Mass Shooting in Las Vegas

[Todo Em Lixo]

I could have sworn I saw a post that showed a few countries with higher gun restrictions, that ironically have a higher homicide rate.
Murder is murder...
I might be delusional from work. IDK?

Of course it varies from country to country. I'm just say ban one of the easiest to access easiest to use forms of murder weapon.

 

[Com Fox]

How many of these civilians killed by the cops are unarmed? Less weapons on the street is gonna make the police job safer as well and they will not feel as threatened.

Several of these issues and shootings have come from the unarmed man/woman trying to grab the cops gun.

 

[Todo Em Lixo]

I'm not here to debate about guns, but I see plenty of idiotcracy that should be sourced.

Like this for example:



So you think that the Brady Bill was intended to ban Semi-Auto weapons did its job did you? Well, what about this Duke University/University of Virginia study that said that "the Brady Bill had virtually NO EFFECT on gun violence" despite the fact that a 2000 study showed that The Brady Bill reduced suicides among those 55 or older.

From its inception, the Brady Bill is very flawed. Of the more than 202 million background checks that occurred between 1998-2014, less than 1% (.6% or 1.2 million) were actually blocked by the Brady Bill requirements. The most common reason was previous felony convictions.

Hell, even the prosecution of violators of the Brady Bill are extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, 7 people were convicted. And in the Act's first year of force, 217 of the 250 cases that were referred to prosecution were rejected.

So want to rethink your Semi-Auto ban? Because the last time we tried it, it failed miserably at getting guns off the streets.

That ban could've saved many lives in Las Vegas.

 

[Danoff]

That ban could've saved many lives in Las Vegas.

You can't be serious. You just can't. It's not possible.

 

[MustangRyan]

That ban could've saved many lives in Las Vegas.

When?

 

[Com Fox]

That ban could've saved many lives in Las Vegas.

At which point in trying to work out this math problem made you come with this answer?

 

[Sage Ages]

I think the question would be how exactly did the shooter acquire the weapons anyways?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think the question would be how exactly did the shooter acquire the weapons anyways?

He bought them apparently.

 

[hejustsits]

Would having trackers on weapons help? If when a gun was sold its tracker activated, it could stop people from being able to stockpile them, which might have made this tragedy a bit less devastating.

 

[Grayfox]

He bought them apparently.

He was wanted by the FBI and they did class him as a psychopath, yet he could still buy them.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He was wanted by the FBI and they did class him as a psychopath, yet he could still buy them.

I thought it was his father who was described as a psycopath? Or was the son too?

The more that emerges about this nutter (property developer, pro gambler, possibly a millionaire) the harder this is to fathom.

 

[Johnnypenso]

He was wanted by the FBI and they did class him as a psychopath, yet he could still buy them.

Got a link to that? First I've heard of it but there may be new information in the last couple of hours I didn't see.

 

[TetsuKobura]

I'm pretty sure it's against the AUP to completely insult someone, but what the hell kind of logic are you trying to throw at us, Todo? I'm losing IQ points trying to argue with you.

 

[McLaren]

He was wanted by the FBI and they did class him as a psychopath, yet he could still buy them.

No, he wasn't. His father was wanted by the FBI for crimes committed back in the 60's. Stop spreading false information.

How many of these civilians killed by the cops are unarmed? Less weapons on the street is gonna make the police job safer as well and they will not feel as threatened.

Uh yeah, that's not how criminals work. Police have to be on alert during any altercation. How they respond is what's been under question lately.

 

[JKgo]

...I just found out. What a horrific event. And what a sick bastard, dreaming up of this kind of thing.

I wonder, what drives a man to commit such an atrocity? Infamy? A place in the history books? Mental issues? What? I know it's too early to tell, but I can't help but to wnoder. And to lament all the lives that have been lost today because of this senseless act of violence.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Got a link to that? First I've heard of it but there may be new information in the last couple of hours I didn't see.

The only mention of psycopathy that I've seen relates to his father (the link's in the post prior to yours).

