The thread regarding the terrible events in Las Vegas has been pretty well-frequented, but in order to separate the issue of "what is to be done" from updates about events as they continue to unfold (in terms of death toll, motives of the shooter etc.), I started this thread to discuss how these events can be prevented in future.

Now, I realize that this is a contentious issue and that some of you will come out strongly in favor of gun control, while others will be opposed to new measures to restrict firearms ownership. So please let's have a thoughtful and considered discussion without mud-slinging. Please be respectful of the opinions of other users and their reasons for taking that position. There's probably more common ground to be had than you may think.

I'll kick things off firstly by stating that I am, as a general rule, pro-2nd Amendment and pro-gun ownership. However, my opinion is that there should be a two-pronged approach:

1. Take further steps to prevent mentally ill individuals from accessing firearms. This would be relatively simple to implement - just requires a quick background check, though I realize that that in itself is a contentious suggestion. While we don't know what motivated the shooter in Las Vegas, we have seen a number of cases where the shooter has been mentally ill and plainly should never have been able to access a weapon.

2. A change in the way that mental health problems are treated and discussed. Instead of trying to push this element of society to the fringe, it would be far more prudent to provide better support and counselling. I'm a small-government conservative, but I do think that the government would see a significant "return on investment" if it were to make accessing mental health services easier and cheaper (preferably free altogether, because it isn't an issue that can really be ignored). Far better to be able to intervene and help a person before they get to the point of doing something incredibly stupid.

So, please feel free to chime in with your suggestions. But please let's keep the conversation civil and thoughtful - it's a serious subject and demands thoughtfulness and sensitivity.

To inflict this much damage, the shooter must have used a assault type weapon which President Ronald Reagan stated:

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

I agree with him, and as a retired law enforcement officer, I see no reason why a citizen needs this type of weapon..So if they weapons were banned, like they were before it would follow the number of high casualty shooting would be decreased.

910A wrote:

To inflict this much damage, the shooter must have used a assault type weapon which President Ronald Reagan stated:

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

I agree with him, and as a retired law enforcement officer, I see no reason why a citizen needs this type of weapon..So if they weapons were banned, like they were before it would follow the number of high casualty shooting would be decreased.

I don't see why anyone would possibly need a machine gun either. Law enforcement officials across the US are not, to my knowledge, equipped with that sort of weaponry. I'm not sure there is any argument which would justify owning a machine gun.

But when it comes to assault weapons more generally; that's where opinion starts to divide. Semi-automatic rifles, for example, divide opinion. Some think that they ought be allowed - others would like to see them banned. I think the general NRA position is pro.

KLDC10 wrote:

910A wrote:

To inflict this much damage, the shooter must have used a assault type weapon which President Ronald Reagan stated:

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense,” he said. “But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

I agree with him, and as a retired law enforcement officer, I see no reason why a citizen needs this type of weapon..So if they weapons were banned, like they were before it would follow the number of high casualty shooting would be decreased.

I don't see why anyone would possibly need a machine gun either. Law enforcement officials across the US are not, to my knowledge, equipped with that sort of weaponry. I'm not sure there is any argument which would justify owning a machine gun.

But when it comes to assault weapons more generally; that's where opinion starts to divide. Semi-automatic rifles, for example, divide opinion. Some think that they ought be allowed - others would like to see them banned. I think the general NRA position is pro.

Nearly every department in the country has a unit that has some sort of machine gun, either in sub-machine gun form or something like an M16. Duty officers may not carry them, but the department has access to them. Buying a machine gun as a civilian is like buying a Ferrari, they're outrageously expensive and have limited practicality, more just for fun on the range.

Terrorism and mass killings cannot be prevented. Just take them as a "natural disaster" like a hurricane, typhoon, or earthquake (and hundreds died just like week in Mexico and hundreds more in the hurricanes without much fanfare), since humans are part of nature, and move on.

Why can't licenses be required to purchase a gun? At the very least it shows that the person has trained and shown to be adept at handling weaponry.

