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

[Smiling Jane]

fff: You are there already. The police are so rattled by an armed citizenry that they shoot first and justify later.

That might be one of their excuses but it doesn't explain why they kill unarmed people.

 

[Warrigal]

US might not be a police state but your police are very scary and I would not blame them for being scared of the general population.

 

[Camper6]

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.

Too far away for a handgun and not too many carry AR-15's with them.

The gun free zone had nothing to do with it.

With the confusion, anyone shooting might have been shot themselves.

Paddocks neighbor was being interviewed by a news reporter. He was asked why he need guns. And for the first time I saw an honest answer.

He said. "It's in our culture".

I will add my own comment to that. "By males".

 

[Cap'n Mike]

My wife went to a great concert here on Monday, with our son, Lady Antebellum in Birmingham. Thoroughly enjoyed it, great atmosphere and a great performance. Never had any concerns for her safety.

Oh sorry, not allowed to post on this thread am I?
Admin please delete if considered inappropriate.

 

[BobF]

My wife went to a great concert here on Monday, with our son, Lady Antebellum in Birmingham. Thoroughly enjoyed it, great atmosphere and a great performance. Never had any concerns for her safety.

Oh sorry, not allowed to post on this thread am I?
Admin please delete if considered inappropriate.

For the most part there is no problem with great programs at all in the US. We have over 326,835,205 so it will take more than the Vegas mess to make a big difference.

We do have plenty of killings by guns. Some are accidental or hunting problems. Many are just gang fights and not of the regular shootings by killers or robbers or personal ways. Many of the postings I read were a bit confusing but I do remember reading about 40 killings per 100,000. I don't know what 2017 will turn up to be as that likely won't be available till next spring.

So I guess we will see about 1,200 or so.

 

[chic]

Too far away for a handgun and not too many carry AR-15's with them.

The gun free zone had nothing to do with it.

With the confusion, anyone shooting might have been shot themselves.

Paddocks neighbor was being interviewed by a news reporter. He was asked why he need guns. And for the first time I saw an honest answer.

He said. "It's in our culture".

I will add my own comment to that. "By males".

I don't think it's in our culture to own 40+ assault weapons. Maybe when we were a blossoming country fighting for our independence and needing to arm a militia. But to do this presently isn't normal behavior. IMHO.

 

[grahamg]

Howmany weapons to avoid feeling like a slave?

Originally Posted by grahamg

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.


Big Horn wrote:

You could have said that in one short sentence: "You can turn America into a police state."

The obvious question is how many weapons do you feel an individual citizen might need in order for them not to feel they might be living in a police state?

 

[BobF]

I don't think it's in our culture to own 40+ assault weapons. Maybe when we were a blossoming country fighting for our independence and needing to arm a militia. But to do this presently isn't normal behavior. IMHO.

True, but then most folks agree this was not a normal shooting nor were the guns legal and normal as they were used.

The regular non automatic rifle doing 60 or so shots per minute is much less than those made to shoot as if they were automatic at 800 per minute.

 

[AZ Jim]

From the sound of it, police assumed rightly that the shooter was using a fully-automatic weapon. Fully-automatic weapons are already illegal. However, I heard on the news last night that the shooter modified a semi-automatic weapon so that it would fire like a fully-automatic. The modifying piece is called a "bump stock", and the reporter said they can be obtained legally. That definitely needs to change. But a person could still obtain one from overseas, so we'd have to scan or search every piece of luggage, every purse, and rucksack at our airports. But a person can make one fairly easily, so... :upset:

You don't even need a bump stock to make the weapon work like a full automatic. If you simply hold the trigger down and let the gun float while recoiling it fires continuously. A bump stock just makes it easier.

 

[Don M.]

The Most important thing that needs to be determined is WHY did this shooter commit this act. If the WHY can be determined, perhaps some action can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. Towards that goal, the LV sheriff announced today that Paddocks brain has been removed during the autopsy, and send to a "undisclosed location" for a microscopic analysis. Hopefully, they can find some anomaly that will offer a meaningful clue. It is pretty obvious that this shooter planned to commit this act for quite some time...there Must have been something substantially wrong with his thought processes.

 

[Camper6]

True, but then most folks agree this was not a normal shooting nor were the guns legal and normal as they were used.

The regular non automatic rifle doing 60 or so shots per minute is much less than those made to shoot as if they were automatic at 800 per minute.

Wait. I think everything Paddock purchased was legal stuff even the bump stocks.

