More mass shootings

[millertime24 8]

Go away unless you have something of substance to add.

Muff #5048

[billvon 2,991]

>There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

There is no law that can stop murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism or fraud.

But we have laws against all those things - and they help reduce murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud.

Too bad right wingers don't have the courage to reduce the incidence of mass shootings.

[RonD1120 62]

billvon

>There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

There is no law that can stop murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism or fraud.

But we have laws against all those things - and they help reduce murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud.

No, the laws do not deter them significantly. Everyone who commits those crimes believes they can get away with it. Criminals simply get smarter.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

I tend to be in the same corner with you. This tragedy is starting to take on the characteristics of the JFK assassination. There seems to be a lot more to the picture than just what was found in Paddock's room.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rushmc 23]

millertime24

Go away unless you have something of substance to add.

LOL

I have asked for something substantive.

Yet you or anyone else can come up with any law currently in place or that could be added that would have stopped this from happening.

Irony score 10

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

There is no law that can stop murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism or fraud.

But we have laws against all those things - and they help reduce murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud.

Too bad right wingers don't have the courage to reduce the incidence of mass shootings.

What law would have stopped this one Bill?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

RonD1120

I tend to be in the same corner with you. This tragedy is starting to take on the characteristics of the JFK assassination. There seems to be a lot more to the picture than just what was found in Paddock's room.

Agreed
This one has yet to pass the smell test

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

Once again Marc sees a tree but completely misses the wood.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 800]

The conspiracy fire has been lit, some want to see that burn for awhile it seems.

Some seem to believe crazy people can't do such crazy things!
There MUST be more to this story!

[DJL 235]

rushmc

***>There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

There is no law that can stop murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism or fraud.

But we have laws against all those things - and they help reduce murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud.

Too bad right wingers don't have the courage to reduce the incidence of mass shootings.

What law would have stopped this one Bill?

A law that calls for zero production or import of firearms and ammunition in the US and places sanctions against countries that do.

Seems pretty far fetched but the argument is that if you create restriction you're only hurting law abiding gun buyers. This guy was a law abiding gun buyer.

Now, we all know that a law like this is ridiculous but you asked for a law that would have stopped this and that's asking for the absolute sense which is also ridiculous. The real issue here was rate of fire, magazine size, weapon type, quantity of firearms. Those are all addressable issues, because we'll NEVER be able to absolutely stop incidents like this with laws but we can reduce the frequency or severity or cause the person to go to greater lengths to perform such acts that it raises red flags.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Blacksmith311 0]

Quote

A law that calls for zero production or import of firearms and ammunition in the US and places sanctions against countries that do.

Could he not have just bought one of the other existing millions of rifles that have been in the US since what vietnam era?

[DJL 235]

Blacksmith311

Quote

A law that calls for zero production or import of firearms and ammunition in the US and places sanctions against countries that do.

Could he not have just bought one of the other existing millions of rifles that have been in the US since what vietnam era?

In that ridiculously hypothetical solution I provided you could throw on another ridiculously hypothetical state seizure of all firearms and the death penalty for anyone who has a gun enforced by robots who scour the planet for guns. Please see the second half of my post for any realistic discussion as to what could benefit our future.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[riggerrob 643]

........ Could he not have just bought one of the other existing millions of rifles that have been in the US since what vietnam era?

................................................................................

Prohibited guns (e.g. fully-automatic machine guns will always be available to criminals.
OTOH prohibited weapons are ridiculously expensive and difficult (for honest citizens.

May I suggest another way to limit the number of guns in circulation? Just allow insurance companies to set gun standards.

Municipalities could enact rules requiring steel safes, trigger locks, liability insurance, etc. Insurance fees would be tiny for law-abiding citizens. However, if police ever catch you with insufficient insurance, they would forcee you to pay all the back insurance premiums, seize your (improperly stored) guns, etc.
At the end of the day, insurance companies would make it ridiculously expensive to improperly store weapons or own prohibited weapons.

As for "bump stocks": they look like light machineguns, they feel like LMG, they sound like LMG, they smell like LMG, they taste like LMG, they kill like LMG ......... that puts them in the prohibited category along with purpose-built LMGs.
Bump stocks have always been prohibited in Canada.

[DJL 235]

Quote

As for "bump stocks": they look like light machineguns, they feel like LMG, they sound like LMG, they smell like LMG, they taste like LMG, they kill like LMG ......... that puts them in the prohibited category along with purpose-built LMGs.
Bump stocks have always been prohibited in Canada.

The review the ATF did on these that allowed them to pass was ridiculously short-sighted. They decided that since they met the letter of the law then they would be legal. The issue at hand is that the trigger is depressed once for each shot fired, not that the device allows bullets to be fired repeatedly and continuously.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 2,991]

>No, the laws do not deter them significantly.

The increase in penalties for drunk driving did, in fact, significantly decrease the incidence of accidents, injuries and deaths due to drunk driving. So yes, the laws do deter them significantly.

[DJL 235]

billvon

>No, the laws do not deter them significantly.

The increase in penalties for drunk driving did, in fact, significantly decrease the incidence of accidents, injuries and deaths due to drunk driving. So yes, the laws do deter them significantly.

The difference here is what the law will apply to and I only bring this up because inevitably someone brings up the counterpoint that it's already illegal to kill people with a gun or that you can't apply a law to a car that stops drunk people from driving them besides a mandatory breathalyzer ignition lock. Again it comes to laws that will limit the ability of any person to obtain a firearm and their ability to inflict damage.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[yoink 321]

rushmc

***Go away unless you have something of substance to add.

LOL

I have asked for something substantive.

Yet you or anyone else can come up with any law currently in place or that could be added that would have stopped this from happening.

