Quantcast
Mass shooting Las Vegas

Forums - Politics Discussion - Mass shooting Las Vegas

irstupid said:
I just love the two causes the left is fighting/protesting about right now

1. Ban all guns from civilians so only law enforcement/military have them
2. Law Enforcement are all racists, corrupt evil murderers

This thought had sort of crossed my mind too.

On the one hand they argue that law enforcement has TOO much power and uses deadly force too frequently against the population without a just reason (at least in case of African Americans so they say), while on the other hand want to essentially disarm civillians which of course means far MORE power in the hands of law enforcement, which almost inevitably means MORE lethal force used..

Though in all fairness, I don't think most of these people are arguing for a complete dissolving of the 2nd Amendment or a total wiping away of all guns on US soil (would be virtually impossible anyway), but rather, that there needs to be stricter gun laws, which I tend to somewhat agree with. Apparently this Paddock guy was able to buy a semi-automatic along with bump stock (to boost its effectiveness) legally from what I've heard. That he was able to land such a powerful weapon that is capable of mowing down hundreds in minutes legally is highly concerning and a major red flag that the US really needs to tighten things up in that regard..



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Puppyroach said:

How many mass killings do we have with a single criminal killing tens of people with sticks and stones, knifes or slingshots? Of course it's not the weapon that kill peolpe (sentient weapons would be quite scary 😉) but there is a reasons it's called a weapon, because its purpose is to be used as a weapon against other people.

But if you can show that the US had numerous amounts of mass killings with, for example knives, in the past, please share.

Just look at medieval times. Bows n arrows, swords n shield's. Millions died by blades and arrows because that was the best possible weapon at the time, and not just in war. Now we have guns. Take those guns away, and those killers have no choice but to use the next best weapon. You have to remember, this isn't just your everyday criminal we're talking about. This is the worst case scenario, mass murder, type of killer. They are going to hurt many people one way or another, no matter how much planning, or what weapons it takes. Sure, you can say, well at least less people will get hurt, but how many is acceptable and at what cost to everyone else? When that soon becomes the norm, then what? Same thing happens as always. We're not satisfied with the lesser amount of death's, so we ban whatever weapon has become the new killing utensil of choice, and so on. It literally never ends.

We have an example of removing most guns from society. Australia did this some 15 years ago and haven´t had a mass killing since then.

Do you think everyone should be able to drive any vehicle without license and that every vehicle should be accesible to everyone at all times, including ships, buses and airplanes? Or wouldn´t it be easier to just face the reality that this issue has nothing to do with any right to have weapons, but that people want to play cops and robbers as grownups and that society allows it?



Puppyroach said:
EricHiggin said:

Just look at medieval times. Bows n arrows, swords n shield's. Millions died by blades and arrows because that was the best possible weapon at the time, and not just in war. Now we have guns. Take those guns away, and those killers have no choice but to use the next best weapon. You have to remember, this isn't just your everyday criminal we're talking about. This is the worst case scenario, mass murder, type of killer. They are going to hurt many people one way or another, no matter how much planning, or what weapons it takes. Sure, you can say, well at least less people will get hurt, but how many is acceptable and at what cost to everyone else? When that soon becomes the norm, then what? Same thing happens as always. We're not satisfied with the lesser amount of death's, so we ban whatever weapon has become the new killing utensil of choice, and so on. It literally never ends.

We have an example of removing most guns from society. Australia did this some 15 years ago and haven´t had a mass killing since then.

Do you think everyone should be able to drive any vehicle without license and that every vehicle should be accesible to everyone at all times, including ships, buses and airplanes? Or wouldn´t it be easier to just face the reality that this issue has nothing to do with any right to have weapons, but that people want to play cops and robbers as grownups and that society allows it?

Well it's been made clear that mass gun killings have stopped there, up until now anyway, but a lot has not been asked ironically. Has the gun killing increased, just in more smaller doses, leading to the same amount of deaths anyway? Maybe there are mass killing's happening there, just not gun related. Maybe they are using weapons other than guns now, and those weapons aren't allowing for as many deaths per incident, yet the number of incidents may be higher? You can't just say the mass gun killing has stopped so problem solved. Not that simple.