Why can't a database be instituted so that any sales that raise eyebrows are tracked? It's one thing if Joe Average goes to his local gun shop and buys ammunition or decides to purchase a new gun; it's another when bad hombre Joe Average hits up different stores and buys different weapons of different types in a short time span.

Why can't all sales be monitored and certified by a 3rd party? A certificate of such a sale should accompany said weapons.

None of these tell an American that they can't have a gun, but if we have to go through lots of hurdles to be able to vote, going through similar hurdles for a gun should be right up that alley.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Why can't licenses be required to purchase a gun? At the very least it shows that the person has trained and shown to be adept at handling weaponry.

I think this one goes back to the 2nd Amendment. Lots of people have an objection to the government "taking a right and selling you it back". Personally, I don't think you should need a license to have a gun in your own home or use it at a range/on private property, but if you're going to be wandering the streets with it, then some kind of training would be good.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Why can't a database be instituted so that any sales that raise eyebrows are tracked? It's one thing if Joe Average goes to his local gun shop and buys ammunition or decides to purchase a new gun; it's another when bad hombre Joe Average hits up different stores and buys different weapons of different types in a short time span.

The NRA and other gun-advocacy groups are vigorously opposed to anything resembling a gun registry. I don't think it would get off the ground. In fact, the chances of any laws to restrict gun ownership passing Congress are slim. That's why I think the focus needs to be on mental health and preventing individuals from getting anywhere near the point that they go out, buy a gun and start shooting people at random.

CometII wrote:

Terrorism and mass killings cannot be prevented. Just take them as a "natural disaster" like a hurricane, typhoon, or earthquake (and hundreds died just like week in Mexico and hundreds more in the hurricanes without much fanfare), since humans are part of nature, and move on.

That's the spirit!

They sure don't seem to be much of an issue in most other developed countries.

But I guess we're in "hurricane territory" and Hurricane Stephen was the most recent Cat-5.

I do have some thoughts. The word "act of cowardice" is very very important. I was pleased to see it used.

It is VERY important to strip the manhood away from this piece of garbage shooter. He should be referred to, not as a man, not by a name, but as a "piece of trash" and "worthless coward" by the police chief, governor and by the PRESS consistently and as a standard protocol. Again this is VERY Important and will prevent future mass shootings.

His body should be given to the victims to do with it what they wish immediately after it is examined. His loved ones should be interrogated, but not tortured, for a period of one year.

This man's cowardice cost us 58 people and 500 injured. We need to be on the lookout for weak, cowardly men who may be a danger. A strong man would never do a thing like this.

Mass terrorist shootings events in the USA have been around just over 50 years, with the University of Texas 'Tower' shooting in 1964 (?) being the best known earliest one. That shooting event was not long after the assassination of President Kennedy with massive TV coverage of it. To me one perverse incentive for these and other terror acts including religious, anti-government and political acts seems to be the mass media coverage of them. Too many shooters want to go down to their deaths so remembered in the history books. Far too often they are people on the margins of society, often have serious issues with relationships, keeping jobs, move from one idea or cause to another.
Unfortunately it is impossible to cut off the media from covering such events but I do wish some delay and holding back of info in their coverage to assure accuracy, not falsely accuse some one, group or religion, not showing the affects of their actions, as well as not having victims in shock interviewed by the media that may encourage such acts.

Some thoughts.

Firstly, realize you can't prevent all mass shootings.

Secondly, the barrier to access to mental health care needs to be as low as possible.

Third, more closely control of weapons especially those semi-automatics

Last but certainly not least, a more fair and just society.

Flighty wrote:

I do have some thoughts. The word "act of cowardice" is very very important. I was pleased to see it used.

It is VERY important to strip the manhood away from this piece of garbage shooter. He should be referred to, not as a man, not by a name, but as a "piece of trash" and "worthless coward" by the police chief, governor and by the PRESS consistently and as a standard protocol. Again this is VERY Important and will prevent future mass shootings.

No it won't. Dehumanizing somebody never helps with anything. If you're already deranged enough to think killing a bunch of people makes you a hero, then the media telling you it doesn't will make no difference. Dividing people into humans and "trash" is temporarily comforting for us, but it does precisely nothing to enlighten us as to what really caused this tragedy.

