'Active shooter' near Las Vegas casino

[OMGImInPattaya]

21 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

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.

I would call less than 100 deaths per year, in a population of over 320M, an infinitesimally small problem. If one really wanted to reduce deaths from guns, the call would be for a handgun ban and not an assault weapons ban.

[bazza73]

32 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I would call less than 100 deaths per year, in a population of over 320M, an infinitesimally small problem. If one really wanted to reduce deaths from guns, the call would be for a handgun ban and not an assault weapons ban.

You may be right. However, I doubt the families of the 58/59 dead at Las Vegas would agree with you. Neither would the 600 injured, some of whom face months or years of painful rehabilitation.

The majority of handgun deaths are suicide. I don't have a problem with that, provided the person is considerate enough to take no-one else with them.

Here's a radical thought - why not restrict both?  And a hint - firearm related suicides in Australia declined by over 60% after the gun buyback in 1996.

[metisdead]

An off topic post has been removed. 

[ToS2014]

On 10/5/2017 at 9:16 PM, bazza73 said:

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.

glad a engrish profeser kaugt dat.  Dey alwaz sugests corectionz in my dizertazation

[ToS2014]

On 10/5/2017 at 7:28 PM, Thakkar said:

 

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

we could all use a rock or too (or for the English pros..... two).  Too (or is that 2?) many are so biased on one single side/belief that, well, in my opinion....its (or is that it's) the world we live in.  I'm done so please provide your logic to me again in the attempt to change my logic.  One of my Doctors, (or is that PhD's) said if you stop questioning then others will surely provide the answers. All we need is MORE gun laws, the countless on the books simply didn't work, so one more....or at least one more argument by 'gun banners' to.....geeze, let me go and make another black and sprite.  By the way I know my but smells.....duz any1 elsezez?  Didn't think so....its just me

[Kiwiken]

I will agree with the  USA Citizens saying banning will not work. Banning firearms does not solve the problem but simply drives the items underground. In the event of Governments deciding to restrict freedoms. Citizens will often choose to ignore the law and in effect be classed as criminals because of it.

I believe in regulations and licensing of Owners.

Checks and balances put in place to ensure License holders remain fit to own their weapons.

Nutters will always exist and whether you ban Firearms or restrict them the determined will find  way to get them.

In 2003 a person here in NZ attacked people with a Samurai Sword and shot to death another man with a home made sub machine gun. 

Threats are always with us. In many Countries and firearms are for many not the first weapon of choice.

[Credo]

3 minutes ago, Kiwiken said:

I will agree with the  USA Citizens saying banning will not work. Banning firearms does not solve the problem but simply drives the items underground. In the event of Governments deciding to restrict freedoms. Citizens will often choose to ignore the law and in effect be classed as criminals because of it.

I believe in regulations and licensing of Owners.

Checks and balances put in place to ensure License holders remain fit to own their weapons.

Nutters will always exist and whether you ban Firearms or restrict them the determined will find  way to get them.

In 2003 a person here in NZ attacked people with a Samurai Sword and shot to death another man with a home made sub machine gun. 

Threats are always with us. In many Countries and firearms are for many not the first weapon of choice.

The US will never outlaw guns.   There are too many remote places, dangerous places, wild animals and sports hunters to even begin to contemplate a ban.   A ban would would not be supported by either political party and wouldn't be approved by a large majority of citizens.

 

The issue is the regulation of these weapons which are of no value for any of the above reasons.   

[Ruffian Dick]

14 minutes ago, Credo said:

The US will never outlaw guns.   There are too many remote places, dangerous places, wild animals and sports hunters to even begin to contemplate a ban.   A ban would would not be supported by either political party and wouldn't be approved by a large majority of citizens.

 

The issue is the regulation of these weapons which are of no value for any of the above reasons.   

No wild tigers and leopards in the USA, so I'm not following you...

[Credo]

9 minutes ago, Ruffian Dick said:

No wild tigers and leopards in the USA, so I'm not following you...

Well, in the area that I live there are mountain lions, jaguars (two recently sighted), bears, wolves and coyotes.   The area has a very plentiful supply of rattlesnakes as well.   