The way vehicle safety is handled is quite good and gun safety could always be better yes, but just like how vehicles get stolen and people are still killed with them, do we ban all guns and vehicles? If your willing to point out how vehicle safety is handled, clearly there are still issues there, so why isn't anyone talking about how vehicles need better safety regulations or banning them outright? Just because they are an everyday tool for some people, doesn't make it any less of a potential weapon. Not only does a vehicle give you the opportunity to kill more people, but it also better protects you from the authorities, and allows a much easier getaway.

The right to bear arms is an issue. You think the founding fathers were so stupid that they thought allowing citizen's to have guns wouldn't ever lead to unnecessary deaths? The amount of unnecessary deaths may have been in smaller doses back then, maybe, but the population was also dramatically smaller back then, so the amount of deaths today wouldn't seem out of place. That's not to say there shouldn't be changes to the rules at all, but those changes need to make sense overall. The few must give up what's necessary for the benefit of the many if it comes down to it. The point of the right to gun ownership, is to protect yourself from many different potential outcomes. Assuming the world is so civilized today that needing a gun as protection isn't necessary is a gamble. Some are willing to gamble, some aren't. Some need to gamble, some don't. How many people's safety was maintained or life was saved due to a citizen having a gun?

Just waking up in the morning is a risk in itself. Human beings are not born with the right to live until they are 100 years old. You are given rights so your chances of achieveing that are higher, but in no way is it guaranteed.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
Puppyroach said:

We have an example of removing most guns from society. Australia did this some 15 years ago and haven´t had a mass killing since then.

Do you think everyone should be able to drive any vehicle without license and that every vehicle should be accesible to everyone at all times, including ships, buses and airplanes? Or wouldn´t it be easier to just face the reality that this issue has nothing to do with any right to have weapons, but that people want to play cops and robbers as grownups and that society allows it?

Well it's been made clear that mass gun killings have stopped there, up until now anyway, but a lot has not been asked ironically. Has the gun killing increased, just in more smaller doses, leading to the same amount of deaths anyway? Maybe there are mass killing's happening there, just not gun related. Maybe they are using weapons other than guns now, and those weapons aren't allowing for as many deaths per incident, yet the number of incidents may be higher? You can't just say the mass gun killing has stopped so problem solved. Not that simple.

The way vehicle safety is handled is quite good and gun safety could always be better yes, but just like how vehicles get stolen and people are still killed with them, do we ban all guns and vehicles? If your willing to point out how vehicle safety is handled, clearly there are still issues there, so why isn't anyone talking about how vehicles need better safety regulations or banning them outright? Just because they are an everyday tool for some people, doesn't make it any less of a potential weapon. Not only does a vehicle give you the opportunity to kill more people, but it also better protects you from the authorities, and allows a much easier getaway.

The right to bear arms is an issue. You think the founding fathers were so stupid that they thought allowing citizen's to have guns wouldn't ever lead to unnecessary deaths? The amount of unnecessary deaths may have been in smaller doses back then, maybe, but the population was also dramatically smaller back then, so the amount of deaths today wouldn't seem out of place. That's not to say there shouldn't be changes to the rules at all, but those changes need to make sense overall. The few must give up what's necessary for the benefit of the many if it comes down to it. The point of the right to gun ownership, is to protect yourself from many different potential outcomes. Assuming the world is so civilized today that needing a gun as protection isn't necessary is a gamble. Some are willing to gamble, some aren't. Some need to gamble, some don't. How many people's safety was maintained or life was saved due to a citizen having a gun?

Just waking up in the morning is a risk in itself. Human beings are not born with the right to live until they are 100 years old. You are given rights so your chances of achieveing that are higher, but in no way is it guaranteed.

Deaths and assaults by knife jumped dramatically after the ban on guns. In the USthe liberals hate guns and blame them on everything. The right doesnt even want background checks because they are assholes and just want to piss off the liberals. In reality more people die in car accidents every year than by gun violence and mass shotings like what happened in Vegas are even more rare. The terror attack on Sept 11th killed more people than Sandy Hook, Florida night club, colombine and Vegas put together.



Superman4 said:

Deaths and assaults by knife jumped dramatically after the ban on guns. In the USthe liberals hate guns and blame them on everything. The right doesnt even want background checks because they are assholes and just want to piss off the liberals. In reality more people die in car accidents every year than by gun violence and mass shotings like what happened in Vegas are even more rare. The terror attack on Sept 11th killed more people than Sandy Hook, Florida night club, colombine and Vegas put together.

Which is why regulations on travel increased aswell as security routines and background checks on staff within the industry, aswell as a "no-fly" list. Funny how some things can become heavily regulated after an incident...



Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Puppyroach said:

We have an example of removing most guns from society. Australia did this some 15 years ago and haven´t had a mass killing since then.

Do you think everyone should be able to drive any vehicle without license and that every vehicle should be accesible to everyone at all times, including ships, buses and airplanes? Or wouldn´t it be easier to just face the reality that this issue has nothing to do with any right to have weapons, but that people want to play cops and robbers as grownups and that society allows it?

Well it's been made clear that mass gun killings have stopped there, up until now anyway, but a lot has not been asked ironically. Has the gun killing increased, just in more smaller doses, leading to the same amount of deaths anyway? Maybe there are mass killing's happening there, just not gun related. Maybe they are using weapons other than guns now, and those weapons aren't allowing for as many deaths per incident, yet the number of incidents may be higher? You can't just say the mass gun killing has stopped so problem solved. Not that simple.

The way vehicle safety is handled is quite good and gun safety could always be better yes, but just like how vehicles get stolen and people are still killed with them, do we ban all guns and vehicles? If your willing to point out how vehicle safety is handled, clearly there are still issues there, so why isn't anyone talking about how vehicles need better safety regulations or banning them outright? Just because they are an everyday tool for some people, doesn't make it any less of a potential weapon. Not only does a vehicle give you the opportunity to kill more people, but it also better protects you from the authorities, and allows a much easier getaway.

The right to bear arms is an issue. You think the founding fathers were so stupid that they thought allowing citizen's to have guns wouldn't ever lead to unnecessary deaths? The amount of unnecessary deaths may have been in smaller doses back then, maybe, but the population was also dramatically smaller back then, so the amount of deaths today wouldn't seem out of place. That's not to say there shouldn't be changes to the rules at all, but those changes need to make sense overall. The few must give up what's necessary for the benefit of the many if it comes down to it. The point of the right to gun ownership, is to protect yourself from many different potential outcomes. Assuming the world is so civilized today that needing a gun as protection isn't necessary is a gamble. Some are willing to gamble, some aren't. Some need to gamble, some don't. How many people's safety was maintained or life was saved due to a citizen having a gun?

Just waking up in the morning is a risk in itself. Human beings are not born with the right to live until they are 100 years old. You are given rights so your chances of achieveing that are higher, but in no way is it guaranteed.

So in regards to cars, would it be reaonable to demand, just as one would when it comes to drivers license, that the one who wants to use a gun need to get a license, showing a responsible way to handle the firearm?

The founding fathers had no idea what kinds of weapons would become available in the future, and it´s important to note the phrase in the beginning fo that amendment that clearly specifies that it should be a well regulated militia. This shows that even they themselves say the dangers of not having regulations.



Puppyroach said:

So in regards to cars, would it be reaonable to demand, just as one would when it comes to drivers license, that the one who wants to use a gun need to get a license, showing a responsible way to handle the firearm?

The founding fathers had no idea what kinds of weapons would become available in the future, and it´s important to note the phrase in the beginning fo that amendment that clearly specifies that it should be a well regulated militia. This shows that even they themselves say the dangers of not having regulations.

The founding fathers had an idea. They knew what kind of weapons were created in the past, and what weapons were available then. It's not complicated to assume how much more deadly weapons could become in the future based on the history of war. What those weapons were going to be exactly, is harder to predict, but the death and destruction they could easily assume. Remember, guns were about as deadly a weapon as you could have back then, and they said everybody can have one. Much of the Constitution clearly wasn't written just for that time period either. They thought ahead quite well back then. 

Gun laws should be the same across the entire Country with minor exceptions. I'll give you that. Some of the states could tighten up some loose ends and make acquiring gun related items harder in general for citizen's, and next to impossible legally, for certain high risk individuals. While that may potentially lead to less deaths overall, maybe, events like Vegas could continue regardless. Apparently he passed all the checks no problem. Would stricter gun laws have stopped him from getting weapons capable of hurting hundreds? No amount of gun laws is going to completely stop somebody who's decided to kill a bunch of people.

Just like the Australia comparison, if you make it harder or impossible to get your hands on one type of weapon, they will just use the next best thing that's more easily attainable. Even if all of the guns were taken away, and all you saw from time to time was a mass shooting using illegal guns, it would still be all over the news crying for answers, late night hosts pleading for more black market policing, and poiliticans would still be pointing fingers. How is that any different than what's happening right now? The news, politicians, and people, didn't really care about gun laws for the entire last year, but now because of a mass shooting, it's important again for some reason and applies to all guns, and all people, apparently.

