Las Vegas Gun Laws: Open Carry, Machine Guns Legal

Okay NT gun nuts - show the new crowd what they have signed up for.

Michael Buffer ‏ Verified account   @ Michael_Buffer

?)+conversion kits 2make auto gun into rapid-fire combat killing machine!

Bump Stocks ?

Just to point something out, one doesn't use a bump stock on a fully automatic weapon....

Which means that the comment is coming from someone who hasn't a clue....

And it should be treated with appropriate humorous affection.

Just to point something out, one doesn't use a bump stock on a fully automatic weapon....

I was referencing that based on his post from FB, noting conversion kits.

Seems the Bump Stock came up on one of the news outlets today.

Hal,

Hey just for fun why don't we do a comparison of homicide rates in the whole state of NV which has the most lax gun laws to the comparative small city of Chicago which has the most stringent.  ROFL!   You never learn.

Why Chicago?  So that you can win your argument?  Gee, aren't you clever.  After that, I'll pick the city and show you that you are wrong.  That will be fun ... and pointless.

Are you admitting your argument is pointless?

Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

Go for it.  You may only pick ones with stringent gun laws.   I'll be waiting.   (a looooong time.)

BTW I noticed you COMPLETELY ignored the MOUNTAINS and DECADES of data proving countries that enacted gun laws saw no change in violence at the bottom of the page. (or an uptick) 

But I didn't really expect you to address the truth of the situation, so no surprise there.

Hey just for fun why don't we do a comparison of homicide rates in the whole state of NV which has the most lax gun laws to the comparative small city of Chicago which has the most stringent.  ROFL!   You never learn.

Hey, just for fun, why don't we do a comparison regarding how much research some people do before they post asinine comments.

The State of Nevada has a population of just over 2.9 million people and the comparatively 'small' city of Chicago (the 3rd largest city in America), has a population of 2.7 million people. "Comparatively" speaking, regarding population they are about the same size. 

Anyway, the issue has little to do with the number of people living in an area. It has to do with the type of people, and whether they are inclined to follow the law. 

Even with that consideration, according to an article in The Trace , " On a per capita basis, (Chicago's) shooting epidemic is not nearly as severe as the violence in many other large American cities" . A fact that may be because of Chicago's strict gun possession laws.

Per capita for the entire metro area only tells part of the story.  Look at crime data for neighborhoods like Austin, englewood, Garfield Park and North Lawndale. These neighborhoods are not LIKE war zones.....they ARE war zones. It is an embarrassment that people are living like this in the US.

i read a story a couple months ago about a mother in Austin.  She said at one time, politicians would lie about getting tough on crime in her neighborhood.  Now they don't even care enough to lie.......its as if her neighborhood doesn't exist anymore.  How sad is that?

Per capita for the entire metro area only tells part of the story.  Look at crime data for neighborhoods like Austin, englewood, Garfield Park and North Lawndale. These neighborhoods are not LIKE war zones.....they ARE war zones. It is an embarrassment that people are living like this in the US.

Per capita shows the ratio of all people dying by gunfire in designated areas. The fact that particular areas of cities are like war zones is no surprise, but they contribute to the overall picture. The United States of America is not as peaceful a nation that most Americans think they live in. 

I don't know why Americans think this is a peaceful country when there are at least 350 million, mostly unregistered, guns floating around. 

A fact that may be because of Chicago's strict gun possession laws.

And those laws have prevented how many murders?

In the major cities as high as 85% of the homicides are committed by people with criminal records and are prohibited from owning a gun.

Want to reduce homicide?  Follow President Obama's plan and change the way we sentence and incarcerate.

We don't take seriously how we deal with violent felons before they kill.  The violent must be the priority for prison space.

A crime that involves a weapon must be a life sentence.  Parole after an appropriate time.  Any further crime is a parole violation and it's back for a hard 20.  A second parole after that.  Another violation and it's back to finish the sentence.

Want to target those who prey on others I am with you all the way.  Want to go after the law abiding then I am not.

And those laws have prevented how many murders?

That comment was in respect to pointing out that Chicago is not as guilty as other cities regarding it's murder rate. Look at the chart.

In the major cities as high as 85% of the homicides are committed by people with criminal records and are prohibited from owning a gun.