 

Most people do not willy-nilly go shooting these creatures, but when they start marauding the rancher's livestock, they do run a risk of needing to be shot.   

 

The other menace is rabies and rabid animals need to be shot.   

 

I don't own a gun, never have (except for two that were left at my house and the owner never came and got them, so when I moved I sold them).   Most of my neighbors had guns and when something needed shooting (like a rabid skunk), I just gave them a call and they obliged.   

 

I have a home in a town not far from a city and we have to keep pets inside at night because coyotes come by and have killed cats and dogs.   

 

 

[Ruffian Dick]

Of course, my point is that assault rifles are not legal in Thailand. Tigers and leopards in Thailand and (looking around) not as such in the USA. Simply addressing your comment "too many remote places, dangerous places, wild animals and sports hunters to even begin to contemplate a ban."

 

Assault rifles. They are not needed for any of the threats that you listed. Whether these threats are tigers, coyotes, snakes or bandicoots. I have a couple of assault rifles and I see rattlesnakes on a regular basis. I would be insane to think that the former is a solution for the latter.

 

My rifles are a fun toy, not a sacred right or anything that I need to defend my country from tyranny. I'd enjoy playing with dynamite for kicks, but I'm not disappointed that it's illegal for me to obtain and use.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Ruffian Dick

[Credo]

I am 100% in favor of the banning of any assault type rifle.   They have absolutely no purpose other than a war zone.   I don't know any rancher, farmer or sport's person who uses anything that even comes close.

 

Most ranchers might want to shoot a coyote menacing their sheep or cattle, but an assault rifle would take out the entire herd.   

[OMGImInPattaya]

12 hours ago, bazza73 said:

You may be right. However, I doubt the families of the 58/59 dead at Las Vegas would agree with you. Neither would the 600 injured, some of whom face months or years of painful rehabilitation.

The majority of handgun deaths are suicide. I don't have a problem with that, provided the person is considerate enough to take no-one else with them.

Here's a radical thought - why not restrict both?  And a hint - firearm related suicides in Australia declined by over 60% after the gun buyback in 1996.

Yes, the pain and loss of the victims and their friends and famalies is inconceivable. However, I don't think it is a good idea to make laws or Constitutional doctrine based on the emotions of the moment.

[bazza73]

On 10/7/2017 at 8:12 AM, OMGImInPattaya said:

Yes, the pain and loss of the victims and their friends and famalies is inconceivable. However, I don't think it is a good idea to make laws or Constitutional doctrine based on the emotions of the moment.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make laws based on the history of gun statistics since 1996, which is where Australia and the USA diverged.

Oh sorry, I'm being logical.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I got news for some folks here: despite perceptions from afar, the majority of Americans don't keep or carry firearms. The average American simply doesn't. But the lobbying groups for the one-third-plus of the population that do carry great political clout.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.f457f60e8400

 

Also, it's a political oversimplification to cast the debate as BANNING guns vs not banning guns.

 

Most sane Americans who favor some greater restrictions on gun ownership probably favor two things:

1.  Greater and more thorough background checks before a person can buy a gun.

2.  Outlawing assault weapons (automatic and semi-automatic varieties) that have no legitimate use by civilians in a civil society except for inflicting mass murder.

 

If the shooter in LV had only had a legal handgun or a non-auto rifle, there's no way he would have been able to inflict the kind of death and injury that he did.

 

[Jack Mountain]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I got news for some folks here: despite perceptions from afar, the majority of Americans don't keep or carry firearms. The average American simply doesn't. But the lobbying groups for the one-third-plus of the population that do carry great political clout.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.f457f60e8400

 

Also, it's a political oversimplification to cast the debate as BANNING guns vs not banning guns.

 

Most sane Americans who favor some greater restrictions on gun ownership probably favor two things:

1.  Greater and more thorough background checks before a person can buy a gun.

2.  Outlawing assault weapons (automatic and semi-automatic varieties) that have no legitimate use by civilians in a civil society except for inflicting mass murder.