 

[Famine]

If you're referring to the Catalonian referendum then I really can't see how the civilians having guns would have made anything better. If the Catalonian civilians had been armed the chances of somebody dying would have shot up.

I'm trying to imagine a situation in a country where civilians can legally possess and carry firearms where armed police would storm polling stations and beat up women inside, just on a whim. I'm kinda drawing a blank, because absolutely no police force anywhere would think that would end well for anybody, and they'd likely be far more willing to perhaps try another solution.

Meanwhile, in disarmed Catalonia...

I mean, this is literally a situation where a highly militarised police force - Guardia Civil, which is a military body that carries out policing - carried out unprovoked attacks on an opinion poll, because the state of Spain said it was illegal to have an opinion. How do people defend their rights from that kind of gross abuse if they cannot carry any counter-threat of force? That's straight up and down a disarmed population having their rights (and you can pick from them here: free speech; free assembly; due process; cruel and unusual punishment; suffrage) abused by a state - which is the very purpose of legislation like the Second Amendment.


Hey, did we cover yet the fact that the Guardia used illegal ammunition - rubber bullets have been banned in Catalonia since 2014 - to carry out these abuses? Good job they were made illegal, so no-one could use them. Except the police, on unarmed civilians.

 

[Obelisk]

but what the hell kind of logic are you trying to throw at us, Todo? I'm losing IQ points trying to argue with you.

"guns are always bad" logic. Dealing with him earlier today stressed me out to the point that the girl i'm interested in told me to give her space for a few days because I was stressing her out.

Safe to say that my day got worse when I dropped to his level.

 

[TB]

Would having trackers on weapons help? If when a gun was sold its tracker activated, it could stop people from being able to stockpile them, which might have made this tragedy a bit less devastating.

If illegally altering a semiautomatic firearm into an automatic firearm doesn't deter shooters, disabling a tracker doesn't stand a chance.

 

[Sanji Himura]

That ban could've saved many lives in Las Vegas.

Any possible meme that I could put on that response aside, the point that I was trying to make was that any sort of gun ban fails to address the fundamental flaw that it already has, and that is what is to stop the weapons already on the street?

It seems that you fail to understand that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

NEW: Las Vegas Sheriff says 18 firearms, explosives, and several thousand rounds of ammo recovered from Vegas shooter's home.

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) October 2, 2017
He also had ammonium nitrate in his car, and over a dozen more guns in his hotel room.

Clark County, Nevada Fire Department Chief Greg Cassell added that he has "never" seen so much ammo in one individual's possession before.

Source

 

[Jump_Ace]

The government can use nukes too (actually they can't use either - 5th, 6th, 8th Amendments), but neither is a particularly sound counterpoint to the fact that if you disarm a civilian population and militarise the police, the only people who suffer is the civilian population.

Whether that's the 900 people beaten up by police in Spain for expressing an opinion in a referendum, or the 700 people shot and killed by the police in the USA so far in 2017, armed police and unarmed civilians always hurts the civilians.

Know what else hurts civilians? Guns. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one buddy.


Jerome

 

[CodeRedR51]

This is usually how these things go:

1) Mass shooting happens
2) People argue about banning guns
3) Nothing is done about anything
4) Rinse and repeat

 

[Spurgy 777]

I'm trying to imagine a situation in a country where civilians can legally possess and carry firearms where armed police would storm polling stations and beat up women inside, just on a whim. I'm kinda drawing a blank, because absolutely no police force anywhere would think that would end well for anybody, and they'd likely be far more willing to perhaps try another solution.

Meanwhile, in disarmed Catalonia...

I mean, this is literally a situation where a highly militarised police force - Guardia Civil, which is a military body that carries out policing - carried out unprovoked attacks on an opinion poll, because the state of Spain said it was illegal to have an opinion. How do people defend their rights from that kind of gross abuse if they cannot carry any counter-threat of force? That's straight up and down a disarmed population having their rights (and you can pick from them here: free speech; free assembly; due process; cruel and unusual punishment; suffrage) abused by a state - which is the very purpose of legislation like the Second Amendment.


