America's Gun Violence

josevolution

58 victims and lone gunman =59 dead 

josevolution

Mitch turtle face McConnell will never bring legislation of any gun reform to the floor ever ! 

vaggar99

the Second amendment argument truly bewilders me.  of course it states the right to bear arms.  but, all of us already accept many restrictions on arms (i guess its very little, but no nukes).  The First Amendment guarantees free speech.  Again, there are restrictions.  You can't go around threatening to kill people even if you are joking or whatever.  So why do so many people hide behind the 2nd A and run from any talk of gun control?  Could it be that many more people exist within the same spectrum of sociopathy as a Paddock type  than ever imagined? 

dignin

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.

So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum  believe that this could not have been done by only one person. 
What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old. 

I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it. 

It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?

Like I said, I hope I am wrong.  I just can't believe he didn't tell one person about it. 

You went from "second shooter" to "telling someone about it".

Thanks capt

It's okay to backtrack when you realize you have went a bridge too far on the crazy train.

mickeyrat

mickeyrat said:

g under p said:

I'm just hearing it only took 9 minutes for all this gun shooting Carnage to take place......please tell me something isn't seriously wrong with that fact.

Peace

dude was on a well thought out mission. planning, execution, survellience etc....

  

mickeyrat

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/las-vegas-gunman-used-heavy-weapons-tiny-cameras-to-carry-out-attack/2017/10/03/afeec518-a87e-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?utm_term=.72dcdb46af62

mcgruff10

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

mcgruff10 said:

rgambs said:

mcgruff10 said:

dignin said:

Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.

So having a theory on a massacre makes me a gun nut? I never or did anyone on this forum  believe that this could not have been done by only one person. 
What would prove if there was only one shooter as opposed to two? Again just a theory on a case that isn't 48 hours old. 

I just find it hard to believe that this man snuck in all those guns and ammo, surveyed the area for who knows how long and no one knew anything about it. 

It's a hotel, he was there for 4 days, bring up 2 or 3 suitcases every day and who's going to notice?

Like I said, I hope I am wrong.  I just can't believe he didn't tell one person about it. 

You went from "second shooter" to "telling someone about it".

Thanks capt

It's okay to backtrack when you realize you have went a bridge to far on the crazy train.

Backtrack?  
1.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was another shooter. 
2.  I can't believe he didn't tell anybody about what he was going to do. 
Better?

RYME

vaggar99 said:

the Second amendment argument truly bewilders me.  of course it states the right to bear arms.  but, all of us already accept many restrictions on arms (i guess its very little, but no nukes).  The First Amendment guarantees free speech.  Again, there are restrictions.  You can't go around threatening to kill people even if you are joking or whatever.  So why do so many people hide behind the 2nd A and run from any talk of gun control?  Could it be that many more people exist within the same spectrum of sociopathy as a Paddock type  than ever imagined? 

What law or laws could you pass to prevent Crazy People?  No matter what laws you pass, crazy people are going to continue to be crazy, and attempt to kill and Slaughter people.
I think that only more properly trained and armed law abiding citizens can assist in stopping crazies, when the crazies are trying to commit an atrocity.
For example if you are in France, when a crazy man is driving a truck down the road running over people, maybe a properly trained law-abiding Frenchman with a concealed carry permit could've stopped the crazy guy before he continues running over more and more people.  Perhaps decreasing the number of injured and dead people from the crazy truck driver. 
Most mass murders occur in gun-free zones. So the only people armed are the people that are intent on killing.  For instance at the nightclub in Orlando that got shot up, if the shooter didn't know which of the patrons and or staff members might be armed, they would be less bold about going in there in the first place.  Maybe a bartender is properly trained and armed. Maybe several patrons are trained and exercising a concealed carry. Rather than be sitting ducks, somebody might be able to stop the carnage right away.  In schools I think that it would be a good idea to allow teachers who choose to or staff members who choose to to take a rigorous firearms training course, and get proper training so that if a student or somebody comes in ready to shoot up the place, maybe a janitor maybe a gym teacher maybe a lunch lady, maybe the school librarian, maybe the history teacher, maybe the second grade teacher is armed and the student that wants to shoot up the place wouldn't know who's carrying and who is not.  And then one of the staff members could end the threat instead of having to wait for police to show up.
Might be a good deterrent if the person intending on doing lots of killing doesn't know what staff members are armed and which ones aren't.
Just food for thought.

tbergs

RYME said:

vaggar99 said:

the Second amendment argument truly bewilders me.  of course it states the right to bear arms.  but, all of us already accept many restrictions on arms (i guess its very little, but no nukes).  The First Amendment guarantees free speech.  Again, there are restrictions.  You can't go around threatening to kill people even if you are joking or whatever.  So why do so many people hide behind the 2nd A and run from any talk of gun control?  Could it be that many more people exist within the same spectrum of sociopathy as a Paddock type  than ever imagined? 

