Waking up to the News of the shootings in Las Vegas has brought me to my knees, in prayer!
We clean-up, we rebuild, we pray for families that have lost everything, after Natural Disasters, but these Acts done by our fellow man, leave a permanent mark on all of us.
We expect and understand that Natural Disasters will occur, but how do we wrap our heads around these Evil Acts that are so rampant these days?
We will soon learn of his motives, how he felt wronged. The gun in his hands will be blamed, the President will be blamed...many things, many people will be blamed, but deep down in our hearts, we know that evil intentions and a black heart are responsible.
God Bless Las Vegas...God Bless our Nation!
Well said, abwilliams. I'm at a loss for words after this latest, now historic event. No words.
Thank you for starting this threat and for your thoughts. It helps us all to deal with what has happened by coming together. The grief is almost unbearable today, and it will be for many days. I am praying .
I agree colorfulone.
Just heard that Tom Petty has died, he was one of my favorites!
Sad day all around, I'm at work, but not very productive today.
I love Tom Petty's music. It certainly is a sad day.
Hi Janis -
I am hearing of many selfless acts of bravery occurring in the aftermath. Many shirtless men in the streets, because they used them for tourniquets to save lives.
Witnesses are sharing stories of some placing their bodies over others, complete strangers, in an effort to shield them!
When we have no words for the evil, we hear these stories and that's how we keep going. We know no matter what, there is still more good than evil. Evil hasn't won out yet!
We can call it evil and throw up our hands in surrender or we can reach for the light.
We are a gun culture. We have too many mentally ill citizens and not enough help for
them. That's a bad combination -- a lethal one. But we have the power to change it. We need more young people to get politically active...and, most importantly VOTE!
More importantly, we need a massive turning back to God and for the young and the old to be in prayer for this Nation/World.
As someone that is politically active, no doubt we need people informed and involved, but no matter how many laws we have on the books, no matter how outraged some will be that this particular mass murderer used guns instead of knives or bombs or a vehicle, (as happened recently in Vegas) evil people always find a way to do harm.
Genuinely curious, what does prayer do at this point? Do you pray for people to stop being evil? How does God answer that?
I would love to find out what a massive turning back to God could bring. We've been trying it, without God, for some time now and we can see that isn't going very well at all!
Perhaps it's time?
I pray we overcome evil, with good!
Try reading up on the middle ages. The inquisition, maybe, or the Crusades. Perhaps learn about the church and witch hunts. Or talk to any modern radical Imam or even the white supremacists. Westboro church members. "Turning to god", to most people, means religious control of the people and that has ALWAYS turned out badly in the long run.
I do enjoy your combination of logic sans religion, Wilderness. Indeed "turning to God" means "turning to my God and my beliefs". Seems like ISIS has been turning to God a lot and look where that's got the world, right? It's all fine to turn to God as long as it's the right God.
That's the point; it always means to accept the domination of whatever church the speaker belongs to.
I'm sorry that "Turning to God" mean religious control to some.
I just want people to stop killing people and for the evil (call it hate, call it lost souls) which is thriving within many, to not dominate in this world of ours!
I turn to God for that, if you choose not to, you have that freedom.
And that's exactly what it should be: you choose your god and I'll choose mine. Or lack thereof, but in any case your choice: I shall not be given the option of forcing my god onto you.
Unfortunately, it also means that some will choose a god that requires (or permits) them to kill or otherwise abuse. It is the price of religious freedom.
You know what would happen? Bad people would just use religion to justify their bad actions. Religion does not make people good, it's a symptom and not a cause. Morality and mental well-being is not exclusive to believing in God and the lack of prayer isn't driving the bad behaviour in America. Iceland is simultaneously one of the safest countries in the world and one of the most atheistic countries in the world. Same with Australia, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Japan...
It's great that you have your faith to fall back on in hard times but to suggest it's anything more powerful than a coping mechanism is a little fantastical.
"Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
So why didn't God prevent this tragedy? 1. He could care less 2. He's not that powerful or 3. He doesn't exist.
Shame on you. Go away
The question is a logical response to your original question and not an insult, putdown or accusation.
What is your logical answer? Please don't respond with an insult, putdown or accusation.
I had to go back and look, didn't remember having an original question promise.
I finally do get to a question with, "How do we wrap our heads around Evil Acts?"
So you're saying that Paul's response of 'Prayer; how to do nothing and still think you're helping' was a logical response to this question?
How about when Paul says why is God stuff great and Satan stuff bad, grow the f--k up.......something along that line.
Is this Paul being logical again promise?
I don't know why you had to go back anywhere. His post was right above your demand that he go away. His question was, "So why didn't God prevent this tragedy?"
No it wasn't - it was 22 hours prior and likely many pages. I hate how the two possible views of the forums makes such misunderstanding not only possible but probable.
Okay, I had a long day at the office, but go ahead and insult me again, you are so good at it. I'd love to be retired and able to be enjoying my hobbies.
"So why didn't God prevent this tragedy?"
Because God is in the Creation business, not the puppeteering business...Because God granted us Free Will...Because evil is prevalent and some choose to avoid it like the plague, while others choose to embrace it.....
Do you really care what I think?
Why should I go away? This is a public forum. You don't own it. God is in the creation business? Are you his rep? Not puppeteering? What about this "God has a plan for everyone BS?" So much for free will. Funny how creationists believe this and also believe that God got pissed at mankind for exercising free will and killed them with with a flood. If you're bored, read the Sumerian flood myth, it makes better sense, but still BS (Even the Sumerians knew that) just like the much later Noah version. So if God is in the creation business, that means he created evil. Why doesn't he do anything about? Waiting for your excuse.
The hobby reference wasn't directed at you. Please forgive me if you thought otherwise.
58 people just living their lives and then this happens. Some things I just don't understand.
It is difficult to understand!
I've already talked to friends and family this morning that have loved ones in Vegas right now. Some of them have reported that they were running for their lives. So far we're hearing that they are all safe, but this will remain with them for the rest of their lives.
All my prayer with everyone in Las Vegas. My inner thoughts? The Devil did it.
My prayers are with them too Gypsy Rose! So sad.
If something great happens - God did it. If something bad happens, Satan is responsible. Grow the f*ck up.
Shame on you, go away!!!
Why should I go away? This is a public forum. You don't own it.
Machine guns are only intended for law enforcement or military use. However, the ease to obtain such in a pro-gun society is to be expected. If some had their way all of us could purchase fully automatic weapons. Sad.
It is sad that many people, walking among us, are consumed by evil.
I agree. Evil people put guns in the hands of other evil people. If Jesus were alive today, I suspect he would just shake his head at this country's love of guns.
Sadly this will continue to happen, the previous record breaking mass shooting event in the US occurred less than a year and a half ago and the GOP wants to make it even easier for everyone to obtain guns. They want to lift restrictions on silencers,which would have made this event even deadlier.
We can send our thoughts and prayers all we want but that's not going to change things, and as usual gun control is getting brought up only to be buried a few days later.
Well that didn't take long.....I don't want to do this today!!!
Share your thoughts about guns with the families of those that died or were permanently maimed in Boston, due to (2) homemade bombs.
Don't stop there, IED's have taken many lives!.
Tell the families of all those that have been slashed, scarred or stabbed to death that ONLY guns kill.
Tell it to the multiple crowds of people plowed over by drivers, (those that survived, that is) seeking to kill as many of them as possible, with their vehicle.
The gun is the tool, the knife is the tool, the bomb is the tool, the vehicle is the tool.....of the Evil-Doer!
You can make a mockery of those of us choosing to be in prayer or you can join us!
Sure any weapon can be deadly but the majority of homicides/suicides are caused by guns, that's just fact but it's more than just a tool for mass killings. Suicide is the leading cause of preventable death and guns are used for the majority of suicides.
So banning guns would not only lower gun-related deaths for homicides/mass killings but would also greatly reduce suicide rates.
Of course I feel for the victims and was deeply saddened by this tragedy but I'm also angry because I know the GOP will do nothing about this issue and may even make guns more accessible in the future.
