CLOSED

14748505253164

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I can't see any reason why a civilian should be allowed to purchase the kind of assault weapon that was used in this attack. There is really no justification for it. I can understand second amendment rights to bear arms, but there should be some rationality to it. A shotgun for hunting and self protection is one thing. A pistol for self protection too. However, this kind of weapon makes no sense.

    The Constitution's wording that such second amendment rights 'shall not be infringed' creates difficulty in making changes however. One hopes that the political will exists to do something after this.

    Keep in mind though that a lunatic with a lorry/truck could have done quite a bit of damage as well, and we have no plans to ban those.
  • Posts: 4,600
    @bondjames re your last paragraph, Im disappointed that you actually may actually think that. Does anyone on the forum feel the need to point out the differences between a lorry and an assualt rifle?
  • Division_00Division_00 Atlanta, GA, USA
    Posts: 66
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't see any reason why a civilian should be allowed to purchase the kind of assault weapon that was used in this attack. There is really no justification for it. I can understand second amendment rights to bear arms, but there should be some rationality to it. A shotgun for hunting and self protection is one thing. A pistol for self protection too. However, this kind of weapon makes no sense.

    The Constitution's wording that such second amendment rights 'shall not be infringed' creates difficulty in making changes however. One hopes that the political will exists to do something after this.


    EXACTLY!!! Only the military should have those. I made a post similar to that earlier. America needs to crack down on assault weapons.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2017 Posts: 23,883
    patb wrote: »
    @bondjames re your last paragraph, Im disappointed that you actually may actually think that. Does anyone on the forum feel the need to point out the differences between a lorry and an assualt rifle?
    Of course there are differences @patb. I always try to take emotion out of the equation in situations like this. The bottom line is if someone has an intention to do mass damage, they can do it with a lorry or a car or a gun. Those are just tools (even if there is no reason for a civilian to have the mass assault rifle).

    I believe we always have to focus on why people do these things and whether they were in the x-hairs of law enforcement in the past. The same thinking informs the anti-terrorism discussion. It's not a question of Islam or religion or whatever. It's a question of psychological intent to harm people and specific characteristics which can be flagged to suggest a higher risk of that. Was this man ever on the radar of law enforcement? Did he ever have counselling for mental disorder? Etc. etc. Of course we can't catch everyone (perhaps he was never on the radar), but we surely can go some way to determining where the problem could be. Mental health is still something which is not properly understood. As technology improves we will have means to more readily identify the triggers immediately (rise in heartbeat, tension etc. etc.) via wearable monitor devices or even skin implants.

    Regarding the gun discussion, that is a separate issue. Guns will never be outright banned in the US. However, an intelligent debate can be had as to which guns should be allowed and then it is up to the people to decide what they want to do. There are rules on other things (like speeding/driving age limits and/or alcohol age limits) without outright bans and abolition. Politicians could put it to a vote if they had the cojones. The trouble with politics is the discussion is never informed or specific. People always shout over each other to appease their special interest donors.
    bondjames wrote: »
    I can't see any reason why a civilian should be allowed to purchase the kind of assault weapon that was used in this attack. There is really no justification for it. I can understand second amendment rights to bear arms, but there should be some rationality to it. A shotgun for hunting and self protection is one thing. A pistol for self protection too. However, this kind of weapon makes no sense.

    The Constitution's wording that such second amendment rights 'shall not be infringed' creates difficulty in making changes however. One hopes that the political will exists to do something after this.


    EXACTLY!!! Only the military should have those. I made a post similar to that earlier. America needs to crack down on assault weapons.
    Fully agreed. It's a no brainer and it's insulting that they can't even get that part done.
  • Posts: 12,506
    Something has to change regarding the gun laws? However seeing as Obama was unable to get it through Congress? Who can? It certainly will not be Donald Trump as he is a supporter of the NRA.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Can any American members please elucidate why it's so important to you to be able to own a gun?

    Maybe I've just been lucky but my only real brush with crime was being mugged in Russia once. The idea that I might have had a PPK under my coat and would've double tapped the scum is a nice idea in fantasy but the reality is (apart from the fact that they came from behind and the first I knew about it was getting lamped in the back of the head) they'd have probably disarmed me anyway - because I'm not actually Bond - and then emptied the clip into me.

    There's a lot of countries (pretty much all of them actually) where you aren't allowed to buy an assault rifle in your corner shop and they seem to get through life quite happily without hanging themselves because they couldn't own a gun and with infinitely lower violent crime stats.

    Why is American society like a toddler that loses its shit if you try to take away its favourite toy the moment anyone even mentions gun control?

    If they'd written in the constitution it's your right to not wear a seatbelt would people also fight tooth and nail to protect that despite it being pretty obvious it's insane not to do so?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I can only assume it comes down to the culture and the individual freedoms inherent in the history of the society (how the country was founded).

