Shooting in Vegas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Butterfly said:
I've heard many opinions expressed that we need to just get the guns out of our culture, as if we could just so "OK, now, everybody turn in your firearms" and the problem would solve itself. In the first place, I do not believe the law-abiding public would comply (I, for one, would not). Secondly, in the unlikely scenario that law-abiding citizens would comply, does anyone REALLY think that the violent street gangs, drug dealers and assorted other members of the criminal world would just peaceably give up their weapons? If you do, you are living in some kind of alternate reality wherein pigs fly.
Click to expand...

The phrase "sitting ducks" comes to mind. I didn't go out and buy a gun because I felt safe, and I'm not someone who is given to unreasonable fear. The home of an old couple very close to where I live was invaded and they were bludgeoned nearly to death before I decided I needed to protect myself. The attacks are so random, the police cannot possibly prevent the invasions from happening. I had an excellent protection dog (although I didn't realize he was a trained protection dog when I adopted him), but he died recently and I haven't replaced him. The gangs who are invading people's homes keep getting better and more efficient at what they do, and I don't believe a dog would help beyond sounding an alarm. One of the first things the invaders do is kill the family dog to get it out of their way. They beat the old people when they didn't find enough valuables, trying to get them to say where they hid their money.

It's easy to say get the guns out of our culture, but that doesn't take into account all of the years the bad guys and so-called gun enthusiasts have been stockpiling arsenals of assault rifles and other paraphernalia. Back in the 70s I knew a guy who was sure there was a race war coming. He owned hand grenades, actual machine guns and mortar. He was part of a group who were all armed to the teeth. Those weapons didn't poof and go away in the 40 years since then; they're still out there.
 
It has become a way of life. They know exactly what is going to happen and when. They won't be kept in jail. Even in Canada now there are home invasions.

A bike? No matter what you do. They will steal it if they want it.

They know nothing will be done. I have yet to see anyone charged with theft of a bike. They get used to getting away with stuff and it becomes a way of life. Buy nothing. If you want something, steal it. That's the way it is now.
 
Camper6 said:
You are correct. He had a hidden life. You can't predict it but now that it has happened you can learn from it.

I'm sure there will be scrutiny in the future or steps taken of some sort to mitigate the chance of it happening again in a similar arena.

I'm pretty sure there will be marksmen posted to fire on anyone shooting from a height like this guy did. That's the only thing that could have stopped him. He probably researched that as well.

I doubt anything will be done to prevent people from buying a semi automatic legally. That's what was used in previous mass murders.
Click to expand...

I see that possibility coming. I once flew to Venezuela back in the late 70s - my lady and I considering places to retire to early and cheaply - and was surprised to see armed militia all over the airport. I think about that every time one of these mass shootings occur. I envision armed militia, National Guard units, posted around our schools, shopping centers, sports arenas, etc, and our neighborhoods becoming fenced-off grids with armed gate-keepers and their own patrolling police units. Not pretty, but pretty safe.
 
Come to rural England and retire in peace! No guns, no militia, just tranquil countryside and the occasional drunk local on a tractor :)
 
False dichotomy

Smiling Jane said:
We've talked this to death. I honestly don't see any way to keep assault weapons out of the hands of those who are wealthy enough to buy them on the black market. Who could have predicted this latest massacre? A lone gunman, armed to the teeth, with no history that would make him a person of interest? No way. This many days later the police still don't know why he did it, so how could it have been predicted?
Click to expand...


I think I understand the feeling you've said everything you can on a terrible subject like this one, and got to that point myself during similar discussions "elsewhere". Whilst admitting I couldn't see a way forward, given the implacable views against "anything" being done so far as legislation as a result of this atrocity, I asked the question as to whether the views I was reading were representative of the views of US citizens generally?

