Las Vegas mass shooting going on

[Ric in RVA]

Originally Posted by atam1980

Normally I'd agree with you, but one of my close friends was one of the 59 that died. As of now, police still have no motive and we're all still left wondering what she died for. His death wasn't closure at all.

I am sorry for your loss.

R

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

I don't want to trivialise the deceased and commiserations to this affected, but I saw this elsewhere today and thought I'd share it with you....

Start

Do you know what #whiteprivilege is?

It is to murder over 50 people and injure 450, only to have authorities claim, within minutes and without any verification, that you are not a terrorist.

It is to commit the largest mass murder and shooting in recent American history, and be described as a 'retired grandfather'.

It is to inflict pain and suffering on others, and not have to worry that a single person of your race, or religion, or your women and children, face any backlash for your crime.

It is to kill (or rape, or loot, or plunder, or colonize...) and get away with it without bringing up irrelevant issues like religion, Scripture, culture, theology or ideology. As of this writing, we still have no idea of the religion and beliefs of the killer.

It is, essentially, to consider any such incident to be a freak accident, and let life continue without changing any policies, or calling for national dialogues about laws on immigration, tolerance of others, gun ownership, cultural differences (such as dress codes), and the list goes on and on.

PS. This post in no way intends to trivialize the tragic loss of life. My sincerest condolences to the families of the victims in this horrible tragedy.

End

Please FUCK OFF

I will only address your #whiteprivilege terrorism assertion. Apparently many people have not looked at the definition of terrorism, here it is "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." without a political or ideological aim you do not have a terrorist.

We don't know if he is a terrorist yet.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by 1 AKY

I don't want to trivialise the deceased and commiserations to this affected, but I saw this elsewhere today and thought I'd share it with you....

Start

Do you know what #whiteprivilege is?

It is to murder over 50 people and injure 450, only to have authorities claim, within minutes and without any verification, that you are not a terrorist.

It is to commit the largest mass murder and shooting in recent American history, and be described as a 'retired grandfather'.

It is to inflict pain and suffering on others, and not have to worry that a single person of your race, or religion, or your women and children, face any backlash for your crime.

It is to kill (or rape, or loot, or plunder, or colonize...) and get away with it without bringing up irrelevant issues like religion, Scripture, culture, theology or ideology. As of this writing, we still have no idea of the religion and beliefs of the killer.

It is, essentially, to consider any such incident to be a freak accident, and let life continue without changing any policies, or calling for national dialogues about laws on immigration, tolerance of others, gun ownership, cultural differences (such as dress codes), and the list goes on and on.

PS. This post in no way intends to trivialize the tragic loss of life. My sincerest condolences to the families of the victims in this horrible tragedy.

End

The problem with this guy he is not fitting into any of the stereotypes the modern media would like to put people onto to explain away what happen. Even Gun nut does not fit since his guns were obviously purchase for one purpose and it was new found interest not something he did for years.

Let all keep in mind that far worse has been done to human society in the name of religious belief, a political view, some fundamental ideology. or government mandate.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by atam1980

Normally I'd agree with you, but one of my close friends was one of the 59 that died. As of now, police still have no motive and we're all still left wondering what she died for. His death wasn't closure at all.

I was wondering if any one from this community had been directly affected. They said events like this impact 100's of thousands of people without people realizing it.

Sorry for your loss...

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by MrRoboto

No way he could have killed ~58 and wounded ~530 with a hunting rifle and scope in that time frame.

I don't think he shot those 530 people. My guess is the majority of injuries are people trying to escape being lumped in with the statistics. We know how the media likes to up their numbers.

[MrRoboto]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

I don't think he shot those 530 people. My guess is the majority of injuries are people trying to escape being lumped in with the statistics. We know how the media likes to up their numbers.

The real number doesn't matter 500, 400, even 20. The fact is these people were injured as a result to the shooting regardless if they were hit by gunfire or trying to escape.

[Flying Ace]

Rolling Stone wrote a good opinion article on what the gun lobby has left in their argument for more sensible gun control.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...excuse-w506851

I'd like to hear people thoughts on why gun-show loopholes or assault weapon bans aren't needed today, in addition to other common-sense legislation like large magazine bans, putting an end to sale of illegal modifications, etc.

Also, please read the damn article before commenting. Try not to fall into the nonsensical mindset that the "tyrant will get me otherwise".

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Ric in RVA

What law prevents someone who has decided to commit murder? "I think I will abide by the new guns laws...even though I am going to commit murder" never happened ever.

Laws don't apply to criminals.

