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

[tonray]

With an election in 2018, they will NEVER do anything about guns. They are already under assault for being incompetent and risk losing to far right wackjob wing of Trump supporters. Any action on guns would mean they are toast as the far right uses this an as opportunity to arm everyone.

[tigermoth]

1 hour ago, inThailand said:

 

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.

There is no instant solution but at least you have to try. There will always be those who obtain weapons and drugs illegally but it is better not to give one and all open door to it. Murders, rape, kidnapping etc., will never stop but we have a law enforcemrnt agency to at least offer some control instead of letting everyone taking it into their own hands and the consequent mass slaughters that occur in the USA.

[impulse]

31 minutes ago, ChiangMaiLightning2143 said:

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

 

That, of course, is the flip side to the argument.  How many burglaries, home invasions and rapes didn't happen because there was a good chance the homeowner was capable of defending herself?   It's easy to count deaths by firearm.  Not so easy to count crimes that were prevented from ever happening.  But in a country with 300+ million, and millions of crimes every year, it's probably a lot.  Until the cops can guaranty my loved ones' safety, it's my obligation to provide it for them.

 

[LannaGuy]

Same every time and same result... NOTHING. How many incidents like these in countries with 'no tolerance' gun laws?  some but nowhere near as many. And THAT is the bottom line. 

[riclag]

I'm all for guns and silencers.I have some limits though. I don't think machine guns should be allowed.

 

[Jonnapat]

Republicans silent.

That says it all for me. Will this country never learn? Guess not while the NRA rule the roost.

 

[WaywardWind]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

The bottom line is that the US is different because of the second amendment to the constitution which protects private citizen firearm ownership.

The Second Amendment protects ownership and possession in one's residence of a single operable firearm provided that the owner is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws regulating that ownership and possession.. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Those parameters were laid down by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller vs. DC decision. Anybody who claims that the Second Amendment means more than that is either deluded or lying.

 

I for one would be far happier if gun owners simply stayed within the Second Amendment parameters instead of amassing armories of high powered weapons, thousands of rounds of ammo, and then insisted that they can carry any weapon they want, anywhere they want, anytime they want.

[riclag]

Taking away guns isn't the solution.Enforcing the current laws including stopping the sales of military battlefield weapons would help.  Unfortunately when people want to kill other people their is no stopping them. 

[NanLaew]

21 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

The Second Amendment protects ownership and possession in one's residence of a single operable firearm provided that the owner is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws regulating that ownership and possession.. Period.

Some wish that it did.

 

But there's no reference to 'one's residence' or any 'single operable firearm' or even 'compliance' with any laws in the 2nd Amendment is there? The 'paremeters' that you speak of were simply Justice Scalia's grandiloquent, one-off embellishment that he of all people, should have known would play right into the 'cold dead hands' of the NRA's powerful lobby.

[WaywardWind]

12 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Some wish that it did.

 

But there's no reference to 'one's residence' or any 'single operable firearm' or even 'compliance' with any laws in the 2nd Amendment is there? The 'paremeters' that you speak of were simply Justice Scalia's grandiloquent, one-off embellishment that he of all people, should have known would play right into the 'cold dead hands' of the NRA's powerful lobby.

Your post is confusing, at least to me.

 

There are no "...laws in the Second Amendment..."

 

Scalia's words are contained in the Heller vs DC decision of the Supreme Court, which is the highest and final word on constitutional issues. That decision (and the subsequent McDonald decision which extended Heller to the states) remain today the latest holding of the Supreme Court on the reach of the Second Amendment.

[Thaidream]

As an American while I do not like guns and would never own one I accept the constitutionality of owning one. However, there needs to be limits:

 

A.  No silencers

B.  No magazines larger than 10 rounds

C.  No automatic or semi automatic rifles

D.  No open carry

E.   A National computer system which shows  every weapon owned in the Us; the name of the owner and address; place and date of purchase and weapon serial number.