 

If the shooter in LV had only had a legal handgun or a non-auto rifle, there's no way he would have been able to inflict the kind of death and injury that he did.

 

He had 2 planes ...

[OMGImInPattaya]

14 hours ago, bazza73 said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make laws based on the history of gun statistics since 1996, which is where Australia and the USA diverged.

Oh sorry, I'm being logical.

People are always bringing up this "Australian example" as somehow applicable to the United States but there are fundamental differences between the countries. The first being, as everyone knows, the U.S. has the Second Amendment, which places limits on the what the government can do regarding the public ownership of guns. I'm no expert on Australia but they probably don't  have such a limitation...heck I don't even know if they have a constitution or if Parliament is supreme as in the UK. If so, it is easy, if they so choose, to pass whatever law on guns the government of the day wants to pass.

 

Also, there are still millions of guns in private hands in Oz so they could certainly have a mass shooting incident at any time. The fact that they don't seems to militate in my mind that the cause of gun violence and mass shooting incidents lies elsewhere than the fact that there are allot of guns in a given populace. Maybe Oz has fully funded and available mental health care coverage, which the U.S. sorely lacks. Maybe there are higher levels of social trust in society, for whatever reason, which makes Aussies less likely to "go postal" on their fellows. I think America and its leaders need to explore these, and other issues, in regards to societal violence and not reflexively turn to blaming "guns."

[ToS2014]

On 10/8/2017 at 6:29 PM, bazza73 said:

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make laws based on the history of gun statistics since 1996, which is where Australia and the USA diverged.

Oh sorry, I'm being logical.

I sure am glad the world has morphed to the point that each and every different and unique state has become so similar that one law here should work there.  A far left leaning US Senator has recently stated that ".... no law would have prevented Vegas...".  Perhaps we should all invoke Saudi Arabia's gun laws.  Seems to be working well with their recent incident.

[bazza73]

11 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

People are always bringing up this "Australian example" as somehow applicable to the United States but there are fundamental differences between the countries. The first being, as everyone knows, the U.S. has the Second Amendment, which places limits on the what the government can do regarding the public ownership of guns. I'm no expert on Australia but they probably don't  have such a limitation...heck I don't even know if they have a constitution or if Parliament is supreme as in the UK. If so, it is easy, if they so choose, to pass whatever law on guns the government of the day wants to pass.

 

Also, there are still millions of guns in private hands in Oz so they could certainly have a mass shooting incident at any time. The fact that they don't seems to militate in my mind that the cause of gun violence and mass shooting incidents lies elsewhere than the fact that there are allot of guns in a given populace. Maybe Oz has fully funded and available mental health care coverage, which the U.S. sorely lacks. Maybe there are higher levels of social trust in society, for whatever reason, which makes Aussies less likely to "go postal" on their fellows. I think America and its leaders need to explore these, and other issues, in regards to societal violence and not reflexively turn to blaming "guns."

There is nothing sacred about the US Constitution or the various amendments. All it takes is the political will to change it.

Yes, there are still many guns in private hands in Australia. However, very few of these are semi-automatic weapons, because it is illegal to own one. Get caught with one, and it's jail time.

Americans can't seem to understand the reason we have not had a mass shooting since 1996 is not because we have banned guns. We haven't. We have banned the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unless you are an expert, carrying out a mass shooting with a bolt-action weapon is fairly difficult.

Perhaps you are right though. America does seem to have a lot of mental health problems. Isn't that why the phrase " Only in America" came into being?

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 hours ago, bazza73 said:

There is nothing sacred about the US Constitution or the various amendments. All it takes is the political will to change it.

Yes, there are still many guns in private hands in Australia. However, very few of these are semi-automatic weapons, because it is illegal to own one. Get caught with one, and it's jail time.

Americans can't seem to understand the reason we have not had a mass shooting since 1996 is not because we have banned guns. We haven't. We have banned the weapons whose sole purpose is to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible. Unless you are an expert, carrying out a mass shooting with a bolt-action weapon is fairly difficult.

Perhaps you are right though. America does seem to have a lot of mental health problems. Isn't that why the phrase " Only in America" came into being?