And don't get me started on confiscation. It won't happen and even if it did the non law abiding will not comply which makes the situation for the law abiding even worse.

this is a flawed argument.

1. I agree criminals going to do what they going to do. But it's the tool that they use that is clearly the problem here. If this guy had a handgun, would he have been able to do what he did here?

2. No one ever said they want to confiscate guns. Not Obama, not the Clintons, no one. If you can provide clear evidence that's not from some conspiracy website that indicate otherwise, please show it to us.


What MOST American agree on is sensible gun control laws. Gun show loopholes, assault style rifle restrictions, ban and crackdown on modifications. I am open to your opinion on not doing these things...so go ahead and share why these sensible laws aren't needed.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

I'd like to hear people thoughts on why gun-show loopholes...

Sure, it doesn't exist. An FFL operating at a gun-show still has to conduct the same background check it does at a storefront.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

...or assault weapon bans aren't needed today

Because actual assault weapons are already heavily regulated by the NFA and prohibitively expensive, whereas the '94 "Assault Weapons" Ban was in name only - all it did was restrict various aesthetics that had absolutely zero effect on the operation of the rifle in question.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

...in addition to other common-sense legislation like large magazine bans...

Why is this 'common sense'? What is a large magazine?

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

...putting an end to sale of illegal modifications, etc.

Such as?

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Also, please read the damn article before commenting. Try not to fall with the cycle the "tyrant will get me otherwise".

Did... and you know what? I can accept this as the price to pay for our freedom. Am I happy about it? Absolutely not - but freedom isn't free.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by nyalpine90

definitely sounded like rapid fire per recording that have been posted on certain sites from people that were there. 23 firearms? every time he ran out of ammo he picked up another?

that's correct. It was a well calculated strategy. Barrels overheat when firing rapidly. Short of him removing and change barrels, the only other way is to just simply have more guns.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by fravel

Sure, it doesn't exist. An FFL operating at a gun-show still has to conduct the same background check it does at a storefront.



Because actual assault weapons are already heavily regulated by the NFA and prohibitively expensive, whereas the '94 "Assault Weapons" Ban was in name only - all it did was restrict various aesthetics that had absolutely zero effect on the operation of the rifle in question.



Why is this 'common sense'? What is a large magazine?



Such as?



Did... and you know what? I can accept this as the price to pay for our freedom. Am I happy about it? Absolutely not - but freedom isn't free.

Sure, it doesn't exist. An FFL operating at a gun-show still has to conduct the same background check it does at a storefront.

so you and I agree something has to be done with gunshow loopholes, no matter how small of numbers of private to private transactions occur at these shows?


Because actual assault weapons are already heavily regulated by the NFA and prohibitively expensive, whereas the '94 "Assault Weapons" Ban was in name only - all it did was restrict various aesthetics that had absolutely zero effect on the operation of the rifle in question.
so why are people mad about it? If it's all aesthetics, then so be it. It at least doesn't play into some deranged person's mind that he's playing army



Why is this 'common sense'? What is a large magazine?
I meant high capacity magazine. Sure, allow sales of such to shooting ranges and all, but to an individual? That makes no sense to me.


Such as?
illegal mods to make gun automatic. They're already illegal in many states, but there's no collective federal enforcement to crack down on the sale of these.



Did... and you know what? I can accept this as the price to pay for our freedom. Am I happy about it? Absolutely not - but freedom isn't free.

this is what I'm curious about. What freedom are you talking about? Freedom from tyranny? Freedom from zombies? Freedom to feel like the Marlboro man? This blanket freedom statement is nonsensical. It's the flawed arguments the aforementioned article is talking about. There is no good reasonable freedom argument. The military is not staffed by conscripts, they are citizen soldiers. The police aren't conscripts, they are citizens and your neighbors, with active efforts to recruit from all aspects of society. I personally know military and police personnel. I can say without a doubt, tyranny is something they will not stand for, not stand with.

The single time when one person could have had an opportunity to be a tyrant, at his strongest position and at the country's weakest time, he elected to divest the power away. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.186d3010f979

sorry, you and I will disagree on this, but that's just how I see it.

Thanks for reading

[Vigilante375]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

this is a flawed argument.

1. I agree criminals going to do what they going to do. But it's the tool that they use that is clearly the problem here. If this guy had a handgun, would he have been able to do what he did here?

2. No one ever said they want to confiscate guns. Not Obama, not the Clintons, no one. If you can provide clear evidence that's not from some conspiracy website that indicate otherwise, please show it to us.


What MOST American agree on is sensible gun control laws. Gun show loopholes, assault style rifle restrictions, ban and crackdown on modifications. I am open to your opinion on not doing these things...so go ahead and share why these sensible laws aren't needed.