 

People who want to go hunting should be using shotguns or bolt action rifles. An automatic weapon is not  for hunting. Only the police or military should possess one.

 

Even during the expansion Westward during the days of the 'Old West'-  you checked your guns at the sheriffs office while in town.

 

The current situation of open carry; allowing unlimited numbers of guns and ammunition is a recipe for continued disaster. Unfortunately, nothing will happen and there will be a next time.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, WaywardWind said:

The Second Amendment protects ownership and possession in one's residence of a single operable firearm provided that the owner is in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws regulating that ownership and possession.. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Those parameters were laid down by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller vs. DC decision. Anybody who claims that the Second Amendment means more than that is either deluded or lying.

 

I for one would be far happier if gun owners simply stayed within the Second Amendment parameters instead of amassing armories of high powered weapons, thousands of rounds of ammo, and then insisted that they can carry any weapon they want, anywhere they want, anytime they want.

You have no understanding of what the second amendment say or does not say based on what you stated in the above quote.  If you outlawed automatic weapons, and semi-automatic weapons in the USA tomorrow mass shooting would still occur. Gun ownership is extremely restricted in Europe but mass shootings  still occur (as evidenced by numerous mass shootings in France and other EU countries). Murder has already been outlawed, but it still occurs. There is something wrong with people, and that is harder to fix.

[Ahab]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/02/gun-control-in-europe-is-almost-total-it-hasnt-stopped-mass-shooting-attacks-like-las-vegas.html

Gun control in the EU is restrictive and these things still occur.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/02/gun-control-in-europe-is-almost-total-it-hasnt-stopped-mass-shooting-attacks-like-las-vegas.html

Gun control in the EU is restrictive and these things still occur.

And they will keep occurring.

 

But they have made obtaining firearms much more difficult, forcing would be perps to use other means, like the recent knife attack in France. So it has reduced the number of victims significantly.

[Silurian]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

 

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

 

 

The reason I choose the term "elitist" for some gun owners is that the term reflects the definition below. Just like any rabid group of personal believers, they can be almost religious in their standing. I have a friend who makes a point of taking pictures with his guns and his young daughters holding guns like it is some kind of right of passage. To each their own I guess.

 

Elitist:  a person, or group of persons, who believes something about them make them superior to others, and they feel the need to flaunt their superiority.

 

[Ahab]

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/01/with-39-killed-in-tunisia-attack-the-top-three-mass-public-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/

45 of the 50 worst mass shootings worldwide have occurred outside the USA.

[kamahele]

6 hours ago, inThailand said:

Guns don't kill. People do the killing.

With guns....

[55Jay]

"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else"  ~Winston Churchill

 

[craigt3365]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else"  ~Winston Churchill

 

Horrible thing to post in a thread like this. 

[robblok]

5 hours ago, JAG said:

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.

Your right, but i think gun ownership in the US is much higher as in the other countries. Too many guns around to take them away its not a realistic scenario i think. 

[inThailand]

6 minutes ago, kamahele said:

With guns....

 

Or knives, cars, or balconies as in the case of LOS.

[impulse]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Your right, but i think gun ownership in the US is much higher as in the other countries. Too many guns around to take them away its not a realistic scenario i think. 

 

Actually, counterproductive.  The law abiding people will turn theirs in.  Leaving the rest of the guns in the hands of the others who aren't so law abiding, and open season to prey on the now defenseless ones.

 

[robblok]

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/02/gun-control-in-europe-is-almost-total-it-hasnt-stopped-mass-shooting-attacks-like-las-vegas.html

Gun control in the EU is restrictive and these things still occur.

Yes but it happens at a far lower rate.

[55Jay]

12 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Horrible thing to post in a thread like this. 

Compared to some of the insensitive things offered before the blood's dry?  No, not really.  And this is a thread about Dem gun control.

 

The country is still struggling at finding a consensus, mired in inane arguments about statistics and pie charts.  It will take an enormous amount of moral courage to address this head on.  An outright ban of firearms would require years of draconian law enforcement action to level the odds and get a result.   A tall order in a society that seems to prefer instant gratification and quick fix solutions.  I'm not sure old Winston's quote will ring true, but I hope it does.

