Las Vegas shooting

[4est_4est_Gump]

https://hotair.com/archives/2017/10/02/report-bump-stocks-found-vegas-shooters-hotel-room/


Interesting...

 

[contrifan32]

OK, so in response ... I'm not sure how personal gun ownership protects the US from terrorist attacks?
I'm not sure how personal gun ownership protects you from an untrustworthy government?
The defending against crime and criminals thing ... it's not so much of a problem if they don't have guns either. Which they pretty much don't. (Obviously there are exceptions, but they're really unusual.) I have had my house broken into. When I've been in it. I was extremely glad that the thought 'does he have a gun' didn't even need to cross my mind.

The gun thing is sort of fascinating from the outside. It's like it's so entrenched in American culture it's difficult for some people to see an alternative, and instead of saying 'hey, what about NO guns', you just end up trying to work out how to make guns OK. But my way of thinking is definitely not limited to those outside the US - clearly a lot of Americans would prefer something else.

I'm thinking through the Constitution thing ... my concern is that it becomes a bit like the Bible, and people just say 'it's right, because it's in the constitution'.
And I honestly think human rights do trump constitutional rights. Human rights are the rights that accrue to us by virtue of being human. They might have been codified by the UN, but that doesn't meant they're a UN invention ... people have been trying to come up with something along those lines for centuries. Constitutions are ... well, important, but they're a different beast. We don't have one, so I guess they're a bit of an alien concept to me.

And again I will ask you, tell me how legal gun ownership is not a human right? Please don't tell me "because the UN says" its not.

 

[Emerson40]

We have a system of background checking.



This guy passed with flying colors.



Something suddenly happened to "trigger" him. It could have been gambling and the losses associated with it. Who knows?

Will we see an examination of the Constitution, our laws and the prohibition of gambling if that proves to be the root cause or will the focus still remain firmly on guns?

I live with bears, wolves and coyotes. Are you, to revisit an earlier conversation, comfortable with the idea of disarming me because in your experience bears, wolves and coyotes have never been a huge problem for you?

Background checks...system...

*chucklehead*​

This retired accountant had over 40 guns, explosives, fully automatic weapons & several thousand rounds of ammo.

But he passed his background check.

Maybe he lives with bears and coyotes.

Certainly didn't seem like a domestic terrorist, as he hadn't thrown anyone from the roof of a building.




'Merica.

 

[Rightguide]

Let's be clear. If you belong to NRA, if you support public use of personal firearms, you own this crime. You are an un-indicted co-conspirator in all mass shootings.

"Oh no," you say, "it's not me, I didn't pull the trigger." No, but you enabled it. You were not born a weapons addict -- you converted. Just as a religious converso buys-into the crimes of their faith, so gun-worshipers bear onus to mass shootings. You make the slaughter possible. Smell the powder.

Let's be even clearer, you're a fuckling mindless idiot.

 

[richard_daily]

I think you misunderstand the concept of human rights. Something isn't a human right just because it's legal. The U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is pretty much the go-to document in this respect.

Property isn't a human right. Driving a car isn't a human right. The ability to choose your own government and vote isn't a human right.

Just because something ins't a human right, doesn't make it unimportant.

 

[richard_daily]

Personal firearms vs military weaponry and organization -- who wins?

Um, y'know the gov't has a large inventory of deadly resources, right?

Ask the people of Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Iraq.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm not "excited" by gun violence, unlike all you gun freaks who need a gun to feel like you exist.

I hate guns and gun violence.

However if you or anyone else against gun control gets blown away by a kook, that's karma. I don't feel sad.

I wish there was no violence, however, that's antithetical to our species desire for it.

If you can find ways to prevent our species from being violent, then you may be on to something, but even a full and complete ban on guns wouldn't stop murders and killing. It's in our DNA.

 

[richard_daily]

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21317908_10154706949581594_4784559148829842156_n.jpg?oh=7ad9e5015bd2718ae4e4c43ceb386b99&oe=5A42DD00

Adrian Murfitt RIP

https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/22141079_10156752893849465_3081564452528355837_n.jpg?oh=65b086ac1f8e3fdf7e2d5f87fe75d30a&oe=5A3DAA46

Dorene Anderson RIP (and hubby)


http://ktva.images.worldnow.com/images/15058219_G.png

Robert McIntosh - three to the chest and one in the arm, expected to survive.