Immediately someone came forward to suggest we were all being given a false impression, by a vocal minority, and I'm still unsure if that is so or not. However the next point you make about what can be done to stop another massacre in similar circumstances, or saying "nothing can be done", is maybe where you are creating a false dichotomy. The same person who came forward to suggest we were being given a false picture as to US public opinion went on to list a fairly impressive list of measures the US government could introduce which might well help. They may not help as you assert, but there is always going to be a degree of doubt or risk in anything the US authorities might do, and one way I'd suggest taking a modest step might help is that the loved ones of those killed might feel their terrible losses have been taken into consideration, and thought worth the effort to legislate.

The last point about false dichotomy, is that the police don't have to be able to predict how a single US citizen might behave in order to justify the introduction of laws which might make their actions in obtaining assault weaponry more difficult. If it is made more difficult there has to be a chance those supplying the arms illegally could be watched and men with this mindset uncovered during that operation.
 
I think things have gotten out of hand fairly recently with these mass shootings. People had guns when I was growing up, and long before. No one behaved like this, shooting masses of innocent unsuspecting people in public places. This is a form of terrorism IMHO, and it needs to be approached that way and solved that way.
 
Camper6 said:
You will never see an outdoor concert in Vegas without armed security present. Same as a presidential visit.
Click to expand...

My wife went to see Lady Antebellum at the Birmingham Arena on Monday night with our son. Good security, full body search at entrance, no bags or any carry in items allowed but not a gun to be seen.

For those who don't know, Lady Antebellum are an American country pop band from Nashville, Tennessee, featuring Hillary Scott, Charles Kelley and Dave Haywood. They have won seven Grammys, had nine chart topping singles and three platinum selling albums.
 
grahamg said:
I think I understand the feeling you've said everything you can on a terrible subject like this one, and got to that point myself during similar discussions "elsewhere". Whilst admitting I couldn't see a way forward, given the implacable views against "anything" being done so far as legislation as a result of this atrocity, I asked the question as to whether the views I was reading were representative of the views of US citizens generally?

Immediately someone came forward to suggest we were all being given a false impression, by a vocal minority, and I'm still unsure if that is so or not. However the next point you make about what can be done to stop another massacre in similar circumstances, or saying "nothing can be done", is maybe where you are creating a false dichotomy. The same person who came forward to suggest we were being given a false picture as to US public opinion went on to list a fairly impressive list of measures the US government could introduce which might well help. They may not help as you assert, but there is always going to be a degree of doubt or risk in anything the US authorities might do, and one way I'd suggest taking a modest step might help is that the loved ones of those killed might feel their terrible losses have been taken into consideration, and thought worth the effort to legislate.

The last point about false dichotomy, is that the police don't have to be able to predict how a single US citizen might behave in order to justify the introduction of laws which might make their actions in obtaining assault weaponry more difficult. If it is made more difficult there has to be a chance those supplying the arms illegally could be watched and men with this mindset uncovered during that operation.
Click to expand...

I've seen no inclination that anyone who can is likely to do anything to protect regular everyday people like those who were killed in Vegas or the children at Sandy Hook or any of the other mass shootings. If you have seen any sign of positive change in the works, good for you. I'm so jaded I suspect we've set the fox to guard the henhouse, and those who are supposed to be watching out for us are profiting mightily by selling us down the river.

I don't clap for Tinkerbell, gave that up a long time ago.

I've read the NRA has said it's willing to look at getting rid of bump-stocks. I'll believe that when I see it. Talk is cheap. They figure we'll forget bump-stocks as soon as there's another mass shooting using a different kind of implement.
 
Smiling Jane said:
I've read the NRA has said it's willing to look at getting rid of bump-stocks. I'll believe that when I see it. Talk is cheap. They figure we'll forget bump-stocks as soon as there's another mass shooting using a different kind of implement.
Click to expand...

Just a slight correction, Smiley; that would be up to the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), not the NRA. The NRA is the National Rifleman's Association; in essence, a gun-owners guild, in rather the same way that a vintage car-collectors guild would be to vintage car-collectors; where the ATF is a government bureau that (among other things) investigates criminal activity and enforces laws regarding the unlawful possession, manufacture, use, and misuse of firearms and explosives.
 