    While it may now seem quaint nostalgia to some, in some rural parts folks still see it as an essential part of what defines them. One can debate whether that's right or not, but I can understand where it comes from, even if I don't agree with it.

    As an analogy, I know I'm going to get quite upset when governments start to 'ban' me from driving my classic car when 'autonomous' vehicles become the norm (using statistics of the dangers self drivers cause to society). I was just thinking the other day that I hope I'm past driving age when that particular law comes along.
  • Posts: 4,600
    I know it's hard for those of us outside the USA to understand. The closest I can think of here in the UK is the monarchy. Both in the street and via the media, its almost impossible to have a rational debate as we just seem to love the Royals and literally can't imagine ourselves without them (they are part of our cultural DNA), it's a kind of mental block so perhaps its the same with the USA and guns.

  • Posts: 19,339
    patb wrote: »
    I know it's hard for those of us outside the USA to understand. The closest I can think of here in the UK is the monarchy. Both in the street and via the media, its almost impossible to have a rational debate as we just seem to love the Royals and literally can't imagine ourselves without them (they are part of our cultural DNA), it's a kind of mental block so perhaps its the same with the USA and guns.

    The difference is that our Royal Family aren't killing innocent people in mass sprees that are escalating over the pond every 6months to a year.

  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    I'm not an American but these shootings have been going on regularly for so many decades that a long time ago I stopped being shocked by these attacks. Saddened by them absolutely, but not shocked. They are the by-product of gun laws in a country the size and with the unique history of the United States of America. Since these events are so common it has become a calculated risk of living in a country that has an aversion to stricter gun control. These events are horrific but they've never been enough to sway politicians and many people from altering their current gun laws. If Sandy Hook isn't going to do it - then this Las Vegas mass shooting certainly won't.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited October 2017 Posts: 1,984
    I understand how entrenched this is in America, but personally I just don't see the need for guns. At most, handguns, with permits + registration checks. There's no justifiable reason for assault rifles or massive caches, though.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    I live in America, know that not all Americans are for guns. In fact quite a bit of us are against them. I'm not against all guns however. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles (to an extent) are okay for home protection and hunting. You don't need automatic and semi-automatic rifles for protection. Those are intended to kill many things within seconds. The fact that people are running around this country with those rifles legally is really frighting. Now, instead of trying to get rid of those, they are try to make it legal to add silencers to them... because nobody wants a loud mass shooting...
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
  • Posts: 19,339

    For me,i think its the latter.

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Yeah, it's a satirical site.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Yeah, it's a satirical site.

    Are you sure about that:
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Thoughts and prayers to the people of Las Vegas after last nights senseless attack.

    There really are people out there who honestly believe that prayer is the answer it seems.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,973
    I live in America, know that not all Americans are for guns. In fact quite a bit of us are against them. I'm not against all guns however. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles (to an extent) are okay for home protection and hunting. You don't need automatic and semi-automatic rifles for protection. Those are intended to kill many things within seconds. The fact that people are running around this country with those rifles legally is really frighting. Now, instead of trying to get rid of those, they are try to make it legal to add silencers to them... because nobody wants a loud mass shooting...

    It's that 'protection' thing that I don't understand either. First off, in how many instances are you aware that an attacker got shot by someone protecting him- or her self? In my country, we have law-enforcement, with the additional benefit of no toddlers grabbing mama's gun and shooting themselves nor their brothers/sisters. I like guns, I like shooting them for sure, it's something about beeing concentrated and the power in your hands. But I would never want to carry a gun in public 'to protect myself'.

    The chances of me beeing the bad guy on a bad day are infinately bigger then beeing the hero because I stopped a bankrobbery with my superior shooting.

    Still, you prefer people carry murder weapons and get drunk, all legally, after a bad breakup. And then are amazed by the amount of gun deaths.

    @bondjames anyone can do anyone harm with just about anything. There's just something about carrying a device specifically made for killing that makes it so much easier for people to use it, either because they are insane anyway, or because they had a bad hair day.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @bondjames anyone can do anyone harm with just about anything. There's just something about carrying a device specifically made for killing that makes it so much easier for people to use it, either because they are insane anyway, or because they had a bad hair day.
    Yes @CommanderRoss, I agree. However I believe one has to make the distinction between these kinds of assault weapons designed to cause maximum mayhem (including fragmenting inside bodies) vs. shotguns, due to the American second amendment.

    Ultimately, it is the intent to cause harm that is key, and minimizing that risk through sound public policy.