It's a strange thing when you have a connection of sorts to two out of three random people. Yeah, it's a small town, but still......

R.I.P.

 

[richard_daily]

OK, so in response ... I'm not sure how personal gun ownership protects the US from terrorist attacks?

Car drives through crowd? CCL holder can neutralize. Terrorist comes into nightclub with AR 15, CCL holder can neutralize. Terrorist comes into school, abortion clinic, place of worship: CCL holder can neutralize. Most CCL holders are well trained, and able to stand one on one against an armed suspect, and the element of surprise works both ways.

We don't know how bad some incidents could have been, because CCL holders have neutralized many threats from armed individuals who meant to do the public harm.

I'm not sure how personal gun ownership protects you from an untrustworthy government?

Those 112 guns per 100 people mean that the government isn't going to overstep their bounds. Again, if you trust your government implicitly with your life, that's your prerogative.

The defending against crime and criminals thing ... it's not so much of a problem if they don't have guns either. Which they pretty much don't. (Obviously there are exceptions, but they're really unusual.) I have had my house broken into. When I've been in it. I was extremely glad that the thought 'does he have a gun' didn't even need to cross my mind.

Have you ever had a knife pulled on you? A batton? A group of dudes who wanted to do you harm? I've been in all of those situations. I've also had people try to stick me up twice. I've had my house broken into as well. They ran early because they found ammo on top of my safe. I missed them by about 5 minutes.

If someone breaks into your house, and no one has a gun, do you feel safe? Are you ok being raped by someone larger than you?

If these are all chances you're willing to take, more power to you, but I'm not, and I wouldn't ask that of anyone I cared about.

The gun thing is sort of fascinating from the outside. It's like it's so entrenched in American culture it's difficult for some people to see an alternative, and instead of saying 'hey, what about NO guns', you just end up trying to work out how to make guns OK. But my way of thinking is definitely not limited to those outside the US - clearly a lot of Americans would prefer something else.

The world is full of violence. If it weren't guns, it would be something else. Guns even the playing field, especially for those of smaller stature, and against groups looking to harm them.

I understand that you don't get the culture. I don't like a lot of gun culture. A lot of it is racist and bigoted, but a lot of it, the vast majority in fact, is not. That's the underreported element here. I regularly go to a range owned by Iraqi Americans, and the clientele is mostly black. That's also the face of gun culture.

Don't buy into the sterotypes of what it is, because that's just another message to divide people.

I'm thinking through the Constitution thing ... my concern is that it becomes a bit like the Bible, and people just say 'it's right, because it's in the constitution'.
And I honestly think human rights do trump constitutional rights. Human rights are the rights that accrue to us by virtue of being human. They might have been codified by the UN, but that doesn't meant they're a UN invention ... people have been trying to come up with something along those lines for centuries. Constitutions are ... well, important, but they're a different beast. We don't have one, so I guess they're a bit of an alien concept to me.

I don't disagree with you entirely on this point. The constitution is a road map, and common sense is required. However, "common sense" gun control wouldn't have prevented this attack, at least not in the way that most of the Democrats are currently framing it.

Short of "banning guns" there is nothing that would have stopped this attack, and in fact, banning guns would have likely made it worse. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. He caused 3 times the number of deaths without a gun. That would have been Los Vegas the other day, fi the shooter hadn't had access to guns.

We should be thankful that with that much planning and effort, he was only able to kill 58 people. It could have been a lot worse.

 

[richard_daily]

And again I will ask you, tell me how legal gun ownership is not a human right? Please don't tell me "because the UN says" its not.

It's not a human right. Definitions have meaning. Human rights don't involve the right to own a gun. That's called a constitutional right. Please stop arguing when you don't even understand basic definitions.

 

[richard_daily]

Let's be clear. If you belong to NRA, if you support public use of personal firearms, you own this crime. You are an un-indicted co-conspirator in all mass shootings.

"Oh no," you say, "it's not me, I didn't pull the trigger." No, but you enabled it. You were not born a weapons addict -- you converted. Just as a religious converso buys-into the crimes of their faith, so gun-worshipers bear onus to mass shootings. You make the slaughter possible. Smell the powder.

