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

[OMGImInPattaya]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

"The anti-gun crowd are zealots"

 

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds to grown ups?

 

Don't you think the NRA nutters are zealots?

 

What sane person would want know what a sear or a bump stop is? Just think about that.

 

You asked me what was an acceptable number of gun deaths per annum. I replied zero. You say that's unrealistic; so tell us how many you would like to see?

I think most people would like to see zero accidental or unnecessary people on people deaths of any kind. However, people being what they are, I think this is a distant dream. The acceptable number is whatever it is consistent with the law and regulations that are in place for the ordering of society. 

[Grouse]

24 minutes ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

I think most people would like to see zero accidental or unnecessary people on people deaths of any kind. However, people being what they are, I think this is a distant dream. The acceptable number is whatever it is consistent with the law and regulations that are in place for the ordering of society. 

You see, we have police for "the ordering of society. 

 

We don't need armed nutters or vigilantes.

 

Civilised society works, recommended.

 

bapbapbapbapbap you're dead! Great eh?

[Grouse]

Time for Jim Jeffries again

 

 

Absolutely spot on!

 

Look and Learn ?

[Grouse]

A few words from the grownups at The Economist

 

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21730014-do-not-despair-some-progress-gun-laws-possible-america-after-massacre-las

[Opl]

" Three percent of the nation owns half the firearms—to prepare for an ultraviolent showdown that exists only in their imagination..  patriots will be obliged to become terrorist rebels, like Americans did in 1776 and 1861, this time to defend liberty against the U.S. government before it fully reveals itself as a tyrannical fascist-socialist-globalist regime and tries to confiscate every private gun. ."

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/fantasyland-book-excerpt-the-nra-won-the-gun-rights-debate-and-made-americans-fear-their-own-government.html

[Ruffian Dick]

13 hours ago, thaihome said:

 

Difference is bump stocks are legal, filling off the sear is not. Filing down the sear is a permanent change to the weapon. Bump stocks are a removable accessory. 

 

TH

If one is going into a situation, such as this despicable massacre, in which you are not likely to survive, and he may well have been planning suicide at the end anyway, why not just break the law and keep it simple? A lot of things are puzzling about this tragedy; I can't pretend to know for sure. For instance, why all the guns, when he could have just used one, with lots of magazines??

[Credo]

29 minutes ago, Opl said:

" Three percent of the nation owns half the firearms—to prepare for an ultraviolent showdown that exists only in their imagination..  patriots will be obliged to become terrorist rebels, like Americans did in 1776 and 1861, this time to defend liberty against the U.S. government before it fully reveals itself as a tyrannical fascist-socialist-globalist regime and tries to confiscate every private gun. ."

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/fantasyland-book-excerpt-the-nra-won-the-gun-rights-debate-and-made-americans-fear-their-own-government.html

 

You can rest assured that if the government comes after the civilian population, the well-armed American public will be sadly mistaken if they think they are going to defend themselves with guns, even the type that the LV shooter had.   You better have some RPG's, extremely sophisticated GPS for targeting the gov't and some very precise weapons.   

 

Against a military, with supply lines (which the local populace won't have), they may as well be armed with sling shots and a box of rocks.

 

This 'fear' of the gov't is nothing more than a canard for some people to keep some very dangerous toys at the expense of everyone.

 

In the US guns are needed for protection, for hunting, for protecting livestock, but not for taking out people listening to music, or going to school.   

[Throatwobbler]

16 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

Not very realistic.  As I have said, the anti-gun crowd are zealots and there can be no compromise with them.

And the pro gun people like your self are zealots too. The difference is that the anti gun people want to stop the loss of innocent life whereas the pro gun zealots like yourself do not care one little bit how many people die as long as you can keep your guns.

 

[Throatwobbler]

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

Time for Jim Jeffries again

 

 

Absolutely spot on!

 

Look and Learn ?

Stop that. The pro gun people wont like that and will not respond.

[Throatwobbler]

On 10/6/2017 at 2:49 AM, riclag said:

Any ideas on how to get the gun's away from the criminal's

Why not look at countries that have strict gun control and see what they do. Heavy prison sentences for anyone caught with a gun reduces the amount of guns on the streets, With the number of guns in America this will take a bit of time but it is achievable if you want it to happen. The problem is people like riclag. I think he may only want guns off the street if a family member of his is killed in a senseless gun attack.

[Throatwobbler]

9 hours ago, Grouse said:

"The anti-gun crowd are zealots"

 

Have you any idea how stupid that sounds to grown ups?

 

Don't you think the NRA nutters are zealots?

 

What sane person would want know what a sear or a bump stop is? Just think about that.

 

You asked me what was an acceptable number of gun deaths per annum. I replied zero. You say that's unrealistic; so tell us how many you would like to see?