His body should be given to the victims to do with it what they wish immediately after it is examined. His loved ones should be interrogated, but not tortured, for a period of one year.

Another horrible idea, borne from anger not a cool head. It helps nobody and just causes more suffering to those who in all likelihood have done nothing to deserve it.

This man's cowardice cost us 58 people and 500 injured. We need to be on the lookout for weak, cowardly men who may be a danger. A strong man would never do a thing like this.

Oh, well that's easy then. How exactly do we spot these "weak men"? And what do we do when we find them?

KLDC10 wrote:

However, my opinion is that there should be a two-pronged approach:

I agree with you, but unfortunately mental health only gets talked about for ten minutes after each mass shooting, and it's then promptly forgotten about. I'm certainly not holding my breath.

I don't think anything effective can be done anymore, it's too late. There are just too many guns out there. There also just isn't the will to change any laws, thanks to the NRA propaganda. When nothing was done after those kids were gunned down in an elementary school, I knew there and then nothing would ever get done.

Americans want the right to bear arms? Don't want any background checks? Well, today's events are the consequence of your demands.

The chance of getting universal health care passed is close to diddly-squat, so the mental health thing is most likely a no-go.

Happy days!

bgm wrote:

I don't think anything effective can be done anymore, it's too late. There are just too many guns out there. There also just isn't the will to change any laws, thanks to the NRA propaganda. When nothing was done after those kids were gunned down in an elementary school, I knew there and then nothing would ever get done.

Americans want the right to bear arms? Don't want any background checks? Well, today's events are the consequence of your demands.

The chance of getting universal health care passed is close to diddly-squat, so the mental health thing is most likely a no-go.

Happy days!

Propaganda? I may not agree with every move the NRA makes, but in general, they support the core of people who support the 2A. There already are background checks, but you chose to ignore them. Liberals only like facts when it supports their argument. Anything short of a full, 100% confiscation of firearms does nothing. And a full 100% confiscation of firearms, without a constitutional amendment backing it, is 100% asking for a civil war.

I suspect background checking, psych testing/evaluation over a period of time and licensing (with yearly renewals) might be the only way to stop this, short of giving every person and kid a machine gun.

I don't know. The whole thing is so far gone it may be impossible to fix this. Perhaps we have to accept this as the norm and treat it as a non newsworthy event, like a minor traffic accident. I really don't know. Something has to change radically and quickly before it can happen again.

I think it will take a leader with courage and conviction to bring change.

(Note: I just read the news, only just seeing how bad the shooting is)

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Propaganda? I may not agree with every move the NRA makes, but in general, they support the core of people who support the 2A. There already are background checks, but you chose to ignore them. Liberals only like facts when it supports their argument. Anything short of a full, 100% confiscation of firearms does nothing. And a full 100% confiscation of firearms, without a constitutional amendment backing it, is 100% asking for a civil war.

And there you go with propaganda. "100% full confiscation"? No. "Liberals only"? No. "Background checks" that are comprehensive and do not have easy to get around loopholes? No.

Propaganda, not the NRA but right here it is you. The simple fact is that if there is ANY suggestion of legislation to place some type of control on obtaining a gun a whole batch of fear mongering like what you present is released. Look for it in the coming weeks.

Of course discussion on this topic is basically useless so I just accept the fact that hundreds of people will die in the years ahead of us. Deaths that are empty, meaningless, and that possible could have been prevented. I will do what I can to prevent that and will support salient, considered legislation to place more controls on gun ownership.
But that's me, I don't need to argue it.

Tugg

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Propaganda? I may not agree with every move the NRA makes, but in general, they support the core of people who support the 2A. There already are background checks, but you chose to ignore them. Liberals only like facts when it supports their argument. Anything short of a full, 100% confiscation of firearms does nothing. And a full 100% confiscation of firearms, without a constitutional amendment backing it, is 100% asking for a civil war.

I rest my case. You're spouting the propaganda that I was talking about, almost verbatim.