"So banning guns would not only lower gun-related deaths for homicides/mass killings but would also greatly reduce suicide rates. "
Except that it has been done over and over both throughout the world and in localized ares of the US with no effect whatsoever on the homicide rate. Sure, gun deaths go down, but murders don't. The murderer just picks a different tool if the one he wants is to difficult to lay hands on. The dead don't care whether a gun was used, or a car, bomb, match or other tool.
Agreed wilderness. Why is this so hard for some to understand?
Because they demand something be done, and that's the easiest and quickest answer. So they swallow the claims and never realize that they are very carefully worded to induce the reader to believe that reducing gun deaths equates with reducing deaths.
The day after Sandy Hook Elementary I picked up my two little grandkids at their school. Sitting in the parking lot, leaking tears and nearly shaking while watching that crowd of small kids erupt from the front door and realizing just how easy it would be to kill so many of them. At that moment, and without using anything unusual or frightening.
It took a lot of time and a lot of effort to dig into the gun question and see what was actually happening and why it is so wrong - why we are spinning our wheels with gun controls while doing nothing whatsoever to even slow down the death toll. It's depressing.
"Home of the brave" - Congress too scared to stand up to the NRA and pass sensible gun laws.
Or maybe some of them understand that doing the same thing while expecting different results isn't real smart. We already have plenty of gun laws, and they produce nothing of value. How about we try something else?
How would a gun law need to be worded in order to prevent another evil or crazed individual from doing what he did and going back in time, what would the wording of this "sensible gun law" have to be...in order to have stopped him?
Do you seriously think someone with a match, club or knife could kill 59 people and injure more than 500 others?
What's hard to understand is the obsessive love of guns in America and the willingness of some people to make guns more important than the lives of other people.
Yes, I can imagine.
You are focusing on the tools used and not the people who do these things.
Timothy James McVeigh (April 23, 1968 - June 11, 2001) was an American domestic terrorist convicted and executed for the detonation of an ammonium nitrate .
Perhaps should outlaw Cow Pies?
Kabul Truck Bomb Kills At Least 80 People, Injures Hundreds ...
More than 10 knife-wielding men in China knife attack leaves at least 33 dead and 143 wounded
First, to be clear, I do not support banning guns.
Second, I support strict regulation of certain types of weaponry. Regulation at least as strict as we impose upon drivers of automobiles and the automobiles themselves.
Third, just because I support strict regulation of guns does not make me anti-2nd Amendment.
Fourth, if you can handle the myriad of laws surrounding the use of an automobile and still maintain your freedom to drive, there is absolutely no reason you can't handle additional regulation of guns and still maintain your freedom to shoot.
Last, I am tired of the silly arguments about regulating cow pies or some other similarly innocuous item. It is a supremely irresponsible and, dare I say it, stupid comparison. It's just as ridiculous as when opponents of gay marriage ask if we'll next be legalizing marriage to goats. It's an insultingly lame argument.
This man had a fully automatic weapon that have been banned. Such a weapon can allow one man to easily kill dozens of people in the blink of an eye. I have a hard time imagining any other means of dispatching people in such numbers swiftly and with such ease, we can talk about knives, explosives, etc. McVeigh's mayhem using explosives took considerable time and effort to plan, with the risk of his being discovered anywhere along the way. All this shooter fellow needed was an open window and a target crowd.
How do you know he had an illegal fully automatic weapon? None of the sources I have seen have confirmed anything more than the number of guns found in his hotel room.
For sure, the videos presented sound like an automatic firing, but... as noted to promisem, it can be dangerous jumping to conclusions. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/143 … ost2914137
Here is a video of this legal accessory that -for all purposes - allows an AR-type semi-automatic to fire like a fully automatic rifle:
*just click on image
ps. reports are that authorities are speculating that the shooter "...took considerable time and effort to plan..." his attack too. It appears to be much more than just a gun nut seizing the opportunity of a window and a crowd.
Greetings, GA, Yes, I do not know, but the Atlantic article points to the use of a legal accessory that allows a semi-auto to fire like a fully automatic. So, what is the point of banning full autos when this accessory is available that allows this shooter to commit the mayhem? So, he may not have had an automatic, but the with the killing and rates of fire as presented in the video demonstration, he just as well have had one. If I were a gun nut, I would consider that accessory to be a neat little gadget.
Would the gun nut people consider a reasonable ban on this kind of accessory? It may have gone a long way toward reducing the body count.
Don't want to politicize this tragedy and I am not after the 2nd amendment, but if machine guns are to be banned, why should there be any work around that could have them for all practical purposes be considered legal?
Seems to me is that all you need is a perch at an open window with such a modified weapon overlooking a sight that have frequent occasions of times when people gather. Any other way to kill that many people has to be MORE complicated and not less.
I just get irritated when the gun people still compare the relative lethality of these kinds of weapons with assaults from cow pies....
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … on/541803/
Ask first why we should ban machine guns. There are apparently just two murders using a legally owned machine gun since...wait for it...1938. Is that really where we want to put our efforts? Is that really where we want to confiscate personal property - to save exactly 2 lives over a 79 year span?
I submit that we have better things to do and far more important things to worry about. Such as working on getting rid of modifications and parts that will turn a normal rifle (although black, meaning it is an "assault rifle") in a slow firing automatic.
Will add, though, that you have a very personalized view of a "gun nut". None of the ones I've known would ever ruin a perfectly good gun by turning it into something it wasn't. Gun nuts - collectors, sport shooters, etc. - that own multiple weapons don't work that way. Killers will, though, and so will gun smiths desperate for money.
Oddly enough, Wilderness. I can agree with you for the most part. But, I certainly do insist that restriction be placed on parts and components that render semiautos into full autos. There is no excuse for any such components to be legal in this society, and from what I can tell, they currently are. I want the homicide rate associated with any sort of automatic weapon to be nonexistent in the future.
Parts, components and workmanship. Reasoning is that some might take a skilled gunsmith, whereupon that gunsmith is participating in creation of an illegal weapon. Make 'em all illegal, unless current requirements for ownership of an automatic weapon are fulfilled.
Nonexistent? Not gonna happen - there is no perfection on this planet!
Non existent (not in an imperfect world). That may be true, but there is no exact value for pi either, but we can only resolve to continue to pursue ever more vigorously, the goal of attaining to the exact value.
Meaning do everything possible to attain that mythical "0". No.
There comes a time when the cost overrides the benefit. Even when lives are the benefit; lower speed limits save lives and we could enforce a 10MPH limit on every road and freeway in the country. Not only will it not work, it isn't possible no matter how many police we hire; it would take the entire federal budget 10 times over to hire enough police.
We have not reached the point where cost exceeds benefits in discussions regarding the control of the abuse of semiautos. I will acknowledge that point when we reach it, but we are not there yet. First, I want a complete ban of any trade or manufacture of components parts to include workmanship (thank you) for these modifications. I want it made law for all 50 states with severe penalties put in place for non-compliance.
After we have done all of that, then we can talk about cost verses benefit?
"We have not reached the point where cost exceeds benefits in discussions regarding the control of the abuse of semiautos."
Then you will have to show that any benefits are being received. Because everything I looked at says otherwise. I am unable to find a single place on earth that can show any benefits.
Disagree on the stuff for modifying a semi to full automatic. As I understand it, the strict requirements to purchase a full automatic are federal law, not state. Make these parts and efforts the same thing - a federal law. (Of course that doesn't mean that states will enforce them any better than they do immigration laws, but it's better than waiting a decade to get 50 states to all agree).
I agree with your last paragraph.
As for the second, what is the benefit?
Making these modified weapons more difficult to acquire is a benefit, if that makes for lower probability of a Las Vegas sort of massacre in the future, even if they all cannot be eliminated with absolute certainty
"Making these modified weapons more difficult to acquire is a benefit, if that makes for lower probability of a Las Vegas sort of massacre in the future"
From your post I replied to: "We have not reached the point where cost exceeds benefits in discussions regarding the control of the abuse of semiautos." I assumed you meant an ordinary semi automatic weapon, not a modified one and not a full automatic. If you mean either of those two then I agree there may well be benefits, and at a very low cost, to making the one illegal and leaving the other as it is. Although I would support modifying a semi...as long as the owner is registered to own a full automatic.
Out of curiosity, Wilderness, gun proponents have been generally against registration of 'legal firearms'.
