General / Off-Topic More than 50 killed in Las Vegas terror attack

[lysan]

I currently live in an area that is relatively safe. I don't even shut my doors at night, let alone lock them, and I don't have any firearms on the property. Then again, I used to live in low-income housing on the bad side of Baltimore in a neighborhood where the local police station was firebombed and I felt pretty safe there too, also without firearms on hand...that comes with minding one's own business, not letting anyone think you have anything worth taking, and knowing the difference between rational fear and hysteria.

I'm simply not comfortable imposing my ideas of what people should or should not have on others. I have extreme difficulty in seeing the appeal of smartphones, alcoholic beverages, anything carbonated, fake sugar, non-fat creamer, cosmetic anything, more than two pairs of shoes, any business suit, a car that costs more than four figures, or the existence of polyester t-shirts...but I'm not going to tell anyone they shouldn't be able to own these things, even when they are orders of magnitude more likely to kill me than firearms.



I'm personally much more concerned about threats to my privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and ability to acquire or transfer property than I am about the minuscule chance that I might be on the receiving end of a bullet.

I don't personally believe that I am universally safer from physical harm because of the presence of firearms, but people thinking they can tell me what I can or cannot do is a clear and present danger. Guns, not so much.



What do you expect people to do? Interrupt their lives to mourn every stranger that passes? The danger has past, the survivors are being treated. Life, and business, must go on.

In a place with the population of the Vega metro area,



I'm not sure what makes the lives of people killed in a mass murder, or the families of the survivors, any more or less worthy of consideration than any other victim of tragedy...cause that's what every death is, to someone.

The victims will have the same public services available to them as anyone, though there will certainly be private charities and funds.

And what society doesn't have the potential for such an event?

I agree, 68 or so died in Norway, a country with very restrictive gun laws, you just can't stop a dedicated maniac.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I don't know how to say this without sounding very cynical or totally heartless, but if we should use that terminology we as humans should start to abolish wars altogether, but there will always be one nutter, one dictator, one authoritarian who want to hell bend other people to do as they say, and they will find a way to make it so, no matter what you do.

That's the Nirvana fallacy. The fact that there is bad in the worlds means that all forms of death and mayhem should be acceptable, that you can't make the world perfect means that events like this should be accepted...

Nope.

I'm personally much more concerned about threats to my privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of movement, and ability to acquire or transfer property than I am about the minuscule chance that I might be on the receiving end of a bullet.

I don't personally believe that I am universally safer from physical harm because of the presence of firearms, but people thinking they can tell me what I can or cannot do is a clear and present danger. Guns, not so much.

The ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can advocate both controls on guns and freedom of expression. You can advocate both gun ownership and extreme censorship (indeed many Republicans do, as has Pat Robertson). This is deflection, pure and simple.

 

[Minonian]

Who will decide that? you???

The number of deaths in America. try to argue with that.

 

[FuzzySpider]

The victims will have the same public services available to them as anyone, though there will certainly be private charities and funds.

And what society doesn't have the potential for such an event?

Yes indeed. That's America, a place where a man shoots people and his guns are his constitutional "right". But medical treatment for the survivors isn't.

 

[charognard]

Yes indeed. That's America, a place where a man shoots people and his guns are his constitutional "right". But medical treatment for the survivors isn't.

Each country have his own up and down, i'm not american, i don't judge their system...

 

[lysan]

The bodycount in America. try to argue with that.

Not going to, it's just the way it is, I'm not saying it's good, just that it won't change my opinion regarding the subject.
As long as the world is stacking nukes, I really can't see the logic behind your comment.

people as in citizens or crazy state rulers is what we need to deal with, the Khmer Rouge government arrested, tortured and eventually executed anyone suspected of belonging to several categories of supposed "enemies". How would you ban that? but it's different you say, to me it's not and that is where I guess we can't agree, and the only way you can get it your way is to wage a war against those who believe in something different.

 

[Minonian]

Here, at last we have something in common. However, in addition to being a military veteran, I was raised in an environment where hunting and shooting sports were a part of every day life. I was three years old when I got my first BB gun. I was six years old when I started shooting the real thing. So far, I've managed to survive an additional 40ish years without serious incident.

I collect firearms as a hobby. While I don't have the extensive collection that some do, I have quite a few. My favorites are relics from WW1 and WW2, but I have modern firearms as well. Not many of us who share this passion do so out of a fear of the government. Those who do are on the fringe, and won't espouse their views outside of their limited circle (or perhaps on the internet where they can remain mostly anonymous). Many of us, in fact, work for the government in some capacity.