Just remember, every time this happens, people like you have blood on your hands. You didn't pull the trigger, but you obstruct any kind of action that may have prevented it from happening.

The US is already in a civil war, these mass shootings are Americans gunning down other Americans. You want to build a wall to keep people out, yet it's your fellow citizens who present the biggest danger to you.

Tugger wrote:

Of course discussion on this topic is basically useless so I just accept the fact that hundreds of people will die in the years ahead of us. Deaths that are empty, meaningless, and that possible could have been prevented. I will do what I can to prevent that and will support salient, considered legislation to place more controls on gun ownership.

That's exactly how I feel too.

Sadness and resignation to the fact that more will happen.

Tugger wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Propaganda? I may not agree with every move the NRA makes, but in general, they support the core of people who support the 2A. There already are background checks, but you chose to ignore them. Liberals only like facts when it supports their argument. Anything short of a full, 100% confiscation of firearms does nothing. And a full 100% confiscation of firearms, without a constitutional amendment backing it, is 100% asking for a civil war.

And there you go with propaganda. "100% full confiscation"? No. "Liberals only"? No. "Background checks" that are comprehensive and do not have easy to get around loopholes? No.

Propaganda, not the NRA but right here it is you. The simple fact is that if there is ANY suggestion of legislation to place some type of control on obtaining a gun a whole batch of fear mongering like what you present is released. Look for it in the coming weeks.

Of course discussion on this topic is basically useless so I just accept the fact that hundreds of people will die in the years ahead of us. Deaths that are empty, meaningless, and that possible could have been prevented. I will do what I can to prevent that and will support salient, considered legislation to place more controls on gun ownership.
But that's me, I don't need to argue it.

Tugg

So, Tugg's got it all figured out. He bought the guns via a loophole. Guess we can send the ATF home to not do the 4473 traces they're doing. What loophole did the shooter use to purchase these guns?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

So, Tugg's got it all figured out. He bought the guns via a loophole. Guess we can send the ATF home to not do the 4473 traces they're doing. What loophole did the shooter use to purchase these guns?

Really? I said that? "I have it all figured out" I did? Not.
Why are you again trying to attribute something where it does not belong and take something to an extreme? I assume it is to discredit someone (me and anyone who might think along similar lines) and support a point you are trying to make (that people who propose any controls on guns is unknowledgeable, unreasonable, or uninformed)? Because as far I know (and I know me pretty well) I was not talking about this shooter or this incident in particular (there is another thread for that) and was just sharing some basic examples of my thoughts on what might be good things to look at. But feel free to attack away and try to make my voice seem desperate or "extreme".

People killing people will never be stopped, it can't be. But it does not mean that discussing thoughts on how to diminish such things should not be openly discussed and certain solutions embraced. Even if it won't solve everything.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

Why are you again trying to attribute something where it does not belong and take something to an extreme?

Because that's how the gun advocates work - as soon as anyone has the temerity to use the words "gun control", they immediately become a gun-grabbing liberal. You know, an extreme.

Tugger wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

So, Tugg's got it all figured out. He bought the guns via a loophole. Guess we can send the ATF home to not do the 4473 traces they're doing. What loophole did the shooter use to purchase these guns?

Really? I said that? "I have it all figured out" I did? Not.
Why are you again trying to attribute something where it does not belong and take something to an extreme? I assume it is to discredit someone (me and anyone who might think along similar lines) and support a point you are trying to make (that people who propose any controls on guns is unknowledgeable, unreasonable, or uninformed)? Because as far I know (and I know me pretty well) I was not talking about this shooter or this incident in particular (there is another thread for that) and was just sharing some basic examples of my thoughts on what might be good things to look at. But feel free to attack away and try to make my voice seem desperate or "extreme".

People killing people will never be stopped, it can't be. But it does not mean that discussing thoughts on how to diminish such things should not be openly discussed and certain solutions embraced. Even if it won't solve everything.

Tugg

You said he used a loophole. Which one was it Tugg?

scbriml wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Why are you again trying to attribute something where it does not belong and take something to an extreme?