What law or laws could you pass to prevent Crazy People?  No matter what laws you pass, crazy people are going to continue to be crazy, and attempt to kill and Slaughter people.
I think that only more armed law abiding citizens can assist in stopping crazies, when the crazies are trying to commit an atrocity.
For example if you are in France, when a crazy man is driving a truck down the road running over people, maybe a law-abiding Frenchman with a concealed carry permit could've stopped the crazy guy before he continues running over more and more people.  Perhaps decreasing the number of injured and dead people from the crazy truck driver.  Just food for thought.

Oh man, the hero theory. This is the kind of thinking that leads to more violence. More guns does not equal safer society!

vaggar99

RYME said:

vaggar99 said:

the Second amendment argument truly bewilders me.  of course it states the right to bear arms.  but, all of us already accept many restrictions on arms (i guess its very little, but no nukes).  The First Amendment guarantees free speech.  Again, there are restrictions.  You can't go around threatening to kill people even if you are joking or whatever.  So why do so many people hide behind the 2nd A and run from any talk of gun control?  Could it be that many more people exist within the same spectrum of sociopathy as a Paddock type  than ever imagined? 

What law or laws could you pass to prevent Crazy People?  No matter what laws you pass, crazy people are going to continue to be crazy, and attempt to kill and Slaughter people.
I think that only more armed law abiding citizens can assist in stopping crazies, when the crazies are trying to commit an atrocity.
For example if you are in France, when a crazy man is driving a truck down the road running over people, maybe a law-abiding Frenchman with a concealed carry permit could've stopped the crazy guy before he continues running over more and more people.  Perhaps decreasing the number of injured and dead people from the crazy truck driver.  Just food for thought.

you can pass laws to prevent crazy people from getting weapons.  in fact, Obama did just that with a directive.  Of course, its no more.  And sure you won't stop them all, but you could probably stop/discourage more than half of them.
not going after concealed handguns either.  i'm talking assault weapons.

riley540

vaggar99 said:

RYME said:

vaggar99 said:

the Second amendment argument truly bewilders me.  of course it states the right to bear arms.  but, all of us already accept many restrictions on arms (i guess its very little, but no nukes).  The First Amendment guarantees free speech.  Again, there are restrictions.  You can't go around threatening to kill people even if you are joking or whatever.  So why do so many people hide behind the 2nd A and run from any talk of gun control?  Could it be that many more people exist within the same spectrum of sociopathy as a Paddock type  than ever imagined? 

What law or laws could you pass to prevent Crazy People?  No matter what laws you pass, crazy people are going to continue to be crazy, and attempt to kill and Slaughter people.
I think that only more armed law abiding citizens can assist in stopping crazies, when the crazies are trying to commit an atrocity.
For example if you are in France, when a crazy man is driving a truck down the road running over people, maybe a law-abiding Frenchman with a concealed carry permit could've stopped the crazy guy before he continues running over more and more people.  Perhaps decreasing the number of injured and dead people from the crazy truck driver.  Just food for thought.

you can pass laws to prevent crazy people from getting weapons.  in fact, Obama did just that with a directive.  Of course, its no more.  And sure you won't stop them all, but you could probably stop/discourage more than half of them.
not going after concealed handguns either.  i'm talking assault weapons.

Hand guns are responsible for way more deaths than assault rifles. 

tbergs

How the hell do people like this continue to hold office? What a stupid thing to say. If your that dumb, don't speak shitbird.

But Thune shied away from the topic of gun control, arguing, “[I]t’s an open society and it’s hard to prevent anything.”

Instead, the Republican senator offered advice to potential victims.

“I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions,” he opined. “To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said — get small.”

rgambs

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.

Where are all these foil hat gun nuts? All I've seen is one person state "I wonder if there was more than one shooter" who I'm not ever sure what side of gun control he stands on, and that qualifies as all the gun nuts coming out to defend guns?
Did I miss something?

You have to get yourself a Facebook and find a friend who believes in the Illuminati.  According to these nutters...
The 32nd floor is the 33rd degree in Masonic lore and there was a shooter on the 12th floor as well, which is evidenced by a flash of light.  Also, he couldn't have had that many casualties or even operated the firearms alone.
This was a false flag event by the government.

Usually this stuff is good for a laugh, but at times like this it's scary and sad.

mace1229

dignin said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.

Where are all these foil hat gun nuts? All I've seen is one person state "I wonder if there was more than one shooter" who I'm not ever sure what side of gun control he stands on, and that qualifies as all the gun nuts coming out to defend guns?
Did I miss something?

You're missing a lot.

Well that's a convincing argument. 
Not to mention how does a double shooter theory help the pro-gun argument anyway/

tbergs

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

dignin said:

Time to throw on the tin foil hats guys. Gun nuts couldn't possibly believe that one man could cause that much carnage. It doesn't fit the BS they have been spewing from their mouths for years.

Where are all these foil hat gun nuts? All I've seen is one person state "I wonder if there was more than one shooter" who I'm not ever sure what side of gun control he stands on, and that qualifies as all the gun nuts coming out to defend guns?
Did I miss something?

You have to get yourself a Facebook and find a friend who believes in the Illuminati.  According to these nutters...
The 32nd floor is the 33rd degree in Masonic lore and there was a shooter on the 12th floor as well, which is evidenced by a flash of light.  Also, he couldn't have had that many casualties or even operated the firearms alone.
This was a false flag event by the government.