 

[Camper6]

The Most important thing that needs to be determined is WHY did this shooter commit this act. If the WHY can be determined, perhaps some action can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. Towards that goal, the LV sheriff announced today that Paddocks brain has been removed during the autopsy, and send to a "undisclosed location" for a microscopic analysis. Hopefully, they can find some anomaly that will offer a meaningful clue. It is pretty obvious that this shooter planned to commit this act for quite some time...there Must have been something substantially wrong with his thought processes.

You may never find out why this shooter committed this act.

My own thinking on this and mine only. Somewhere along the line he was wronged and carried a grudge to make it right.

It's like a person who has been fired from his job and he feels he was wronged.

So he gets a gun and shoots his employer. If his employer isn't there, he shoots whoever happens to be there.

And then he was a gambler. I can tell you from experience that gambling and losing causes depression and this guy didn't gamble for fun. He gambled almost as a living and heavy duty.

Vegas will want to keep all that stuff secret if they can.

 

[Manatee]

I just read a piece that states that more people die from drugs than firearms, yet some folks want legalized drugs.

 

[Camper6]

I don't think it's in our culture to own 40+ assault weapons. Maybe when we were a blossoming country fighting for our independence and needing to arm a militia. But to do this presently isn't normal behavior. IMHO.

Not according to the NRA and the gun owners. They want no restriction on military style weapons. The AR-15 is a legal weapon.

They get all upset if you would call that an assault weapon.

 

[Camper6]

I just read a piece that states that more people die from drugs than firearms, yet some folks want legalized drugs.

Manatee. I do not call that a logical argument. There is no cause and effect.

One has nothing to do with the other. All the legalized drugs will not reduce the death from firearms and all the legalized firearms will not reduce the deaths from legalized drugs.

 

[Big Horn]

The obvious question is how many weapons do you feel an individual citizen might need in order for them not to feel they might be living in a police state?

Need has nothing to do with this. Free men and women own what they wish without being required to show need. Any government that requires a citizen to show need to be able to make a purchase of anything is a tyranny.

 

[Butterfly]

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.

Exactly what "classes" of people would be disallowed from owning weapons? If you mean those with mental illness, I would agree. Problem there is that many of our craziest have no history of mental illness because they either have no access to treatment or don't think they need treatment. Felons are already prohibited from owning firearms. If you attach any other "class" requirement to purchasing, you would run seriously afoul of our constitution.

We're already expected to secure our weapons, particularly if there are children in the home. That requirement comes into play when someone is accidentally shot. Otherwise, that requirement would prevent me from having quick access to my weapon if I need it because bad guys are coming down my back hall in the middle of the night to do me harm.

I do not like the idea of a federal gun owner registry, and neither do most gun owners. I strongly believe is would be in contradiction of the reason for the 2nd amendment. I don't know how you'd do that anyway, because of the differing requirements for firearms purchases by the individual states.

As to requiring "regular inspections of weapons by authorities," exactly how would that work? Police entering my home to "inspect" my weapon? Unconsitutional as all get-out in the first place, and would not be tolerated by most Americans. We have a huge body of law about when and whether police can enter your home, invasion of privacy law, and so on.

Regarding requiring "weapons to be surrendered if the licensees requirement for them or their circumstances changes," we do not have to demonstrate a requirement for having a firearm, and I don't know how anyone would know if the purchaser's circumstances had changed. Here where I live, you do not have to have a license for a firearm unless you want to concealed carry. You have to pass a background check to purchase one, that's all. I do not know about other states' requirements for licensure.

If someone came around and asked me to surrender my firearm, I would suddenly discover it had been stolen months ago, or that it had gone down with the Titanic.

 

[Cap'n Mike]

Finding out why he did what he did you'll probably never know as the only person who has the answer is dead, but as an outsider, and most people over here on the other side of the pond I suspect, have to say that if he couldn't have got hold of all those guns, it couldn't have happened.
You can stop all these horrors.

 

[Butterfly]

US might not be a police state but your police are very scary and I would not blame them for being scared of the general population.

I do not find the police to be scary, but then, if asked to stop or whatever, I do so, and I do not make threatening moves against them nor do I run from them. There have been times in my life when I have been VERY glad to see police officers. I wouldn't do their job for all the money in the world.

 

[grahamg]

What do you feel you "need"

Originally Posted by grahamg "The obvious question is how many weapons do you feel an individual citizen might need in order for them not to feel they might be living in a police state?"

Big Horn wrote:

"Need has nothing to do with this. Free men and women own what they wish without being required to show need. Any government that requires a citizen to show need to be able to make a purchase of anything is a tyranny."