Bullshit.

If the guy had used a truck, would all truck drivers been culpable?

If he had used a knife, would you be culpable if you owned a set of kitchen blades?

Total false equivalency.

 

[richard_daily]

So hasn't that context altered somewhat? My point wasn't really about the definition of militia, but more that that need seemed to be the criteria for the right to near arms.

All able bodied adults are considered capable.

 

[KimGordon67]

And again I will ask you, tell me how legal gun ownership is not a human right? Please don't tell me "because the UN says" its not.

I would say that human rights are defined by their necessity for everyone to live in society with their basic needs met, and with dignity and to a standard that we would commonly believe to be acceptable for a human being.

You seem to be arguing that we can decide something is a 'human right' subjectively, and I guess to some extent that's true. There is, for example, an argument at present that access to the internet is possibly a human right. However, I think for something to be a human right it has to be fairly widely accepted as necessary to maintain a certain standard of living. I can't really see that guns fit into that category.

Just as a point here - I do think there's some argument for legal gun ownership, for example for use for hunting. That's pretty much how it works here, and although every now and then some idiot nuts off and goes on a rampage, the instances are fairly few and far between, and the ownership of guns is pretty tightly controlled. However, I don't think they're a fundamental human right, in the same that while I obviously agree with legal car ownership, I don't think cars are a fundamental human right.

 

[KimGordon67]

Property isn't a human right. Driving a car isn't a human right. The ability to choose your own government and vote isn't a human right.

Just because something ins't a human right, doesn't make it unimportant.

I wasn't arguing that something not being a human right doesn't make it important - I was suggesting that a lot of people seem to see gun ownership as a human right, and it's not.
(Are you sure about the voting thing?)

 

[BotanyBoy]

I think for something to be a human right it has to be fairly widely accepted as necessary to maintain a certain standard of living. I can't really see that guns fit into that category.

That's because you've never needed one, probably because you are privileged enough to have people with guns taking care of things for you.

It's ok, stay in your iggy bunker, wouldn't want your worldview challenged.

 

[zipman]

Bullshit.

If the guy had used a truck, would all truck drivers been culpable?

If he had used a knife, would you be culpable if you owned a set of kitchen blades?

Total false equivalency.

I don't agree with her assertion, but I do think that the NRA has significantly contributed to the gun problem in this country through their rhetoric and financial lobbying to promote mass ownership without consequences for its members.

 

[lickitandstickit]

However, I don't think they're a fundamental human right, in the same that while I obviously agree with legal car ownership, I don't think cars are a fundamental human right.

have something happen to your drivers license like, DUI, driving under suspension, ect and have it taken away, in the process of doing so, the judge will tell you, i can attest with 100% certainty, that its a "privilege" not a right.. and yours was just taken away

https://i.giphy.com/media/BAZf53qKSwrF6/giphy.webp

 

[richard_daily]

I don't agree with her assertion, but I do think that the NRA has significantly contributed to the gun problem in this country through their rhetoric and financial lobbying to promote mass ownership without consequences for its members.

As I've said, I don't like the NRA (I prefer the 2nd Amendment Foundation particularly for their handling of the Philando Castile murder by an LEO).

That said, the NRA absolutely promotes responsible gun ownership, and I can provide you dozens of examples of how, to say otherwise is an emotional knee-jerk at best.

 

[richard_daily]

I wasn't arguing that something not being a human right doesn't make it important - I was suggesting that a lot of people seem to see gun ownership as a human right, and it's not.
(Are you sure about the voting thing?)

My understanding of human rights as recognized internationally are the right to food, clean water, shelter, and education. There may be other things depending on the definition, and I'd argue that health care is also up there.

 

[KimGordon67]

Car drives through crowd? CCL holder can neutralize. Terrorist comes into nightclub with AR 15, CCL holder can neutralize. Terrorist comes into school, abortion clinic, place of worship: CCL holder can neutralize. Most CCL holders are well trained, and able to stand one on one against an armed suspect, and the element of surprise works both ways.

We don't know how bad some incidents could have been, because CCL holders have neutralized many threats from armed individuals who meant to do the public harm.



