Shooting in Vegas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sunny said:
I wonder if the NRA is having its own internal debate right now. People are so horrified, terrified, grief-stricken, etc., that it's hard to believe that organization will just continue with business as usual. Are they really happy seeing this kind of insane slaughter?

I think there is a small ray of hope; they actually came out against that gizmo, I think called a stock, that boosts an ordinary gun into an assault weapon. (I know very little about guns, so I may be getting the details wrong.) We can only hope that saner heads will prevail.If not, it will become a hated terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

The semi-automatic rifle fires every time you pull the trigger.
The automatic rifle fires continuously by holding the trigger down.
The bump stock augments the the trigger pull in the semi-automatic so it imitates the automatic rifle. It's an add on.

But. The semi-automatic can do a lot of damage by itself and that's what was used in the previous mass murders.

The NRA is passing the buck. They haven't come out fully against it.
 

The National Rifle Association made its first comments about the Las Vegas massacre on Thursday night when its chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, spoke to Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson on his prime time program. Cox said that the best way to keep people safe from mass shootings like the one that took place in Las Vegas on Sunday night was to loosen, not strengthen, gun laws.

I'm sorry US, but in my humble opinion, as long as you have this sort of thinking at the top, it's just a case of sit back and wait for the next massacre to moan and weep about, for there surely will be one!
 
With the NRA just follow the money $$$$$. My father was a long time member of the NRA until he saw pictures of the fancy headquarters they built in Maryland. He dropped membership, but they bugged him with propaganda literature the rest of his life.
 

Sen. Feinstein introduced the first bill Wednesday to outlaw bump stocks and other devices for rapid fire of semi-automatic weapons. The bill, dubbed the Automatic Gun Fire Prevention Act, had 24 co-sponsors from the Senate Democratic Conference.

The bill would ban any adaption that increases a legal weapon’s rate of fire.

Of course, the media talk of this ban will cause gun owners to flock to stores to stock up (no pun intended) on these “bump stocks” while they can get them. This bill will make such devices unlawful and I believe it will pass, even if the NRA objects. Surely common sense will prevail and all of us will support it even if it remains to be seen if it helps any. But surely if lawmakers, police force, military personnel all are in favor of it, why not support it, notwithstanding the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment, as probably all (or most) of us support.

Also, why not support background checks, passing safety courses, and getting a license - once you have done all that, have retesting at set periods. A firearm is just as deadly as a car, which you have to learn to use in all states by a test. Couldn’t we treat firearms the same? And I’m aware of the argument that if good people who have no desire to use the weapon the wrong way, then only criminals will obtain them and use them the wrong way. I’m tired of hearing that argument.

Also, it may not have made any difference in 948 casualties (includes the LV tragedy) in mass shootings since Whitman climbed a 27-story tower at the U. of Texas and killed 16 people before police shot him to death. (mass shooting defined to be those such as 131 events so far, in which 4+ people were killed by a lone shooter) But something has got to be done, and this is a start.

Don't you think so?
 
Cap'n Mike said:
The National Rifle Association made its first comments about the Las Vegas massacre on Thursday night when its chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox, spoke to Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson on his prime time program. Cox said that the best way to keep people safe from mass shootings like the one that took place in Las Vegas on Sunday night was to loosen, not strengthen, gun laws.



I'm sorry US, but in my humble opinion, as long as you have this sort of thinking at the top, it's just a case of sit back and wait for the next massacre to moan and weep about, for there surely will be one!
Click to expand...

Sad, but true.
 
exwisehe said:
Sen. Feinstein introduced the first bill Wednesday to outlaw bump stocks and other devices for rapid fire of semi-automatic weapons. The bill, dubbed the Automatic Gun Fire Prevention Act, had 24 co-sponsors from the Senate Democratic Conference.

The bill would ban any adaption that increases a legal weapon’s rate of fire.

Of course, the media talk of this ban will cause gun owners to flock to stores to stock up (no pun intended) on these “bump stocks” while they can get them. This bill will make such devices unlawful and I believe it will pass, even if the NRA objects. Surely common sense will prevail and all of us will support it even if it remains to be seen if it helps any. But surely if lawmakers, police force, military personnel all are in favor of it, why not support it, notwithstanding the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] amendment, as probably all (or most) of us support.

