Gunman kills at least 58 people in Las Vegas; over 500 injured

[AnthonyCordova]

Yeah, I don't like the logic of "guns don't kill people, people do". It begs the whole question. The issue is exactly what to do about people who are violently disposed and to what extent we are making it easier for killers to kill people, and if we are enabling them. Making it harder is precisely the issue in question, and arguments that "they could do it still if they were determined" are utterly vague and untestable. I do think that what is to blame is broader than gun control and pertains to the nature of American culture. That's my two cents.

 

[thrasherpix]

It's a pity 2 extremes are allowed to define the issue. It's the extremes that alienate so many people and make compromises impossible, but I think the majority of people, whichever side of the divide they're on, don't actually want the extreme (or at least realize the futility of it), but they're so alienated by the other extreme that they don't know what else to do other than grudgingly support the other extreme and hope it balances out somehow. Plenty of people, be they gun owners or people who never owned or shot a gun in their life want similar things, which is guns harder to get, especially for those who have a lot of red flags. I even know of gun dealers who refuse to sell to certain people as their own conscience says it would not be right, but those people can just find another store or dealer.

While it's true that the NRA is the largest gun rights organization in the USA, they still only make up a very small percentage (under 10%) with most of the rest of us (the vast majority) considering them an embarrassment that doesn't speak for us (with the notable exceptions of a minority even smaller than the NRA that feels the NRA isn't hard lined enough, or doesn't trust them to be as hard lines as the NRA claims for what are actually good reasons--I see the NRA as a scam, and one in which high ups work hand in hand with some gun control organizations which are also scams, or at least playing very unethical political games in scratching each other's backs).

There was a former sheriff on YT that I liked to listen to. Unfortunately, some YT troubles caused me to lose his vids and I've never been able to find them again. He talked about how problematic background checks and the like were, and definitely wanted stronger regulations, and it wasn't anti-gun, it was common sense stuff to make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to be able to LEGALLY get them. He got so much support, but then the extreme found him and twisted everything to say he wanted all guns confiscated, tyranny, he promoted slavery, and a bunch of other idiotic stuff. He eventually disabled comments for that video and given the sheer idiocy and twisting of his words deluging his channel I can't say I blame him since there's no debating liars or deluded (whatever they were). Thing was, he's a gun collector, and he was getting a lot of agreement with gun owners (including myself) on what he was saying. And then the extremists flooded in, so fast and so extreme and so many that I'm certain he got freeped in an organized attempt to drown out his actual message that was resonating with a lot of gun owners.

He himself pointed out that making it harder for the wrong people to get guns wouldn't stop it (nor would total gun confiscation, even if the ban could be enforced, which it couldn't), but there were ways to prevent the absurd amount of mass shootings we have so it's not as bad as it is.

(And which I think are based on much more fundamental problems of the USA mindset, but that's even less likely to change than gun laws, and I say that after seeing how the shooting at Sandy Hook did virtually nothing, and if gunning down middle class children at such a number isn't going to loosen the death grip on guns, then nothing will. Not unless the restrictions are understood to be based on race, which of course would be pointless in helping scale back mass shootings in addition to being unjust, giving special favors to a select group of people at the expense of everyone else.)

If anyone knows who I'm talking about, please post his YT channel here so I can subscribe to him again.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

It should be noted that anyone who gets elected to public office in the U.S. gets a fully paid-up membership in the NRA. They have their supporters who appreciate it but what they are looking for is someone who will stand against them, possibly ripping up their membership in public so they can rally their supporters around someone who does not support the 2nd Amendment rights in the Constitution.

 

[crazysoulless]

I live 4 miles from Mandalay Bay. Several people my sister knows were there and I found out on Staff Day (every employee in the library district met up from 9-5 at the Suncoast a few days ago) a woman who works in one of the libraries was too. They're all fine but it did creep me out a little when my sister said if she knew that singer was going to be performing she would've gone that night.

 

[white avenger]

It's a pity 2 extremes are allowed to define the issue.

I think that the main reason for that is that there are so very few people on one extreme side or the other who actually have any real idea what the issue is. Certainly, we all know that some nut case can get his hands on a gun and kill a bunch of unarmed people, but, beyond that, way too many people are totally clueless, relying on either the extremely biased news commentary or the equally extremely biased section of the gun owners' community.