I have a habit of posting links to support my statistical quotes. However, assuming your 85% is accurate, the point I have been trying to make out in these gun debates, is that these criminals are able to obtain guns is because there are way too many guns in this country. There are more guns in the US per capita than any other industrialised country in the world. 

Per a Wikipedia report ;
According to the  Congressional Research Service , there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all.

...... almost one for every man, woman and child.

Want to reduce homicide?  Follow President Obama's plan and change the way we sentence and incarcerate. 

Obama wanted to reduce our incarceration rate. Today, Sessions wants to incarcerate every guilty verdict with a maximum sentence.  

The incarnation rate in the US already also holds the world record. We have more people in prison than any other country in the world. 

United States incarceration rate - Wikipedia

In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about  4.4 percent  of the world's population, it houses around  22 percent  of the world's prisoners.

We don't take seriously how we deal with violent felons before they kill.  The violent must be the priority for prison space.

Don't worry, violent criminals are first in line for incarceration, you can get locked up in this country for spitting on the sidewalk. 

Prisons in the US a big business, with a base workforce of almost a half million correction officers making almost $47,000 a year. 

A crime that involves a weapon must be a life sentence.  Parole after an appropriate time.  

That's a little heavy (and costly) anyway, the length of sentences, even the laws designed to prevent crime have little effect on the minds of most criminals committing a crime. When people are committing a crime, they do not think they are going to get caught or they eliminate potential punishment from their minds. So the length of a sentence has little to no effect on preventing a crime, but a good education does.

We spend about $80 Billion a year for our criminal justice system.

"The $80 billion figure comes from a report published last year by the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution. That report, which compiles data from government sources like the Census Bureau and Bureau of Justice Statistics, found that the amount spent by all levels of government on corrections more than quadrupled in inflation-adjusted dollars from 1980 to 2010. In 2010, federal, state, and local agencies spent a combined $80 billion on corrections, or $260 per U.S. resident." [ Link ]

That's a little heavy (and costly) anyway, the length of sentences,

Obama wanted our prison space prioritized by reducing the nonviolent offenders.  The nonviolent need to be dealt with on the outside and not in a maximum security prison.

 As to the life and parole system I mentioned it doesn't really change anything other than making it easier for violent offenders to be returned to prison if they offend again.

Going easy on the violent lets them do more violence.  No more wink and nod for the guy that used a gun in a robbery.  Make the cost of the crime too high to pay and crime goes down.

Incarceration reduces crime.  Most crimes prosecuted are but a tip of the iceberg of the crimes the perp did.

wpr

newpittsburghcourieronline

baltimoresun

Want more?  Some are higher than 85%

The sad truth is these sort of mass killings will never cease as long as anyone who wants one can get these weapons.

That simply isn't true.   Many people can not buy legally buy a gun.   Many more can not legally own an automatic weapon.

Do you think these mass shootings will stop?

Why not?

If not, then stop bitching about Muslim terrorism in the US.

It is unconstitutional to eject all Muslims from the US, just as it is unconstitutional to ban guns.

So let's cut the bs and let everyone do whatever they hell they want, and suffer the consequences. No more complaints about Muslims. Ok?

Show me where i've bitched only about Muslim Terrorism.   I'm an equal opportunity Terrorism hunter.   Muslim terrorists, antifa terrorists, nazi terrorists, gang terrorists ...... i could go on.   They all need to be dealt with.

That said, nice attempt at an off topic redirect.   My original comment stands firm.

Well there was talk last year about taking away the rights of people that were on the no fly list to buy and own guns....the ironic part about all that is when I dissented about that I have a bunch of right wingers jump down my throat claiming that is was for national safety and that they had no problem with that......I had to chuckle at that one!

Exactly who is on that list and how did they get there?  No one knows is the answer.

Good point!

If put on it by error, how does one get off it?  No one knows the answer.

Another good point!

Come back and support denying the rights of someone for an error, or possibly supposition, conjecture, innuendo or revenge and we can have a discussion.

Ok...you lost me there, Why should I support denying the rights of anyone for empty supposition and opinions

If there with a VALID reason and can be supported in a court, I have NO problem with it. 