Because that's how the gun advocates work - as soon as anyone has the temerity to use the words "gun control", they immediately become a gun-grabbing liberal. You know, an extreme.

*ahem*

bgm wrote:

Just remember, every time this happens, people like you have blood on your hands.

It seems that's how the other side works, too. Or, is the use of extremes allowed when it is coming from the left?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

You said he used a loophole.

Why post such an easily refutable lie? Do you not think people are going to scroll up and check?

zckls04 wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

You said he used a loophole.

Why post such an easily refutable lie? Do you not think people are going to scroll up and check?

Hey, if you project confidence, people take what you say at face value
But seriously; this is the kind of mud-slinging I had hoped to avoid. Not you, zckls04, but the back and forth to which your post refers.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

You said he used a loophole. Which one was it Tugg?

Seriously Diamond, where did I say that? I was responding to a post by you where you brought up background checks and noted they have loopholes that are abused. I never mentioned the current Vegas mass killing so how did I say "he used a loophole"?

Tugg

NoTime wrote:

It seems that's how the other side works, too. Or, is the use of extremes allowed when it is coming from the left?

I think part of the problem is people are shifting to discussing "a side" and blanketing the person they are speaking/responding to with everything they believe "that side" stands for or wants to do. But individual people are not "a side", you NoTime aren't, I am not, no one is.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

NoTime wrote:

It seems that's how the other side works, too. Or, is the use of extremes allowed when it is coming from the left?

I think part of the problem is people are shifting to discussing "a side" and blanketing the person they are speaking/responding to with everything they believe "that side" stands for or wants to do. But individual people are not "a side", you NoTime aren't, I am not, no one is.

Well, that's kind of the pastime around here... from just about everyone... but, in the interest of getting things headed back towards the topic -

I think any effective change has to start with the mental health aspect of the problem. The father of the Vegas shooter was apparently a diagnosed psychopath, and there is apparently a significant genetic operation with that (and other) mental illnesses. The Sandy Hook shooter had a slew of mental health problems. The Santa Barbara shooter had mental problems. The Denver movie theater shooter had mental health problems. The list goes on and on...

The hard part is introducing worthwhile steps to guarantee mental wellness without stepping on people's rights.

I agree with an earlier post that a full gun registry is a non-starter and will never happen. Especially after the Obama administration effectively weaponized certain parts of the government and various newspapers have already published the names and addresses of gun owners in their cities in the name of public safety.

zckls04 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I do have some thoughts. The word "act of cowardice" is very very important. I was pleased to see it used.

It is VERY important to strip the manhood away from this piece of garbage shooter. He should be referred to, not as a man, not by a name, but as a "piece of trash" and "worthless coward" by the police chief, governor and by the PRESS consistently and as a standard protocol. Again this is VERY Important and will prevent future mass shootings.

No it won't. Dehumanizing somebody never helps with anything. If you're already deranged enough to think killing a bunch of people makes you a hero, then the media telling you it doesn't will make no difference. Dividing people into humans and "trash" is temporarily comforting for us, but it does precisely nothing to enlighten us as to what really caused this tragedy.

His body should be given to the victims to do with it what they wish immediately after it is examined. His loved ones should be interrogated, but not tortured, for a period of one year.

Another horrible idea, borne from anger not a cool head. It helps nobody and just causes more suffering to those who in all likelihood have done nothing to deserve it.

This man's cowardice cost us 58 people and 500 injured. We need to be on the lookout for weak, cowardly men who may be a danger. A strong man would never do a thing like this.

Oh, well that's easy then. How exactly do we spot these "weak men"? And what do we do when we find them?

KLDC10 wrote:

However, my opinion is that there should be a two-pronged approach:

I agree with you, but unfortunately mental health only gets talked about for ten minutes after each mass shooting, and it's then promptly forgotten about. I'm certainly not holding my breath.

You say "dehumanizing never solves anything." THis gives me pause. I am definitely in favor of dehumanizing shooters. It is like a rabid raccoon. You just kill it,.