What are the qualifications for being given a permit to own a machine gun? Why do you believe that such weapons need to be registered as opposed to non-automatic weapons? Can anyone qualify to own a machine gun? Whether I agree with the OK on semi-auto rendered into full depends on the ease that one can obtain the license and for what purpose. If anyone can be allowed to own machine guns, why not other sorts of what we may consider military ordinance?
Hi Cred, I certainly agree with your logic. I think these "bump-stock" type accessories are skirting the spirit of automatic-fire restrictions. I would not be hard-pressed to agree with their restriction.
When was the last time someone killed 59 people and wounded more than 500 others with a knife?
There was a terrorist attack in my hometown the day before the Vegas shooting. A man hit a police officer with his car and got out and stabbed him repeatedly. He then fled in a U-Haul and proceeded to hit multiple people on sidewalks as the police chased him and blocked busy roadways.
No one died. The officer who was hit by the car and stabbed multiple times was released from the hospital not even 48 hours later. Everyone hit by the U-Haul survived.
Yes, bad people will always find ways to do bad things. But to compare vehicle attacks, knife attacks, etc. with guns does not come close to making sense. How long did it take the Vegas shooter to kill 59 people and injure over 500? Not a fraction of the time it took a man to hit people with a vehicle and stab someone and still take zero lives.
I will never understand why you need to sell someone a weapon that can be turned into something that kills almost 60 people in a matter of minutes using a YouTube tutorial. It makes no sense to me.
That's BS, NYC and Chi town don't allow guns. Silly reasoning. FU
I too was shocked by this morning's news. Why are people using these deaths for a political agenda?
Can't we just grieve?
So then why does the US have 33,000 deaths per year due to guns, why are they the most violent 1st world country?
Using localized points is not the same as a national ban on guns. The US owns over 40 percent of the world's guns and people are shocked these events keep happening.
Also there's plenty of evidence that suggests strong gun restrictions in certain US states do yield lower murder rates
Also if we keep saying "nows not the time to address gun control" then when will that time come, until the next mass shooting event?
Agree to disagree but expect a lot more of these horrific events to come and our government will keep turning a blind eye to such tragedies.
"why are they the most violent 1st world country"
Answer that question and you may find out to stop or minimize it. Until then we're just pretending about being serious about it. Hint: those 33,000 deaths per year are not "due" to guns: they are due to people that have decided to kill other people.
"Also there's plenty of evidence that suggests strong gun restrictions in certain US states do yield lower murder rates"
Where? And what does the evidence from states without strong restrictions say? And why is it different for huge cities than it is for states?
I looked at nations, not just states or cities, from all over the world. So have others. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and murder rates. Not anywhere in the world. And no nation that has ever taken guns has ever seen a significant change in their own murder rates.
But we keep on talking a good fight, always about taking guns out of the hands of citizens. And the murders keep right on happening, whether we take them or not. So yes, our government will keep turning a blind eye to such tragedies, placating the populace by taking guns and pretending it saves lives. It doesn't. Not here and not anywhere in the world.
Where is your sense of outrage? Why is owning an assault rifle more important than other people's lives?
Do you own a gun?
No, I do not fall back on my Faith, I live by it.
I do wish you all the best in whatever "coping mechanisms" you choose to fall back on though, to get you through the trying times, which will inevitably come.
Which is fake news and which is real, I can't tell the difference anymore:
Lone Wolf due to White Privilege or ISIS terrorist?
The Islamic State terror group claimed Paddock converted to Islam a few months ago, through its official Amaq news channel.
Relatives described Paddock as “just a guy” who was never in a hurry and retired to the Nevada desert to enjoy a dry climate and Las Vegas’s casinos.
How about something showing that more guns means more deaths? Not just gun deaths (that's a no-brainer) but more homicides/murders? Don't see the murdered people really caring what tool was used to kill them with...
It's also a no-brainer that the more deadly the weapon is, the more casualties it'll cause. Knives kill people too but guns do so at a much higher level especially automatic.
Australia took hundreds of thousands of guns away and murder/suicide rates plummeted.
What's your solution to this problem then?
So? Australia confiscated thousands and thousands of guns...and their massacre rate went up. Both in number of incidents and in how deadly they are. Seems that matches kill more people than guns ever could.
And no, murder rates did NOT "plummet" when the Aussies were disarmed. The murder rate continued the same slow slide it had been on for years, with a few blips both up and down, something that will always happen. It took over a decade before any real change happened - we can conclude it was from other actions rather than taking the guns away.
Really? The Australian murder rate has declined to a record low.
The #1 source of murders? Knives. Not guns.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n … per-100000
Please quit posting fake news from the NRA. Thank you.
From Chris's post: "Australia took hundreds of thousands of guns away and murder/suicide rates plummeted."
Now I don't know about you, but "plummeted" does NOT mean continuing the same rate of decline that was already in place for the next 10 years. The Australian government agrees:
So how about quitting spinning facts into something it isn't? And quit assuming that anyone that disagrees with you is using fake news or propaganda from the NRA. Some of us actually research before posting.
LOL. Talk about spin! You posted the overall national homicide INCIDENT chart and not the GUN MURDER RATE chart from the very same article! How shameful.
I have posted the gun murder rate chart for anyone interested in the truth and not spins from NRA extremists. FYI, the government started clamping down in the late 80s. Magically, gun murders began a steep decline.
Let me quote again: "Australia took hundreds of thousands of guns away and murder/suicide rates plummeted."
I don't see anything there about gun murder rate, do you? Why would anyone be particularly interested in the gun murder rate, anyway, except to imply that reducing it will equate with a reduction in murder rates - something we know to be untrue?
You might take a good look at your own graph, though - it pretty plainly shows a steady decrease in gun murders prior to the confiscation, followed by the same thing. No real change, then, even in gun murder rates after disarming everyone. Taking the guns produced no results, just like it hasn't anywhere else in the world. Except, of course, to placate those afraid of a chunk of iron.
You aren't even reading my posts. The gun murder rate chart is right there from the page that you linked.
And as I explained in my post, the government clampdown began in the late 80s, which was nearly 30 years ago. The chart clearly shows the gun murder rate declining at a faster pace over the last two to three decades.
Me too ab. A teacher from our small town was there and now her 4 kids have no mother. I have no words. it's a very sad and my heart hurts for everyone. Prayers for all.
I am sorry Terrielynn!
I will keep her family and her students in my prayers! So sad.
Maybe he lost his mind at some point along the way… due to substance abuse.
We do need to ban ALL guns since so many Americans end up dependent on substances of one type or another. These substances are the gateway to hell.
When I woke up yesterday morning and turned on the television to the horrific images in Las Vegas, I was in disbelief, it just didn't seem real. When it all became clear, I cried and began to pray!
I prayed to the same God that this group of concert-goers were singing out to moments before many of them would die. Not long before they became human targets, they were singing 'God Bless America'!
It was a beautiful thing, followed by a very tragic thing.
I chose to share a personal moment here on HP and hoped that others would share their thoughts. Many of you did. Naturally, most are heartbroken over this.
Predictably, some of you have chosen to make this political, blame everything and everyone, but the crazed murderer.....and you couldn't stop there, some of you have chosen to mock God and mock my Faith. Shame on you!
Continuing to pray for this Country that I love and chooosing to focus on the many selfless human beings that put themselves in harm's way to save others!
Praying for the injured and for all that have lost loved ones.
Praying for the healing to begin.
You suggested that this kind of thing could be stopped by people turning to God. That’s where you got stuck. You offered it up as though it was a solution, just as people believe stricter gun laws would be a solution. Turning this into a religious issue is actually no more helpful than turning it into a political one.
I suggested that turning back to God could help, sure can't hurt.
You think turning to Gov for help/for everything...is the answer, I don't!
I want our Government as limited as possible, as it was designed, that's what is in the best interest of We the People. We never want to give up any of our God-given Rights, Rights protected by the Constitution to the Gov. If we ever get to the point where the people allow for the confiscation of guns (that is the stricter you seek, correct?) we are doomed!
Evil exists, I wish it didn't, but it does.
No matter how strict the laws, bad guys don't care. Those with evil intentions don't obey our Laws, they break them. They find a way. They are bad guys!