Edited October 3, 2017 by 55Jay

[kamahele]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

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.

 

Laws do vary from state to state and the rate of death by gun (murder, suicide and accidental) are higher per capita in states in which there are more guns in the hands of the citizens. The more guns, the more deaths per capita. Nevada, the state in which the murderer / terrorist resided and in which he murdered scores of people has some of the laxest gun control laws in the country and is an open carry state. The cities you name for having a high murder rates despite strict gun control laws are located near or adjacent to states with lax gun control laws. For those who want to purchase a gun or multiple guns with no background check or waiting period only have to drive across the state border. This is why the national laws have to be strengthened. Banning firearms does work despite your supposition that it does not. Australia severely restricted gun ownership 20 years ago and results have been quite conclusive in favor of a ban. 

[johnmcc6]

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

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.

 

Silencers are not like shown in the movies. They only remove he high decibel metallic twang that is bad for hearing. The gun makes just as much noise but at a lower frequency less harmful to your ear drums.

[impulse]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Yes but it happens at a far lower rate.

 

A lower rate, maybe.  But do the math on the odds that an American and a European will be affected personally, and the odds are about the same as being bitten on the privates by a rattlesnake bulldog (since Europe doesn't have rattlers). 

 

They get huge headlines, make for great sound bites, and they are truly despicable.  But mass shootings don't really represent a big risk to the average person in either land.  Maybe 1 killed in 2 or 3,000,000. 

 

[kamahele]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/01/with-39-killed-in-tunisia-attack-the-top-three-mass-public-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/

45 of the 50 worst mass shootings worldwide have occurred outside the USA.

So the source you quote was founded by John Lott who authored the book "More Guns Less Crime".  His research is considered junk science. Also this article tries to equate terrorist attacks in third world countries with the mass shootings which occur daily in the US. Hardly comparable.

[impulse]

33 minutes ago, Silurian said:

 

The reason I choose the term "elitist" for some gun owners is that the term reflects the definition below. Just like any rabid group of personal believers, they can be almost religious in their standing. I have a friend who makes a point of taking pictures with his guns and his young daughters holding guns like it is some kind of right of passage. To each their own I guess.

 

Elitist:  a person, or group of persons, who believes something about them make them superior to others, and they feel the need to flaunt their superiority.

  

You're not getting it.  They (we) don't think we're superior.  We're suspicious of the elites who would curtail the average Joe's right to protect our families- the elites who congratulate each other and then go home to their gated community with armed private patrols.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by impulse

[johnmcc6]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

As an American while I do not like guns and would never own one I accept the constitutionality of owning one. However, there needs to be limits:

 

A.  No silencers

B.  No magazines larger than 10 rounds

C.  No automatic or semi automatic rifles

D.  No open carry

E.   A National computer system which shows  every weapon owned in the Us; the name of the owner and address; place and date of purchase and weapon serial number.

 

People who want to go hunting should be using shotguns or bolt action rifles. An automatic weapon is not  for hunting. Only the police or military should possess one.

 

Even during the expansion Westward during the days of the 'Old West'-  you checked your guns at the sheriffs office while in town.

 

The current situation of open carry; allowing unlimited numbers of guns and ammunition is a recipe for continued disaster. Unfortunately, nothing will happen and there will be a next time.

silencers are not silent.

limited magazine size gives the bad guys more shots at you than you have at them. Three second reload in any case.

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal for decades.

Such a data base would only include guns owned by good guys.

NOTHING will stop maniacs who want to kill. Chicago has the strictest gun control laws of  any state and it does stuff all to lower the gun deaths. I for one would not like to hassle a guy packing visible heat on his hip.

It is tragic that these sick people murder like this but there has never been a solution that works.

Unless of course you want big brother to go house to house across the nation ? Even that would not stop bad guys getting guns. Like trying stop drugs. Sad