OMG pattaya person does not care about deaths as long as he can keep his shiny toy. Anyway he thinks most deaths are black on black crimes and he cares even less about that.

[Ahab]

On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 4:12 PM, Thailand said:

Is there some sort of invisible wall that prevents guns crossing state lines?

Yes, they have made it illegal. Just like making drugs illegal has completely solved that problem where ever it has been enacted.

[OMGImInPattaya]

12 hours ago, Grouse said:

You see, we have police for "the ordering of society. 

 

We don't need armed nutters or vigilantes.

 

Civilised society works, recommended.

 

bapbapbapbapbap you're dead! Great eh?

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. America is a vast place and in many of thise places, the calvary is hours away.

 

In addition, the police are under no legal obligation to intervene in a situation to "save your life." That's up to you and your gun.

[OMGImInPattaya]

5 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

And the pro gun people like your self are zealots too. The difference is that the anti gun people want to stop the loss of innocent life whereas the pro gun zealots like yourself do not care one little bit how many people die as long as you can keep your guns.

 

The arguement from moral superiority...just hold up the shield of dead people and you're in the right. A pretty weak argument to me.

[riclag]

15 hours ago, Opl said:

" Three percent of the nation owns half the firearms—to prepare for an ultraviolent showdown that exists only in their imagination..  patriots will be obliged to become terrorist rebels, like Americans did in 1776 and 1861, this time to defend liberty against the U.S. government before it fully reveals itself as a tyrannical fascist-socialist-globalist regime and tries to confiscate every private gun. ."

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/fantasyland-book-excerpt-the-nra-won-the-gun-rights-debate-and-made-americans-fear-their-own-government.html

Many think it's still the best country in the world despite all it's pro's and con's.

[7by7]

16 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

<snip>

The problem is people like riclag. I think he may only want guns off the street if a family member of his is killed in a senseless gun attack

Not necessarily; unfortunately.

 

On Saturday's main BBC news bulletin in the UK a woman who was at the concert with her uncle was interviewed on this very subject. She escaped without injury; but her uncle was killed.

 

She said that she was against gun control of any kind and owned several guns from handguns to assault weapons similar to those used in this massacre and would continue to do so!

 

When the interviewer asked her why this massacre had not made her think differently she cited her rights under the second amendment; which she appears to consider more important than the life of her now dead uncle.

 

Amendments to the US constitution are not set in stone; they can be repealed; for example the 21st amendment repealed the 18th.

 

All is required is the political will. It can be done, and has been done in other countries.

 

The UK, for example.

The Hungerford massacre in August 1987 by Robert Ryan in which 16 people died resulted in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 which bans the ownership of semi-automatic centre-fire rifles and restricts the use of shotguns with a capacity of more than three cartridges.

 

The Dunblane school massacre in March 1986 in which Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children aged 5 and 6 plus one of their teachers resulted in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all cartridge ammunition handguns with the exception of .22 calibre single-shot weapons in England, Scotland and Wales and then the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning the remaining .22 cartridge handguns as well.

 

If the UK can do it, why can't the US? Simple; no political party in the UK is funded by groups like the NRA!

 

[riclag]

16 hours ago, Throatwobbler said:

Why not look at countries that have strict gun control and see what they do. Heavy prison sentences for anyone caught with a gun reduces the amount of guns on the streets, With the number of guns in America this will take a bit of time but it is achievable if you want it to happen. The problem is people like riclag. I think he may only want guns off the street if a family member of his is killed in a senseless gun attack.

"The problem is people like riclag".What problem is that?

[boomerangutang]

Those who lost loved ones at the LV massacre should sue the ATF and NRA for $570 million.  $10 million for each life lost (not counting the shooter).   Why? .....you may ask....

 

Because ATF and NRA enabled the massacre to happen.  They essentially enabled the shooter to get the guns and bump-stock upgrades to cause so much carnage in so few minutes.  They are co-conspirators or co-defendants, ....choose your term.   I would like to be among the team of lawyers who submit the class-action lawsuit - and not for the lawyers' fees.  I would do it 'pro-bono' in order to start on the track toward trying to safeguard Americans from future massacres.  We're never going to stop mass murders by guns, but we can at least try to lessen the carnage that ATF, NRA, Trump, and right wing politicians are enabling.

 

Note: of the hundreds of US Congresspeople that NRA pays to vote for more military weapons for civilians, nearly all are Republicans, and John McCain get the most.

 

 

[impulse]

On 10/7/2017 at 8:49 PM, 7by7 said:

When the interviewer asked her why this massacre had not made her think differently she cited her rights under the second amendment; which she appears to consider more important than the life of her now dead uncle.

 

More important than her dead uncle, or wouldn't have much effect on what happened to him- at least not enough to justify the additional erosion of our rights?  Today, we have governments all around the world that are trampling on the privacy rights of their citizens.  Uncle Sam is pretty much leading that charge.