Just imagine, the criminal element, still criminal, still with weaponry and still with evil intentions, more empowered than ever, knowing the law abiders are unarmed. Imagine an empowered Government, as you remember your History lessons and then finally...think of us; you and me, our families, our friends.
Careful what you wish for Aime!
The Hebrews were all about God. Then their BFF abandoned them to the Babylonians (not once, but twice). then to the Romans, medieval monarchs had a blast with them and finally Hitler. And these were God's chosen ones! After seeing how that worked out for them, so much for this "In God We Trust" BS. Who's "we"?
No sense talking to the gun people, they shut me out like a Religion.
My 1st amendment can tell the 2nd amendment to go to hell.
Pleeeese don"t shoot me.!!!
: In God we Trust: is a Amendment, yet the word God is not in the American Constitution.
The Second Amendment, In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when, where, and what kinds of guns are allowed. In some cases, we can regulate who can obtain guns, imposing restrictions on, for instance, felons, the mentally ill, and known terrorists. We can ban firearms such as military-style assault weapons that (like child pornography) plainly cause far more harm than they add in value.
We can require those who are negligent with their weapons (as we do those who are negligent with their words in defamation cases) to be held liable for the harm they inflict on others. We can do all of these things; we just don’t.
Yes, we could do all that. Or we could define a water pistol as a weapon, "arms", and limit everyone to bearing a water pistol.
If you're going to chop the guts out of the amendment why not go on and do it properly?
At least you don't shut me out about guns, even though we strongly disagree about it.
Promisem, an individual who wants to kill massive amounts of people have killed people by ramming them with vehicles, blowing them up with explosives and more. How many millions of legal gun owners do NOT shoot anyone daily? Remember, laws are for the law abiding. Criminals do not pay attention to laws. Please tell me what gun laws would you have prevented many of these shootings? How many were obtained legally by the shooter?
Mike, no one has killed and wounded more than 500 people by ramming them with a truck, knifes and other possible weapons. I agree explosives remain a danger.
In answer to your questions, as I stated to Wilderness, I would start by closing the private sale loophole that allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns to felons and mentally ill people.
I also would require strict adherence to the national mentally ill database.
Do you agree with keeping guns from felons and mentally ill people?
And this man hasn't "... killed and wounded more than 500 people..." either promisem. I haven't seen a count of the wounded yet, but I have seen reports that multiple hundreds of those 500 injured were injuries sustained in the panic of the escaping concert goers.
I did note that you left "children" out of your obligatory "Do you agree.." query, was that just an oversight?
Now GA, that answer sounds like word games. News reports have used both the words wounded and injured. Any way we cut it, he is responsible for the wounds or injuries to more than 500 people.
I left out the children part because I recognize it's not as easy to answer as felons and mentally ill people. Children can own guns via a responsible parent or guardian, but I stand by the notion that they should not be allowed to buy them.
It is not word games promisem. Your statement said his actions killed or wounded 500 people. That is incorrect and misleading. That the affect of his actions was 500 killed or wounded is more accurate - and less hyperbolic, but, I think, doesn't quite convey the force of damnation you wanted to impart.
His actions wounded 500 people. That’s not inaccurate. People wouldn’t have been fleeing for their lives had he not been shooting at them. Pretty simple.
Aime F, now you are the one playing word games. Those folks that weren't shot were injured. In this instance, the term "wounded" is very specifically associated with the shooter's bullets.
He did not "wound" 500 people. To use wording that implies such is misleading at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I do agree that this is pretty simple. Wound and injury are not always synonymous, and especially not when the discussion concerns shootings.
His shooting at a large crowd of people was the direct cause of the said people fleeing. One does not happen without the other. He is responsible for those injuries and I don’t care whether they’re called wounds or injuries, they are synonymous.
Aime, I can see that you do understand the difference I have been pointing out - your statement that "He is responsible for those injuries ..." shows that. I can also see that you are emotionally committed to defending the use of "wounded," even though it is obvious we both understand it conveys a different meaning. To push the issue further would be trespassing - on my part, so let's leave it here.
Merriam-Webster definition of “wounded” is: injured, hurt by, or suffering from a wound.
Synonyms for “wound”: damage, harm, hurt, injure
This is a weird hill to die on, man. I’m not sure why in a discussion about 59 people being massacred you’re so intent to argue the semantics around words used to describe injuries, but the only thing I’m “emotionally” committed to is pointing out that whether you wanna call them wounded or injured or damaged or harmed, the fact remains that 500+ people are hurt because a guy decided to start shooting at them.
You are right Aime, it is the wrong "Hill" to die on. So I am retreating, as I noted in my last response to you.
I responded to one particular statement. My further responses were only replies to responses to me - because I think I am right. When we use words, we use them to convey meanings. That was my only point. I disagree with the meaning conveyed by the words used, and I don't think it is just a case of semantics. But I am content to just let it go.
Have to go with you on this one, GA. When I first saw that figure (500+ wounded) my reaction was "Who are you trying to kid?". And realized that it had to included the "wounded" that were not shot.
More semantics, but...seems like "spin" to me. Trying to give an impression of something that is false even though the statement is technically true. A "lie", intentional or not. We see that, just a tiny bit on rare occasions, from both the media and the web.
It is word games when the post tries to undermine a position by:
1. Nitpicking on a choice of a single word.
2. Evading the larger point.
3. Ignoring all of the media reports that intersperse the words "wounded" and "injured".
4. Making a claim when you personally don't know how many people were injured and not wounded.
Your comment doesn't pass "peer review".
By the way, you completely ignored the major points of my previous comments about private sales and the mentally ill database. Please stick to the major points rather than avoiding them and criticizing minor ones.
Okay promisem, let me give it another try...
I wasn't nitpicking on a single word, as in choosing frog or toad - I think all would get a similar picture. Or if I chose cut vs. wounded in a knife fight description, again, the same picture.
Getting back to guns and bullets... If you shoot someone with a bullet, of course they are wounded, but you could also say they are injured. But what if you shot the gun and the recoil caused you to fall backwards and sprain an ankle; would you say you were wounded, (an inference to an injury from the bullet), or injured? I am betting you would say you were injured. At least that is what I would say, and it seems logical that others would same the same.
To me, the implication of saying someone was wounded in a discussion concerning guns and bullets means they were shot. Am I really that far off-base in that thinking? Would you not come to the same conclusion if you were listening to a discussion - instead of defending your own?
I am not sure what "larger point" you think I am evading. Several might be drawn from your post. Point me in the right direction and I will be glad to offer a non-evasive answer. I certainly didn't intentionally evade any point you made.
As for the media's use of the words - I wasn't addressing them at all, I was addressing your use of the word. But... I am almost confident that if I tracked down these various media stories you note, and looked at their usage, I won't find even one that uses the implications of wounds or wounded applied to all those injured in this incident. If I am wrong it should be easy for you to show me.
Now, the one I consider the most damaging ... to me, is the one about;
" Making a claim when you personally don't know how many people were injured and not wounded."
I am certain that I made no such claim. Here are the pertinent snippets of what I did claim:
"I haven't seen a count of the wounded yet, but I have seen reports that multiple hundreds of those 500 injured were injuries sustained in the panic of the escaping concert goers. post permalink
"That the affect of his actions was 500 killed or wounded is more accurate..." Post permalink
So... can you supply the permalink to my claim where I didn't know what I was talking about?
Stick to major points? Of course I will, and I thought I was; the major points about the damage from the shooting attack this discussion was focused on. It seems that you are considering your repetition of your private sales loophole and the ethics of a medical "mental illness" database mantra to be major points now. I saw them, but as the focus was as I mentioned, I might have been accused of hijacking the thread if I followed your tangent. If you want to chide me for an action, at least pick the right action.
[ADDED] Your original statement that I responded to said:
"...no one has killed and wounded more than 500 people..." you followed that with "...he is responsible for the wounds or injuries to more than 500 people..."
Do you really wish to say those two statements convey the same image of the event? It is not a matter of "word games," it is a matter of conveying two completely different images of the event.