If one is not American, maybe it's difficult to understand that most Americans DO consider their Consitution to be a sacred document (albeit a secular one). In a polyglot society, it's the one thing we share in common and it is intentionaly very hard to change  (and that's a good thing). It is the reason its only been amended, what, 28 times in almost 250 years (and the first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights). And what are you suggesting needs to be changed...are you proposing, like a ding-bat columnists for the NYT did recently, that the Second Amendment be repealed? You might as well be a dog barking at the moon.

 

As to American exceptionalism, yeah, we have allot of extremes...rich and poor...worst elementary schools and best universities in the world (and lots of them), most number of Nobel Prize winners, world beating companies leading the way into the future (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, Tesla, and myriad more), the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the world, the highest per capita prison population...and the most deaths from guns. (Not to put too fine a point on it...but what has Australia brought to the world other than Crocodile Dundee and Olivia Newton-John? I'm not saying Oz isn't a nice well ordered society and Aussies great people but the country could fall off the face of the earth and most people wouldn't even notice.)  It's all a package and maybe to be this truly great and inovative country, America, like many great artists, has to be a bit mad.

Edited October 9, 2017 by OMGImInPattaya

[jak2002003]

15 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

If one is not American, maybe it's difficult to understand that most Americans DO consider their Consitution to be a sacred document (albeit a secular one). In a polyglot society, it's the one thing we share in common and it is intentionaly very hard to change  (and that's a good thing). It is the reason its only been amended, what, 28 times in almost 250 years (and the first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights). And what are you suggesting needs to be changed...are you proposing, like a ding-bat columnists for the NYT did recently, that the Second Amendment be repealed? You might as well be a dog barking at the moon.

 

As to American exceptionalism, yeah, we have allot of extremes...rich and poor...worst elementary schools and best universities in the world (and lots of them), most number of Nobel Prize winners, world beating companies leading the way into the future (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, Tesla, and myriad more), the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the world, the highest per capita prison population...and the most deaths from guns. It's all a package and maybe to be this truly great and inovative country, America, like many great artists, has to be a bit mad.

Most sane people from other countries can see the stupidity, ignorance, and madness of (the majority of) American people in regards to your gun laws.

 

Keep you guns, in fact get more..... that's what most of you population wants... You kill far more of each other than any Islamic Terrorists could ever do.  

 

.  

 

 

 

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Most sane people from other countries can see the stupidity, ignorance, and madness of (the majority of) American people in regards to your gun laws.

 

Keep you guns, in fact get more..... that's what most of you population wants... You kill far more of each other than any Islamic Terrorists could ever do.  

 

.  

 

 

 

 

All that childish name calling really hurt...and did wonders for your argument too.

[jak2002003]

Just now, OMGImInPattaya said:

All that childish name calling really hurt...and did wonders for your argument too.

What argument?  I am in agreement about Americans being able to own guns.. I am totally for it.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Jack Mountain]

No weapons, no revolution!

[Thakkar]

13 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

If one is not American, maybe it's difficult to understand that most Americans DO consider their Consitution to be a sacred document (albeit a secular one). In a polyglot society, it's the one thing we share in common and it is intentionaly very hard to change  (and that's a good thing). It is the reason its only been amended, what, 28 times in almost 250 years (and the first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights). And what are you suggesting needs to be changed...are you proposing, like a ding-bat columnists for the NYT did recently, that the Second Amendment be repealed? You might as well be a dog barking at the moon.

 

As to American exceptionalism, yeah, we have allot of extremes...rich and poor...worst elementary schools and best universities in the world (and lots of them), most number of Nobel Prize winners, world beating companies leading the way into the future (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Uber, Tesla, and myriad more), the most technologically advanced and powerful military in the world, the highest per capita prison population...and the most deaths from guns. (Not to put too fine a point on it...but what has Australia brought to the world other than Crocodile Dundee and Olivia Newton-John? I'm not saying Oz isn't a nice well ordered society and Aussies great people but the country could fall off the face of the earth and most people wouldn't even notice.)  It's all a package and maybe to be this truly great and inovative country, America, like many great artists, has to be a bit mad.

