confused!

About what? As much as I think religion is a scourge upon humanity, it is a protected class under the us constitution.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

[ToS2014]

20 hours ago, bazza73 said:

I'm looking forward to the time when the Abrams main battle tank becomes obsolete, and concerned citizens can purchase one at the next gun show. All in the name of self-protection, of course. I'm sure the NRA would approve. Just think, a wealthy nutcase could really rewrite the record books.

I'm still standing in the for sale line outside DM (Davis-Monthan AFB) waiting to purchase an F-16.  The tank should be an easy target.

[ToS2014]

20 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

But the state of affairs is even more bizarre than an internet fart prompting a midnight visit from the secret police. Most Americans do want sensible gun controls. Yet it is the tyranny of government (legislators bought and paid for by the NRA) that is preventing it. By gun advocates' argument, they should be justified in using their hoard of arms to overthrow these legislators so that laws could be passed to control the very arms they used to overthrow the previous legislators who were ignoring the popular will.

 

Only in a bizarre alternate universe can policy be based on things that didn't happen.

 

Based on *one* FAILED attempt at a shoe bomb, everyone at American airports have to take their shoes off. Based on over 3 dozen school shootings since Columbine, gun laws haven't been touched.

 

Gun advocates claim that if more people have guns then there will be less crime.  The evidence is quite the opposite: more guns results in more homicides and suicides. 

 

Death and injury data: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

 

Correlate above with Gun ownership data: http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ (much digging around required)

 

Another problem with tens of millions of households having guns is that EVERY YEAR (on average) a quarter of a million guns are stolen in household burglaries. Those stolen guns aren't going to be used for good or to protect true patriots from a tyrannical government. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fshbopc0510.pdf)

 

Most of the pro gun arguments make no sense. Here's a comedian who expresses that much better than I can ( and, yes, I've posted this before, so sue me):

 

 

 

 

I can also provide multiple links that that will support my side of the argument.  If your position was so correct and mine  resembles a donkey, then why in the EIGHT years of the preceding POTUS' term, and control of both bodies that advance legislation, nearly everything that you or advancing....and others in the media.....why didn't they do something along your superior position?  By the way, if the former POTUS ends his vacation and goes back home, I'll be happy because they have more stringent gun control laws than even the federal government.....and as you may well know one of the highest murder capitals in the US.  You simply cannot have enough laws that control everything in everyone's daily second....let alone a hell-bent individual that wants to....well you name it with what ever he/she can get their hands on.  I remember as a kid, I got into a fight just like most 'typical' kids do.  He ended up throwing a rock at me and left a pretty nice mess.  Needless to say rocks were forever legislated by the local school board.  I still, to this day, hope one day that it will spread nation wide....because, as you and I know, rocks can and are very dangerous.  

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, ToS2014 said:

I can also provide multiple links that that will support my side of the argument.  If your position was so correct and mine  resembles a donkey, then why in the EIGHT years of the preceding POTUS' term, and control of both bodies that advance legislation, nearly everything that you or advancing....and others in the media.....why didn't they do something along your superior position?  By the way, if the former POTUS ends his vacation and goes back home, I'll be happy because they have more stringent gun control laws than even the federal government.....and as you may well know one of the highest murder capitals in the US.  You simply cannot have enough laws that control everything in everyone's daily second....let alone a hell-bent individual that wants to....well you name it with what ever he/she can get their hands on.  I remember as a kid, I got into a fight just like most 'typical' kids do.  He ended up throwing a rock at me and left a pretty nice mess.  Needless to say rocks were forever legislated by the local school board.  I still, to this day, hope one day that it will spread nation wide....because, as you and I know, rocks can and are very dangerous.  

Total distortion. The democrats only controlled all branches for a limited time. Nowhere near eight years. Either you knew that and decided to imply differently or you're ignorant of facts. Both bad.

As far as why democrats failed to do much about gun control during the limited window, that's a better question. I think it's about political capital. Obama decided to blow almost all of it on the ACA law and he paid a big price for that. Perhaps a calculation was made that as far as saving American lives, that was a higher priority. 

As far as the odious and disingenuous right wing talking points that regions with strong gun control laws have high gun violence rates, that doesn't wash. The laws NEED to be federal. As in Australia. There is no border control between cities and states in the USA.

 

DUH!

