More Gun Control?

[pussycat]

That guy who shot up the country music festival was suffering from the same syndrome as Charles Whitman who went up to the UT Tower in 1965 with a cash of rifles and shot random people wherever he could see them until he was killed. In the 1965 thing various Austinites nearby had hunting rifles in their cars (trucks were a rarity then) and returned fire. The shooter from the Mandalay Bay hotel/casino had the advantage of night, and no one around (including LE) had rifles. If it were possible to ban all rifles, particularly ones with large magazines, that particular attack as he did it would not have been possible. But he could could have carried out an attack of some terrible kind. Like Whitman he could have attacked using bolt action rifles or with limited capacity magazines and that would have decreased the damage, but a lot of damage still would have happened. And if he had no firearms he could have set off a bomb if he wanted. That happened in the Atlanta Olympics of 1996. The fact that he had access to high capacity magazines for rifles, and could modifiy them to shoot like full auto, determined what kind of attack he could do. But eliminating those weapons from the public would not have prevented him from a mass attack of some kind. Eliminating assault weapons would not have changed anything either. Plenty of sporting rifles like the Winchester 100, Remington 740, and Ruger min-14s are semi auto as well. In the 1986 Miami shoot out where several FBI agents were killed the shooter had a sporting Ruger min-14. America is not England or Australia. There are so many rifles of different kinds, not to mention hand guns, that even if a total ban went into effect no one could confiscate the millions of firearms already out there. And bans on sales will not effect those numbers of existing guns either. Progressives always want to believe that government can solve all problems but it can't. It just can't. Nor does the screening process of the Brady permit solve anything either. The questions on the Brady form are there for political correctness and have no relation to stopping any dangerous person from getting a brand new gun from a licensed gun dealer, not that such is relevant anyway to someone getting a gun if they want one. It's all politicians claiming to have answers to problems for which there are no solutions. No Brady form or screening or anything could have stopped Whitman or his cousin who shot from Mandalay Bay.

[chuckles]

I own a firearm so I'm not anti-gun but we must make a start towards keeping guns out of hands of lunatics. I still get sick when I think of the twenty 6&7yo kids killed at Sandy Hook by a man known to be mentally ill. I agree with most of your points PC, the background checks are a joke and enforcing new gun laws would be a challenge. That shouldn't stop us from making a start towards sane gun laws. The NRA is so politically powerful politicians are afraid to enact even the most common sense legislation. There is no reason in these politically charged times for anyone to own a Bump Stock that cheaply converts a rifle to a fully automatic machine gun. People would still have died and been injured in Las Vegas if stricter gun laws were in place but not nearly in the numbers that occurred Monday.
And why does anyone need 42 guns like the Las Vegas clown owned ? Does anybody seriously think they are going to stand up to a professional army with their 2nd amendment guns?
One last thing. In the 1986 FBI shootout one of the criminals was an Army Ranger. So not only was the FBI outgunned, they were out maneuvered. I saw a TV doc about that incident and one of the FBI survivors said the Ranger seemed to be everywhere. He would pop up, fire accurately, duck, then pop up somewhere else.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by chuckles

I own a firearm so I'm not anti-gun but we must make a start towards keeping guns out of hands of lunatics. I still get sick when I think of the twenty 6&7yo kids killed at Sandy Hook by a man known to be mentally ill. I agree with most of your points PC, the background checks are a joke and enforcing new gun laws would be a challenge. That shouldn't stop us from making a start towards sane gun laws. The NRA is so politically powerful politicians are afraid to enact even the most common sense legislation. There is no reason in these politically charged times for anyone to own a Bump Stock that cheaply converts a rifle to a fully automatic machine gun. People would still have died and been injured in Las Vegas if stricter gun laws were in place but not nearly in the numbers that occurred Monday.
And why does anyone need 42 guns like the Las Vegas clown owned ? Does anybody seriously think they are going to stand up to a professional army with their 2nd amendment guns?
One last thing. In the 1986 FBI shootout one of the criminals was an Army Ranger. So not only was the FBI outgunned, they were out maneuvered. I saw a TV doc about that incident and one of the FBI survivors said the Ranger seemed to be everywhere. He would pop up, fire accurately, duck, then pop up somewhere else.

Very well said. Yes, there are many ways to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. The bombing at the Atlanta Olympics killed 1 person. Although I choose to not own a gun, I support the 2nd Amendment up to a point. A person has the right to own the firepower necessary to protect himself, his family, and his home. Owning 42 guns is not necessary. Being able to covert a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic weapon should not be allowed. I don't understand why people would not support the ban of these bump stocks.

[Cap'n Crunch]

"Can I get 2 boxes of Sudafed?"

"Sorry, by law you can only buy one at a time."