So you're in support of someone's rights being taken away for something they POTENTIALLY might do?! Just like with a valid law can you name one VALID reason to take away someone rights for something they could have the POTENTIAL to do? But thanks for giving me a another chuckle, I just told you that I did not agree with taking away someone's 2nd Amendment Rights all because they are on a no fly list that like you said in your comment earlier could very well be bogus and you showed that you truly do have a mind for gun regulations!

Equal opportunist terrorist.....gotta love it!

Well there was talk last year about taking away the rights of people that were on the no fly list to buy and own guns....the ironic part about all that is when I dissented about that I have a bunch of right wingers jump down my throat claiming that is was for national safety and that they had no problem with that......I had to chuckle at that one!

The fact is, there are about 9 or 12 "lists".  The only bill that even came close to being acceptable, can't remember the Republican who sponsored it, was opposed by the Justice Dpt, FBI, and Homeland Security.  It used several lists by the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security.  The problem with it, and why it was opposed by the Alphabets, was it required a 72 hour hold, and the appropriate agency had to prove to a fed judge that the individual shouldn't buy a gun.  Their problem with that was it tips their hand to an investigation, and the evidence they have gathered.

Like you WillJay, I caught a lot of flack from conservatives when I voiced my support for this type of bill. 

as long as the reason can be documented and substantiated by other supposition, conjecture and innuendo.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/local/2017/03/06/despite-a-mothers-plea-her-mentally-ill-daughter-was-sold-a-gun-with-tragic-results/?utm_term=.807dc2074d5f

I posted that story a while back when it was current news, and the gun nuts here went nuts about how the parents needed to follow the proper legal protocols.  There's no way they could have saved the father because of the bureaucracy you speak of.

bunch of right wingers jump down my throat

Not this right winger.  That was a horrible idea totally devoid of due process.

There's no way they could have saved the father because of the bureaucracy you speak of.

CA has a law called the Gun Restraining Order.  It allows removal of firearms when a person is at risk of doing harm to themselves or others.

With proper due process enhancements it could become a model for other states to enact.

I am a gun owning NRA member.  I don't want the criminal and unstable to have access to the legal gun market.

Oh right - they should have rolled the dice with a lengthy legal proceeding, instead of appealing to the owners of the local gun shop to act humane and possibly save a life.  Good plan, since gun retailers are interested in your cash, not your life.

since gun retailers are interested in your cash, not your life.

You are RIGHT ! Gun retailers ARE interested in cash. That's why they are in business. They also get all YOUR information to send to the government , to get the Okay from government to sell you that gun you want. The Gun Retailer doesn't know YOU from Adam, but the government apparently does.....or do they.

OK, but do you have the same decisiveness  for, say, voter's rights or abortion rights or as you feel about gun rights? Those are in the Constitution too.

The weapon isn't the problem.  Neither is a flag, monument or magazine size.  The real problem is the nitwit holding the gun.  But you keep going after the perceived problem instead of the real problem.

The sad truth is these sort of mass killings will never cease as long as anyone who wants one can get these weapons.

Really? I want them. I have never committed mass murder. 2/3 of the country wants or owns these weapons... 2/3 of the people in this country do not commit mass murder.

The sad truth is these sorts of mass killings will never cease so long as people choose to commit them.

You don't need a rifle or pistol do kill people. Have you not seen what Muslims can do with a van in highly populated areas? Or how about one suicide vest at a concert in Manchester? This guy could have easily killed 100 people with a similar device at this concert or on the strip in Vegas.

He chose a modified AR15. It fits your agenda that guns corrupt people and force them to kill others.

The sad truth is some people are losers. This guy could have poured gasoline out his window into the pool area and dropped Molotov cocktails, burning dozens of people to death. Would that have been preferable?

Do you think if he had no access to guns that he would not have killed?

So we should eliminate all gun laws?

All the gun laws in the world will not stop shootings like this.

And yet the world is full of strong democracies with tough gun laws where this kind of shooting does not happen.  Does the idea that it can't work here mean that some people in this country accept that we have so many natural-born killers that they can't be stopped?  Americans are just more bloodthirsty than everyone else on the planet.  Go figure. 

Americans are just more bloodthirsty than everyone else on the planet.

What a ridiculously faulty generalization.

Welp, just more of the same. 

This "reporter" needs to get their facts straight.