 

Personally, I'm a lot more afraid of those government abuses that affect virtually all of us (and criminals who won't give up their guns) than I'm afraid of mass shootings that kill one in 10 million of us every year.

 

I'd be all for laws that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.  But we have those already.  And they don't.

 

Edited October 25, 2017 by impulse

[thaihome]

28 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

More important than her dead uncle, or wouldn't have much effect on what happened to him- at least not enough to justify the additional erosion of our rights?  Today, we have governments all around the world that are trampling on the privacy rights of their citizens.  Uncle Sam is pretty much leading that charge.

 

Personally, I'm a lot more afraid of those government abuses that affect virtually all of us (and criminals who won't give up their guns) than I'm afraid of mass shootings that kill one in 10 million of us every year.

 

I'd be all for laws that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.  But we have those already.  And they don't.

 

Would you be in favor of a law that prevented (or at least initiated an few questions) a person from purchasing 30 non-hunting semiautomatic type rifles and a hundred thousand rounds of amuntion in less then a year?

 

TH 

 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, thaihome said:

Would you be in favor of a law that prevented (or at least initiated an few questions) a person from purchasing 30 non-hunting semiautomatic type rifles and a hundred thousand rounds of amuntion in less then a year?

 

You have to look deeper into it than that.  Today, nobody knows how many guns I bought this year.  And that's one of the protections against government abuse.  Gun dealers keep the paperwork- not the government.  If a gun is used in a crime, they trace the gun (by S/N) to the dealer, who is legally required to keep a record of who he sold it to.  So in areas with no gun registration laws (most of the country), the government doesn't know how many I have- if any at all.

 

I like that protection from the government having a record of every house they would have to invade if they were to decide to confiscate our guns.  Because I have no clue who's going to be elected in 3 years or 30 years.  Betcha the Germans of the 1930's wish they had that kind of foresight...  WW2 may have never happened.

 

[mikebike]

On 10/7/2017 at 9:19 PM, boomerangutang said:

Those who lost loved ones at the LV massacre should sue the ATF and NRA for $570 million.  $10 million for each life lost (not counting the shooter).   Why? .....you may ask....

 

Because ATF and NRA enabled the massacre to happen.  They essentially enabled the shooter to get the guns and bump-stock upgrades to cause so much carnage in so few minutes.  They are co-conspirators or co-defendants, ....choose your term.   I would like to be among the team of lawyers who submit the class-action lawsuit - and not for the lawyers' fees.  I would do it 'pro-bono' in order to start on the track toward trying to safeguard Americans from future massacres.  We're never going to stop mass murders by guns, but we can at least try to lessen the carnage that ATF, NRA, Trump, and right wing politicians are enabling.

 

Note: of the hundreds of US Congresspeople that NRA pays to vote for more military weapons for civilians, nearly all are Republicans, and John McCain get the most.

 

 

Wouldn't it be simpler to overturn Citizen's United - take ALL money out of politics and let the representatives represent the people and not the mega-donors/corporations/lobbyists?

[7by7]

5 hours ago, impulse said:

<snip>

Personally, I'm a lot more afraid of those government abuses that affect virtually all of us (and criminals who won't give up their guns) than I'm afraid of mass shootings that kill one in 10 million of us every year.

 

A mass shooting is defined as any shooting where 4 or more people are killed or injured, excluding the perpetrator.

 

In the 23 days between this Las Vegas attack and 23 October there were 21 such shootings, resulting in 33 deaths and 70 injured persons (source). 33 deaths; that is roughly 1 in 10 million of the US population killed needlessly in just 23 days, not 365! Maybe you think that toll is worth it so you can keep your precious toys; most people don't.

 

The old if 'you make it criminal to own guns, only criminals will own guns' argument is well worn, and whilst technically true is also overstating the issue. No one is saying that the US should make owning any kind of firearm illegal; what many are saying is that proper gun controls are needed, as in most other Western Democracies.

 

I live in the UK, and we have strict gun control. We also have gun crime, but nowhere near the scale of that in the USA. These figures are not that up to date, but they give an idea. They show that in 2014 in the USA there were 3.6 gun homicides per 100,000 0f the population (360 times more than your 1 in 10 million!). In the UK in 2011, there were just 0.06. If you can find a more up to date comparison, I'd welcome it.

 

Gun control works. You and your survivalist friends may not be able to play with your macho toys anymore, but hundreds of innocent lives will be saved each year. Which do you think is more important?

 

As for the desire to own as many guns as possible to protect yourself from your own government; do you honestly believe that in the highly unlikely event that Trump or some future megalomaniac president institutes a totalitarian regime in the US that you and your mates holed up in whatever compound you have built for yourselves will be a match for the combined might of the US armed forces? 

 

All your talk of Hitler and Germany in the 1930s proves is how little you know of European history.