There has never been an honest debate on the issue of gun ownership and violence in any format beyond some local town hall meeting or a college campus. An issue of this importance should be given national coverage. What we need is a series of debates in the same format of the Presidential Debates, with live nationwide coverage. Have spokesmen from both sides of the issue present their arguments, show their evidence, and actually try and propose some solutions that everyone can agree on and live with. That way, the general public will at least have some real idea what the true issues are.

The United States is unique in the world in having a Constitution that guarantees, not allows, not grants, but actually affirms that the right to keep and bear arms isn't a privilege granted by our government, but an actual right that goes beyond government policy or the whim of politicians. As long as that is included in our Bill Of Rights, there will always be righteous and justifiable resistance to any infringement.

In a world where magic existed, we might have someone like Willow be able to look into the hearts of every person attempting to buy a firearm and tell what their real motivations are, and what circumstances might present themselves in the future that might cause that person to do harm to others, but, barring that, there will always be those, like the Las Vegas killer, who have no previous indication whatsoever, who will do harm to others, and there will always be those who will find the way and means to achieve that goal without depending on legal means to do their killing. That is the cold, hard, undeniable truth.

There is an undeniable truth in this matter, and that is that the mass killings that have occurred in this country are no worse than the same thing that has happened in other countries, where firearms are much harder, if not totally impossible to obtain legally. Until something can be done to address that matter, infringing on the rights of honest law abiding people will never make very much sense to me.

 

[EarthLogic]

There absolutely needs to be a civilised debate on the subject. But given how toxic the situation is at the moment, I can't forsee how one would even be allowed to go ahead peacefully. Not when there are people who are so determined to shut down any meaningful discussion. I'm an outsider in this situation, but can anyone figure out how one would go about setting up a televised national debate??

The United States is unique in the world in having a Constitution that guarantees, not allows, not grants, but actually affirms that the right to keep and bear arms isn't a privilege granted by our government, but an actual right that goes beyond government policy or the whim of politicians. As long as that is included in our Bill Of Rights, there will always be righteous and justifiable resistance to any infringement.

The United States is unique in the world in having a constitution that is considered so infallible that it becomes untouchable even when it's obvious that people are dying as a result. The Constitution may be law but it is also a historical document very much of its time. The right to bear arms is clearly qualified by the clause preceding it which states 'a well regulated militia being the best security of a free state' ergo the right to bear arms was seen as necessary because the newly birthed country needed a civilian army to defend itself. And in those days firearms were simpler. I think if the Founding Fathers had foreseen the invention of machine guns they might have reconsidered their choice of phrasing. Really it's shocking that so much destruction is being allowed to take place because of a grammatical misinterpretation!

And that brings me to my second issue with this argument - the right to bear arms is in fact a priviledge granted by government. Not the current one, or the ones that existed before that, but the very first one. The Constitution is spoken of as if it's something granted by powers beyond the earthly realm! It's not! It was written by men, it was made law by men and it was amended by men - men who lived over 200 years ago when automatic weapons were not a thing. So the idea that it can't be changed in order to befit modern times is just absurd!

There is an undeniable truth in this matter, and that is that the mass killings that have occurred in this country are no worse than the same thing that has happened in other countries, where firearms are much harder, if not totally impossible to obtain legally.

Mass killings with various weapons may be of equal severity across the world, but the frequency gun-related deaths and mass killings is something that is unique to the U.S. The statistics are undeniable:
- In 2015 there were 372 mass shootings in the US - that's more than one a day!
- From January 2013 - June 2016 there were 1000 mass shootings in 1260 days!

This just doesn't happen in other Western countries.

Since the UK government introduced tight gun control after the Dunblane massacre in 1997 there has only been one other mass shooting in 2010. Since the Australian government introduced gun laws in 1996 the homicide rate has plummeted. Firearms related murders account for a shocking 60% of all killings in the U.S compared with only 10% in the UK! So yeah if someone is determined enough they will be able to acquire a gun illegally from somewhere, but if gun control can deal with that remaining 50% then surely it is worth it! The USA isn't one of those still-developing, unstable countries; it's supposed to be one of the most advanced countries in the modern world, so the excuse that 'it's no worse than anywhere else' is simply unacceptable.

 

[white avenger]

The Constitution is spoken of as if it's something granted by powers beyond the earthly realm!

