Five dead in Las Vegas shootings

[Chicog]

Anti-gun nuts like California Senator Dianne Feinstein is one example.

So what?

What does her opinion have to do with more effective background checks, mental health care and heavily controlled access to the more dangerous weapons?

I think there's a balance in there somewhere.

Guns are not outlawed in the UK, pretty well anyone can apply for a license, Shotgun licenses have been given to children as young as seven. We have a hunting and fishing culture too.

But we don't go around dishing out weapons left right and centre with the expectation that gun crime and accidents won't go through the ceiling.

You have to meet a set of criteria to justify owning a lethal weapon.

It's this nihilistic "They only want to take all our guns" approach from the NRA and the brainwashed individuals that follow it that hinders any useful debate, or any useful legislation to reduce gun crime and gun accidents.

For the sake of debate, let's just pretend that the Republicans and the NRA run the country and you've entered a period of 74 weeks in a row where there has been a school shooting.

What would you do to mitigate the risk of recurrence?

Try not to give a knee jerk response. Take your time considering that scenario.

[folium]

So the NRA is solely funded by members dues and has no political agenda......hmmmm

http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-29/nra-raises-200-million-as-gun-lobby-toasters-burn-logo-on-bread.html

Hardly a huge surprise that the arms manufacturers funnel money to the NRA via donations and advertising, it makes excellent business sense. Whip up a frenzy about guns being banned..?Net result ? Jump in weapons sales and spike in NRA memberships especially when sold as a twofer...

Meanwhile gun crime continues apace, folk die in Nevada and elsewhere.

What is the acceptable level of gun related deaths in the USA? Or is there no upper limit? is it the same equation used so successfully by the tobacco industry of tax revenue plus contributions netted off against the cost of gun related deaths. As long as former outweighs latter, no real need for change and deaths in Nevada and elsewhere are just acceptable levels of collateral damage...

[folium]

Killings in Nevada: biggest tragedy is that they come as no surprise and are such a commonplace event they barely make the headlines and evaporate almost as fast as summer dew...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/open-carry-nra-induced-paralysis-the-growing-paranoia-around-u-s-gun-laws-1.2672657

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

[NeverSure]

Killings in Nevada: biggest tragedy is that they come as no surprise and are such a commonplace event they barely make the headlines and evaporate almost as fast as summer dew...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/open-carry-nra-induced-paralysis-the-growing-paranoia-around-u-s-gun-laws-1.2672657

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

Oh really. It's still going full blast in Thailand more than 8 days later, a place more than 13,000 kms and where you'd think there'd be little interest.

Of course the discourse is loaded with inaccuracies but what should I expect from people who don't know a damn thing about what they insist on obsessing about?

[folium]

Killings in Nevada: biggest tragedy is that they come as no surprise and are such a commonplace event they barely make the headlines and evaporate almost as fast as summer dew...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/open-carry-nra-induced-paralysis-the-growing-paranoia-around-u-s-gun-laws-1.2672657

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

Oh really. It's still going full blast in Thailand more than 8 days later, a place more than 13,000 kms and where you'd think there'd be little interest.

Of course the discourse is loaded with inaccuracies but what should I expect from people who don't know a damn thing about what they insist on obsessing about?

So does the NRA solely survive on its members dues?

[NeverSure]

Killings in Nevada: biggest tragedy is that they come as no surprise and are such a commonplace event they barely make the headlines and evaporate almost as fast as summer dew...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/open-carry-nra-induced-paralysis-the-growing-paranoia-around-u-s-gun-laws-1.2672657

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2012/07/23/the-nra-industrial-complex/

Oh really. It's still going full blast in Thailand more than 8 days later, a place more than 13,000 kms and where you'd think there'd be little interest.

Of course the discourse is loaded with inaccuracies but what should I expect from people who don't know a damn thing about what they insist on obsessing about?

So does the NRA solely survive on its members dues?

The NRA will make campaign contributions to candidates who support the members' views. But when it comes to an election, the candidate of choice still won't win unless he garners a majority of real voters' votes. No amount of money will buy a majority vote.

Because it has so many members, it also has that collective voice. But if its members weren't in the majority, no voice and no money would sway anything.

Please stop making the NRA about money. It wins elections because the majority of people agree with it and vote accordingly. When people go into that voting booth, they aren't thinking about the NRA and certainly not about money. They vote for the candidate who represents their views.

All the NRA can do with money is to help a candidate pay for a campaign to get his message out. The rest is up to the voters.

