After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent

[webfact]

After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent

By Susan Cornwell and Richard Cowan

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sunday's massacre in Las Vegas spurred a ritual-like response from U.S. politicians following the mass shootings that have left a trail of victims across the country: Democrats renewed demands for tougher gun laws while Republicans offered up prayers but showed no signs of supporting such legislation.

 

One day after the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, which left at least 59 people dead and over 500 injured,

House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican, said in a statement on Monday: "The whole country stands united in our shock, in our condolences and in our prayers.”

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, also a Republican, led his chamber in a moment of silence following the "devastating" massacre and urged "national mourning" and prayer.

 

Democrats were not falling in line.

 

"Thoughts & prayers are NOT enough. Not when more moms & dads will bury kids this week, & more sons & daughters will grow up without parents," Senator Elizabeth Warren said in a morning tweet.

 

Senator Chris Murphy, whose home state of Connecticut was the scene of a mass shooting in 2012 that killed 20 6-year-olds and six adults, was blunter.

 

"It's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something," Murphy said in a statement.

 

Murphy said he would introduce a new background check bill and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi also urged passage of legislation toughening checks on gun sales.

 

The Connecticut tragedy sparked serious negotiations in Congress on tighter gun laws, including tougher background checks for gun buyers. But the effort failed in 2013 amid strong opposition from gun groups such as the National Rifle Association.

 

Subsequent mass shootings have brought a similar call for Congress to act on tougher gun laws, only to see Republicans and some Democrats balk at what they see as infringements on the right to bear arms embedded in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders, asked whether President Donald Trump might now favour tighter gun laws, told reporters: "I think that's something that we can talk about in the coming days and see what that looks like moving forward." She said the administration would not want laws created that would fail to "stop these types of things from happening."

 

Nevada's two U.S. senators, Republican Dean Heller and Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, on Monday both issued statements offering prayers to victims and thanks to first responders, but neither mentioned anything about gun laws.

 

SENATE DEMOCRATS TAKE FLOOR ON GUNS

 

Ryan, when asked in an interview last month with the Associated Press about steps to diminish gun violence, said many mass shootings were at the hands of people with mental illnesses and said Congress needed to ensure that federal funds were available to address such illnesses.

 

"But if you’re saying that this Republican Congress is going to infringe upon Second Amendment rights, we're not going to do that," he said.

 

The House, however, recently passed a massive funding bill for next year that would cut $306 million from the government's Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration.

 

Democrats on Monday wrote to Ryan asking that he stop from further consideration a bill before the House that would make it easier to buy gun silencers, something that gun control advocates oppose. Supporters argue the bill would protect more gun users from damage to their hearing.

 

Senate Democrats were holding the floor into the evening on Monday to talk about the Las Vegas massacre and the need for gun controls.

 

One California politician offered another possible path forward. Gavin Newsom, the state's current lieutenant governor and a candidate for governor in the 2018 election, suggested that California act on its own.

 

"We are heartbroken that we can’t pass commonsense gun laws in our nation," Newsom said in a statement. "If the Republican leadership of Congress and this president continue with their moral and intellectual abandon, California has and must continue to chart the path of rationality."

 

California has already acted on gun control, with voters last November approving a proposition outlawing possession of ammo magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

As has been the case following past mass shootings in the United States, the Las Vegas murders raised expectations of brisk gun sales by people who fear that gun control laws will be become stricter, driving up the shares of gun makers.

 

American Outdoor Brands <AOBC.O> rose 3.2 percent while Sturm Ruger & Co <RGR.N> rose 3.5 percent. That followed a trend seen following the June 12, 2016 shooting at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub, when American Outdoor gained 7 percent and Ruger jumped 8.5 percent.

 

#GunControlNow was among the top trending hashtags on Twitter in the United States on Monday.

 

(Reporting by Richard Cowan, Susan Cornwell and Steve Holland in Washington and Lance Tupper in New York; Editing by Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-03

[inThailand]

Guns don't kill. People do the killing.

[Scott]

A troll post has been removed.   I think we can dispense with the comparison between guns and cars.  

 

[Samui Bodoh]

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

Democrats on Monday wrote to Ryan asking that he stop from further consideration a bill before the House that would make it easier to buy gun silencers, something that gun control advocates oppose. Supporters argue the bill would protect more gun users from damage to their hearing.

 

The paragraph above encapsulates the idiocy of the gun loonies in the US.

 

A law to make silencers legal? To protect hearing?