As unappealing as it is, we need to get inside the heads of these creeps and see what they want. So we can make sure they DON'T get what they want by shooting a bunch of people.

What did this guy want? Probably ye wanted to be known as a powerful, angry, important man who in the end, got his way over the general public that had disrespected him in some way.

We need to make sure this guy doesn't get what he wants. Shooting people is not the answer. Printing his name rewards him. Exploring what went wrong in his head humanizes him. This only encourages the shooter and breeds more. We need to be serious about this. We need it to go as badly as possible for him. We need others to understand the shame and failure that occurs when you kill.

Flighty wrote:

We need to make sure this guy doesn't get what he wants. Shooting people is not the answer. Printing his name rewards him. Exploring what went wrong in his head humanizes him. This only encourages the shooter and breeds more. We need to be serious about this. We need it to go as badly as possible for him. We need others to understand the shame and failure that occurs when you kill.

Except for the fact that he is dead. For him, there is no shame, no failure, no getting what he wants, no reward. There is nothing for him anymore, except nothing.

Exploring what went wrong in his head is a potential path to prevention.

Flighty wrote:

His loved ones should be interrogated, but not tortured, for a period of one year.

His loved ones may not know anything. You are saying they should be subjected to a YEAR of interrogation, with no recourse?

Flighty wrote:

What did this guy want? Probably ye wanted to be known as a powerful, angry, important man who in the end, got his way over the general public that had disrespected him in some way.

We need to make sure this guy doesn't get what he wants. Shooting people is not the answer. Printing his name rewards him. Exploring what went wrong in his head humanizes him. This only encourages the shooter and breeds more. We need to be serious about this. We need it to go as badly as possible for him. We need others to understand the shame and failure that occurs when you kill.

You're applying a rational mind to solving the problem of how an irrational mind works. In reality a lot of people don't act rationally or predictably. They don't weigh up the pros and cons of performing a mass shooting, considering whether or not their names will be published in the press, or how they will be viewed by the general public. If they do consider those things their perceptions often don't match reality.

I guess the first thing to ask ourselves is why doesn't this happen to other countries especially in third world countries with much more looser gun restrictions? Like why is crime in Chicago much worse than say Jakarta or Bangkok?

It's really American society IMO. Like, everybody is angry or has some kind of mental or emotional issue. Like random slashing in NYC, etc.

I observe when taking the subway in NYC, like everybody is yelling and cussing at each other. Fighting, etc. Doesn't happen in cities like Manila or KL.

Also, why doesn't these things happen in Hawaii?!

Flighty wrote:

His body should be given to the victims to do with it what they wish immediately after it is examined.

His loved ones should be interrogated, but not tortured, for a period of one year.

I've become used to you saying stupid things.

But here you've managed to say two stupid things separated only by a single period.

Congratulations.

I'd really like to know one thing from you: For how many generations are the sins of the father visited upon his children?

"I'm totally safe with my gun its the others who are unsafe however please don't check that I'm safe and make me have to prove it because I preach responsibility but cannot prove that I am"

In many countries, there is daily news of people committing suicide. But not often, have I come across any incident where a person taking his/her life away has also taken other people's lives as well.

Why is it that we see people in some countries like the US, people with mental illness want to kill other people as well before killing themselves?

KLDC10 wrote:

I don't see why anyone would possibly need a machine gun either. Law enforcement officials across the US are not, to my knowledge, equipped with that sort of weaponry. I'm not sure there is any argument which would justify owning a machine gun.

But when it comes to assault weapons more generally; that's where opinion starts to divide. Semi-automatic rifles, for example, divide opinion. Some think that they ought be allowed - others would like to see them banned. I think the general NRA position is pro.

I don't have an issue with semi auto hunting rifles and shotguns, they have a purpose but when it's something like an AR15 or AK47 type weapon which is a semi auto version of a military assault rifle then I do have an issue. These weapons are easy to covert to full auto or can be used with slide fire stock like our man in Vegas did, nobody needs a weapon like this and noboby needs 100 round magazines for them either. These are weapons designed to kill humans not animals.