"Okay then just one box of Sudafed and these 7 guns."

[Smpslt7]

We don't need more gun control, we need more people control. In addition to a bill of rights, we need a bill of responsibility.

I appreciate and support the second amendment. But the amendment does say that the right to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia. So perhaps those screaming most about their second amendment rights should join a well regulated militia.

According to Gallup, 24% of men have served in the military. And of those, according to the US census, only about 5% of males ages 18-40 were veterans, compared to more than 50% of males ages 65 or more (when many of us were drafted).

I would support a constitutional amendment. Something's got to change. Before another mass murder.

For what it's worth, I am a veteran and I don't own a gun. For those that feel like they need guns for self-defense, I pity them.

[Smpslt7]

[texasfeet]

even if you could ban all guns and make confiscation legal, you would never get rid all of all the guns and high capacity magazines and people who would really want them would still get them. There are simply too many of them out there. not to mention many people are advocating the government forcibly remove property from law abiding peoples homes. while I have problems with many conservatives, I find a hypocrisy among liberals that is somewhat amusing.... they love making laws restricting things but hate the enforcing of laws and the people who enforce them. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation created by liberal administrations but the cops are discouraged from enforcing them by those same politicians who cry, racism, and police profiling whenever they do their work. As horrifically tragic the vegas shooting was, that's simply a busy month in Chicago. As horrible as it is, I really don't think there is a solution to this, making guns or magazines illegal wont stop mass shootings just like outlawing booze won't stop dwis. just my opinion...

[Austin Ellen]

I agree. I have no problem with background checks, ect.
But- I believe - that if a person is properly motivated- nothing will get in his way. For example, apartment complexes that installed electronic gates - at first- it was billed as "security gates" but than - you guessed it- someone waited for someone else to go thru the gates and they followed - broke into apartments,ect. Now they are called "Cosmetic gates" - because one of the owners got sued because he said the gates were "security". My point is - that if a person really,really,really wants to do damage to people - no law or whatever will stand in that person's way.
If a person wants to kill with a gun - he will do "whatever" to get that that gun - steal it,borrow it, lie to buy it - you get the picture.

Originally Posted by texasfeet

even if you could ban all guns and make confiscation legal, you would never get rid all of all the guns and high capacity magazines and people who would really want them would still get them. There are simply too many of them out there. not to mention many people are advocating the government forcibly remove property from law abiding peoples homes. while I have problems with many conservatives, I find a hypocrisy among liberals that is somewhat amusing.... they love making laws restricting things but hate the enforcing of laws and the people who enforce them. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation created by liberal administrations but the cops are discouraged from enforcing them by those same politicians who cry, racism, and police profiling whenever they do their work. As horrifically tragic the vegas shooting was, that's simply a busy month in Chicago. As horrible as it is, I really don't think there is a solution to this, making guns or magazines illegal wont stop mass shootings just like outlawing booze won't stop dwis. just my opinion...

[Austin Dude]

Originally Posted by texasfeet

even if you could ban all guns and make confiscation legal, you would never get rid all of all the guns and high capacity magazines and people who would really want them would still get them. There are simply too many of them out there. not to mention many people are advocating the government forcibly remove property from law abiding peoples homes. while I have problems with many conservatives, I find a hypocrisy among liberals that is somewhat amusing.... they love making laws restricting things but hate the enforcing of laws and the people who enforce them. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation created by liberal administrations but the cops are discouraged from enforcing them by those same politicians who cry, racism, and police profiling whenever they do their work. As horrifically tragic the vegas shooting was, that's simply a busy month in Chicago. As horrible as it is, I really don't think there is a solution to this, making guns or magazines illegal wont stop mass shootings just like outlawing booze won't stop dwis. just my opinion...

Boy you guys love talking about Chicago. The gun laws in Chicago don’t prevent people from going to another state and buying a gun there. And it’s not crying racism. It’s a fact that African Americans aren’t treated the same by the cops. If they were, maybe you wouldn’t have people bringing up the issue. And if the cops are going by the book they shouldn’t worry about anything.

But yeah the whole Chicago defense when talking about police shootings and mass murder is weak. It’s a false claim when trying to talk about black on black crime to counter police killings. And it doesn’t strengthen any claims against mass murders. The killing in Chicago needs to stop and maybe nationwide reform can help just like it could help with mass murders.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

I agree. I have no problem with background checks, ect.
But- I believe - that if a person is properly motivated- nothing will get in his way. For example, apartment complexes that installed electronic gates - at first- it was billed as "security gates" but than - you guessed it- someone waited for someone else to go thru the gates and they followed - broke into apartments,ect. Now they are called "Cosmetic gates" - because one of the owners got sued because he said the gates were "security". My point is - that if a person really,really,really wants to do damage to people - no law or whatever will stand in that person's way.
If a person wants to kill with a gun - he will do "whatever" to get that that gun - steal it,borrow it, lie to buy it - you get the picture.