I think what we are going to see out of this in regard to the gun control debate is a removal of devices designed to circumvent the limits of semi-automatic weapons. I've often questioned how these and other devices that would generally fall under the NFA as class 3, are granted approval for general use by the ATF.

There are a numerous hunters in my family and i also know how to use firearms, but let's just be plain and simple.
Guns does not bring freedom, nor safety. they are for killing, and this is what they do. Why you kill, and wound others? Separate matters but by the look of it, most of the people with firearms doing it for the wrong reason, and even when the reason is right, most of the times, to kill was not necessary.

As an aside, I once knew a guy who tried to go on a crossbow rampage. He even put a bolt through the door of a police cruiser. The cops pretty much laughed at him and rushed him on a reload attempt. Stupid people are going to be stupid.

HEHH! Indeed.

 

[lysan]

Here, at last we have something in common. However, in addition to being a military veteran, I was raised in an environment where hunting and shooting sports were a part of every day life. I was three years old when I got my first BB gun. I was six years old when I started shooting the real thing. So far, I've managed to survive an additional 40ish years without serious incident.

I collect firearms as a hobby. While I don't have the extensive collection that some do, I have quite a few. My favorites are relics from WW1 and WW2, but I have modern firearms as well. Not many of us who share this passion do so out of a fear of the government. Those who do are on the fringe, and won't espouse their views outside of their limited circle (or perhaps on the internet where they can remain mostly anonymous). Many of us, in fact, work for the government in some capacity.

I think what we are going to see out of this in regard to the gun control debate is a removal of devices designed to circumvent the limits of semi-automatic weapons. I've often questioned how these and other devices that would generally fall under the NFA as class 3, are granted approval for general use by the ATF.

As an aside, I once knew a guy who tried to go on a crossbow rampage. He even put a bolt through the door of a police cruiser. The cops pretty much laughed at him and rushed him on a reload attempt. Stupid people are going to be stupid.

Well some good old German engeneering would probably fix that problem....

[video=youtube;drDoHLz1QyI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drDoHLz1QyI[/video]

 

[Morbad]

The ideas are not mutually exclusive. You can advocate both controls on guns and freedom of expression. You can advocate both gun ownership and extreme censorship (indeed many Republicans do, as has Pat Robertson). This is deflection, pure and simple.

Not sure how you think my statement deflection unless you've mistakenly lumped me into a group I've never been a part of.

Gun control absolutely is mutually exclusive with the idea that that people should be able to own and transfer property without interference or oversight, as well as any form of expression that would require a firearm obtained without adhering to such controls. The level of freedom I aspire to is not compatible with gun control, border control, substance control, censorship, decency laws, anti- laws, minimum drinking ages, overreaching IP protections, conscription, the existence of laws against victimless 'crime', taxes, and essentially everything that I wouldn't care to have imposed on me and wouldn't feel comfortable imposing on others.

 

[Stigbob]

Here, at last we have something in common. However, in addition to being a military veteran, I was raised in an environment where hunting and shooting sports were a part of every day life. I was three years old when I got my first BB gun. I was six years old when I started shooting the real thing. So far, I've managed to survive an additional 40ish years without serious incident.

When I was a kid we all had air-guns (BB's) and even shenanigans with them wasn't a very big deal, now that would be officially gun crime and very serious indeed as opposed to a telling off in front of your parents. Lots of people also had illegal firearms up till the amnesties and tighter controls after the Dunblane massacre. Raised with different standards, which would explain the difference in our nations views on firearms.

I collect firearms as a hobby. While I don't have the extensive collection that some do, I have quite a few. My favorites are relics from WW1 and WW2, but I have modern firearms as well. Not many of us who share this passion do so out of a fear of the government. Those who do are on the fringe, and won't espouse their views outside of their limited circle (or perhaps on the internet where they can remain mostly anonymous). Many of us, in fact, work for the government in some capacity.

I do enjoy shooting, I'd probably join a club if they were more common in the UK. I know some collectors here but they mostly go for working replica English Civil war flintlock stuff or more modern fully deactivated weapons. I suppose having spent years with the real thing a replica seems like a toy to me, in which case just go for nerf guns that way I can have wars around the house with my nephews on hollidays.

I think what we are going to see out of this in regard to the gun control debate is a removal of devices designed to circumvent the limits of semi-automatic weapons. I've often questioned how these and other devices that would generally fall under the NFA as class 3, are granted approval for general use by the ATF.

Some things you just don't need for the range or hunting, automatic's quite literally overkill. Having said that if you know what you are doing you can put rounds downrange on semi almost a rapidly as auto, but with better accuracy.