Edited October 5, 2017 by Jingthing

[ToS2014]

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Total distortion. The democrats only controlled all branches for a limited time. Nowhere near eight years. Either you knew that and decided to imply differently or you're ignorant of facts. Both bad.

As far as why democrats failed to do much about gun control during the limited window, that's a better question. I think it's about political capital. Obama decided to blow almost all of it on the ACA law and he paid a big price for that. Perhaps a calculation was made that as far as saving American lives, that was a higher priority. 

As far as the odious and disingenuous right wing talking points that regions with strong gun control laws have high gun violence rates, that doesn't wash. The laws NEED to be federal. As in Australia. There is no border control between cities and states in the USA.

 

DUH!

I was pleased to see the federal Oz gun laws quickly affected the bike 'clubs' too.  As I said before, you cannot legislate humanity.

[pornprong]

Only scared people want guns.

This fact says a lot about the small dicked losers who buy them

[bazza73]

23 minutes ago, ToS2014 said:

I can also provide multiple links that that will support my side of the argument.  If your position was so correct and mine  resembles a donkey, then why in the EIGHT years of the preceding POTUS' term, and control of both bodies that advance legislation, nearly everything that you or advancing....and others in the media.....why didn't they do something along your superior position?  By the way, if the former POTUS ends his vacation and goes back home, I'll be happy because they have more stringent gun control laws than even the federal government.....and as you may well know one of the highest murder capitals in the US.  You simply cannot have enough laws that control everything in everyone's daily second....let alone a hell-bent individual that wants to....well you name it with what ever he/she can get their hands on.  I remember as a kid, I got into a fight just like most 'typical' kids do.  He ended up throwing a rock at me and left a pretty nice mess.  Needless to say rocks were forever legislated by the local school board.  I still, to this day, hope one day that it will spread nation wide....because, as you and I know, rocks can and are very dangerous.  

An entertaining feature of what should be a fairly serious thread ( 59 killed, 600 injured ) is the massive contortions, convolutions and deflections thrown up by the pro-gun lobbyists to support their position. Some are so ridiculous as to beggar belief, such as the gentleman who embarked on a comparison with Australian snakes and spiders.

Could I suggest you are not going to kill 59 people and injure another 600 by throwing rocks. At least not in the space of 20 minutes.

The elephant in the room is Australia's record of gun massacres since 1996. Nil. The eyes of every pro-gun individual are steadfastly averted from that inconvenient truth.

Sadly, Americans will go on killing each other en masse, while the rest of the world wonders about your sanity,  the greed of your armaments industry, the sick propaganda of your NRA, and the spinelessness of your politicians.

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, ToS2014 said:

I was pleased to see the federal Oz gun laws quickly affected the bike 'clubs' too.  As I said before, you cannot legislate humanity.

The rates of gun violence overall are much lower there, yes? 

[ToS2014]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The rates of gun violence overall are much lower there, yes? 

how about the rates of biker (gun related) violence?

[ToS2014]

5 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

An entertaining feature of what should be a fairly serious thread ( 59 killed, 600 injured ) is the massive contortions, convolutions and deflections thrown up by the pro-gun lobbyists to support their position. Some are so ridiculous as to beggar belief, such as the gentleman who embarked on a comparison with Australian snakes and spiders.

Could I suggest you are not going to kill 59 people and injure another 600 by throwing rocks. At least not in the space of 20 minutes.

The elephant in the room is Australia's record of gun massacres since 1996. Nil. The eyes of every pro-gun individual are steadfastly averted from that inconvenient truth.

Sadly, Americans will go on killing each other en masse, while the rest of the world wonders about your sanity,  the greed of your armaments industry, the sick propaganda of your NRA, and the spinelessness of your politicians.

I'm just glad on being properly educated by foreigners residing in Thailand.  No where near close to my two degrees in the 'land of insanity'.  Perhaps I should have majored in European, UK, Oz, etc... history so I could speak so eloquently about their (in)perfection.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You think it's propaganda...take a poll of Democrat voters and other liberals and you will find large majorities in favor of no private ownership of firearms.

 

How about people exercising their First Amendment right to free speech...should one need a background check and a license for that...how about women exercising their 19th Amendment right to vote...background check and license too?

 

"take a poll"?  In other words, you are aware of no such poll.  Neither am I.

 

The second amendment:

 

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.

 

It is a very unclear amendment.  A reasonable interpretation is that the right to bear arms only exists for members of a well regulated militia.