Yes, it is difficult to stop a person who really wants to kill others from doing so. But we can attempt to limit the damage. Guns like the AK-47 and M-16, fully automatic weapons, are outlawed and I have never read of a mass murder being done with one of those weapons. Bump stocks were responsible for most of the deaths in Las Vegas by allowing the guy to turn a semi-automatic weapon into an almost fully automatic weapon. People don't need bump stocks to protect themselves. Just like the law prohibiting AK-47s and M-16s from being owned by most private citizens, a law prohibiting bump stocks would hopefully be just as effective.

[gfejunkie]

Stop blaming the fork for obesity.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Stop blaming the fork for obesity.

Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded 489. He started firing at 10:05 and stopped at 10:15. If he had only an AR-15 or multiple ones, or weapons similar to an AR-15, the death/wounded count in a 10 minute period would have been FAR less. I have fired an M-16 in semi-automatic mode and in full automatic mode. The killing power is far different.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Stop blaming the fork for obesity.

If you are going to attempt analogy, fork was a poor choice. A fork would be like a musket; one shot, one bite. The weapons being used for mass murder are like turbo powered rototillers being used to speed 40 lbs of tacos into a fat man's body in 20 seconds.

You don't need a turbo powered rototiller to feed yourself. You don't need numerous assault weapons to hunt or protect your family from a burglar.

If people were getting fat because the Beef Council and NOA (National Obesity Association) were pushing food rototillers as an effective and proper way to feed oneself, then yeah, I might put some blame on the food rototillers, their manufacturers, and those who promote their use.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Crunch

If you are going to attempt analogy, fork was a poor choice. A fork would be like a musket; one shot, one bite. The weapons being used for mass murder are like turbo powered rototillers being used to speed 40 lbs of tacos into a fat man's body in 20 seconds.

You don't need a turbo powered rototiller to feed yourself. You don't need numerous assault weapons to hunt or protect your family from a burglar.

If people were getting fat because the Beef Council and NOA (National Obesity Association) were pushing food rototillers as an effective and proper way to feed oneself, then yeah, I might put some blame on the food rototillers, their manufacturers, and those who promote their use.

So far all of the analogies presented by gun right's advocates fall far short of reason. Cars can kill -- but that is NOT why they were invented. Fertilizer can be made into a bomb and used to kill -- but that is NOT why it was invented. The ONLY reason as far as I can tell as to why the bump stock was invented was to kill more people faster.

[nickjaguar]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded 489. He started firing at 10:05 and stopped at 10:15. If he had only an AR-15 or multiple ones, or weapons similar to an AR-15, the death/wounded count in a 10 minute period would have been FAR less. I have fired an M-16 in semi-automatic mode and in full automatic mode. The killing power is far different.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, but, I can assure you if he had an AR-15 single fire only, the carnage could have been just as bad. I'd say the the same for a fully auto M-16. Why? The bump stock he used allows for a high cyclic rate of fire but very little accuracy. Same for a fully auto M-16. That's why the Gov. went to a three round burst, it's more accurate. Given an AR15 on a bi-pod, as he had several of his rifles equipped, and single fire, plenty of damage could be done on a 20k crowd of people. That being said, I feel the bunp stock should be regulated the same as a fully auto weapon. Very stringent rules to own one. I'm not going to say there is no "need" for one. There are many things we have access to that there is no "need" for and we could make do with a lesser option. I'd rather not have a POS politician decide what I do and don't need as they make use of the very same thing. Kinda like the Hollywood celebs trying to make gun owners feel stupid while at the same time they hire armed bodyguards and security. Take the politcos out of the discussion and the reasonable people could create some reasonable/effective laws to prevent gun crime. For instance, the Dems want background checks on any gun sale, public or private. So, the Reps push back. Why not have a national system where if you sell a gun to a private individual, you upload the buyers name and DL number? That way if there is a crime committed with that gun they know who owned it. Personally, if I buy a gun at a store and sell it to an individual, I'd want it noted so that if it was used in a crime I would be absolved. There could even be a fine or more if you didn't upload the sale info. But many Dems insist on a national registry. That ain't going to happen. Having said all that, the lunatic passed all checks when he bought these guns. I wouldn't mind a policy where, in a similar case as his, if you bought 25 guns in one year, the Feds make a visit to talk with you. Licensed dealer? No problem. Fervent hobbyist and collector? O.K. Random guy buying 20+ guns in a year? Lucy, you have some splainig to do. Just my 2 cents