Those 112 guns per 100 people mean that the government isn't going to overstep their bounds. Again, if you trust your government implicitly with your life, that's your prerogative.



Have you ever had a knife pulled on you? A batton? A group of dudes who wanted to do you harm? I've been in all of those situations. I've also had people try to stick me up twice. I've had my house broken into as well. They ran early because they found ammo on top of my safe. I missed them by about 5 minutes.

If someone breaks into your house, and no one has a gun, do you feel safe? Are you ok being raped by someone larger than you?

If these are all chances you're willing to take, more power to you, but I'm not, and I wouldn't ask that of anyone I cared about.



The world is full of violence. If it weren't guns, it would be something else. Guns even the playing field, especially for those of smaller stature, and against groups looking to harm them.

I understand that you don't get the culture. I don't like a lot of gun culture. A lot of it is racist and bigoted, but a lot of it, the vast majority in fact, is not. That's the underreported element here. I regularly go to a range owned by Iraqi Americans, and the clientele is mostly black. That's also the face of gun culture.

Don't buy into the sterotypes of what it is, because that's just another message to divide people.



I don't disagree with you entirely on this point. The constitution is a road map, and common sense is required. However, "common sense" gun control wouldn't have prevented this attack, at least not in the way that most of the Democrats are currently framing it.

Short of "banning guns" there is nothing that would have stopped this attack, and in fact, banning guns would have likely made it worse. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. He caused 3 times the number of deaths without a gun. That would have been Los Vegas the other day, fi the shooter hadn't had access to guns.

We should be thankful that with that much planning and effort, he was only able to kill 58 people. It could have been a lot worse.

I see your point, but I fundamentally disagree with it, and I'm not going to be convinced otherwise. I have been in a few of those situations you describe, including being pulled of the street at night by a guy, and in every single one of them, I did't think 'wish I had a gun right now' ... what I do think, in retrospect, is 'fucking glad the other guy didn't have a gun, as I'd be sure to have been raped/wounded/whatever'.
Guns make it easier to kill people, including accidentally. There's a mountain of evidence to support that. Yes, we could say responsible gun ownership would prevent that, but in much the same way that you argue humans are inherently violent, I'd argue that a great chunk of humanity isn't particularly good at being responsible. And in the 'I'm going to threaten your life and safety' scenario, I think the ease with which you can do someone a damage if you're holding a gun takes a lot of the humanity out of that situation.

I'm sure you're aware of all these arguments, because they're not exactly uncommon, and obviously you've given them actual thought and you're not going to be convinced otherwise either. I'd suggest we stop trying to do the convincing now ... I'm ok with that.

 

[KimGordon67]

My understanding of human rights as recognized internationally are the right to food, clean water, shelter, and education. There may be other things depending on the definition, and I'd argue that health care is also up there.

I checked: Article 21 of the UN Declaration ...
"Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

 

[phrodeau]

I checked: Article 21 of the UN Declaration ...
"Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."

That sounds like a good plan. When will we get that in the US?

 

[BotanyBoy]

That sounds like a good plan. When will we get that in the US?

As soon as the UN becomes a relevant authority or the sheeple pull their heads out of their ass's.

Good luck with either of those....

 

[zipman]

As I've said, I don't like the NRA (I prefer the 2nd Amendment Foundation particularly for their handling of the Philando Castile murder by an LEO).

That said, the NRA absolutely promotes responsible gun ownership, and I can provide you dozens of examples of how, to say otherwise is an emotional knee-jerk at best.

What about smart phones? They oppose those. They have fought bitterly for years against any legislation or regulation on guns.

What about their despicable rhetoric? They spent 8 years saying that Obama was going to come for members guns despite that not being the case and now is using hyperbole to defend themselves from liberal violence?

Personally, I think your reaction is the knee-jerk one.

 

[zipman]

Bullshit.

If the guy had used a truck, would all truck drivers been culpable?

If he had used a knife, would you be culpable if you owned a set of kitchen blades?

Total false equivalency.

Why do we try to limit countries with nukes? If guns don't kill people then neither do nukes.

Do you think a person with a knife would be able to murder 59 people and wound over 500?

Ffs, stop being obtuse.