Also, why not support background checks, passing safety courses, and getting a license - once you have done all that, have retesting at set periods. A firearm is just as deadly as a car, which you have to learn to use in all states by a test. Couldn’t we treat firearms the same? And I’m aware of the argument that if good people who have no desire to use the weapon the wrong way, then only criminals will obtain them and use them the wrong way. I’m tired of hearing that argument.

Also, it may not have made any difference in 948 casualties (includes the LV tragedy) in mass shootings since Whitman climbed a 27-story tower at the U. of Texas and killed 16 people before police shot him to death. (mass shooting defined to be those such as 131 events so far, in which 4+ people were killed by a lone shooter) But something has got to be done, and this is a start.

Don't you think so?
Click to expand...

I really don't get all this safety training stuff. In Canada you have to take the training course to get a gun license. However, the ones that are getting the training are not the ones that cause the damage.

I think a lot of it is brain damage.
 
NRA has been against the stock item since the awareness of what happened in Las Vegas. If part of the Congress is going to start a movement then it should be from both sides if to have any real meaning.
 
MA legislators are passing a law to outlaw bump stocks which is a small start, but at least it's something.
 
Camper6 said:
They outlaw the bump stocks and something else will be introduced. I'm hearing a glove that will pull the trigger. It's that insatiable demand for more power.
Click to expand...


Ive heard that almost anybody can make one and also that most don't even care about them because they make the guns less accurate.

Only useful in a situation like the one in Vegas.
 
Camper6 said:
Can you give us a summary. My hearing is bad and my computer is old and terribly slow on videos.
Click to expand...
Sorry but it is a memorial piece about each one of the victims. Their families made comments about them. Apparently they were all very very nice people who wouldn't hurt a soul. I can't recall all 58 of the comments but that is the gist of it.
 
I don't in my current situation but some people actually have a good reason/need to have a gun (but none of them should have a fully automatic weapon). I don't begrudge them for having a gun. Some people also have a need for a heavy duty box/moving truck and I don't begrudge them either... until they misuse it, especially the ones that have used them to run down people in an act of terrorism. We don't condemn trucks when they are misused by terrorists because we recognize there is a need for trucks and the truck itself wasn't the problem, only the tool.
 
"some people actually have a good reason/need to have a gun"? Who? What good reason? The police, maybe, the military, of course, but why everybody else? Because every body else has one, it's a vicious circle! Over the centuries the US have created a culture of fear, where everybody thinks they need a gun because everybody else has one. If nobody had one, nobody would need one. To own one based on the outdated 2nd. Amendment is just ridiculous IMO. We're talking 1791 for heavens sake, when civil war was rife between states and people had to defend themselves and the state/county. "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."

 
Why are they not forced to have secure storage for their guns? Here, even for a shotgun you have to show the police that you have two separate, secure storage for the gun and for the ammunition. They must not be kept together and ideally the amo storage is hidden, under the floor or similar. And that's just for a shotgun. There is no way one can get a licence for a military type gun or pistol of any kind unless you are a member of a shooting club and then the guns have to be kept at the club, not at home.
I wonder why so many people think their home will be "invaded"?? By whom? :(
 
Cap'n Mike said:
"some people actually have a good reason/need to have a gun"? Who? What good reason? The police, maybe, the military, of course, but why everybody else? Because every body else has one, it's a vicious circle! Over the centuries the US have created a culture of fear, where everybody thinks they need a gun because everybody else has one. If nobody had one, nobody would need one. To own one based on the outdated 2nd. Amendment is just ridiculous IMO. We're talking 1791 for heavens sake, when civil war was rife between states and people had to defend themselves and the state/county. "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."
Click to expand...
Are you seriously asking why someone would have a good reason/need to have a gun? Literally I am shocked at that question and figure it wouldn't do any good to answer you anyway since you proceeded to answer for me and then mock the ridiculous answer "you used for me". Normally I don't waste my time dealing with kind of foolishness because it is almost always a waste of time trying to deal with folks of that mind set. But I'll try to ignore that and ask if you have ever considered what small business owners that deal with cash have to worry about for one. I'll give you a clue, often they are struggling to make ends meet and can't afford to pay for security guards, etc and not only have to worry about being held up inside their business but also have to worry about getting from their business with that cash to a bank or deposit box.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top