Hopefully I have provided a little more clarity. If you don't see any more major flaws in my defense of your charges - can I get another shot at your "peer review?" ;-)
Americans will stand by their guns, no matter what. Even if firearms kill more than all wars, aids, illegal drugs and terrorism combined. Can you imagine a man could kill and injure this many people with a hammer or knife. Not even if Bruce Lee going totally insane.
Many US gun attacks are a media distraction from much of the greater numbers of innocent killings US do overseas. By invading with Guns Bombs, Missiles and Drones stricks.
America is hypnotized by their corperation and their media.
"Even if firearms kill more than all wars, aids, illegal drugs and terrorism combined."
Just a trace exaggerated, isn't it? Even if one supposes that a gun is doing the killing rather than a person?
"Can you imagine a man could kill and injure this many people with a hammer or knife. Not even if Bruce Lee going totally insane."
Is it convenient to ignore cars, bombs, car bombs, fire or other effective methods of mass murder? Does it help convince people that guns are the root cause of murder?
The last I checked it wasn’t terribly convenient to stop by the local “Bombs & Guitars” store to purchase a bomb that could easily kill 60 people. That’s the problem. Guns are not the only weapon capable of killing mass amounts of people in minutes but they’re the only ones available for purchase in a strip mall.
Really? Your local farm store carries everything you need. Or home improvement store. There is no need to go into how easy it is to buy a car. Or matches.
But what really counts is that we already know, from world wide experiments and data, that it doesn't work. There is no correlation between the gun ownership and homicide rate, and that means the one is not causal to the other.
I won’t address the car issue because I’ve already explained why I feel that’s much different, and buildings are usually required to be equipped with measures to protect against fires such as fire alarms, sprinklers, etc. I guess once people start walking around wearing bullet proof vests we can talk about similar safety measures meant to protect against guns versus fires and then decide which is more destructive.
You really don’t see the difference between selling separate ingredients which generally have multiple other practical uses and selling assault rifles which don’t really do much of anything at all for anyone?
It does work. The United States is the only civilized nation that has a problem of this magnitude when it comes to mass shootings. You make it harder for people to get their hands on guns that kill dozens of people at a time and you see less of it. I suppose you’re looking at overall homicide rates when it comes to perhaps one-on-one violence and saying that it doesn’t make a difference, which maybe it doesn’t. But I see mass shootings as a separate issue of its own and I think it deserves to be recognized as one.
Yes, guns are the most influential tool for killing people, far greater than bombs missles and drones oversea. Whats worst is the fear of the anticipation of the bang to control people against their harmless will both in the US and overseas
Americans don't stand by their guns. A minority of Americans with a very rich and powerful lobby stand by them.
As more massacres occur, the tide will turn and enough sensible people will demand real gun law reform.
I expect you're right. If not in my lifetime, then not long after. There seems to be an overriding desire in people to control others, and for no more reason than they want to. Being scared adds a lot to that desire, too.
Americans buy into guns more than any countries I have been to - thats a 100.
Ban all guns! There are much better ways to defend yourself. I Think of it this way, it's become a gun culture plague in the US. Killing will never stop killing anymore than a prostitute banging for virginity.
Sure it''s corperation and their media that sell you guns. In order for us to fight each other, wail they walk away with your money. They will sell you the rope to hang yourself and far worse they will get you hooked on white death sugar.
WITHOUT GUN CONTROL
When an assailant enters your house with a gun, you reach for your gun and shoot him, then left with the emotional and psychological trauma that will potentially scar us for LIFE. More Americans troops commited suicide at home than were killed on the battlefeild for an example.
Most people will lack BASIC training for guns making them more dangerious to kill someone they know than a criminal. Ethier way why waste a life, and live with severe mental trauma. Besides your 8 to 50 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist. Beside again most terrorist in the US are white right wing people. Reconsider who first should be arrested. Personally I am prepared for any attackers by the art of not fighting or intuitive of real dangers. Don't know any cops who has saved anyone in my family tree. Yet, plenity of them did saved themselves.
I know the US military is what American fear most, in order to keep theirs guns. Ban their big guns too. All round trouble.
Have US Reinvest in Cannabis that makes 50,000 other healthy products vs. Guns -none other than death. Besides, making green legal vs synthic wealthy is power for the people and for sure crime will go way down.
As a Christian, I ask you to help me understand how Jesus could accept assault rifles or any other gun if he were alive today.
It still boggles my mind that this man could sneak 17 weapons into a hotel room like that. Also per Nevada law you can carry in public and don't even need a license/registration to get a gun.
And while not related, it's amazing how America is so anti-marijuana yet poisons/real killer substances like alcohol and weapons like guns are so readily and easily attainable.
Using the "criminals will get guns no matter what argument", why not make various drugs legal and defuse the cartels/drug lord business of criminals.
I don't know, but I don't see a problem with getting the guns and ammo in - he apparently had weeks to do it in. Put a dozen in a suitcase and stroll past the desk!
Some think we should decriminalize all drugs. I'm not one of them, but it's an option that hasn't been tried. At least not in the US - other countries have with poor success.
Who cares if Kim Jong Un gets a nuke. Nukes don't kill people, people kill people.
Korea is an distraction for the real kill. The Middle east. Go where the money is.
Wow. Didn't know Kim was a US citizen, with rights protected by the US constitution. Didn't even know that the constitution guarantees anyone the right to nuclear weapons.
Guess you learn something every day!
Well, ya know, after the cow pies, I figured all comparisons are legit..
But, hey, guns don't kill people, either. Some of them are created expressly for that purpose, though.
Cow pies, guns, nukes, ....what's the difference? None of them are lethal just sittin' there.
"Some of them are created expressly for that purpose, though."
They surely are. And they're virtually all in the military.
The difference is that Kim is guaranteed nothing under the constitution. Not even "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
But you may have a point anyway. There have been exactly two nukes used in the history of the world. Since then the horror has been enough to prevent any more - is there reason to worry when even a madman has one?
I get your point. So, as always the question is where the line is drawn. Somewhere between cow pies and nukes, I suppose.
Perhaps we should first determine the reasonably expected result of a ban, whether cow pies or nukes. The determine the cost; cost to everyone, not just those that don't want cow pies, and compare it to the benefit being received.
Is that reasonable?
Oh if only your last paragraph could be applied to everything else then maybe the world would be a little less horrible.
Thats like ice cream in the fridgerator, better eat that first before it turns rotten. Or Trump we got nukes, why not used them.
States got more guns than people, why not used them too.
No harm in me assumeing who is the bad guys.
Maybe this is yet another American thing that I just don’t understand.
With respect, no, it is not. It's partly an extremist faction and partly the history of this country that required guns for people to survive during more dangerous times.
You're not the only one, and I'm American.
I grew up in a hunting household, eating venison, rabbit, quail, all killed by my dad. He had no need for a rapid firing killing machine to provide food for his family, and the handgun he kept in his bedroom was enough protection.
What happened to common sense?
Do you need a knife over 3" long (second most common weapon used in murders)? Do you need a baseball bat (third most common is bludgeoning)? Did Dad need a rifle, or was it just cheaper or more fun to hunt food rather than buy it? Did he need a handgun, unlike the millions that do not own a weapon for self protection?
Does the 1st amendment limit ownership to those needing a gun?
Been down that rabbit hole before. Maybe someone else would like to crawl around in it with you this time. ;-)
Tough one to make sense of, isn't it? Always ends up seeming to me that the reason for control is simply because we don't like what someone else has, or does or says, for the "need" argument is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with anything. Or, at best, a personal opinion based on personal likes and dislikes.
Yes, you will continue to think this way no matter what proponents of additional federal gun regulation say, and no matter how many mass shootings occur, and no matter how many people are killed. I know this and I choose not to waste any more time on it with you.
People are changing their minds on this, though, and I have no doubt we will eventually progress toward sensible regulation. As usual, die-hard conservatives will be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.
Well, I don't really doubt that America will disarm its citizens one day. The desire to control others is too great to pass it up, and doubly so when it's combined with irrational fear that feeds upon itself. If only we were as concerned about people dying from violence as we are about which tool is used!
You are the most dedicated Libertarian I have ever met. But I will take a society of laws over anarchy any day for the safety of my family and community.