Maybe they didn't but what about Oregon Governors new weapon confiscation law? I see loop holes in that to have anyone lose their right to own a weapon. The bill has "legal" ways to prove that a person is not stable to own a weapon. Anyone can lie in court....

They have the right idea but the bill needs a little more refinement so there are no loop holes and it is clear that if you have a medical or criminal history, then you do not deserve to own a weapon. If you're next door neighbor doesn't like you, then they can just make up some false claim with "witnesses" to have your weapons taken away. Just how this bill will allow.

Then you have to prove your innocence but then your neighbor can just file another claim....and it starts all over again with no end.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by Vigilante375

Maybe they didn't but what about Oregon Governors new weapon confiscation law? I see loop holes in that to have anyone lose their right to own a weapon. The bill has "legal" ways to prove that a person is not stable to own a weapon. Anyone can lie in court....

They have the right idea but the bill needs a little more refinement so there are no loop holes and it is clear that if you have a medical or criminal history, then you do not deserve to own a weapon. If you're next door neighbor doesn't like you, then they can just make up some false claim with "witnesses" to have your weapons taken away. Just how this bill will allow.

agreed on this. A real sensible objective set of criteria is the best approach. But typical laws are always written in a crafty way to impart the government's subject understanding and view on the law. That's a terrible.

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

this is a flawed argument.

2. No one ever said they want to confiscate guns. Not Obama, not the Clintons, no one. If you can provide clear evidence that's not from some conspiracy website that indicate otherwise, please show it to us.

19 sec in

[fravel]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

so you and I agree something has to be done with gunshow loopholes, no matter how small of numbers of private to private transactions occur at these shows?

No, I don't believe the .gov has any business being involved in the private transactions of citizens, be it a TV or a gun.

Granted, in the private transactions you speak of, there are regulations in place for such. The seller still has to verify that the buyer is not subject to firearms disability, for example.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

so why are people mad about it? If it's all aesthetics, then so be it. It at least doesn't play into some deranged person's mind that he's playing army

I would ask you the same question - why so much support for something that amounts to nothing more than feel-good legislation?

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

I meant high capacity magazine. Sure, allow sales of such to shooting ranges and all, but to an individual? That makes no sense to me.

Ok, what is a 'high-capacity magazine'?

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

illegal mods to make gun automatic. They're already illegal in many states, but there's no collective federal enforcement to crack down on the sale of these.

Yes there is, it's called the BATFE, and they're quite heavy-handed when it comes to people violating the laws pertaining to automatic weapons.

Beyond that, I think you're grossly underestimating what would have to be done to a weapon to convert it to automatic fire. AR-15's, for example, can't simply have the trigger pack from an M-16 dropped into them.

Did... and you know what? I can accept this as the price to pay for our freedom. Am I happy about it? Absolutely not - but freedom isn't free.

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

this is what I'm curious about. What freedom are you talking about? Freedom from tyranny? [/b]

Ding ding ding - yes. I mentioned it in the other thread, but history has shown time and again that when a government is preparing to do something egregious, their first step is to disarm the populace. I don't fear gun confiscation, I fear what comes after.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by KenB925

19 sec in

So 1 senator has power to do what? Sure, some extreme politicians will think this way. Every politician in one form or another wants to restrict some type of "freedom" and push whatever agenda they have.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by fravel

No, I don't believe the .gov has any business being involved in the private transactions of citizens, be it a TV or a gun.

Granted, in the private transactions you speak of, there are regulations in place for such. The seller still has to verify that the buyer is not subject to firearms disability, for example.



I would ask you the same question - why so much support for something that amounts to nothing more than feel-good legislation?



Ok, what is a 'high-capacity magazine'?



Yes there is, it's called the BATFE, and they're quite heavy-handed when it comes to people violating the laws pertaining to automatic weapons.

Beyond that, I think you're grossly underestimating what would have to be done to a weapon to convert it to automatic fire. AR-15's, for example, can't simply have the trigger pack from an M-16 dropped into them.

Did... and you know what? I can accept this as the price to pay for our freedom. Am I happy about it? Absolutely not - but freedom isn't free.



Ding ding ding - yes. I mentioned it in the other thread, but history has shown time and again that when a government is preparing to do something egregious, their first step is to disarm the populace. I don't fear gun confiscation, I fear what comes after.

okay, so I'm going to end this conversation here. Another conspiracy theorist in the mist here. The "new world order is underway!" Your arguments fell straight into the conspiracy bucket that the opinion article was talking about.

You certain can think this way. But IMO, this is just not true.

