Tragedy in Vegas, do you think anything will be done with the gun laws or the same old rhetoric?

I must admit that I have little or no interest in attending public events. The only one that I considered to be stupendous was the Chicago Railroad Fair of 1948-9. If I do wish to hear music, my local coyotes can satisfy me. I read plays sometimes; that's far more enjoyable than watching them performed.

The aforesaid notwithstanding, I'm far more comfortable with armed men and women. Criminals don't obey laws, but law-abiding citizens do whenever the law is reasonable. We may assume, therefore, that when we are in a place where weapons are restricted, a good percentage of those carrying are criminals, but, where people may freely carry arms, the vast majority of those folks are good citizens.
 

NancyNGA said:
I would consider the odds. Still think driving is more dangerous, and I *have* to do that almost every day. Would not hesitate to go to a concert, if I really liked concerts. Might think twice if I knew a lot of patrons were carrying handguns.
Click to expand...

I Agree. I'm far more concerned about getting hit by some driver playing with his/her cell phone on the highway, than getting shot. And...I wouldn't want to attend a concert, or any public venue where gobs of people were carrying weapons....it only takes one Drunk with a firearm to start shooting up the place....that's a good reason to stay away from the bars anymore.
 
Big Horn said:
The people were in a gun-free zone. They had no way to defend themselves. If just a few had had even handguns, they could have pinned the shooter at worst, killed him at best.

We must get rid of gun-free zones AKA criminal comfort zones.
Click to expand...

This shooter was some 400+ yards away from the concert and way above them. I do not believe that any normal handgun would be anywhere near effective at that range. I think 100 yards is about the max effective range, and that presumes you are an expert and can actually SEE the shooter or at least know where he is.

These victims weren't even sure where the gunfire was coming from and it was dark.
 
Your link is to a book?

If you can be accurate at 500 yards with a handgun you are a better man than me. Also. You would have to be in the line of fire. If he saw a flash you would be next.

The thought I have is that someone is out there already planning the same type of massacre.
 
Yep, a handgun would have done absolutely no good, even if they knew where the shooter was. Even the police had trouble figuring out where he was in the dark. And after they did know, they chose not to shoot at that long distance because they might hit innocent people. I still wonder what he was going to do with the bomb materials in his car. I'd call him a domestic terrorist.
 
The bomb materials in his car were probably for another event.

He planned to escape according to the Las Vegas sheriff..

I dread the thought of someone out there who will be a copy cat seeing at how successful this guy was in 10 minutes of shooting.
 
chic said:
I fear things will remain the same. People intent on harming others don't need guns to do it though. For example, in Boston the Tsarnaev brothers killed and maimed using pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon finish line. MA residents were told to shelter in place for days while police conducted a search of the greater Boston area. We were not allowed even to walk our dogs. It was terrible and I lived through it and knew the fear first hand. But people of evil or sick intent will do harm to others with or without guns. It's the people who kill. We need to address this issue before anything else. Maybe then something will change for the better.
Click to expand...

You're exactly correct. When I was in the Marines and before I was sent to Vietnam, I was taught how to kill and not necessairily by using guns. Some of the methods taught would make your skin cringe. Then, while I was over there, we were given further instructions, in case we were taken prisoner and needed to kill, but had no weapons available. It's kind of like going to prison. A person can go to jail with a limited amount of knowledge on how to be a bad guy and after spending time in the joint, come out better educated at being a really bad guy.
 
oldman said:
You're exactly correct. When I was in the Marines and before I was sent to Vietnam, I was taught how to kill and not necessairily by using guns. Some of the methods taught would make your skin cringe. Then, while I was over there, we were given further instructions, in case we were taken prisoner and needed to kill, but had no weapons available. It's kind of like going to prison. A person can go to jail with a limited amount of knowledge on how to be a bad guy and after spending time in the joint, come out better educated at being a really bad guy.
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't matter. The weapon of choice is a gun and much easier to conceal than a bomb. Law enforcement is now taking precautions at public events against bombs. Trump has a good idea. Don't import trouble from foreign countries with religious fanatics.
 
Hi everyone,

I'm interested in people's feedback on the idea of requiring liability insurance to buy a gun:

When a gun is purchased, the purchaser should be required to provide proof of owning liability insurance. This does nothing to limit the rights of gun owners but does provide a path toward supporting the victims of gun violence, who currently are lost in the shadows of gun owner Second Amendment claims.

Gun liability insurance is a market-based alternative. Many conceal carry gun owners already have liability insurance, so it’s a path already being willingly followed. The NRA sells liability insurance, so how can they object?

Insurance is an accepted economic vehicle that is the normal way our society deals with dangerous activities that affect the public.

When a dealer is required to match a liability policy to an owner, there is a chance that this could affect straw sales of guns, which is a route to illegal gun sales.