 

Haven't been to the states for many years, and won't be going anytime soon.

 

[Phuket Man]

5 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Guns don't kill. People do the killing.

Yep. With guns that are too easy to buy.

[inThailand]

Kinda like...how easy it is to get illegal drugs? 

[darksidedog]

And there was me thinking that the threat to America was being contained by the travel ban. The alleged shooter, Stephen Paddock doesn't sound particularly foreign. Freely available firearms are the number one very real danger. US politicians have had many chances to enact legislation on the subject, but have universally failed to have the balls to stand up to the gun lobby and do so. Expect similar incidents again.

[craigt3365]

36 minutes ago, webfact said:

California has already acted on gun control, with voters last November approving a proposition outlawing possession of ammo magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Great job California.  Maybe the individual states can get legislation passed that the Republicans in congress are loath to get done.

 

Time for a reset in the US congress.  With an approval rating below 20%, perhaps it's time.

[JAG]

38 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Guns don't kill. People do the killing.

Take away the guns it will stop people using them for killing.

 

It worked in Australia after the shooting in Tasmania.

It worked in the UK after Hungerford and Dunblane.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[JAG]

Automatic or even semi-automatic rifles are designed with one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people on a battlefield.

 

If you want a weapon to use for hunting a bolt-action rifle is fine ;  bears are hardly likely to attack you in massed waves now are they?

 

If you want a weapon for target shooting, a bolt-action rifle is fine for that.

 

If you feel a need for a weapon to "protect yourself" then a pistol seems more appropriate.

 

If you really must handle battlefield weapons then join your local Army Reserve unit, (although they may have reservations about taking you when they realise that is your motivation).

Edited October 3, 2017 by JAG

[ubonjoe]

Two inflammatory posts meant to derail the topic have been removed.

[Silurian]

In the end, it won't matter how many people are killed by guns. The elitist gun culture is firmly fixed into parts of US society. The "they can have my gun when they peel it from my cold dead fingers" is deeply ingrained into their psyche. America, especially the "wild west" has history of gun ownership that goes back hundreds of years and this will not change anytime soon. 

 

These mass shooting will continue. The outrage at lack of enforced background checks at gun shows will continue. The call for more restrictive gun ownership will continue. The push back from gun owners and the NRA will continue. The fight of exactly who to blame from guns, to types of bullets, to society woes, to religion, to what have you will continue.

 

In the USA, this type of incident will happen again and people will move on. American gun culture will not have it any other way.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Silurian

[Andaman Al]

1 hour ago, inThailand said:

Kinda like...how easy it is to get illegal drugs? 

 

How is this kinda like - how easy it is to get illegal drugs? Have you taken some? Can you explain for us.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Andaman Al

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Great job California.  Maybe the individual states can get legislation passed that the Republicans in congress are loath to get done.

 

Time for a reset in the US congress.  With an approval rating below 20%, perhaps it's time.

All states have gun control, some more restrictive, some less restrictive. The amount of regulations that apply to all states is considerable and are several inches thick when printed out. The bottom line is that the US is different because of the second amendment to the constitution which protects private citizen firearm ownership. Unlike the UK and Australia the people or the government of the United States (with the support of the people) would have to change the constitution (we are not subjects of our government). Which will not occur in my lifetime.

 

In places where guns are outlawed completely in the USA (Chicago, Washington D.C., etc..) murder rates are still high. Another thing to consider is the vast number of legally owned and operated guns in the USA already, even if you could make them all illegal tomorrow they are not going to disappear. Finally, laws against having automatic weapons, murder, and shooting unarmed innocent people attending a country and western concert are already on the books and did not deter this psychopath from doing what he did.

 

Let the USA bashing begin.

 

[inThailand]

2 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

How is this kinda like - how easy it is to get illegal drugs? Have you taken some? Can you explain for us.

 

Making guns illegal will be like illegal drugs, those who want them will get them. Its a losing battle.

 

And most likely it's criminals who will be able to obtain illegal guns easier than citizens.

[jackh]

Changing gun laws will not change anything. It will always be our right to bear arms. How about just enforcing the perfectly fine existing laws? What a concept.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, jackh said:

Changing gun laws will not change anything. It will always be our right to bear arms. How about just enforcing the perfectly fine existing laws? What a concept.

Not true.  Australia is an excellent example.  Tougher gun laws there have worked out fantastic.  There's your proof it would work.

 

The right to bear arms was written into the Bill of Rights in 1791.  I dare say times have changed since then.  Dramatically.