CometII wrote:

Terrorism and mass killings cannot be prevented. Just take them as a "natural disaster" like a hurricane, typhoon, or earthquake (and hundreds died just like week in Mexico and hundreds more in the hurricanes without much fanfare), since humans are part of nature, and move on.

Yet most first world nations have effectively stopped mass killings, American is the exception.

As for terrorism do you propose we do nothing and let them get on with killing us?

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Propaganda? I may not agree with every move the NRA makes, but in general, they support the core of people who support the 2A. There already are background checks, but you chose to ignore them. Liberals only like facts when it supports their argument. Anything short of a full, 100% confiscation of firearms does nothing. And a full 100% confiscation of firearms, without a constitutional amendment backing it, is 100% asking for a civil war.

And you fail to recognise that weapons bought at gun fairs don't require a background check, also if the background check takes longer than 3 days the sale can go through without the check being completed. It's pretty simple anyone who owns a weapon should have a license to cover that weapon, it's just like voter registration, you have to register to vote which is a constitutional right so why shouldn't you have to register to own a gun??

scbriml wrote:

Tugger wrote:

Why are you again trying to attribute something where it does not belong and take something to an extreme?

Because that's how the gun advocates work - as soon as anyone has the temerity to use the words "gun control", they immediately become a gun-grabbing liberal. You know, an extreme.

Well you know I am not a big gun guy I do have 2 pistols a 9mm and a 380. I am not a hunter but I have a conceal carry permit and the big thing that drove me too it was when I was robbed at gunpoint in front of my house. But I do understand the push back from gun owners when liberal lawmakers try to make what would appear to be common sense laws to prevent accidents especially kids which appears to happen more often than it should with stupid irresponsible gun owners leaving them where a child could get his/her hands on it. Take the "smart gun" law that Loretta Weinberg introduced in NJ well here again I think most sensible people would not have a problem with a smart gun but what she did was say if a smart gun is sold anywhere in the US that the ONLY gun that could be purchased in NJ was a smart gun. That was her big mistake. If she had been smarter about it and let the free market introduce it people could have had the chance to decide if they wanted to buy it but because of her the smart gun went no where and there was vehement opposition to smart guns after that. Even Weinberg admitted she went too far and this is the fear gun owners have with liberals their fear whether founded or unfounded is that they will never be happy with just one law they will get one pushed then move on to an even more restrictive one than another. I see their point even though I believe in extensive background checks and I really do not see the need for any assault weapons myself.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/04/weinbe ... z4uRX4fMnW

Here's a question that came to mind this morning:

The 2nd Amendment is construed to imply that it's the citizenry's way to defend itself against a rogue state. But just when exactly does it start coming into effect? When do I have the right to say that I'm defending myself against what I perceive is a rogue state?

Would Japanese Americans back in WW2 been able to use their 2nd Amendment right to defend themselves against forced internment?
If my state says it's OK to have a small amount of pot and federal agents come to arrest me, wouldn't that qualify as a perception of a rogue authority coming for me?
If someone born to immigrants in this country (ie. they're a citizen) is old enough and purchases a gun, could they defend their immigrant parents from ICE?

I'd be willing to support the notion that guns are just for self-defense (they stay at home) or for sport (hunting, shooting range, etc.) and maybe that's what the framers intended. Until we agree on why the 2nd Amendment was introduced in the first place (or where its limits are), mass shootings will continue to happen.

Yet most first world nations have effectively stopped mass killings, American is the exception.

If much of the developed world have found a solution to this issue.. why is it that 300+million Americans cannot figure this out??

Kiwirob wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Propaganda? I may not agree with every move the NRA makes, but in general, they support the core of people who support the 2A. There already are background checks, but you chose to ignore them. Liberals only like facts when it supports their argument. Anything short of a full, 100% confiscation of firearms does nothing. And a full 100% confiscation of firearms, without a constitutional amendment backing it, is 100% asking for a civil war.