As an aside, I once knew a guy who tried to go on a crossbow rampage. He even put a bolt through the door of a police cruiser. The cops pretty much laughed at him and rushed him on a reload attempt. Stupid people are going to be stupid.

Crossbows and bows are in a different league, there's been a fair few crossbow murders in the UK. Oddly enough I knew a lad who tried to shoot someone with a crossbow bolt adapted with a syringe on the end intended to inject the target with cleaning chemicals on impact (he lost as well). The thing with crossbows is you don't need to practice to be any good, bows take patience and skill which probably deters the nutters.

 

[Minonian]

You've pointed out one of the stranger parts of what happens with defensive firearm use in America,

Weapons are for killing, and most of the people are don't have the slightest restrain or brain to use them properly, nor the remorse or pity to take away someone else's live.
Truly? Most of the people are not human but as Pratchett described; Storytelling ape...
Yeah! I do have my opinion about humanity, but no, i don't hate em.

and one of the (often unspoken) reasons why police tend to use lethal force. Living people will sue you.

Yeah... You tell me? I had my luck to this kind of people. And in the light of this i can't say i don't understand their approach.

(whine whine swearing swearing) because of fhreedhom!!! You don't have the right to stop my lawlsess activities, (even more whining and swearing dumbutt foul mouthed absurd threats imma gunna sue / shoot you!) And actually, they do! now, i wonder why the cops shoot first and go to kill and ask questions later?

Anyone have the slightest idea? Because i'm entirely clueless!
And also? It maybe a good time to set it right this kind of abuse of law! No, you don't have the right to commit crime, and when a cop stops you it's not a breach in your freedom rights!

Edit; Yes a cop do have the right to stop you when you committing crime, and no, you don't have the right to commit lawless activities, and if you still trying to do it sometimes forcefully against a cop? he can even shoot you down, and going to get a medal for it, because he did his job as he must do it.

So much about this.

Edit; And finally? To give guns to this kind of people, let them to have it? Someone is out of his mind!

 

[Iskariot]

Let's not do the "white guy commits a massacre -> mental issues" thing. Regardless of the specific motivation, this is an act of terrorism.

I did not mention skin color, or in any way alluded to it.
I did not even once consider it when thinking about this.
Skin pigmentation for me never has been a reason to judge someone differently.

But it is hard to conceive someone doing something extreme like this without thinking that there must be something wrong in the head.

 

[shreddog]

President Trump: “We’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/03/president-trump-well-be-talking-about-gun-laws/

 

[Trinity Star]

You have to wonder what hunters are hunting in the US given the insane weaponary they parade about with, T-Rexs?

 

[Minonian]

You have to wonder what hunters are hunting in the US given the insane weaponary they parade about with, T-Rexs?

All you have to know they using grenades and dynamite to fishing...

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Personally, I've never felt particularly safe, but it's not guns that bother me. It's people in general.

I work in one of the most violent cities in America, and deal with it every day.

The truly ironic thing is that I, being the generally law abiding citizen that I am, cannot carry a firearm in this city.

While those with no respect for the rule of law will do whatever they please.

I've had my life threatened on several occasions there. It's not a pleasant place to be.

If I had my way, I would carry a firearm at all times.

Move to Houston, Hawke. Or any Texas city, in general. Lots of work to be had out here.

You have to wonder what hunters are hunting in the US given the insane weaponary they parade about with, T-Rexs?

Hyperbole.

Most hunters that I know use hunting rifles to hunt.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Not many gangs of marauding slavers in America, what do you actually have to be so concerned about you need a gun (or a collection) ?.

The government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees for the people the right to possess the means by which they can violently oppose the government, if needs be.

 

[Trinity Star]

The government.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees for the people the right to possess the means by which they can violently oppose the government, if needs be.

Yeah that thing was written along time ago now wasn't it, sort of aimed at enabling folks to have their muskets ready incase the evil British redcoats come over the hill.

Things are a bit different in 2017, I doubt they expected a single citizen having access to weapons to kill and injure hundreds.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Yeah that thing was written along time ago now wasn't it, sort of aimed at enabling folks to have their muskets ready incase the evil British redcoats come over the hill.

Things are a bit different in 2017, I doubt they expected a single citizen having access to weapons to kill and injure hundreds.

If only we could put something like "well regulated" into the constitution.

 

[Adept]

But, weapons aren't the problem, if someone want kill ppl, he'll find many way to do it.

This is like saying "their firearms aren't the problem. If we want to kill them, we'll find a way to do it" when a nation without firearms faced invading people with firearms. Guns are a massive game changer in human affairs. Pretending that there's no difference in the ease and speed of killing is either dishonest or just plain confused thinking. I doubt you actually believe that either.