Cap'nSacto said:
Just a slight correction, Smiley; that would be up to the Bureau of Tobacco, Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), not the NRA. The NRA is the National Rifleman's Association; in essence, a gun-owners guild, in rather the same way that a vintage car-collectors guild would be to vintage car-collectors; where the ATF is a government bureau that (among other things) investigates criminal activity and enforces laws regarding the unlawful possession, manufacture, use, and misuse of firearms and explosives.
Click to expand...

I agree, Cap'n, but that's what the NRA said. I figure they have more power than ATF does.
 
The Bumb Stocks won't make any difference. You can make one in your garage. That's how it got started.

You still can do a lot of damage with an AR-15 semi automatic.

That's what was used at Sandy Hook and his mother bought him the gun.
 
Warrigal said:
Camper is right. Semi automatic weapons are also a menace to public safety.
This class of firearm should be more tightly controlled.
Click to expand...

The only control over semi's is at the point of sale. There's a bunch of paperwork and a background check. There is no control over the weapon after the purchaser takes ownership.
 
I know that this information will not meet the US 2nd Amendment test but I'm posting it anyway for everyone's information. In Australia's case, a lot of control begins at the border but in US it would have to begin with the manufacturers.

The following is part of the National Firearms Agreement 2017 between the Australian Government and the states.

Category C includes semi automatics and pump action long guns.

6. Jurisdictions will ban the sale, resale, transfer, possession, manufacture and use of those semi-automatic long arms and pump action shotguns included in Licence Category C and D other than in the following exceptional circumstances:
(a) military use

(b) police or other government purposes

(c) occupational categories of licence holders who have been licensed for a specified purpose, including
​
i. the extermination of animals
ii. film and theatrical armourers
iii. firearm dealers
iv. firearm manufacturers
v. additional occupational needs and other limited purposes as authorised by legislation or Ministerial discretion​

(d) collectors

(e) in the case of Category C shotguns
​
i. members of the Australian Clay Target Association or clubs affiliated with the Australian Clay Target Association with a medical need to use a Category C shotgun due to a lack of strength or dexterity, or
ii. individuals who were on 15 November 1996 registered shooters with the Australian Clay Target Association and who, at that time, possessed a semi-automatic shotgun or pump action repeating shotgun for use in clay target events.​


7. Jurisdictions will restrict the importation, possession and use of handguns for sporting purposes to individuals meeting recognised sporting shooter classifications in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games and for other accredited events that meet the conditions in paragraph 14(b)(i).

8. Jurisdictions will ban competitive shooting involving those long arms which are restricted from import, except for those individuals who meet the conditions in paragraph 13(b)(iii).
Click to expand...

The full agreement is here: https://www.ag.gov.au/LegalSystem/Firearms/Documents/2017-national-firearms-agreement.pdf
 
chic said:
I think things have gotten out of hand fairly recently with these mass shootings. People had guns when I was growing up, and long before. No one behaved like this, shooting masses of innocent unsuspecting people in public places. This is a form of terrorism IMHO, and it needs to be approached that way and solved that way.
Click to expand...

I agree. There's a lot more than owning guns going on here. There's something very wrong, but I can't figure out what it is.
 
chic said:
I think things have gotten out of hand fairly recently with these mass shootings. People had guns when I was growing up, and long before. No one behaved like this, shooting masses of innocent unsuspecting people in public places. This is a form of terrorism IMHO, and it needs to be approached that way and solved that way.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it quite like that, but of course it is terrorism. If someone from a foreign country came here and did the same thing, there would be no hesitation in labelling the shooter as a terrorist.
 
RadishRose said:
I agree. There's a lot more than owning guns going on here. There's something very wrong, but I can't figure out what it is.
Click to expand...

Did it start with Columbine and how much media attention was given to that incident? After that the loonies came out of the woodwork and decided to have a contest to see who could get the most attention by killing the most people.

I think the mistake I make is in trying to look at this totally irrational behavior in a rational context. It's never going to work and in the meantime I'll drive myself crazy.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top