And you fail to recognise that weapons bought at gun fairs don't require a background check, also if the background check takes longer than 3 days the sale can go through without the check being completed. It's pretty simple anyone who owns a weapon should have a license to cover that weapon, it's just like voter registration, you have to register to vote which is a constitutional right so why shouldn't you have to register to own a gun??

I assume by gun fair, you're meaning gunshow. Which, is false. Any gun dealer at a gun show must use the same process they use at their individual place of business, requiring a 4473 prior to transferring the gun. A private individual selling a gun to another private individual, doesn't federally require such a check.

My cousin bought a handgun at a gun show about two years ago when he and his girlfriend were doing a US roadtrip, his only ID was his NZ passport and drivers license. No checks were done. After three months in the US they handed the gun over to a police station in LA because they didn't know what to do with it and you can't own a handgun in NZ.

Kiwirob wrote:

My cousin bought a handgun at a gun show about two years ago when he and his girlfriend were doing a US roadtrip, his only ID was his NZ passport and drivers license. No checks were done. After three months in the US they handed the gun over to a police station in LA because they didn't know what to do with it and you can't own a handgun in NZ.

So he and the seller committed a felony. Explain to me how more laws would have prevented that? Why don't we enforce those currently on the book.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

My cousin bought a handgun at a gun show about two years ago when he and his girlfriend were doing a US roadtrip, his only ID was his NZ passport and drivers license. No checks were done. After three months in the US they handed the gun over to a police station in LA because they didn't know what to do with it and you can't own a handgun in NZ.

So he and the seller committed a felony. Explain to me how more laws would have prevented that? Why don't we enforce those currently on the book.

Would you be OK with a central register of handguns, so that the cops can go after those people whose guns suddenly go missing and end up in the wrong hands?

If a law has no teeth it's worthless.

JJJ wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

My cousin bought a handgun at a gun show about two years ago when he and his girlfriend were doing a US roadtrip, his only ID was his NZ passport and drivers license. No checks were done. After three months in the US they handed the gun over to a police station in LA because they didn't know what to do with it and you can't own a handgun in NZ.

So he and the seller committed a felony. Explain to me how more laws would have prevented that? Why don't we enforce those currently on the book.

Would you be OK with a central register of handguns, so that the cops can go after those people whose guns suddenly go missing and end up in the wrong hands?

If a law has no teeth it's worthless.

No, a registration of guns is a terrible idea. All a database of registration is used for is to forcibly confiscate guns.

The mental health part of this, as the OP first posited, is what strikes me.

In the overwhelming number of school shootings and such, there is the presence of psychotropic drugs. As of last year, in fact, 90% if not more by now, were linked to antidepressants and/or ADHD meds.

When you factor in other mental illnesses, it does make one think. I haven't read enough about the Vegas perpetrator to know if this applies (gambling issues anecdotally reported, who knows what path that takes one down), but the discussion is a good one to have.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

JJJ wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

So he and the seller committed a felony. Explain to me how more laws would have prevented that? Why don't we enforce those currently on the book.

Would you be OK with a central register of handguns, so that the cops can go after those people whose guns suddenly go missing and end up in the wrong hands?

If a law has no teeth it's worthless.

No, a registration of guns is a terrible idea. All a database of registration is used for is to forcibly confiscate guns.

So your laws against personal transfer are worthless. All the seller had to say is "eh, I dunno, I lost it" and he walks unless there's a mountain of evidence.

Personal responsibility is sorely lacking.

As long as the NRA pays for Politicans, no changes will be made. There are too many stupid people that think self regulation is the way to go.

We will continue to get nice form letters that are referenced in the video within this article that makes it legal for companies to sell bump stocks that raise a semi automatic into a device that can spray bullets at an alarming rate. And when a madman buys 43 of said devices. Then he is just a well regulated militia until the 10 minutes he uses these weapons to kill and injure hundreds.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ump-stock/


Sure it's cool, it's cheap, but in the hands of a psycho, it is deadly as hell.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

No, a registration of guns is a terrible idea. All a database of registration is used for is to forcibly confiscate guns.

Like the gummint confiscated all your registered vehicles?

You sound very paranoid.