The beginning of the Constitution of the United States defines the rights therein as being "GRANTED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights." That means, by definition, that the Government acknowledges a Higher Power than man and that the rights acknowledged are not privaledges to be given or taken away at the whim of any official, elected or otherwise.

That is how it is written and accepted here. All of the laws of our nation are ultimately based on and defined by that one document, and as long as it remains in effect, it will still apply. Frankly, I could care less what the crime rate is in England, Australia, or anywhere else on this planet. Anyone who feels safer living in some other more restrictive society is certainly welcome to migrate there at their soonest convenience.

 

[Buffy Summers]

I'd like to see them pull illegal guns out of those statistics. Because organized crime accounts for a lot of those numbers, and getting rid of gun ownership wouldn't affect that part of it.

If people really want to convince others about gun control, the fact that 2/3 of gun homicides are suicides makes a better case than the mass shooting one does. And a big chunk of mass shootings is domestic violence. A wackjob shooting up a concert is less of a threat than those things.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The beginning of the Constitution of the United States defines the rights therein as being "GRANTED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain INALIENABLE rights."

Wait, I thought the Declaration of Independance started with that and the Constitution started with "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

See, the Declaration states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " That matches more to your quote above than does the Constitution.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

Funny how "inalienable rights" were granted by an amendment of the Constitution. These rights did not exist in the original Constitution. A 2/3 majority voted it in and another 2/3 majority could vote it out.

Anyone who feels safer living in some other more restrictive society is certainly welcome to migrate there at their soonest convenience.

Yup, that's me and fortunately I was born in Canada, so I didn't have to migrate. I have heard of people in the US who concealed carry who have run onto problems with other people accosting them and simply brushing their jacket aside and showing the gun has stopped a mugging from escalating, so I understand there is no possibility of getting those people or any of their friends to whom they have related that story to vote in favour of relinquishing this right. I admit I can see if someone tries to rob you of your wallet, you have a better day with this in your pocket:

 

[EarthLogic]

f people really want to convince others about gun control, the fact that 2/3 of gun homicides are suicides makes a better case than the mass shooting one does. And a big chunk of mass shootings is domestic violence. A wackjob shooting up a concert is less of a threat than those things.

I agree. If people didn't feel the need to have guns in their homes, then there's less chance of someone turning to using one when suffering from mental health issues. And yes they may ultimately choose another weapon, but at least regulation would narrow down the chance just a little.

I think those stats in that Guardian article probably do include domestic violence, as a mass shooting is defined as consisting of four or more people being shot. A number of those incidents are small-scale.
 

Funny how "inalienable rights" were granted by an amendment of the Constitution. These rights did not exist in the original Constitution. A 2/3 majority voted it in and another 2/3 majority could vote it out.

Exactly! Staunch gun rights supporters like to keep saying 'you can't change the First Amendment' - *waves hands * uh, hello...clue's in the name!

 

[white avenger]

A 2/3 majority voted it in and another 2/3 majority could vote it out.

That's right. And getting 2/3 of our elected officials in Washington to agree on anything is just short of impossible.

 

[thrasherpix]

I don't consider what that guy was saying to be any kind of infringement as the law abiding would only be inconvenienced at most, and many of us are willing to deal with that inconvenience. More importantly, it doesn't have to be the "either/or" that the extremes make it out to be (and how people seem to automatically think about it in this thread). If I had my druthers then every state would be a "shall pass" even for open carry and carrying concealed barring any prohibitive factors which could be challenged in court (that is no "I just don't feel like that person" who typically are a racial minority) but how easy it is to get a gun and even stockpile weapons is ridiculous, and background checks are typically a joke and not always required. (And mass shootings and other forms of massacre by a private citizen are an the exception in other nations, but not ours.)

Though I recall on school shooter (also a poisoner), a woman, was not allowed to have guns because of how bad her mental illness was. Thankfully, she was as incompetent as she was crazy (funny how the police got involved, she left a school she'd just shot up and saw a police car and started shooting when the cop driving by had no idea anything bad was going down, though he called for heavy backup fast). She had the guns to use because after she was barred guns by court order her family took her guns and let her have them whenever she wanted them. I can't recall what legal liability they were held to over that, but I hope one or more were charged as accessories to murder at the very least.

 

[EarthLogic]

Anyanka Bunny Killer: You realise the First Amendment protects free speech, right?

Ack! I meant Second Amendment, lol!