 

It's worth remembering that at the time the amendment was written guns were single shot muzzle-loaders, were used to feed families (a significant amount of the meat on the table of Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries was wild game) and were the most expensive item in most households.  The authors of the constitution had no way of knowing that guns would become so cheap, lethal, and unnecessary.

 

It's also worth noting that the second amendment isn't limited to guns, it refers to arms.  At the time it was written the concept of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons didn't exist, but they do now.  Do you support the right of the weird neighbor down the street to  experiment with chemical weapons in his garage and to plant landmines in his front yard to keep the neighbors kids from trespassing?

 

Fortunately the framers of the constitution knew that they could not foresee all future needs of the country.  That's why they included a process for changing the Constitution.  An update to the outdated and poorly written second amendment is seriously past due.

 

Edit:  Since the second amendment does state "well regulated", I think background checks are clearly constitutional.  In fact, there's room for much more regulation.

Edited October 5, 2017 by heybruce

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, sambum said:

Why not ban certain religions that seem to be made to kill people?

Because Christianity has a long and sorry history in that regard? Very harsh!

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, ToS2014 said:

I can also provide multiple links that that will support my side of the argument.  If your position was so correct and mine  resembles a donkey, then why in the EIGHT years of the preceding POTUS' term, and control of both bodies that advance legislation, nearly everything that you or advancing....and others in the media.....why didn't they do something along your superior position?  By the way, if the former POTUS ends his vacation and goes back home, I'll be happy because they have more stringent gun control laws than even the federal government.....and as you may well know one of the highest murder capitals in the US.  You simply cannot have enough laws that control everything in everyone's daily second....let alone a hell-bent individual that wants to....well you name it with what ever he/she can get their hands on.  I remember as a kid, I got into a fight just like most 'typical' kids do.  He ended up throwing a rock at me and left a pretty nice mess.  Needless to say rocks were forever legislated by the local school board.  I still, to this day, hope one day that it will spread nation wide....because, as you and I know, rocks can and are very dangerous.  

 

Based on your arguments, It’s possible that rock hit you harder than you think.

[jvs]

46 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"take a poll"?  In other words, you are aware of no such poll.  Neither am I.

 

The second amendment:

 

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.

 

It is a very unclear amendment.  A reasonable interpretation is that the right to bear arms only exists for members of a well regulated militia.

 

It's worth remembering that at the time the amendment was written guns were single shot muzzle-loaders, were used to feed families (a significant amount of the meat on the table of Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries was wild game) and were the most expensive item in most households.  The authors of the constitution had no way of knowing that guns would become so cheap, lethal, and unnecessary.

 

It's also worth noting that the second amendment isn't limited to guns, it refers to arms.  At the time it was written the concept of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons didn't exist, but they do now.  Do you support the right of the weird neighbor down the street to  experiment with chemical weapons in his garage and to plant landmines in his front yard to keep the neighbors kids from trespassing?

 

Fortunately the framers of the constitution knew that they could not foresee all future needs of the country.  That's why they included a process for changing the Constitution.  An update to the outdated and poorly written second amendment is seriously past due.

 

Edit:  Since the second amendment does state "well regulated", I think background checks are clearly constitutional.  In fact, there's room for much more regulation.

You are making a few good points here.

I do agree with a lot of posters that something needs to be done,i just saw on facebook another person coming up with something really original,cold dead hands ,well you know it.

I am getting the feeling that a lot of gun owners are fundementalists and therefore not willing to listen.If you are going to quote the second amendment you should also look into the reasons why and how it was worded and what the intention of it was.Did i read something about every able bodied white male ,does that mean an African American can not own a gun?

You should look at the second amendment as a whole,the meaning and purpose behind it and why it was added.

time has changed,how many gun owners are riding a horse to work these days?

Maybe there should be a nation wide poll and after that some serious chances in the law,laws get changed all the time why not this one?

If the government would decide for people to hand over their guns how many people would be willing to die in order to keep their guns?

If you would take up arms against the government you would be called a terrorist and dealt with accordingly.

 

[bazza73]

2 hours ago, ToS2014 said:

I'm just glad on being properly educated by foreigners residing in Thailand.  No where near close to my two degrees in the 'land of insanity'.  Perhaps I should have majored in European, UK, Oz, etc... history so I could speak so eloquently about their (in)perfection.

I'll just add a little to your education, then. The correct prefix is (im), not (in). I don't know what your two degrees are in. From the arguments you have put forward thus far, I'd say formal logic was not a component of either.