Facts are not necessary when everyone has an opinion that they sell as fact! 

A 10/22 with a collapsible stock to many is an "assault weapon" (to me it is a gopher sniping rifle) - semi auto and automatic weapons means very lil to those that feel guns are evil (nothing will change their minds) ... Those of us that enjoy our weapons for sport, hunting and protection are gun nutz, I have embraced my status!

A factual and responsible reporting of guns is hard to come by - Have to go to Guns and Ammo for that.

..

My condolences to the family and friends of the deceased, my heart breaks for their loss ... a speedy recovery to the wounded .. May they all find Peace in their lives once more...

I keep seeing rumors about more than one gunman.  Could be just that, guess we'll have ot wait and see what info gets released by the authorities.

Further, many of the definitions of an assualt [sic] weapon in the Ban were simple cosmetic additions to a weapon such as grips, etc.

When the official reports on this massacre are released we're going to find that those "cosmetic additions" were exactly what Paddock used to convert his semi-automatic rifles into automatic ones.  We'll also learn that he had high capacity magazines that enabled him to fire for extended periods before either changing weapons or reloading. I don't know why gun freaks think they can keep getting away with these hoary lies.   

"cosmetic additions"

A flash hider and pistol grip stock made the rifle more lethal?  A plastic stock makes a rifle more lethal than a wooden one?  Those were the things that were changed on the " illegal rifle" in the last  "ugly gun ban".  Once they were changed the rifle became legal and was sold.

What makes a gun more lethal isn't how it looks but the ballistics of the round it fires.  You are not alone in that thinking.  DIFI had the Ruger Mini 14 Ranch rifle with a wood stock on the legal to own list in her bill.  The Ruger Mini 14 tactical with the plastic stock was illegal.  The same rifle firing the same cartridge.

Right. Doesn't matter. Few get beyond the headline. I'll admit I did not. Headline says you can open carry mini-gun in Nevada...must be true. 

AS I see it the one thing it seems ALL mass murders have in common and is seldom addressed is they are all NUTS. 

Non addressed mentally ill people with significant major life issues using weapons to make their statement or settle their grievances. 

The weapon of choice is not as important as the mind behind it. However some weapons sure do cause more damage, good thing most of these nut cases dont have the intelligence to create bombs. Too bad so many of them still have access to vehicles and high powered guns though. 

IMO...Mentally ill people should not own guns. period.

Non addressed mentally ill people with significant major life issues using weapons to make their statement or settle their grievances.

Actually the left has......quite a few times

It's funny that these guns cause all these mass shootings but nobody sees them walking around.  I've NEVER heard of a gun on trial for murder. 

If liberals get their way... the gun manufacturers will be on trial.

"Automatic assault weapons and machine guns are also legal in the state as long as they are registered and are possessed in adherence to federal law, according to the National Rifle Association."

AND ?

It's not easy buying a Machinegun for personal ownership. Not even close to being easy.

I know reading is hard, but give it a shot.  Read through the comments and you will see that the point you just raised is exactly the point I am making.  The problem is that there is a huge contingent of gun enthusiasts who think any and all gun restrictions are unconstitutional.

The problem is that there is a huge contingent of gun enthusiasts who think any and all gun restrictions are unconstitutional.

How is that a problem ?

If you look at the TRUE machinegun issue, not everyone can willy-nilly go to the gun store and buy one, but it is possible to be lisc. to own one. I don't find that to be a real restriction. Just a precaution. 

You're never gonna get an answer .. there is not one to give.

There are many issues in society that cannot be legislated, yet for some reason people have a feel good moment just having 'laws' on paper - I guess to point a finger and say that is illegal?

Where are my manners?  Hello XD, good to see you - hope life is treating you well.

The problem is that there is a huge contingent of gun enthusiasts who think any and all gun restrictions are unconstitutional.

There may be those who wish it were so but the NFA '34 passed constitutional muster in about 1940 and has been law since.  Did you know it takes a full FBI background check to legally own a machine gun?

I keep reading and hearing about these conversations that need to be had .. yet NO one seems to be able to start the conversation from the middle/moderate point of view, then work out towards those extreme'ish on both sides.

There are comments here today regarding 'doing away with all the gun laws' which no one pro gun said .. ever!