[halloween]

1 hour ago, JAG said:

Automatic or even semi-automatic rifles are designed with one purpose and one purpose only, to kill people on a battlefield.

 

If you want a weapon to use for hunting a bolt-action rifle is fine ;  bears are hardly likely to attack you in massed waves now are they?

 

If you want a weapon for target shooting, a bolt-action rifle is fine for that.

 

If you feel a need for a weapon to "protect yourself" then a pistol seems more appropriate.

 

If you really must handle battlefield weapons then join your local Army Reserve unit, (although they may have reservations about taking you when they realise that is your motivation).

 

Total BS. I used a semi-auto for pig shooting until legislation forced me to hand it in, after 2 years of training in its use by the australian government. Apparently they trusted me to use it against people but not pigs.

 

As for your comments on Australian gun control, they are similarly ill-informed. The resulting drop in gun deaths were mostly suicides, the suicide rate did not drop.

" a study by McPhedran and Baker compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data were standardised to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 1980–1996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic longarms in New Zealand. The authors conclude that "the hypothesis that Australia's prohibition of certain types of firearms explains the absence of mass shootings in that country since 1996 does not appear to be supported... if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia (and conversely, if prohibiting such firearms explains the absence of mass shootings), then New Zealand (a country that still allows the ownership of such firearms) would have continued to experience mass shooting events."

 

Comparing Australian and UK gun control to the situation in the US is a wate of time. Nether country has the gun culture of the US or the massive number of firearms per head of population found there.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

The US is not Australia or any other country and the right to bear arms is

constitutionally protected. Mass shootings make headlines but criminals 

do not follow laws and California style restrictions only guarantee law abiding citizens

will be more vulnerable to gangs and psychos, literally outgunned. If the US people were 

disarmed the death toll yearly would be greater.

 

The safest areas in the US are especially rural areas where gun ownership is ubiquitous. 

 

[leither69]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

Guns don't kill. People do the killing.

Same old s**t guns in the hands of nutters,  no guns,  no shootings, simple

[Peterw42]

7 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

The safest areas in the US are especially rural areas where gun ownership is ubiquitous. 

 

Places like Nevada ????

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

The US is not Australia or any other country and the right to bear arms is

constitutionally protected. Mass shootings make headlines but criminals 

do not follow laws and California style restrictions only guarantee law abiding citizens

will be more vulnerable to gangs and psychos, literally outgunned. If the US people were 

disarmed the death toll yearly would be greater.

 

The safest areas in the US are especially rural areas where gun ownership is ubiquitous. 

 

Yes, the second amendment.

 

Your other arguments are the same elsewhere, and elsewhere is much safer.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

2 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

 

Places like Nevada ????

Break into a house in Elko and see how it works out for you.

[Peterw42]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

Guns don't kill. People do the killing.

 

Neither do bombs, but we tend to limit the availability of them.

[craigt3365]

5 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

Break into a house in Elko and see how it works out for you.

I lived in Nevada for years.  In rural Nevada for years.  Most of my neighbors did not own guns.  Some did, most didn't.  A majority in the US don't have guns in their households.  A minority are the ones supporting these crazy and open gun laws.  Sadly, they've got money.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Yes, the second amendment.

 

Your other arguments are the same elsewhere, and elsewhere is much safer.

I don't like guns (even though I am American) but I probably will never live there again.

If I did I would be well armed. I go back mainly for work a few times yearly. It is very unsafe in most areas.

In a perfect world we could snap out fingers and make guns disappear and invalidate the second amendment but that is simply  feasible and not going to happen. Guns are only tools. disarming the law abiding population is no solution.

[impulse]

1 hour ago, Silurian said:

In the end, it won't matter how many people are killed by guns. The elitist gun culture is firmly fixed into parts of US society. The "they can have my gun when they peel it from my cold dead fingers" is deeply ingrained into their psyche. America, especially the "wild west" has history of gun ownership that goes back hundreds of years and this will not change anytime soon. 

 

Anyone who's ever been to a gun show would be rolling on the floor laughing about being called out as elitist.

 

[Peterw42]

8 minutes ago, tigermoth said:

Another nut case quoting an outdated scrap of paper more than 200 years old.

 

Yes, the right to bear arms when arms were a single shot musket. And a Metaphor at best, in the relevance of a legal document.

 

"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".

 

Its the right to bear arms within a regulated militia,  

Edited October 3, 2017 by Peterw42

[Ron19]

Two posts with abusive remarks have been removed.