Las Vegas massacre.

1…89111314…20

Comments

  • rgambs
    rgambs Posts: 13,576
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,674
    JC29856 said:
    Go Beavers said:
    oftenreading said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.

    Don't take the bait.
    I like to see where he's going, though. 
    Simple question I thought.... How many guns are there in the US? Shouldn't that be the first question? Why/how does someone need/acquire 47 guns, however many were semi-auto? Seems like we don't know, we have to rely on polls.
    Im going to guess that most Americans never heard of or knew what a bump stock was on Sunday.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers

    Is your angle that amt is ignorant or the general public?

  • JimmyV
    JimmyV Boston's MetroWest Posts: 19,616
    This doesn't sound like they are trying to conceal evidence of another individual's involvement.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/las-vegas-massacre-investigators-probing-whether-others-were-gunman-s-n808431

    Investigators are trying to nail down whether anyone else was in the hotel suite reserved by the Las Vegas gunman during the time he was registered there, multiple senior law enforcement officials briefed on the investigation into the shooting told NBC News.

    The investigators are puzzled by two discoveries: First, a charger was found that does not match any of the cell phones that belonged to Stephen Paddock, the man who killed himself inside the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino after sending a barrage of bullets down on a crowd of 22,000 people below.

    And second, garage records show that during a period when Paddock's car left the hotel garage, one of his key cards was used to get into his room.

    There are several possible explanations for these anomalies, the investigators say, but they want to get to the bottom of it.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,041
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,674
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,941
    Go Beavers said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
    And in a lack of common sense.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • eddiec
    eddiec Posts: 3,967
    Go Beavers said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
    Of course they are.
    My friend's brother lives in an upscale area of Connecticut. He is constantly going on about he is a proud NRA member and keeps guns to protect his family. It's nothing less than paranoia.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,898
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,674
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    Maybe if people want to be in a well regulated militia, then they do just that. Regular meetings, gun checks, registration. You would also have to meet psychological and physical citeria to be in the militia. We don't don't want just any yayhoo protecting us. I'm just brainstorming. 
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,508
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergs
    tbergs Posts: 10,508
    I think it's kind of dumb that the NRA and congress thinks this whole push to ban bump stocks is some sort of middle ground or huge deal. They should have never been legal to begin with and banning them does nothing to gun sales or gun owners so of course they will agree to this. Is it a positive, yes, but it doesn't change anything related to the other 99% of gun related suicides, murders and shootings.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Go Beavers
    Go Beavers Posts: 9,674
    tbergs said:
    I think it's kind of dumb that the NRA and congress thinks this whole push to ban bump stocks is some sort of middle ground or huge deal. They should have never been legal to begin with and banning them does nothing to gun sales or gun owners so of course they will agree to this. Is it a positive, yes, but it doesn't change anything related to the other 99% of gun related suicides, murders and shootings.
    Many republicans stance on guns is extremely far right, so when something like the bump mod ban is proposed, it gives the impression of a big compromise. 
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,898
    tbergs said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
  • tempo_n_groove
    tempo_n_groove Posts: 41,898
    tbergs said:
    I think it's kind of dumb that the NRA and congress thinks this whole push to ban bump stocks is some sort of middle ground or huge deal. They should have never been legal to begin with and banning them does nothing to gun sales or gun owners so of course they will agree to this. Is it a positive, yes, but it doesn't change anything related to the other 99% of gun related suicides, murders and shootings.
    You hit the nail right on the head.  This is to pacify some people, that's all.
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    who is telling you what to do with them?
    register them nationally (at least the semi-autos) then shove them up the end of the large intestine if you desire. own 117 AKs spread them on your bed and roll around with them naked.

    okay you win, dont register your guns then register the ammunition, every single bullet!
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,139
    tempo_n_groove said:
    tbergs said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Like i've said before many many times we all will be here again & again spewing the same shit over & over again , massacres aren't going anywhere there will be plenty more to debate about ! Backgroung checks that's laughable gun training laughable both of these the Vegas shooter passed with flying colors ! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 10,041
    Go Beavers said:
    mace1229 said:
    rgambs said:
    Nice to see some genuine discussion!

    Anyone who opposes a firearm registry is expressing a disturbing and extremist tendancy to paranoia, it's really that simple.
    I only disagree because of people like Nancy Pelosi. Anti-gun politicians make it known they are never happy with whatever gun restrictions they get. Even the NRA is acknowledging those bump stocks need to be regulated, and instead of taking it as a victory her comments give fuel to the theory that if you give them an inch they take a mile.
    Anyone I know who opposes registry opposes it because they believe one day Pelosi or Fienstien or whoever will get their way. Its not paranoia when they make it known they will never stop pushing for more gun laws, when no matter what they get passed.
    Slippery slope theories are rooted in paranoia. 
    Well then they feed that paranoia by continuing to say that's what they want. Those examples are just as much to blame for the lack of new gun laws as any republican in my opinion. When they state they are basically unwilling to compromise, that makes the opposition take the same stance.
  • jnimhaoileoin
    jnimhaoileoin Baile Átha Cliath Posts: 2,682
    tempo_n_groove said: 
    tbergs said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
  • eddiec
    eddiec Posts: 3,967
    jnimhaoileoin said:
    tempo_n_groove said: 
    tbergs said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    Now you understand how "Drain the Swamp" was so effective with the Trumpian base.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 32,139
    jnimhaoileoin said:
    tempo_n_groove said: 
    tbergs said:
    tempo_n_groove said:
    JC29856 said:
    rgambs said:
    JC29856 said:
    Another question: Is there a national gun registry? Do we know how many guns are in hands? Do we have any idea how many semi-auto guns the next mass killer possesses?
    No, yes but no, and no.
    If the gun totters are proud of their guns maybe they wouldn't have any problems registering their legal firearms, at least the high powered ones. Lets start by creating a national gun registry, it doesn't have to be public information. Think of all of the privacy invasions we are subjected to on a daily basis, innocent law abiding citizens trying to work and have some fun every now and again. If Wilbur Gunn wants 17 semi-auto weapons ar15s and ak47s then let him register them. Not sure if it would solve any problems but it may cut down on those wanting to possess and high powered rifle. It might also lead to removing these weapons if they are found to be unregistered. Just a thought.
    No.

    I want to be able to own 17 guns and no one tell me what to do with them.
    What's your middle ground? Where are you willing to meet those seeking more stringent ownership, policy or laws? So we ban bump stocks, big whoop, doesn't change every other gun related murder or mean that they still aren't available through different means. You want 17 guns, someone against guns thinks that's overkill and wants 1. You wouldn't be willing to meet at 10 or less?
    No.  Reason being I am not a fan of the government telling me/you what we can and can't do.  

    Also not a fan of taking any rights away.  Once they are gone it's nearly impossible to get them back.  For this instance I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I'm not.

    Background checks?  Sure.

    National registration?  No.

    Gun training mandatory?  Sure.
    Your attitude to your government baffles me. You elect these people yet act like they're your enemy, like there's just some big conspiracy to control and imprison you. The government's role is to govern, you sound like you'd rather just have anarchy and let everyone do as they like. As long as you can keep your guns to protect your own interests
    It sure seems that way ...
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....

Categories