Well, me too...if the laws are about safety and not just placating a frightened populace. But then that's the problem isn't it - it's far more about control and buying votes than reducing the death toll.
No worries, the precious 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct. But, it is like you said earlier a balance and consideration of the needs and obligations for all have to be considered when discussing a course of action in regards to the gun question. The ability for one man to mow people down with such rapidity and relative ease considering the weapons available and why they are will be the topic of discussion for all sides of the political spectrum, these days.
I disagree - there are far too many people quite open about disarming the nation, and even more that just won't talk about it. We will lose our rights one day, whether 10 years from now or 50.
Would that it really was the "needs and obligations for all" that is discussed! Instead it's only about chipping away at the amendment without regard to the effects - let them die if I can but get another gun away!
Cynicism? You have got plenty GOP and your NRA, against this political firewall, what can pass through? We will just be temporarily startled and be temporarily distracted, moving back to business as usual. The last few massacres of the last 20 years attests to that. Your pro gun lobbies are a formidable political power, because, after all, to date no one has lost his gun.....
"The last few massacres of the last 20 years attests to that."
Boy, you got that one right! It just keeps on happening regardless of what laws we enact against gun owners. Why don't we all pay attention to that little fact, quit screwing with the constitution, and put efforts into something that might actually work?
"Repeating the same thing over and over while expecting a different result this time is a definition of insanity".
When you got armed toddlers killing more people than terrorist. They are not the only idoits who do not know how to handle a gun. There are too many emotional disorder and fools out there.
Don't think "armed toddlers" have killed more than 3,000 people this century.
But will concede there are lots of fools out there; people that think taking guns away from honest people will solve the violence problem in America.
Cover ups happen all the time. What. the media is program to say, would not be about right wing terrorist are the leading terrorist in America. I have faith in the contitution and the American people in a decade or two from now. Your Goverment, naaa, don'"t trust them as far as I can throw them.
You are maybe right, if your considering 9/11 was an American terrorist attack on it'self. Most Americans believe it could have been an inside job including GW Bush. I dont accept it as fact along with many other false flag left in mysterious ways. US must have wars every two years. As recently years more than one a year, plus. Look was God sent for Goverments around the world , 9/11.
Wiki states most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural failure due to impact and fire. Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective stand-down of the American military. Possible motives claimed by conspiracy theorists for such actions include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (even though the U.S. government concluded Iraq was not involved in the attacks) to advance their geostrategic interests, such as plans to construct a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan. Other conspiracy theories revolve around authorities having advance knowledge of the attacks and deliberately ignoring or assisting the attackers.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theorists. The 9/11 Commission and some of the civil engineering community accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers, but some groups continue to disagree with the arguments made by NIST and Popular Mechanics, including Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
"Most Americans believe it could have been an inside job including GW Bush."
Man, you have got stop with these things! There can't be one out of a thousand (I'm being extremely generous) Americans that believe 911 was an "inside job".
Nonsense a 1000 to one, 9/11 will continue being the top conspiracy therory in the world. No other conspiracy therory shows more divious play. Got GW on youtube saying it could have been an inside job. As far as knowledge of attack, GW Bush and knowledge don"t coincide.
LasVegas and 9/11 will continue to raise more questions an anwers. For the purpose to control the people by fear.
We can be concerned about both. The topic at hand is mass shootings, though, which is a unique type of violence with unique causes, completely different from other types of violent crimes.
Yes, I can agree with that. The causes may be the same for a handful of single shootings, but in general mass killings are different. Whether shootings or killings is immaterial; mass murder doesn't have the same cause as simple murder.
Personally, I think it's going to be a VERY tough nut to crack, because mass murderers are not sane. And getting the insane off the street, well, I just don't see any way outside of massive loss of freedoms.
I do wonder, though, if serious efforts in schools, from grade school up, in teaching kids how to control themselves and their emotions might help. In more ways than one, for that matter; suicide, for instance, from bullying or other reasons.
Yes, as you have pointed out with the Australian numbers, a comprehensive set of initiatives could make some lasting impact. Regulating guns to make it harder for people to commit a mass killing is just one step among many.
We talk a lot about keeping guns away from the mentally ill, but as a person who had a mentally ill family member, I can tell you that treatment for the mentally ill is woefully hard to get and good treatment costs money, which most mentally ill people don't have. So, health care is part of the solution.
We shouldn't just throw our hands up and think nothing can be done. We should be striving to figure out how to approach the problem from many angles. We do get hung up on the guns, and I sincerely believe we can strictly regulate rapid fire killing machines and still have our 2nd Amendment freedoms, but that is only one piece of the puzzle.
Sorry, forgot to hit the quote button. I was referring to the wounded versus injured wording apparently being some form of media trickery.
Most of my American friends are actually quite fed up with the state of things and very pro-stricter gun laws so I know it’s not Americans on the whole that can’t be reasoned with on this subject.
Understand. I think the "wounded" versus "injured" discussion is minutae intended to draw focus from the extreme devastation caused by one shooter's 9-minute (last I heard) murderous spree using legally acquired guns.
...mmpphh ...mmpphh ...mmpphh .... aarrrggghhh
LOL, naw, you can keep on talkin' and we'll keep on talkin' back atcha.
Edited to add: I know you probably feel that motives are ascribed to you that aren't there, and maybe they are. It happens to us liberals all the time, too. Like when wilderness says we only want to control what other people do just because we can. That's silly in the extreme, but I have no doubt he believes it. If you feel we are trying to muzzle you, stop and think for a minute. We can't muzzle you. Only you can muzzle you.
Or, maybe I completely misinterpreted your post. I'm wrong once in awhile. ;-)
Yes PrettyPanther, you did misinterpret it.
Okay, so I would like to know what you meant...?
Oh, you are restraining yourself from saying what you really what to say? Did I get it right this time?
PrettyPanther, it was an effort to show restraint - against a strong desire to respond.
But... since you did ask.... I will slip my bonds and reply. ;-)
My original point was, (and Wilderness provided the word I should have used in the first place), that as the statement I responded to was phrased;
"......no one has killed and wounded more than 500 people..." ... it was pure spin. Something that poster frequently rails against.
To me that statedment clearly indicates the gun's bullets killed and wounded 500 people. Without the foreknowledge of the conversation that has taken place now - would you have perceived it otherwise?
So my point was that the original statement was "spin," (Wilderness' word), that presented a false image.
Unfortunately, for me, my point was taken to mean that I did not think the shooter's actions were responsible for the other non-bullet related injuries, (even though I stated that I did), and was just playing word games, (which I tried to clarify), or semantics.
In the end I realized the futility of my effort and preceded down the hill - still fully believing I am still right, but understanding that some were so emotional about the event that my obsinence was offending.
I understand. My only comment is that what you ascribe to being "emotional" is merely being practical. For all practical purposes, those 500+ people would not be wounded (or injured) without the actions of the shooter. I know that you are correct in everything you have stated, and a journalist should be more precise in their wording. It was poorly written.
That said, I also restrained myself earlier. I typed a reply to you zeroing in on your "emotionally committed" phrase, as I felt it was condescending. However, I restrained myself, but hey, since you used the "emotional" description yet again....
We who support stricter gun regulations believe that the opposition to any new laws often comes from an emotional position, not a practical one. For example, even though I have brought it up more than once, I have not once ever received an answer to my question about what would be so bad about registering every gun just like we do every car, and requiring proficiency tests to earn a license. Would law abiding citizens still lose their 2nd Amendment freedoms? No one who has argued against further regulating guns has ever answered my question, EXCEPT in the following manner: it's all a liberal plot to take our guns away. To what do I attribute that response? Sounds pretty emotional to me.
So, that perception of "emotional commitment" works both ways.
What would be the purpose of registering all guns? The only ones I can think of is to aid police in solving crimes (a very small benefit for a very large cost) and to have a record of just who has a gun. Which is only useful when it comes time to take them away. Emotional? No, coldly rational - if you can come up with a different reason to maintain that database, connecting every police dept. in the country to it, I'm listening.