Usually this stuff is good for a laugh, but at times like this it's scary and sad.

Any word on whether he's was sent back in time to stop Skynet? Maybe he's a replicant?

ledvedderman

If only these guys with Little Man Syndrome realized that they could compensate plenty for their tiny penis by picking up an electric guitar and cranking the volume instead of buying guns that no human being will ever NEED. Worked just fine for me. 
There you go. I solved guns. On to bringing peace to the Middle East next. 

#guitarsnotguns

lastexitlondon

For me a gun is a gun. 
I still cannot understand this need to"protect" or bare arms.
Why does this seem to make a difference how many shots it can fire and how? 
One bullet is too many. Why the fuck are people shooting anyone thats a question. 
There is never a need for any human to carry a gun.
If you shoot one person or 600. All wrong. Remove the gun it can't happen.
All this bs about its not the gun its the person.come on.

lastexitlondon

ledvedderman said:

If only these guys with Little Man Syndrome realized that they could compensate plenty for their tiny penis by picking up an electric guitar and cranking the volume instead of buying guns that no human being will ever NEED. Worked just fine for me. 
There you go. I solved guns. On to bringing peace to the Middle East next. 

#guitarsnotguns

Word brother!

brianlux

tbergs said:

How the hell do people like this continue to hold office? What a stupid thing to say. If your that dumb, don't speak shitbird.

But Thune shied away from the topic of gun control, arguing, “[I]t’s an open society and it’s hard to prevent anything.”

Instead, the Republican senator offered advice to potential victims.

“I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions,” he opined. “To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said — get small.”

What a shitty, heartless thing to say to these people.   Sure isn't what I call "freedom of speech".  It's abuse.   Thune has had his face in a cow pie too long.  What would he say if he had been there and seen a family member get blown away.  That dude needs to be shit-kicked out of office.  Any office. 

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

riley540 said:

mcgruff10 said:

g under p said:

I'm just hearing it only took 9 minutes for all this gun shooting Carnage to take place......please tell me something isn't seriously wrong with that fact.

Peace

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a second shooter. 

Investigators say there is no evidence to make them believe there was more people involved. 

It s still early. 

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

I find it funny that I only responded to a comment about a post that wanted "more severe punishment" for accidents like this by saying who wouldn't, and resulted in the sarcastic posts that followed like "how reassuring" as if that was a lame idea. I never said it was going to "turn this around." Someone made the comment that they don't understand why anyone would be opposed to punishing these people, I simply said I don't think anyone would be opposed to that. Jump to whatever conclusions you wish to. I guess you really cant please anyone anti-gun until you take every gun away.

And to answer the question "5 years for each victim with 2.5 to serve mandatory be okay with you?"
Absolutely. If you run a child care and allow small children access to guns under your watch, then absolutely. This was a business of protecting children, and to allow that to happen is just ridiculous. 

I'd be willing to bet the NRA would be opposed to any kind of "severe punishment." You asked a question and received answers. I guess they triggered you? Too many times those "lawful" gun owners who are responsible for shootings like these don't face any repercussions of import as it's deemed "tragic" or an "accident ," usually both. Start locking these idiots up and I'd be willing to bet people will become more responsible with their thunder sticks and boom makers. Nobody talks about the tens of thousands injured by guns every year and the societal cost of that. Owning a gun carries with it a high level of responsibility that I thought republicans were all about, you know, personal responsibility and all. Start holding them accountable. And in Ronny Ray Guns words of infamy, there you go again with, "can't please any anti-gunners until you take every gun away." Talk about dismissive?

I didn't ask the question. It "triggered" me because I answered the question which was an anti-gun stance question, then everyone who criticized the question to begin with directed it at me with, who didn't even ask it. 
And I doubt the NRA would be opposed to laws against leaving guns in access to children while in a daycare. I seriously doubt that. For a small child to get a gun and shoot it, it was likely left in the open and loaded. Now if it was a high school kid who broke into a poor quality safe and did it, yes I could see the NRA being against putting those people in prison. But a small child in daycare? I don't see them being against that.

Why does it have to be a child care center? Why not the "responsible" gun owner in their home, car or grocery store? You answered the question and followed it up with one of your own which was to question who might oppose punishment. The NRA and "responsible " gun owners, that's who. If it were different, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I never said it has to be a child care center. And my point was the criticism wasn't about asking who would be opposed, which in my mind was a rheotical question because I thought (and still do) that everyone would be okay with a form of punishment in this situation. Maybe I'm wrong about that and it should have been a real question. But the point was it doesn't seem to please anti-gun people to do anything short of taking away all guns because the solution for punishment was asked from the anti-gun perspective, to which I agreed, and instead of addressing the actual question it was followed by other anti-gun remarks or comments like "well that won't stop it" and criticizing the fact that I agree.
So then what is appropriate? If you're against guns, you can't be against punishing those who allow children access to guns? So what was the point? WHat do you suggest, ban all guns?
Guns are not going to be banned. SO require proper storage and punish those who don't.

And the North Koreans rammed that container ship into the US navel vessel too? By god the gun nuts are nutty.