This comment meant for you ended way down yonder at the bottom of the page... Hmmm - perhaps I have not mastered this yet!

There may be those who wish it were so but the NFA '34 passed constitutional muster in about 1940 and has been law since.  Did you know it takes a full FBI background check to legally own a machine gun?

And you can afford it M-16's start around $15,000 and go up from there.

And you can afford it M-16's start around $15,000 and go up from there.

And then feed it!  They eat more than a teenager!

OK?....And?

And?

Exactly.

All that tells me is that this person just took extra precautions and wanted to make sure he would be able to kill as much people in the shortest amount of time possible with a firearm

It tells me that he wasn't insane, before he was. It can take as much as a year to get a yes or no answer (which is normal) from ATF as to purchasing a machinegun as a regular person on the street. If he had more than one, he was either a gun dealer and was lisc. for all of them at the same time, or it took a little while to collect what he had. Besides, ATF will only issue a lisc. to purchase a machinegun if it's older than May 1986.  

If you go further into the NRA web site that this article links to, it goes further in depth as to what it takes to purchase even a May 1986 and older machinegun. 

Home grown full auto modification is against the law all together.

You see, there are strict laws on the books already. Laws are for those that follow the law, as to if they work or not. For the insane, they are for after the fact.

Condolences to all of the victims of this mass shooting.

This thread on firearms is starting to sound a bit like the firearm related threads used to sound on Newsvine. Lol Hello to the other former NV members XDm9mm & Colour Me Free.

As far as the gun debate it seems most views/points have been covered so far. I don't need to rehash things at this point that others have already posted.

Eh, they're just hunting rifles, like ones I saw at a hunting store a couple of weeks ago in the middle of Minnesota...

,,,ya know in case an invading army of bison, bear and wolves; or aliens, attack the Vegas strip.

/s/

So silly. You see tactical rails on the guards and an adjustable stock and you scream MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE.

A Kel-Tec PMR-30 .22 Magnum can hold THIRTY .22 magnum cartridges and one in the pipe. It's plastic and weights 7 OUNCES!!!

It can fire 31 shots just as fast as an AR-15. If converted to automatic, it could fire just as fast a modified, automatic AR-15.

You can reload it just as fast as an AR-15.

The caliber of the bullet is the same.

I can also walk among thousands of people and go completely unnoticed with several Kel-Tec pistols on my person.

So why is an AR-15 so SCARY to you?

A 22 magnum is not very accurate after 100 yards, but you don't need to be accurate to shoot into a crowd of people.

I keep reading and hearing about these conversations that need to be had .. yet NO one seems to be able to start the conversation from the middle/moderate point of view, then work out towards those extreme'ish on both sides.

There are comments here today regarding 'doing away with all the gun laws' which no one pro gun said .. ever!

I wouldn't say that I am "pro gun", but I do completely support the 2nd amendment. 

Hello MrFrost...  I know you support the 2nd.  As you know, my family is gun people, grew up with them .. pro gun just sounds better than gun nut : )

It's good to see you here. I know we have had our...."issues" in the past, but I am glad you are here. You have always been a good poster, and I would encourage those here to read your posts. 

Today is a new day MrFrost .. there is no reason for the past to be a part of it!

Amen Sis... For what it's worth? I was going through some stuff...long story and I openly apologize. Good to see ya. 

Wrong.   Starting in the middle would be common sense gun legislation.  That term doesn't go over here well at all.  In fact, all you will get from the pro-gun side is a dozens of identical comments about how legislating firearms is unconstitutional and "show me one gun law that has prevented a gun tragedy" ... because, you know, it's possible to point to a tragedy that did not happen because of a gun law.

Common sense gun legislation has, as of yet, not been defined .. starting a conversation in the middle might  lead to it, remains to be seen

Still waiting for common sense immigration reform - do not know what that means either

Everyone is just yelling at each other - no conversation is being had that is not one sided.  Not a good way to get results

You and others have yet to posit any 'common sense' gun control laws that don't infringe on the rights of people.

Ok, again... "other people's rights". Be fair, both sides DO make attempts to infringe on others rights. It's a moot point, so lets stop there ok? I think we all want to see events like this stop. Lets try to drop the partisanship and come up with REAL solutions. Ok?