Irony score 10

'Any person owning or selling any firearm, firearm component or ammunition will be tortured to death over the space of 24 hours'.

or how about this:

'All firearms must be fitted with a device that will remotely prevent firing unless unlocked at the scene by a federal officer.'

or this:

'All firearms must be fitted with tamper-proof explosive devices which will detonate if the weapon is fired outside of approved firing zones'.


There you go - 3 laws that would likely stop mass shootings over the next 100 years or so as people handed them in, forgot about them or couldn't get replacement parts.

And yes, they're as fucking stupid and unrealistic as your 'give me one law that will fix it' argument.

Now go and find a new one, because I've just put this one to bed.

Every single time you post this nonsense argument I'm going to post one of the above - and you can't prove they wouldn't work because you're not a time traveler.

[billvon 2,991]

>The difference here is what the law will apply to and I only bring this up because
>inevitably someone brings up the counterpoint that it's already illegal to kill people
>with a gun . . . .

Right, and it's illegal to kill someone with a car. Under gun-supporter logic therefore there's no need for drunk driving laws, because if someone wants to get drunk and kill someone, they will.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Right, and it's illegal to kill someone with a car. Under gun-supporter logic therefore there's no need for drunk driving laws, because if someone wants to get drunk and kill someone, they will.

No.

The current BAC limit for driving in the US is 0.08. Anti gun logic is it must be changed to 0.00 and pro gun logic is let's leave it at 0.08.

Laws won't stop every incident, drunk driving or homicide. Increasing the penalty for a crime will reduce the rate of the crime, up to a point. People still commit crimes with very severe penalties. adding restrictions to the purchase, ownership, and use of cars and guns will reduce the numbers. But how much restriction for how much reduction? At some point you are adding severe restrictions for very little reduction.

Convince me;

1- The current gun-homicide rate is too high.
2- What new law(s) do you propose?
3- How would these new law(s) affect the gun-homicide rate and further restrict gun purchases, ownership, and use?
4- That the increased restrictions are worth the reduction in gun-homicide rate.

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

>The current BAC limit for driving in the US is 0.08. Anti gun logic is it must be changed to 0.00
>and pro gun logic is let's leave it at 0.08.

?? Why? 0.08 seems a reasonable limit, and it hasn't really been changed much over the years. What did change - what helped a lot - were tougher penalties.

And what is "anti gun logic?" No one here is against guns. Just gun deaths.

>The current gun-homicide rate is too high.

Well, I think the gun DEATH rate is too high - which includes homicides, toddlers shooting their parents, suicides etc. We are 11th in the world for gun deaths, and the countries that are beating us are countries where violence is the rule rather than the exception - Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia. We have gun death rates that are between 3 and 50 times higher than other first world countries.

>Laws won't stop every incident, drunk driving or homicide.

Agreed. I just want to get it down to the rate of other first world countries.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

And what is "anti gun logic?" No one here is against guns. Just gun deaths.

Hahahahahaha.

Quote

Well, I think the gun DEATH rate is too high

I'm not convinced. Just because You think it is too high does not mean it is too high.

Changed item 1 from gun-homicide to gun-death. You missed 2 through 4.....

1- The current gun-death rate is too high.
2- What new law(s) do you propose?
3- How would these new law(s) affect the gun-homicide rate and further restrict gun purchases, ownership, and use?
4- That the increased restrictions are worth the reduction in gun-homicide rate.

Derek V

[jakee 1,489]

millertime24

Why did this guy have so many guns in his room that he did not use?

Because the easy targets had gone? Because he was tired or overwhelmed? Because he felt he'd made his point? Because he thought the police were about to burst in and he needed to kill himself before that happened? For all the same reasons that almost all mass shooters still have a lot of weaponry left when they die?

Quote

Why are all the guns found in his room guns that the left wants banned?

Because the left wants to ban guns that are particularly suitable for mass shooting? Like, double d'uh

Quote

Why would this guy kill himself before the authorities entered the room?

Because if he waited until they were in the room they may have prevented him from killing himself. He obviously wanted to make sure that didn't happen.

Quote

Why is the media focused on "bump stocks" which are very inaccurate?

Because that's what he used. You think it would be more normal for the media to focus on weapons that he didn't use?

Quote

Why did all of this happen on the heels of legislation making supressors easier to get?

Why does there need to be a why?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,489]

rushmc

***I tend to be in the same corner with you. This tragedy is starting to take on the characteristics of the JFK assassination. There seems to be a lot more to the picture than just what was found in Paddock's room.

Agreed
This one has yet to pass the smell test
Ron: yes, there are a lot of characteristics of the JFK murder popping up. This one's attracting the sickos, the whackjobs and the conspiracy nuts as well.

Marc: What is wrong with your 'smell test'? What do you think didn't happen as stated? What do you think might have happened instead?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,447]

I'm quite sure that he had some purpose. It looks organized enough that if he didn't want people to find out, maybe they won't. I hope they do, no matter what his reason.

But I do remember something I read in the History forum once; what to do if you KNOW you're going to bounce. Take one shoe off and stuff it down your pants. It won't help to answer any questions, but it'll keep you busy, and drive the people on the ground crazy.

Maybe this is just his equivalent of the "fuck you, see if you can figure it out."

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

RonD1120

***>There is no law that can stop these kinds of shootings.

There is no law that can stop murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism or fraud.

But we have laws against all those things - and they help reduce murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud.

No, the laws do not deter them significantly. Everyone who commits those crimes believes they can get away with it. Criminals simply get smarter.

Based on your belief stated above, do you believe that there should be no laws against murder, rape, drunk driving, child abuse, terrorism and fraud because those laws are as ineffective as you claim?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.