[KenB925]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

So 1 senator has power to do what? Sure, some extreme politicians will think this way. Every politician in one form or another wants to restrict some type of "freedom".

I believe you said 'No one ever said they want to confiscate guns.' and ' If you can provide clear evidence that's not from some conspiracy website that indicate otherwise, please show it to us.'

and I did, now you are not satisfied.

At the time, and even today she is one of the most powerful members of congress.

[The Chaddening]

Originally Posted by KenB925

19 sec in

About a minute in. She says she would like to do a buyback program like Australia at the national level.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

okay, so I'm going to end this conversation here. Another conspiracy theorist in the mist here. The "new world order is underway!" Your arguments fell straight into the conspiracy bucket that the opinion article was talking about.

You certain can think this way. But IMO, this is just not true.

Sweet strawman bro, I said nothing about a new world order, I spoke of history.

A few recent examples:

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

You can "IMO" all you want, but facts don't care about your opinions.

[Flying Ace]

Originally Posted by fravel

Sweet strawman bro, I said nothing about a new world order, I spoke of history.

A few recent examples:

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

You can "IMO" all you want, but facts don't care about your opinions.

Wow just regurgitating history out of context? Have you even researched any of it?

Those examples are flawed as those are all countries with a long histories of autocracy before and after, and the specific times you're quoting are during brief chaotic periods of quasi-democracy and/or civil war. Would I trust those governments if I lived at that time with that history? Hello no.

Case in point: 1935 China was NOT a democracy. There was a raging civil war. The result of the war was a Stalinist style government. China was never a democracy before this time. Arms trafficking during times of civil war is expected. As such a government effort (if you can even call it a "government" at that time), to limit firearms is logical.

1911 and 1914-1923, Turkey, was far from democratic. It was the end of the Ottoman empire. They were at war with the Italians and themselves. Modern Turkey was just starting at that time and it was very autocratic and was led by a strong man.

1956 Cambodia was a Monarchy and autocracy, taking over from another autocracy (colonialism).

But this country is not the same. What history since 1776 can you point towards where the government is moving towards doing something "egregious"? George Washington himself had the opportunity to be a tyrant, but he did not. That was a point in US history where the country was at the weakest and Washington at his strongest, and yet he relinquished and divested his powers. This is exactly why USA is NOT the same as the countries your listed.

There is no good reasonable freedom argument. The military is not staffed by conscripts, they are citizen soldiers. The police aren't conscripts, they are citizens and your neighbors, with active efforts to recruit from all aspects of society. I personally know military and police personnel. I can say without a doubt, tyranny is something they will not stand for, not stand with.


Just to quote the article:

Where were all these heroic tyrannophobe gun owners during the unprecedented expansion of police and surveillance powers that took place after 9/11?

Answer: nowhere. We didn't hear them shrieking about habeas corpus becoming a joke in the Bush years, or torture and extrajudicial assassination becoming standard practices. We didn't hear them protesting the vast expansion of the classification of government documents, or complaining about the widespread abuse of material witness statutes, the national security letter provision of the Patriot Act, or a hundred other problems.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Flying Ace

Rolling Stone wrote a good opinion article on what the gun lobby has left in their argument for more sensible gun control.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...excuse-w506851

I'd like to hear people thoughts on why gun-show loopholes or assault weapon bans aren't needed today, in addition to other common-sense legislation like large magazine bans, putting an end to sale of illegal modifications, etc.

Also, please read the damn article before commenting. Try not to fall into the nonsensical mindset that the "tyrant will get me otherwise".

There is no "gun show loophole" Gun shows are populated by licensed vendors who run your background there just like their shop . The loophole is a private citizen can sell to another private citizen. I wouldn't be against this leaving family members exempt so you could buy or gift your 15 yr old a .22. That said they call it a gun show loophole because if you want to sell your gun and you're a private citizen, you can find buyers at a gun show.

Large magazines bans are silly. Yes, these mass shootings are bad, but you're more likely to be killed by lightning than in a mass shooting. Want to dramatically decrease them, enforce people who have psychological issues that are dangerous to be restricted from access to guns. The magazine's are out there. The only ones who won't have them if banned are the good guys. There is no sale of illegal modifications. Only criminals do that now. And another law won't correct that.

So in sum, if you want to stop the vast majority of mass shootings, have psychologist and psychiatrists inform the government of who should not gave gun access. Also keep in mind, 98% of shooting are pistols, not rifles, and most are done by repeat gun felons. Keep those locked up with mandatory sentences and gum crime as a whole will plummet. None of these things liberals are for unfortunately but they actually would work and make sense.