I've pointed out repeatedly that it was Obama's Democrats who control the Senate who shot down his so-called assault weapons ban. The NRA would never give a dime to one of those Democrats. But the Democrats still knew they better not vote with Obama on the issue.

The minority anti-gunners also have organizations and support anti-gun candidates. In all but a few small places, those candidates come up sucking hind tit.

It's not about money. It's not about the NRA. The losers demonize the NRA because they are, well, losers.

[capcc76]

Guns are so dang boring. Must be a compensation thing ala Barney Fith. Sit around and polish it, clean it, strike some Di Nero Taxi Diver poses in the mirror while saying "you looking at me? You looking at me? I know you can't be looking at me. I'm bad, I'm bad . . ." Then you can go out and shoot up a fence post, come in, stand in front of the mirror and do it all over again, "I'm bad, I'm bad."

That's pretty much the way these knuckle heads acted in a vegas with their guns and photos. Find a real hobby and learn to be secure in yourself with an aresnal.

[NeverSure]

"Find a real hobby and learn to be secure in yourself with an aresnal."

Please explain? Are you on something, or did my reading comprehension go South?

[capcc76]

"Find a real hobby and learn to be secure in yourself with an aresnal."

Please explain? Are you on something, or did my reading comprehension go South?

Too funny.

Should be find a real hobby and learn to be secure in yourself WITHOUT an arsenal.

Thanks.

[CMNightRider]

Anti-gun nuts like California Senator Dianne Feinstein is one example.

So what?

What does her opinion have to do with more effective background checks, mental health care and heavily controlled access to the more dangerous weapons?

I think there's a balance in there somewhere.

Guns are not outlawed in the UK, pretty well anyone can apply for a license, Shotgun licenses have been given to children as young as seven. We have a hunting and fishing culture too.

But we don't go around dishing out weapons left right and centre with the expectation that gun crime and accidents won't go through the ceiling.

You have to meet a set of criteria to justify owning a lethal weapon.

It's this nihilistic "They only want to take all our guns" approach from the NRA and the brainwashed individuals that follow it that hinders any useful debate, or any useful legislation to reduce gun crime and gun accidents.

For the sake of debate, let's just pretend that the Republicans and the NRA run the country and you've entered a period of 74 weeks in a row where there has been a school shooting.

What would you do to mitigate the risk of recurrence?

Try not to give a knee jerk response. Take your time considering that scenario.

So what, lol? Your scenario is a little nonsensical. The US already has background checks on firearms purchases. What do you mean about mental health care? Heavily control the more dangerous weapons? All firearms are dangerous, along with knives, hammers, saws, ect.

According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey – the leading source of international public information about firearms – the U.S. has the best-armed civilian population in the world, with an estimated 270 million total guns. With that many guns you would think there would be bodies strewn all over the US, lol. Actually, the US is a safe country to live in. If you don't like guns just don't buy one.

[Neurath]

Or don't marry someone with one:

Factor by which a heterosexual US woman is more likely to be killed by her intimate partner if he owns a handgun: 5

Mind you, you might want to say that these women should be armed themselves - problem solved.

[CMNightRider]

Or don't marry someone with one:

Factor by which a heterosexual US woman is more likely to be killed by her intimate partner if he owns a handgun: 5

Mind you, you might want to say that these women should be armed themselves - problem solved.

Huh?? Where on earth did you get that statistic from, lol?

[Ulysses G.]

Or don't marry someone with one:

Factor by which a heterosexual US woman is more likely to be killed by her intimate partner if he owns a handgun: 5

Mind you, you might want to say that these women should be armed themselves - problem solved.

Huh?? Where on earth did you get that statistic from, lol?

The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four people is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you.

-Rita Mae Brown

[Chicog]

So what, lol? Your scenario is a little nonsensical. The US already has background checks on firearms purchases.

How do you explain this then?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

[ClutchClark]

So what, lol? Your scenario is a little nonsensical. The US already has background checks on firearms purchases.

How do you explain this then?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

Interesting page of facts. Here is one that concerns me and shows just how careless many gunowners are with such a dangerous responsibility:

"NEARLY 200,000 guns feported lost or stolen in 2012."

URL:http://www.governing.com/gov-data/stolen-guns-lost-firearms-by-state-data.html

[CMNightRider]

So what, lol? Your scenario is a little nonsensical. The US already has background checks on firearms purchases.

How do you explain this then?

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html

L How do you explain what? Read the entire article.

[Ulysses G.]

This?

Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. Five states, most recently Colorado and Connecticut, mandate universal background checks, an even more stringent standard that imposes background checks on almost all gun purchases, including over the Internet.

Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law.