America's biggest problem by far is not the guns. It's that they are a nation, based on it's history, that initially tries to negotiate, but if the other party clearly doesn't want to try and come to terms, well then just use force. America has gotten better at this over time, but will use their military might much sooner than many other first world nation's. When your Country runs like that, the people tend to follow that example. A Country and it's people are like parents and their children. You set an example and they grow around that. If that example is move or get out of the way, they grow up with that mindset, and they live it everyday to some extent. It tends to lead to higher levels of violence, which can lead to events like Vegas. 



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

America's biggest problem by far is not the guns. It's that they are a nation, based on it's history, that initially tries to negotiate, but if the other party clearly doesn't want to try and come to terms, well then just use force. America has gotten better at this over time, but will use their military might much sooner than many other first world nation's. When your Country runs like that, the people tend to follow that example. A Country and it's people are like parents and their children. You set an example and they grow around that. If that example is move or get out of the way, they grow up with that mindset, and they live it everyday to some extent. It tends to lead to higher levels of violence, which can lead to events like Vegas. 

Don't essentially agree about everything you said before but that last piece is pure gold. Kudos.



Puppyroach said:
Superman4 said:

Deaths and assaults by knife jumped dramatically after the ban on guns. In the USthe liberals hate guns and blame them on everything. The right doesnt even want background checks because they are assholes and just want to piss off the liberals. In reality more people die in car accidents every year than by gun violence and mass shotings like what happened in Vegas are even more rare. The terror attack on Sept 11th killed more people than Sandy Hook, Florida night club, colombine and Vegas put together.

Which is why regulations on travel increased aswell as security routines and background checks on staff within the industry, aswell as a "no-fly" list. Funny how some things can become heavily regulated after an incident...

Im not saying some things shouildnt change, banning guns or types of guns wont solve the problem. I do agree that background checks should be mandatory. 



Superman4 said:
EricHiggin said:

Well it's been made clear that mass gun killings have stopped there, up until now anyway, but a lot has not been asked ironically. Has the gun killing increased, just in more smaller doses, leading to the same amount of deaths anyway? Maybe there are mass killing's happening there, just not gun related. Maybe they are using weapons other than guns now, and those weapons aren't allowing for as many deaths per incident, yet the number of incidents may be higher? You can't just say the mass gun killing has stopped so problem solved. Not that simple.

The way vehicle safety is handled is quite good and gun safety could always be better yes, but just like how vehicles get stolen and people are still killed with them, do we ban all guns and vehicles? If your willing to point out how vehicle safety is handled, clearly there are still issues there, so why isn't anyone talking about how vehicles need better safety regulations or banning them outright? Just because they are an everyday tool for some people, doesn't make it any less of a potential weapon. Not only does a vehicle give you the opportunity to kill more people, but it also better protects you from the authorities, and allows a much easier getaway.

The right to bear arms is an issue. You think the founding fathers were so stupid that they thought allowing citizen's to have guns wouldn't ever lead to unnecessary deaths? The amount of unnecessary deaths may have been in smaller doses back then, maybe, but the population was also dramatically smaller back then, so the amount of deaths today wouldn't seem out of place. That's not to say there shouldn't be changes to the rules at all, but those changes need to make sense overall. The few must give up what's necessary for the benefit of the many if it comes down to it. The point of the right to gun ownership, is to protect yourself from many different potential outcomes. Assuming the world is so civilized today that needing a gun as protection isn't necessary is a gamble. Some are willing to gamble, some aren't. Some need to gamble, some don't. How many people's safety was maintained or life was saved due to a citizen having a gun?

Just waking up in the morning is a risk in itself. Human beings are not born with the right to live until they are 100 years old. You are given rights so your chances of achieveing that are higher, but in no way is it guaranteed.

Deaths and assaults by knife jumped dramatically after the ban on guns. In the USthe liberals hate guns and blame them on everything. The right doesnt even want background checks because they are assholes and just want to piss off the liberals. In reality more people die in car accidents every year than by gun violence and mass shotings like what happened in Vegas are even more rare. The terror attack on Sept 11th killed more people than Sandy Hook, Florida night club, colombine and Vegas put together.

Did knife assaults and death go up by an equatable number compared to the reduction in deaths and assaults by guns?   In other words, was there a net positve in the number of lives saved?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."