But I think I understand what GA meant. Sandy Hook hit me hard as I had two grandchildren the right age and I picked them up from school in the afternoon. Horrified, scared, angry, despairing - it all came together each afternoon as I watched dozens of children group together in a parking lot. It didn't matter what was done, I just demanded that something happen. With time that has faded and reason took it's place; I now demand that something that has a hope of success happen, not just anything at all. Requiring that every gun in the nation be painted pink isn't going to help - something that might help is. And every time something like this happens - yearly or more - the only thing we hear is cries for more of the same policies that have failed every year since we began to regulate gun ownership.
You are right PrettyPanther, emotion driven responses aren't limited to a particular bias.
Although I can see the possibility of a perception of condensation when I speak of an emotionally driven response or position, it is not intended so. I hope Aime doesn't mind if I use her as one of the better examples. She, as all of us do, condemns the horrific event in Las Vegas. She, as many of you do, blames the weapon. It seems the combination of the tragedy and the weapon used hit all her hot buttons. Her responses clearly showed she understood the difference between those wounded by the shooter's bullets, and the injuries sustained in the ensuing panic. Yet, even after showing that she understood the difference - she still said it didn't matter, they were still wounds inflected by the shooter's actions - which is correct, but not the point of the discussion. That was her emotional defense of her initial thoughts.
My pointing that out as an emotional position wasn't intended to be condescending, it was meant to indicate my acceptance of the reality of her position, in that no fact, or explanation of perspective would change her mind.
But, to get us off this "wounded vs injured" train, I will try to answer your question about a gun registry. Unfortunately, my answer is still going to sound conspiratorial to you. I believe you are right, it is an emotion-driven answer, but one I think can be supported by historical context.
A national gun registry of unregulated guns, ie. long guns - rifles, gives the government a record of who has guns and where they are. That is not information our government needs to do its duties. But it would be invaluable information if our government ever did take one of the many paths those "conspiracy" folks consider to be possibilities.
In return, let me ask you what benefit a gun registry would provide? Current background checks serve all the purposes of a registry - except the retention of the data. Why do you think the government needs that data at their fingertips? How would having that data help prevent events like Las Vegas, Dylan Roof, or Sandy Hook?
One of the primary arguments against enacting any additional laws restricting guns is that criminals will still get their hands on guns. This is true. However, requiring that every gun have a number by which it can be tracked, requiring gun owners to register their guns and report when they are sold, and requiring every gun owner to pass a proficiency test to be licensed, will at least enable law enforcement to better track stolen guns. It would also. I think, enable the feds to be alerted when someone starts stockpiling guns, so at least they could be looked into and asked to provide justification for their desire to have so many guns.
Lastly, many people would give up their guns rather than hassle with the requirements, even though the requirements would be no more onerous than what is demanded of a driver who owns a car. Why? Because most gun owners don't use or need their guns. Those who do will do what it takes to keep them.
Yes, the government would then know where all the guns are. This is where I believe gun advocates are living in a delusional fantasyland. If the government (i.e., the president backed by th U. S. military and the National Guard) were to decide, right now, that they wanted your guns, it would be no contest. Your homegrown neighborhood militia could put up a fight but would easily be quashed by the power of the strongest military in the world.
Because I believe it's a gun nut fantasy that they could rise up and overthrow the U.S government, it's hard for me to get all teary-eyed about having to register my guns.
And your last statement,PrettyPanther, is why there is such a difference of opinion. What you firmly believe is "gun nut fantasy," is what many others believe is reason to oppose a registry. You have only an opinion to support your view, and they have only an opinion to support theirs. It all comes back to the cost of security. You are willing to pay a little more, (in the form of surrendered liberties) - they are not.
I do not see the benefit as worth the cost, I am with them.
Why does govt. need to "track" stolen guns? To return them to the owner? I don't believe it.
And what "justification" is required to own 1,000 guns? Why does it need "justified", when that justification comes only from those wanting all guns gone?
If the army decided it wanted all guns, right now, how would it find them? House to house search with trained dogs, metal detectors, etc.? I don't believe that, either.
"Why does govt. need to "track" stolen guns? To return them to the owner? I don't believe it.". Why do we need to track cars?
"And what "justification" is required to own 1,000 guns? I can't think of any justification for the Vegas shooter to own 43 or whatever it was; you tell me.
"Why does it need "justified", when that justification comes only from those wanting all guns gone?" Who wants guns gone? Not me.
"If the army decided it wanted all guns, right now, how would it find them? House to house search with trained dogs, metal detectors, etc.? I don't believe that, either." if an individual wanted to use his gun, it would be found, wouldn't it? If its not being used, it's not a threat anyway.
Remember,we're talking about Dan and GA and people who keep guns for hunting and people who have guns for self-protection and my loony neighbor who keeps a gun because he's afraid the tweakers are gonna break into his $150,000 mansion and steal his luxury TV. You know, regular people who want to have a gun or two or maybe four because they have their very ordinary reasons. Plus, those patriots who imagine they can fight off their own government because, you know, those government tanks will disintegrate with a shot from Uncle Ed's 's 30-30.
Don't worry. No one is going to take away your guns. If they try, you can shoot 'em. That's why we have the 2nd Amendment. In fact, you can shoot 'em just for unlawfully entering your home, even if all they want is your $400 TV. Now, that's freedom!
PP hypothetically speaking, you and I are shopping at the local mall and there's an active shooter on the loose. This person is headed right for us, but I have a permit to carry and I always carry, does my having a weapon increase your odds of survival?
This hypothetical actually occurred at the Umpqua Community College shooting that happened 20 minutes from where I live. Look it up.
To answer your question, I doubt that my chances of survival increase very much, if at all. Ordinary citizens rarely think fast enough and shoot accurately enough in a rapidly evolving situation to do any good at all.
"Why do we need to track cars?"
"I can't think of any justification for the Vegas shooter to own 43 or whatever it was; you tell me."
"Who wants guns gone? Not me."
"if an individual wanted to use his gun, it would be found, wouldn't it? If its not being used, it's not a threat anyway."
PP, at this point you have made several suggestions as to good gun control laws. But when asked pertinent questions as to "why", or what the expected results are, you decline to provide a single answer. Telling me to answer why your laws would be good instead and ending with the claim that no one's going to take my guns.
That isn't particularly productive, and why so many people are firmly against gun laws. You didn't provide a single rationale for any of the proposals - why would anyone else consider them at all?
I answered your question about why track guns in my original post on the matter: to track people who are buying them in unusual quantities.
I answered your question about justification for many guns by telling you I can't think of any justification for one person to have 43 guns. That doesn't mean someone else might
not come up with a reasonable justification; I just can't personally imagine what that would he.
I answered all your questions. What did I not answer?
I don't want to take away your guns. I have always made that clear, yet you keep insisting that is what I want to do. The 2nd Amendment exists so we can all have our guns and I have no desire for that to change.
"I answered your question about why track guns in my original post on the matter: to track people who are buying them in unusual quantities. "
Nope; we already have that in background checks. No need to register them to have the save result. Got another reason to register and track guns?
"I answered your question about justification for many guns by telling you I can't thinkn of any justification for one person to have 43 guns."
Don't see that, but will stipulate you said it. But that doesn't address the question of why anyone needs "justification" to buy as many guns as they want - that they want them is justification enough to purchase them. The constitution doesn't say our right to bear arms shall not be abridged as long as Pretty Panther (or anyone else) doesn't think we have too many.
"I answered all your questions. What did I not answer? "
Why purchase of guns, whether 1 or a thousand, needs any justification at all - we don't need a "justification" to exercise our rights as far as I know. And how govt. would find registered guns if they chose to take them. All you did was provide a great excuse to stop bothering anyone about guns, as the majority of guns are used for nothing but target practice. Not in use, then, so not a threat (your words).
It's a common trick for some people to keep claiming we say things we didn't actually say. I run into it quite a bit with a couple of people here on HP.
Do you get kick out of it when someone tells you how you feel?
The public having 10 times the amount of guns than the US military has, plus 50 times the number of people. It would make nearly impossible for the military to win. I can't imagine the Troops turning on their family relationship over the greedy bankers who run the show. The true leaders has always been the people throughout human history. Chinese say tbe snake in the grass is more powerful than the dragon in the sky.
Without near total destruction, no military can win against a well armed, determined population that is willing to die. Afghanistan is a case in point.