You and others have yet to posit any 'common sense' gun control laws that don't infringe on the rights of people.

Your side has no capacity to determine what common sense is.  You think that if it could impact you in any possible way, then it isn't common sense.  You insist that whatever it is, it must somehow manage to only impact criminals.  

Please do so and I'll personally be very happy to have adult discourse. but should you devolve into the prepubescent name calling you initiated this thread with, I'll be gone.

Maybe you should be gone, Comment removed for skirting the CoC [ph]

So now I can't wear shorts? Dick!

(Totally joking Buddy!!!!!)

The pro/anti gun argument is never an easy one. I love guns, I love MY guns, I shoot them often, (but to be fair, I shoot them so I can spend time cleaning them and reloading). This is a very very complex issue and none of us want to see something like this happen. We don't. But we ALL need to find a way to resolve it. 

Your side has no capacity to determine what common sense is.

There are no sides here. We are all American's, (I am assuming). Yes, clearly gun violence is a problem, the solution is not denying people their rights, while protecting the public.. If you have a solution, by all means, present it. 

Common sense is using ear protection Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] that you should be able to buy a silencer as easy as a box of ammo.

Common sense is that nobody on a no fly list should be allowed to buy guns.

Common sense is that if a someone reports someone else to the police for making violent threats, the one making threats should not be allowed to go buy a gun.

I have zero faith you will see any of this as common sense, because you are an obvious and typical gun nut, who will resort to extreme mental gymnastics to create narratives where these situations will infringe on your ilk.

It's very disingenuous to ask for a solution to a problem that can't be solved absolutely.  That's like saying you shouldn't treat cancer until you have an absolute cure.

The 'common sense' items you listed above would have done nothing to stop this shooting. From what is known so far Mr. Paddock purchased his guns legally & wasn't on any lists. He also didn't have any criminal record.

BTW, you can't buy suppressors (i.e. silencers) as easily as a box of ammo. For one thing they are not legal in all states & in the states where they are legal you have to jump through the same hoops/red tape as when you purchase any items regulated by the NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934). The NFA regulates fully automatic firearms (i.e. machine guns), short barreled rifles & shotguns, suppressors, & certain firearms listed as 'any other weapons'. 

Lol - I rest my case.  You all have no concept of what common sense means.

"Common sense is that nobody on a no fly list should be allowed to buy guns."

So stripping people of human rights without due process is "common sense" to you? Maybe Trump will take this idea and run with it.

It's scary how strongly liberals want to take our rights away, isn't it?

A silencer does not silence the gun.  It is still loud enough to hear easily.  Also unless the gun is firing sub sonic rounds the silencer does nothing to silence the bullet when it breaks the sound barrier.

Common sense is using ear protection instead of whining like a little bitch that you should be able to buy a silencer as easy as a box of ammo.

Silencers are a no issue for me and really do not care about them one way or another as they do not enhance lethality in any way.

Common sense is that nobody on a no fly list should be allowed to buy guns.

     I have real issues with this one. Two words, Due Process. Trey Gowdy says it better than me, take a look:

Common sense is that if a someone reports someone else to the police for making violent threats, the one making threats should not be allowed to go buy a gun.

Issues with this one as well. People lie to the police on regular basis and trials do not come about quickly. Besides, what must one do to get the right/firearm back? Prove a negative?

One out of three are reasonable. Got any more?

common sense gun legislation.

What would be common sense in your opinion and how would it work?

Gungrabbers are immune to facts.

Silencers are a no issue for me and really do not care about them one way or another as they do not enhance lethality in any way.

Lethality?  Jeez, you guys are really out of touch if that's the only metric you care about.

You think that if it could impact you in any possible way, then it isn't common sense.

Abso-fucking-lutly.  Why should I, a law abiding citizens, agree to infringements on my rights because you think it's common sense to do it?

You don't even know the specifics of this incident, and already, like the dumbasses in DC, you're calling for "common sense gun control".

Tell me a law you want passed Hal.  What common sense measure do you want to see implemented?

Here is the difference between suppressed and unsuppressed ar-15

Are you shocked that it isn't like Hollywood and really silent?