But mainly, requiring liability insurance to buy a gun provides a path toward support for the victims of gun violence.
 
Check with your homeowner's policy if you have one, and see if liability for accidental gunshot is excluded. I've just never come across it and don't remember it from learning the personal home policy.
 
And just precisely how are you going to force violent street gangs, drug dealers, etc., to buy gun liability insurance for their (mostly) illegally acquired weapons??

Setting aside Las Vegas, most of the horrific damage done by firearms is not perpetrated by law-abiding firearms owners, anyway; at least around here it isn't.

As to Las Vegas, since that man was apparently wealthy and had purchased his weapons legally, he probably would have purchased the insurance, but it wouldn't have done a thing to prevent him doing what he did. I doubt you'd ever get any insurance company to insure against an intentional wrongdoing such as that perpetrated by the Las Vegas shooter. Most, if not all, gun insurance out there now insures for acts of self-defense, or accidental gunshot, and specifically exclude acts of intentional wrongdoing.
 
Butterfly said:
And just precisely how are you going to force violent street gangs, drug dealers, etc., to buy gun liability insurance for their (mostly) illegally acquired weapons??
Click to expand...

No, you're right. Criminals aren't going to show proof of insurance to buy guns! :)

But if proof of gun liability insurance is required to purchase a gun, that link between the gun and the insurance policy could help prevent straw sales-- someone buying a guy for someone else-- which is a route to illegal gun sales.
 
Camper6 said:
Having to buy insurance would be an infringement would it not?
Click to expand...

Remington raising the price of their products could also be seen as an infringement, but gun owners don't view it that way. They swallow and pay more for the gun.

The cost of gun liability insurance adds to the price of a gun-- correct. Gun violence is a huge societal cost that we're not allowed to talk about.
 
Butterfly said:
I doubt you'd ever get any insurance company to insure against an intentional wrongdoing such as that perpetrated by the Las Vegas shooter. Most, if not all, gun insurance out there now insures for acts of self-defense, or accidental gunshot, and specifically exclude acts of intentional wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Thank you! A new area of research for me.
 
RiversideSue said:
No, you're right. Criminals aren't going to show proof of insurance to buy guns! :)

But if proof of gun liability insurance is required to purchase a gun, that link between the gun and the insurance policy could help prevent straw sales-- someone buying a guy for someone else-- which is a route to illegal gun sales.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd bet the straw man purchasers would find a way to get around that requirement, too. I also don't think straw man purchases are as big a problem as many people think. Around here, it is easier to just buy a gun from "a guy who knows a guy" than mess with the straw man thing, which would still require a background check of the straw man and tie HIM to the gun. Why mess with that when you could just buy a gun out of the seemingly endless supply of illegal weapons flowing in from outside the country?
 
RiversideSue said:
Thank you! A new area of research for me.
Click to expand...

Also, as I understand it, regarding the gun insurance that it out there, I think the most any will insure for is $1 million, which is not even a drop in the bucket of the losses suffered by those in Vegas.

I don't mean to be a party pooper, I just don't see insurance as being the answer. Auto insurance is mandatory here in my state, and you have to show proof of insurance to tag a vehicle, but there are so many uninsured drivers on the roads here that I carry very high limits of uninsured/underinsured coverage, which steps in when the other driver has no or not enough insurance.

People buy insurance to get the car tagged, and let it lapse after a month or so, or find other ways around the requirement, or have fake insurance cards, or whatever.
 
You can bring in restrictions on the types of weapons that can be purchased by US citizens. You can legislate for strong background checks. and deny certain classes of people from owning guns.you can require weapons to be secured when not in use, you can limit weapons to specific functions, hunting, sports shooting, employment etc., you can require the creation of a gun and gun owner registry, you can require regular inspections of weapons by authorities, you can require notification of transfers of weapons by sale, inheritance or other legal avenues, you can require weapons to be surrendered if the licensees requirement for them or their circumstances changes, you can require gun shops and others to notify authorities of unusually large purchase, and authorities can also monitor these from the registry, you can record ammunition sales and highlight purchases out of normal patterns.
 
grahamg said:
You can bring in restrictions on the types of weapons that can be purchased by US citizens. You can legislate for strong background checks. and deny certain classes of people from owning guns.you can require weapons to be secured when not in use, you can limit weapons to specific functions, hunting, sports shooting, employment etc., you can require the creation of a gun and gun owner registry, you can require regular inspections of weapons by authorities, you can require notification of transfers of weapons by sale, inheritance or other legal avenues, you can require weapons to be surrendered if the licensees requirement for them or their circumstances changes, you can require gun shops and others to notify authorities of unusually large purchase, and authorities can also monitor these from the registry, you can record ammunition sales and highlight purchases out of normal patterns.
Click to expand...
You could have said that in one short sentence: "You can turn America into a police state."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top