I think if you read my question above you will see I was asking how many weapons "you feel" you might need in order not to fear the US was becoming a police state (or any other US citizen might need in order to not feel that way?).

I didn't mean to suggest at all that your government requires you to show a need, or at least that was not the purpose of my question.

 

[Cap'nSacto]

We, (non Americans) obviously have to tread very carefully on this sort of topic as the site Admin do not like us commenting. The other "Vagus" thread was closed down with the comment "I strongly suggest non-US members stay out of gun related discussions, it never ends well."

Correctly me if I'm wrong but I thought this was an open forum and as such open to all points of view?

Cap'nMike, it is an open forum. But, honestly, after a while the seemingly endless questions regarding gun ownership begin to feel like badgering, or like someone is trying to trip somebody up or something. And some of the questions do indeed sound off-handed.

The US constitution and bill of rights are rules set down by the people that the government must adhere to. It's not the other way around. These are rules the government cannot infringe upon, and are sworn to up-hold and protect, and they include the right to bear arms - to ensure we are able to protect ourselves against tyranny... any tyranny. That isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. And, personally, I just don't see where the how many's and what if's have any relevance regarding our right to bear arms.

The majority of us agree that laws prohibiting fully-automatic weapons are good laws. If we, the people, could stop them coming into the country, the majority of us would. But they get here. And some of us are clever enough to invent ways to modify semi-automatic to fully-automatic weapons with or without purchasing a bump-stock. It wouldn't surprise me if an American figures out a way to make a lethal rapid-fire BB gun. It's the government's job to handle the problem, but they must do it without infringing on our rights.

 

[Warrigal]

One way or the other this topic has run its race. Until next time.

 

[Camper6]

I belong to another forum politics only. It's a very touchy subject in the U.S. My family lives in the U.S.

Therefore I feel I am qualified to comment on the subject whether my comments are acceptable or not.

And I do get a lot of favourable notifications from readers.

Ill give you an example of the difference in thinking.

Opening of fishing season on a river in Canada. The river was overflowing and running very swiftly. The Ministry of Lands and Forests decided it was too dangerous to launch boats so they decided to close the launch area down.

The Canadians just took their boats and turned around and went elsewhere or they went home.

The Americans however complained that their rights were being violated and it was up to them if they wanted to launch their boats no matter how dangerous.

I didn't make this up.

Warrigal.I'm laughing. It's not up to you to decide the thread has run its course.

 

[grahamg]

Public opinion

Cap'nMike, it is an open forum. But, honestly, after a while the seemingly endless questions regarding gun ownership begin to feel like badgering, or like someone is trying to trip somebody up or something. And some of the questions do indeed sound off-handed.

The US constitution and bill of rights are rules set down by the people that the government must adhere to. It's not the other way around. These are rules the government cannot infringe upon, and are sworn to up-hold and protect, and they include the right to bear arms - to ensure we are able to protect ourselves against tyranny... any tyranny. That isn't going to change in the foreseeable future. And, personally, I just don't see where the how many's and what if's have any relevance regarding our right to bear arms.

The majority of us agree that laws prohibiting fully-automatic weapons are good laws. If we, the people, could stop them coming into the country, the majority of us would. But they get here. And some of us are clever enough to invent ways to modify semi-automatic to fully-automatic weapons with or without purchasing a bump-stock. It wouldn't surprise me if an American figures out a way to make a lethal rapid-fire BB gun. It's the government's job to handle the problem, but they must do it without infringing on our rights.

Public opinion in the US may come to bear on the "how many's" question, to decide if it has any relevance to your right to bear arms, because no one would expect elected officials to ignore the views of the US citizens.

 

[chic]

The Most important thing that needs to be determined is WHY did this shooter commit this act. If the WHY can be determined, perhaps some action can be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. Towards that goal, the LV sheriff announced today that Paddocks brain has been removed during the autopsy, and send to a "undisclosed location" for a microscopic analysis. Hopefully, they can find some anomaly that will offer a meaningful clue. It is pretty obvious that this shooter planned to commit this act for quite some time...there Must have been something substantially wrong with his thought processes.

I agree totally. I heard about the brain autopsy which revealed nothing abnormal by sight, so it was sent for further analysis. But this was a twisted though well planned attack and a long planned attack. He started purchasing guns for this last October which should set off alarm bells, and perhaps will do so in the future.

There is nothing we can do for those slain in this terrible event except to honor them by learning everything we can to prevent a similar attack in the future.