I have a friend who has so many guns that he can't possibly keep them all secure.  He's older, comes from a family of gun lovers, and he keeps acquiring guns because his family members keep dying and leaving their guns to him.  His nephew recently committed suicide with a gun in a public gas station bathroom.  He has grandkids and grand nieces and nephews that periodically come to visit, and I worry about reading about them in another gun tragedy story one day.

We have a member here who proudly admits that he leaves his gun loaded and ready all the time, laying around the house like a hand tool.  He seems to have no worries about the kinds of accidents that result from such carelessness.

We have another member that once talked about shooting wild hogs from a moving car, justifying it by emphasizing the damage the hogs do.  What could possibly go wrong there?

How about the woman in Walmart who's two year old reached into her purse, pulled out her gun and shot her dead in the isle.

There is a complacency amongst gun owners that leads to horrific accidents.  If you really wanted to have an impact on stupidity and ignorance, you could start by requiring guns to be registered, and capping gun and ammo ownership.  That's just plain common sense, but we all know where that suggestion will go.

Maybe you should be gone

Say the word.  Pj was right.

Gun love is the problem.

People love them some guns. Take pictures with them, fondle them, sleep with them, play with them all day or night. Any country where people love guns that much is bound to have a lot of gun violence.

Jeez, you guys are really out of touch if that's the only metric you care about.

     Not the only metric but, one does want to buy something that preforms it's purpose well, right?

could start by requiring guns to be registered,

    Yes, and all speech should be registered with the government before it is used as well.

 and capping gun and ammo ownership

     Yes, and lets cap all speech too. You are only allowed a given number of times to express you opinion or thoughts on any given issue and then you must shut up.

How does that work for you?

Common sense means not making up false equivalencies.

That's pretty lame.

If the suppressors aren't all that good, what do people and the NRA so hot to get them?

And they do sell sub-sonic ammo in almost any cal.

Shooters hate ear plugs and those ear cups SO much they're willing to part with some decent cash to avoid them?   

If the suppressors aren't all that good

Mufflers on cars don't silence cars yet they are good to protect hearing.  

A suppressor muffles sound down to a level that doesn't harm hearing.

Sub sonic ammo is available for most handgun rounds.  Sub sonic rounds are less powerful also.  They won't always cycle semi auto rifles.  The subsonic version of the ammo the Vegas shooter used would have made his weapon a single shot.  Even sub sonic rounds are still not silent.

you could start by requiring guns to be registered, and capping gun and ammo ownership.  T

Registration leads to confiscation.  Even in the US it has happened.

I see two things that could help.  One is the CA Gun Restraining Order law and the other is mandatory reporting of mental issues by doctors.  With privacy laws that will be a tough one.  A mentally ill person must be adjudicated before they can go on the prohibited list at NCIC.

We spend so much time going after the 300 million guns when it's much simpler to go after the few thousands of people who present threats to themselves and others.

Target the individual person and not the gun.  I seldom agreed with President Obama but when it came to sentencing reform I did.  Our prison space needs to be saved for the violent among us.  In major cities as high as 85% of the murderers have criminal records.  Change how violent crime is sentenced.

Enforce existing gun laws.  Gun violations are usually the first to go away in a plea bargain.

Maybe you should be gone

Say the word.  Pj was right.

Hal, what are you talking about? Those were your words, not mine. I left part of a deleted comment and that was left. 

Common sense means not making up false equivalencies.

      No false equivalencies here. You are recommending the limiting of the exercising of a Constitutional right. I am just applying that to another right. The problem is you have nothing for a response.

When I first looked at it the text was all purple.  Either you changed it, or it was a glitch.  You delete so much stuff that it is impossible to remember what was there in the first place.  That is on you.

Registration leads to confiscation.

What a load of hogwash.  If someone has their gun confiscated it wasn't because they admitted that they owned it, it was because they are a danger and are known to be in possession of it.  Obsessed gun nuts with dozens of guns need to find a healthier hobby. 

I have an art collection, with hundreds of pieces on display.  I'd give the whole thing up if it meant a life somewhere could be spared by giving it up.  I'd probably have to pry your 100th hand gun from your cold dead hand to get it away form you.

No false equivalencies here. You are recommending the limiting of the exercising of a Constitutional right. I am just applying that to another right. The problem is you have nothing for a response.