[notmyself]

On ‎03‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:41 AM, notmyself said:

Now is not the time to talk about gun regulation.

 

On ‎03‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 1:48 AM, Blackheart1916 said:

With respect, I would have thought this is the perfect time ?

 

It's disgusting, the whole thing. My comment was sarcasm and could be considered 'troll like' behaviour but what do you call pessimism when the outcome is as predicted?

Shall I bother again?

Though a small body, the NRA are too effective for anything to change and things such as 'now is not the time' is something that has to be expected straight off of the bat. I'm not American but it does look to me that the arguments used by the NRA are based on the same formula as the Creationists who believe the World to be 6-10k years old. How about we talk about Sandi Hook, is this the time? Children. 

 

[notmyself]

11 hours ago, jvs said:

If the government would decide for people to hand over their guns how many people would be willing to die in order to keep their guns?

 

A huge number of people, which is part of the problem.

 

[Thakkar]

[OMGImInPattaya]

17 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

And as I've already asked, why are you trying to limit the discussion to mass shootings?

We can narrow down even further, and say only two people per year are killed in mass shooting incidents while swimming between the hours of 2 and 6 pm. There, now guns seem positively innocent!

 

Because liberals and Democrat politicos are calling for things like "assault weapons" bans to solve a de minimis problem. If they really want to have some affect, why don't they call for a handgun ban?

[OMGImInPattaya]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

"take a poll"?  In other words, you are aware of no such poll.  Neither am I.

 

The second amendment:

 

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.

 

It is a very unclear amendment.  A reasonable interpretation is that the right to bear arms only exists for members of a well regulated militia.

 

It's worth remembering that at the time the amendment was written guns were single shot muzzle-loaders, were used to feed families (a significant amount of the meat on the table of Americans in the 18th and 19th centuries was wild game) and were the most expensive item in most households.  The authors of the constitution had no way of knowing that guns would become so cheap, lethal, and unnecessary.

 

It's also worth noting that the second amendment isn't limited to guns, it refers to arms.  At the time it was written the concept of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons didn't exist, but they do now.  Do you support the right of the weird neighbor down the street to  experiment with chemical weapons in his garage and to plant landmines in his front yard to keep the neighbors kids from trespassing?

 

Fortunately the framers of the constitution knew that they could not foresee all future needs of the country.  That's why they included a process for changing the Constitution.  An update to the outdated and poorly written second amendment is seriously past due.

 

Edit:  Since the second amendment does state "well regulated", I think background checks are clearly constitutional.  In fact, there's room for much more regulation.

You can keep howling at the moon but the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right is an individual, not collective, one. So your militia argument is moot.

 

The Founders didn't foresee telephones or the internet either but provided guidance on expression and communication in general in the First Amendment. It's the same  with "arms" in the Second.

 

You're certainly right about amending the Constitution. What are you doing to change it besides ranting  on a Thailand centric internet forum?

[Thakkar]

Things that are more regulated than guns:

 

Holding a bake sale

Selling mattresses

 

More...

https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/things-more-heavily-regulated-than-buying-a-gun-in-the-united-states

[Jack Mountain]

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

You can keep howling at the moon but the Supreme Court has already ruled that the right is an individual, not collective, one. So your militia argument is moot.

 

The Founders didn't foresee telephones or the internet either but provided guidance on expression and communication in general in the First Amendment. It's the same  with "arms" in the Second.

 

You're certainly right about amending the Constitution. What are you doing to change it besides ranting  on a Thailand centric internet forum?

Yes, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that regulating guns is also constitutional, so the debate is about proper degree of regulation.  I believe regulation along the lines of those applied to drivers and automobiles can be applied that would be constitutional and reduce the number of gun fatalities.  You seem to think that no regulation, even a simple background check for criminal or psychiatric issues, is appropriate.

 

Telephones and the internet are regulated, and likely to become more so.  Provided the regulations are in line with the "guidance" of the constitution that is acceptable.  As noted, regulation of guns is also acceptable.

 

My posts are no more rants than yours, and my arguments for sensible gun regulation are not limited to this forum.  I also vote for sensible candidates that aren't afraid of confrontation with the NRA whenever I can.  Unfortunately a well funded organization representing millions of tiny-minded, single-issue voters can have a disproportionate impact on legislation.