[Chicog]

Yes, I was referring more to the large number that don't

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals

.

[Ulysses G.]

Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law.[/i]

Apparently you missed this part of the post.

[ClutchClark]

This?

Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. Five states, most recently Colorado and Connecticut, mandate universal background checks, an even more stringent standard that imposes background checks on almost all gun purchases, including over the Internet.

Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law.

In other words, some states have recognized the problem of the gunshow loophole and have passed legislation to prevent it...and whats more, the restrictive legislation even has the support of Ulyssses...possibly the only gunowner on TV who has ever spoken in favor of more gun laws, other than me ;-)

I am proud of you UG.

[Ulysses G.]

I have never owned a gun in my life - I used one in the military - and am in favor of banning guns, but only when they get rid of all the weapons in the hands of criminals, so they can't prey on private citizens.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Or don't marry someone with one:

Factor by which a heterosexual US woman is more likely to be killed by her intimate partner if he owns a handgun: 5

Mind you, you might want to say that these women should be armed themselves - problem solved.

Huh?? Where on earth did you get that statistic from, lol?

Sorry. From here: http://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Gun_Laws_and_Violence_Against_Women.pdf

[craigt3365]

An off topic post has been removed from view. Please show respect to other members.

[CMNightRider]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Or don't marry someone with one:

Factor by which a heterosexual US woman is more likely to be killed by her intimate partner if he owns a handgun: 5

Mind you, you might want to say that these women should be armed themselves - problem solved.

Huh?? Where on earth did you get that statistic from, lol?

Sorry. From here: http://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Gun_Laws_and_Violence_Against_Women.pdf

That's what I thought. The publication is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Their title is deceptive. These people are anti-gun-nuts lead by Bloomberg. When this fact was exposed, many of the mayors distanced themselves and left the organization.

[Neurath]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Or don't marry someone with one:

Factor by which a heterosexual US woman is more likely to be killed by her intimate partner if he owns a handgun: 5

Mind you, you might want to say that these women should be armed themselves - problem solved.

Huh?? Where on earth did you get that statistic from, lol?

Sorry. From here: http://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Gun_Laws_and_Violence_Against_Women.pdf

That's what I thought. The publication is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Their title is deceptive. These people are anti-gun-nuts lead by Bloomberg. When this fact was exposed, many of the mayors distanced themselves and left the organization.

Geez, I don't know. Have a look at the Cities/Mayors that have signed up. Looks pretty extensive. Seems too extensive to be a bunch of anti-gun nuts anyway: http://everytown.org/mayors/ I suppose whether the fact quoted is true or not is irrelelvant to the constitutional case anyway no?

[Chicog]

That's what I thought. The publication is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Their title is deceptive. These people are anti-gun-nuts lead by Bloomberg. When this fact was exposed, many of the mayors distanced themselves and left the organization.

Doesn't seem to have done them too much damage. And I really don't see how you can "expose" something that's public knowledge. They are hardly shrinking violets. Just spent another $50 million which was well publicised.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns was formed in April 2006 during a summit co-hosted by mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Thomas Menino of Boston at New York's mayoral residence, Gracie Mansion. Bloomberg and Menino co-chair the coalition. As of August 2009, Bloomberg was the largest single funder of the group, having contributed $2.9 million. Eli Broad contributed $750,000 and theJoyce Foundation contributed $1.1 million.

The initial group consisted of 15 mayors who signed a statement of principles and set a goal to expand their membership to 50 mayors by the end of 2006. By the end of 2013, there were more than 1,000 mayors in the coalition.

[NeverSure]

That's what I thought. The publication is "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." Their title is deceptive. These people are anti-gun-nuts lead by Bloomberg. When this fact was exposed, many of the mayors distanced themselves and left the organization.

Doesn't seem to have done them too much damage. And I really don't see how you can "expose" something that's public knowledge. They are hardly shrinking violets. Just spent another $50 million which was well publicised.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns was formed in April 2006 during a summit co-hosted by mayors Michael Bloomberg of New York City and Thomas Menino of Boston at New York's mayoral residence, Gracie Mansion. Bloomberg and Menino co-chair the coalition. As of August 2009, Bloomberg was the largest single funder of the group, having contributed $2.9 million. Eli Broad contributed $750,000 and theJoyce Foundation contributed $1.1 million.

The initial group consisted of 15 mayors who signed a statement of principles and set a goal to expand their membership to 50 mayors by the end of 2006. By the end of 2013, there were more than 1,000 mayors in the coalition.

I'm against illegal guns too. But my legal guns are protected by 2A. If these guys are disingenuous, they are tilting at windmills.