Hey, did we cover yet the fact that the Guardia used illegal ammunition - rubber bullets have been banned in Catalonia since 2014 - to carry out these abuses? Good job they were made illegal, so no-one could use them. Except the police, on unarmed civilians.

I'm pretty sure in a battle of force, the Spanish government would win quite comfortably. If you try and use guns as a deterrent, the government are just going to bring bigger guns, it wouldn't help the situation at all, just escalate it into more people getting injured and probably killed.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm pretty sure in a battle of force, the Spanish government would win quite comfortably. If you try and use guns as a deterrent, the government are just going to bring bigger guns, it wouldn't help the situation at all, just escalate it into more people getting injured and probably killed.

I think the point is, if the citizens are armed there is no battle of this nature to begin with.

 

[Famine]

I'm pretty sure in a battle of force, the Spanish government would win quite comfortably.

They already did.

If you try and use guns as a deterrent, the government are just going to bring bigger guns, it wouldn't help the situation at all, just escalate it into more people getting injured and probably killed.

It doesn't matter how many guns they bring, or how big they are. It changes the dynamic from police storming a group of absolutely unarmed people to police storming a group of people who might well be armed and dug in. The risk to the police goes from zero to not zero. And we need to remember that this is over a matter that poses zero public threat*.

It's a radically different situation, and goes from bad PR to killed and injured policemen. That dramatically reduces the likelihood of the conflict even occurring.

Know what else hurts civilians? Guns.

Especially in the hands of cops. It turns out that you need only 11,000 armed policemen to kill an American citizen (sometimes justifiably), but a lower bound of of 27,000 armed civilians to kill an American citizen (sometimes justifiably)**.

*Except for the threat to the public from the police. 900 people were assaulted and injured, and literally none of those injuries would have happened - nor any others - if the police had not been there...

 

[Furinkazen]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...america-mass-shootings-gun-violence?CMP=fb_gu Some statistics.

 

[Biggles]

I'm trying to imagine a situation in a country where civilians can legally possess and carry firearms where armed police would storm polling stations and beat up women inside, just on a whim. I'm kinda drawing a blank, because absolutely no police force anywhere would think that would end well for anybody, and they'd likely be far more willing to perhaps try another solution.

Meanwhile, in disarmed Catalonia...

I mean, this is literally a situation where a highly militarised police force - Guardia Civil, which is a military body that carries out policing - carried out unprovoked attacks on an opinion poll, because the state of Spain said it was illegal to have an opinion. How do people defend their rights from that kind of gross abuse if they cannot carry any counter-threat of force? That's straight up and down a disarmed population having their rights (and you can pick from them here: free speech; free assembly; due process; cruel and unusual punishment; suffrage) abused by a state - which is the very purpose of legislation like the Second Amendment.


Hey, did we cover yet the fact that the Guardia used illegal ammunition - rubber bullets have been banned in Catalonia since 2014 - to carry out these abuses? Good job they were made illegal, so no-one could use them. Except the police, on unarmed civilians.

Well, you could start by imagining a country like Spain, which experienced a bloody & brutal civil war, which frankly still lies beneath Catalans' desire for independence now. The two sides were armed, both felt justified in their position & the result was death & destruction on a grand scale & decades of a fascist dictatorship. Armed resistance is no guarantee of a favorable outcome.

What would have happened last week if Catalan separatists were armed & fought back is unknowable, but I doubt the outcome would have been preferable. It's unclear how the Catalonia situation will ultimately be resolved, but domestic & international pressure could be brought to bear & a non-violent, political solutions is always a possibility.

If you look at the US the Second Amendment is often presented as the "people" being able to defend their "rights" against an overbearing "government", but in reality, it's more likely that it would be one faction of the people taking up arms against another faction, with different elements of the "state" taking one side or the other. Again, there has been a clear historical example of this in the American Civil War.

 

[phillgt2002]

Hey, making automatic weapons illegal is useless based on what happened, so why not make them legal again?

I mean, criminals are going to be criminals.

 

[Obelisk]

CNN is saying 527 injured and now 59 dead. Someone didn't make it...