It's all speculation anyway, but I fear our populace is pretty soft and wouldn't stand a chance against the US military.
In any case, no one is talking about banning guns so if the uprising happens we'll still be well armed.
No one wants to ban guns? Sure wish you'd explain that to Feinstein. And a pack more legislators, as they've made no bones about that being the ultimate goal.
But no chance; it all depends, IMO, on just how far the military is willing to go. An H bomb here and there - the people lose. Fire bomb NYC, Houston, LA, Chicago and a dozen others, the people lose. Kill a measly million or so and give it up as a lost cause, the people will win. IMO. You can't subjugate an armed population that is willing to die, but you can destroy them.
Agree with your last paragraph.
Haven't heard Nancy say her ultimate goal is to ban all guns, though.
"Nancy"? I meant Diane Feinstein, the legislator that makes no bones about wanting all guns illegal.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up [every gun]… Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in."
There are a lot of people who say, give me liberty or give me death. The populous wouldn't stand a chance against the military.
You look very young for a man of such wisdom...
...mmpphh ...mmpphh ...mmpphh
I don’t mean to alarm you, but... you appear to have somehow gotten a tanline in the form of the letter ‘a’ on your nose...
Not a tanline Aime, my wife branded me after I left the screen open and she read a few of my posts. Naturally I disagreed, but you can see who won that argument.
Ouch, a branding on the face sounds painful. Would you say that you were wounded, or injured?
Hi there Aime, That was cute. I am glad to see our cross-Atlantic relations seem to be Okay. I was worried I might have to expel my Churchill books to the closet.
Women can be downright mean, can't they? And wives...I gotta go - mine is walking into the room!
My Hubby starts looking at me from over the top of his glasses, when I've been on HP too long.
Soooo I get it guys!
Seems the perfect time to put this discussion to bed.
Right wing radio and TV peeps are always warning their listeners about the left wanting to take all guns away from owners. This is BS and always has been. I own numerous hunting rifles and shotguns and plan on keeping them, but no one needs an assault rifle with 50 round clips to keep their hunting rifles safe. Propaganda works well on the right.
Yes, propaganda works well on the right. They just elected a guy who went for the long con and won, much to his own surprise. Even he didn't think enough voters would fall for it to elect him president.
Sadly, we all have to live with it now. Even more sadly, only a few of those who were conned will acknowledge it and learn from it.
The NRA has buffaloed many of the same people. I bet they would align almost perfectly on a chart.
But Randy, do you "need" your shotguns and rifles? How do you determine other's needs without knowing their reasons for feeling needing something?
I don't "need" my RV, and I didn't "need" the boat I used to own. I don't "need" a 3 bed house or two cars, for a two person family. I don't "need" a television, for that matter or my hammers or other bludgeons I own (third most common murder weapon). I don't even "need" the large knives in the kitchen (second most common murder weapon).
There are two things that separate everything you’ve mentioned from guns. The first being purpose, in that none of those things are specifically designed to kill things and most serve multiple other purposes that enhance the vast majority of people’s lives serving their primary purposes. The second being the scale of harm. Please let me know how you might be able to somehow murder 59 strangers in ten minutes with your 3 bedroom house or television. Vehicle attacks happen but the survival rates are much higher than shooting sprees. Hammers and kitchen knives may be popular murder weapons but again, not on the same scale as guns. I mentioned this before but you’re including single homicides and comparing them to mass murders. Why is it that you seem to feel that if you can’t solve both you shouldn’t try to solve one?
I addressed the "need" factor, not the usefulness of various weapons. The question of how to kill lots of people with inferior weapons is irrelevant, although I WILL say that the house includes several propane tanks...tanks which make fine bombs. And the RV has a big one on it, for that matter. Some homes have a nice big tank of diesel and bags of fertilizer in the garage (think OK city - 168 dead).
But let me ask YOU: what is the design and purpose of a .22 cal. Olympic rifle? To kill people? How about the "purpose" of a $5,000 shotgun, when one that shoots better costs a quarter of that? Your life isn't "enhanced" by having fun shooting targets - does that mean that no one else's is either? Hammers and knives don't kill as many people as guns do, but if there were no guns then how many would they kill (hint: experience says the murder rate won't change if we take guns, no matter how hard we try to pretend "common sense" proves it will)?
Don"t bring a household tool to a gun fight.
I cant imagine running out of ideas to kill someone and I lived a very adventurous life.
For some reason the first thing I thought of was a writing contest about - possibly in the style of Stephen King?
Horror Hugo Hotel where hundreds died in a Earthquake/Fire in 1906
Actually piss-poor construction where thousands have died happens quite frequently in India.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/databl … re-housing
The result was a staggering indictment of India's structural safety standards - 2,651 dead and 850 injured from the collapse of 2,737 structures. We've produced an interactive map of the results at state level so you can explore the trends yourself
Willow Island disaster
Wow, I wish I had your life, sound like you're living a sweet life of retirement!.
Well, I have zero desire to return to the workplace, that's for sure! But don't make too much of it; the RV's 17 years old, the boat's gone and one car is 15 years old (a "toad" for the RV). Love the home, though - although 70 years old it's nice after improvements and I got a great deal on it.
Indeed, heartbreaking is the way to describe the destruction this murderer spewed out on the victims and, in fact, this country. While we are ever so thankful for the heroes and heroines who went into selfless action to help so many others, our hearts are broken over the tragedy. In the coming days you might like to read the book Trusting God when Life Hurts from Jerry Bridges, https://www.barnesandnoble.com/p/trusti … PLGoP79700
In the face of such evil let's remain thankful for those who stepped up and united together to help others. As well, let's be careful of initial reactions and advice already coming from self-proclaimed experts. Taking cues on how to respond from the victims and their families could be important, but most of all we pray for those around them to be able to meet their needs, we pray for the first-responders to recuperate, and we pray for investigators to be able to divide truth from error.
I will check out the book, RTalloni, thanks for the recommendation..
Life does hurt at times, doesn't it?
All of the stories of the multiple selfless acts of heroism throughout the attack and in the aftermath, does not surprise me. There is still so much more good than evil in this world. Most people instinctively rush in!
Praying for complete healing of the injured and for peace of mind for all that have lost loved ones.
Just did a survey on AMT asking about my gambling habits and if I had any work experience dealing with internal/external auditors.
I'm like - wait a minute wasn't the Las Vegas Shooter a ex-IRS auditor? Is the NSA trying to profile people via Amazon Turk? Is this is the best we can do is give a survey?
Paddock, who according to federal records held a series of federal jobs over the years. He was a post office letter carrier in the 1970s, and after graduating from Cal State Northridge with a degree in business administration in 1977, he became an agent for the Internal Revenue Service, a job he held from 1978 to 1984. He then was employed as an auditor for the Defense Contract Audit Agency for a little over a year, federal personnel records showed.
by Scott Belford 7 years ago
The NRA leadership (not most of NRA members) currently sees Gun Control as a stark Black and White issue. The NRA et al think that ANY step to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them is ipso facto an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of ALL citizens; this is the...
by Castlepaloma 9 years ago
Jim Carrey’s "Lonesome Earl and the Clutterbusters". -wrote a song reference to Charlton Heston NRA statement, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." The wording of one part of Jim’s song was “ he could not enter Heaven, as even the angels could...
by Alem Belton 8 years ago
Okay so another guy dresses up like The Joker and kills people. I will resist the urge to state how bizarre and coincidental that is and stick to the question.The media is intent on showing Americans all the LEGAL gun killings they can while not informing us about the countless lives that are...
by LauraGT 10 years ago
6,000 highly trained professional good guys with guns, an entire metropolitan area shut down for a day, and who knows how many millions of dollars. Perhaps we should rethink gun control/rights in our country. Or at least, pressure the NRA to rethink its mantra....
by HuntersWhitt 10 years ago
With all of the uproar over gun laws lately, I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks. So here's the question:A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
by Josh Ratzburg 6 years ago
What are your thoughts on gun control?With the recent mass shooting in Oregon, it makes me think that there needs to be better gun control laws. "But criminals are still going to break laws and get guns, so you're really just controlling law-abiding citizens" ... maybe, but how many of...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|