 

You ignored part of my post.  Do you think the constitutional right to bear arms should include all arms, including chemical, nuclear and biological?  If not, where to you draw the line?

Edited October 6, 2017 by heybruce

[Opl]

" The NRA doesn’t want you to be considered a member, because you may have crazy views of guns. The NRA only claims to have 5 million members, but that’s not Pew says they have more. What gives? You would think that the NRA would be thrilled at a poll that claims they have roughly 14 million members. And they are — kind of."

https://www.salon.com/2017/07/12/the-nra-doesnt-want-you-to-be-considered-a-member-because-you-may-have-crazy-views-of-guns/

 

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Yes, but the Supreme Court has also ruled that regulating guns is also constitutional, so the debate is about proper degree of regulation.  I believe regulation along the lines of those applied to drivers and automobiles can be applied that would be constitutional and reduce the number of gun fatalities.  You seem to think that no regulation, even a simple background check for criminal or psychiatric issues, is appropriate.

 

Telephones and the internet are regulated, and likely to become more so.  Provided the regulations are in line with the "guidance" of the constitution that is acceptable.  As noted, regulation of guns is also acceptable.

 

My posts are no more rants than yours, and my arguments for sensible gun regulation are not limited to this forum.  I also vote for sensible candidates that aren't afraid of confrontation with the NRA whenever I can.  Unfortunately a well funded organization representing millions of tiny-minded, single-issue voters can have a disproportionate impact on legislation.

 

You ignored part of my post.  Do you think the constitutional right to bear arms should include all arms, including chemical, nuclear and biological?  If not, where to you draw the line?

The right to drive is not in the Constitution, whereas bearing arms (aka guns) is; therefore any regulations on guns face much higher scrutiny in order to be legal than those for driving a car. My preference is for nation-wide constitutional open carry.

 

Good on you for supporting candidates who represent your views on guns...democracy is a wonderful thing. It's just too bad you have to engage in ad hominem attacks on your fellow citizens who support politicians and organizations with which you disagree. I take it you also disapprove of those who support Planned Parenthood, that well-funded organization representing millions of tiny-minded, single issues voters who support the right to kill babies.

 

I would draw the line at any gun (mechanical ((or in future electro-mechanical)) implement or device that can be carried and operated by a single person.

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

The right to drive is not in the Constitution, whereas bearing arms (aka guns) is; therefore any regulations on guns face much higher scrutiny in order to be legal than those for driving a car. My preference is for nation-wide constitutional open carry.

 

Good on you for supporting candidates who represent your views on guns...democracy is a wonderful thing. It's just too bad you have to engage in ad hominem attacks on your fellow citizens who support politicians and organizations with which you disagree. I take it you also disapprove of those who support Planned Parenthood, that well-funded organization representing millions of tiny-minded, single issues voters who support the right to kill babies.

 

I would draw the line at any gun (mechanical ((or in future electro-mechanical)) implement or device that can be carried and operated by a single person.

As noted, the Supreme Court has ruled that regulations on guns is constitutional.  Your preference is for nation-wide open carry, which, considering guns appeal to criminals, is akin to a preference for people carrying wads of cash.  Identifying oneself as a gun owner does not make one safe, it makes one a target.

 

My preference, as stated, is for rational controls similar to those applied to drivers and motor vehicles.  The fact that the constitution specifically mentions "arms" in a "well regulated" context does not prevent these arms from being intelligently regulated, in fact it makes intelligent regulation a constitutional requirement.

 

So you do draw a line, and it is much more restrictive than arms that one can carry.  Why do you think that only guns are a constitutional right?  Why not flame-throwers, chemical weapons with hand-held dispensers, bombs, etc?  Is it possible that you agree that there needs to be some sanity on weapons availability, in spite of your interpretation of the second amendment?

[bazza73]

9 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Because liberals and Democrat politicos are calling for things like "assault weapons" bans to solve a de minimis problem. If they really want to have some affect, why don't they call for a handgun ban?

Another deflection attempt. Point to something else.

Assault weapons such as semi-automatic rifles are not a de minimis problem. They are the sine qua non weapon of any aspiring mass murderer.

So bump stocks have sold out in the gun stores after Las Vegas. The gun owners without one ( or two, or three ,or four ) fear they will be banned. As usual, gun sales have spiked after a massacre, and shares in armaments companies have gone up.

This mindset has all the logic of attempting to extinguish a fire with 95 octane gasoline. It would be laughable if it was not so tragic.