    As I said, one day governments will use that argument to ban us from driving, except in confined spaces. The moving vehicle is increasingly being intentionally used as a weapon these days after all (911 to Nice).
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,416
    For what it's worth I own an AR15 and I barely use it except for the occasional trip to the gun range. Banning these weapons won't stop crap. Evil will find a way. Just because something is made illegal, doesnt mean that things like this will stop happening. So why do we need guns? To protect ourselves who don't give two shits about laws and want to harm innocent people.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,473
    @TheWizardOfIce, I've neither owned nor ever even fired a firearm in my entire life, so it means absolutely nothing to me. Not sure how I've avoided that living in West Virginia most of my life, but those die-hard gun nuts really love their weaponry - apparently too much to add restrictions onto them so shootings like Orlando and Las Vegas don't occur again.
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 4,600
    @Last_Rat_Standing do you have any idea how other countries view your culture? Do you have any evidence that these guns do actually protect people?

    "so why do we need guns" perfect example of a loaded question as it assumes that you do need guns rather than the question "Do we need guns?"

    the answer is that you don't need guns. You share a planet with countires that provide perfect examples of where people manage to get on with thier lives and live safely (safer actually) without guns. I know its hard but if you could only see things from outside the USA.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited October 2017 Posts: 4,416
    Outside of being deployed I've never been outside of USA for pleasure. But ask yourself, if we don't need guns, will the criminals that illegally possess them just hand them over as well? I'm sorry but you can't coexist with people that want to kill you.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited October 2017 Posts: 9,117
    So why do we need guns? To protect ourselves who don't give two shits about laws and want to harm innocent people.

    I don't suppose you have the statistics to hand as to how many people are saved each year due to the fact they have a gun in their house to shoot intruders? Nor the mirror statistic of how many more homeowners are killed by intruders in places like Europe compared to the states where they don't have guns to 'protect' themselves?

    I'll wager that the sum total of both together barely scratches the surface of the gun deaths in America total per annum.

    The Vegas gig was a country music concert wasn't it so I don't think it too far fetched to state that no doubt a fair few in the crowd were gun owners. Remind me again how useful their guns were at protecting them as the bullets rained down?
  • edited October 2017 Posts: 4,600
    How do you think I sleep at night? How do Canadians sleep at night? Its this fear and paranoia that drives the pro gun lobby. Is the AR15 for self protection?
    If you came to Europe on holiday (obviously wihout a gun) would you feel unsafe?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    But ask yourself, if we don't need guns, will the criminals that illegally possess them just hand them over as well? I'm sorry but you can't coexist with people that want to kill you.

    So let me ask you a question. Are you constantly carrying your AR15? Do we see civilians walking around with automatic/semiautomatic machine guns? Does the vast majority of Americans carry any gun around on their person at all times? No, we don't.
    Arguing that we need to be carrying guns around to stop the bad people is ridiculous. There wasn't a civilian hero with a gun that stopped the shooter in Vegas. Nor was there a civilian hero with a gun to stop any of the other mass shootings. It was either Police Officers that took them down or they took their own lives. Not to mention every person that owns a gun isn't well trained to use it in high stress situations. They could cause more harm than good, like accidentally hitting civilians.
    I agree with you that evil will find a way, BUT we shouldn't be making it easy for them. Imagine if automatic weapons were illegal to purchase. The shooter in Vegas probably wouldn't have them (all the weapons he had he legally purchased). Sure he could've used a handgun or shotgun but I can almost guarantee the casualties and injuries would've been far lower. He would had to of been on the ground and closer to use them. Meaning people would've known where the shooter was and able to take better cover and authorities would get the the shooter much faster. Sure it's just a hypothetical but still.


  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,721
    Agreed @thelivingroyale - as an avid Onion reader I've seen that headline so many times.

    The United States of America and guns.
    The die has been cast. The bell cannot be unrung. Massacres ad infinitum.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    But ask yourself, if we don't need guns, will the criminals that illegally possess them just hand them over as well? I'm sorry but you can't coexist with people that want to kill you.

    That's what we invented the police for. You make it sound like living in the states is like Mad Max.

  • Posts: 7,653
    So basically the US suffers more gunshot casualties in their own country than in any recent wars they have been involved abroad.

    Mourning the recent casualties is just that mourning the inevitable next mourning of a mass shooting.

    Once again it shows that the divide between the US and the rest of the west is a huge Chasm mainly divided with guns and religion.

    I am truly sorry about the dead and the casualties, find it horrible. But every time I hear about a new one I am glad we have a huge ocean between our continents. It is becoming a recurrent episode. And there never seems to be a time of discussing the Gun problem of the US, if happenings as this are not a moment to steer into a different direction then nothing will change that at all.

    Next up in congress a deregulation for gun silencers, because mass shootings will be come a less noisy affair.

    The madness in the US is really flabbergasting too bad so many people suffer from it albeit from guns, healthcare or religion.
This discussion has been closed.