This “two sides of the same coin” argument doesn’t hold water. It is like a woman saying, “because my husband is charming and handsome, he is also a successful philanderer and I just have to accept that”

 

Bad, unsuccessful, destructive, damaging policies can be changed. Without touching the Second Amendment, gun laws can be changed, and most Americans want those changes that have proved successful again and again in many countries as well as in some Americans States that have stricter gun laws.

 

There is a reason that, at the NRA offices, the plaque quotes only a part of the Second Amendment,  the part about “right to bear arms” and leaves out the part that says, “a well regulated militia”

 

Their mission is to distort the Second Anmendment to serve the business purpose of gun manufacturers. 

[OMGImInPattaya]

22 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

This “two sides of the same coin” argument doesn’t hold water. It is like a woman saying, “because my husband is charming and handsome, he is also a successful philanderer and I just have to accept that”

 

Bad, unsuccessful, destructive, damaging policies can be changed. Without touching the Second Amendment, gun laws can be changed, and most Americans want those changes that have proved successful again and again in many countries as well as in some Americans States that have stricter gun laws.

 

There is a reason that, at the NRA offices, the plaque quotes only a part of the Second Amendment,  the part about “right to bear arms” and leaves out the part that says, “a well regulated militia”

 

Their mission is to distort the Second Anmendment to serve the business purpose of gun manufacturers. 

Good luck.

[Thakkar]

7 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Good luck.

Thank you.

 

But I fear you are right about one thing, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Sadly, and as loath as I am to fall into such despair, change is unlikely.  As Dan Hodges said on Twitter:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

[notmyself]

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

As Dan Hodges said on Twitter:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

 

Said the same after the terrible event. Could have three a day every single day and the gun fetishists would not change because their desire (hence fetish) outweighs everything else. These 'gun advocates' are the same as Creationists insofar as they are impervious to reason. So deep have the intellectual termites gotten and so well have they dined that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is still often offered as if a reasonable argument. For most of these people, the boat has already sailed. 

 

 

[Thakkar]

11 minutes ago, notmyself said:

 

Said the same after the terrible event. Could have three a day every single day and the gun fetishists would not change because their desire (hence fetish) outweighs everything else. These 'gun advocates' are the same as Creationists insofar as they are impervious to reason. So deep have the intellectual termites gotten and so well have they dined that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' is still often offered as if a reasonable argument. For most of these people, the boat has already sailed. 

 

 

 

Another is the erroneous use of the “slippery slope” argument: “regulation will lead to control will lead to confiscation will lead to subjugation by a tyrannical government”.

 

“If we let gays marry, what’s to stop people marrying animals?”

 

When gun control advocates say, “more loosening of assault rifle bans will lead to people buying machine guns, flame throwers and rocket launchers.” Gun advocates respond with, “that’s ridiculous”—and it is. It is the same kind of ridiculous as *their* “slippery slope” arguments.

 

 

[OMGImInPattaya]

34 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Thank you.

 

But I fear you are right about one thing, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Sadly, and as loath as I am to fall into such despair, change is unlikely.  As Dan Hodges said on Twitter:

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

I am in agreement with you, and by admitting defeat, gun-confiscation advocates can get on with their lives. Maybe they can shift their safety advocacy to something useful like more mental health funding and treatment.

[notmyself]

11 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Another is the erroneous use of the “slippery slope” argument: “regulation will lead to control will lead to confiscation will lead to subjugation by a tyrannical government”.

 

“If we let gays marry, what’s to stop people marrying animals?”

 

When gun control advocates say, “more loosening of assault rifle bans will lead to people buying machine guns, flame throwers and rocket launchers.” Gun advocates respond with, “that’s ridiculous”—and it is. It is the same kind of ridiculous as *their* “slippery slope” arguments.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I am in agreement with you, and by admitting defeat, gun-confiscation advocates can get on with their lives. Maybe they can shift their safety advocacy to something useful like more mental health funding and treatment.

 

Case in point.