What is there to respond to?   Your esoteric bullshit about the gub'mint coming to grab your words?

Your butthurt is showing..........she deletes so much stuff?  No, she deletes your CoC violations.  Know how to cure that?  Stop violating the CoC.

sun-sentinel

This happened a few miles from my home. This happened in a lovely upper, middle-class neighborhood. This can happen ANYWHERE and ANYTIME. And without a weapon to defend yourself and your neighbor, there is no way to prevent it.

A Florida State Football player was home one weekend with his family. He went out to eat at a restaurant, got agitated, and walked out, leaving his family behind. He walked into an up-scale neighborhood, entered the garage, in which the door was open. The family had a bar in their garage where they would host friends on Friday nights. He grabbed a knife used for cutting lemons and limes and stabbed the owners. When a neighbor came out to help, he stabbed him too. When officers arrived, he was leaning over the homeowner in the driveway, eating the mans face.

Police hit him with multiple TASERS with no effect. They released a K9 which almost ripped his left hand from his arm. It too, did not stop the 19 year-old from continuing eating the dead man's face.

Finally, the police beat him with their batons until unconscious.

When this story broke, my wife FINALLY decided that it was time for her to get a carry permit.

I carry everywhere except in my house. Even when outside on my property, I carry. Sometimes open. I have children, so I keep my pistols in V-LINE pull-out drawer safes, one by the bed, one under the office desk. These are ALWAYS loaded and racked.

All other weapons are stored in safes, unloaded. All ammunition is stored in safes. Even my duffel has combination locks in case I place it on the floor for a second while going to the bathroom before going to the range.

My guns have never killed anyone. I have never killed anyone. But when I need my gun to defend myself or my family, I'll have it. 

I should start packing some heat to fend off all those criminals who want to eat my face.  Twenty or thirty guns ought to do the trick.  Bump stocks all around.

It has happened in NY and CA.

Registration prevents no crime.

My guess is the two victims in the article were naïve and thought that guns are evil and there is no need for one in our civilized society.

And they were horrifically murdered by a loon. And ONE gun, not 23, 47 or 92 would have saved their lives.

If you had your way, people like me wouldn't be allowed to have a gun, and people like this mass murderer would still find a way to kill 50 people, with illegal guns or via some other method. And people like me would be able to defend themselves.

usconcealedcarry

Every month USCCA highlights stories of people that saved their lives or the lives of others with their guns.

Gun HOMICIDES are decreasing steadily each year, 13,164 in 2010... 12,888 in 2012... 11,961 in 2014. The places were homicides by firearm are increasing are liberal cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Detroit and Miami.

54% of counties in America had ZERO murders. These counties have the highest legal gun ownership and the least frivolous gun-control laws. 51% of murders occurred in 2% of counties. These counties have the most gun-control laws, low LEGAL gun ownership, a very high black and Hispanic populations.

Ban all the guns you want... you will NEVER be able to protect yourself from a terrorist like the guy in Manchester who blew up people at a concert. You will NEVER be able to protect yourself from terrorists who decide to run people over with cars. You will NEVER be able to protect yourself from terrorists who hijack airplanes and crash into buildings. And even after you ban guns, you will NEVER stop people from obtaining illegal weapons and using the on you.

But complain all you want. I hope you get your way and then find yourself face to face with a criminal and his gun. You can explain to him that his gun is banned and illegal right before he shoots you in the head.

Can you, with 100% certainty, state that you will NEVER encounter a lowlife scumbag thug intent on doing you or your loved ones harm?

When you ask a gun nut for a common sense discussion on guns, invariably this is what you get.  It's like when you're talking to a religious zealot about god, and then they end up resorting to Pascal's Wager in their defense.

What is your concept of an EXTREME view on the second amendment?

I believe the 2nd amendment clearly protects citizens from having their inalienable right to KEEP and BEAR arms to be infringed. Is that an EXTREME VIEW???

I think that all people should have to provide a photo ID, proving they're citizens and 18-years of age, to vote. Is that an EXTREME VIEW?

And for those that think it's unfair to force people to obtain a government-issued photo ID to vote, I wonder why it's fair to force people to get photographed and finger-printed and charge hundreds of dollars simply to exercise your 2nd amendment right?

According to liberals, repealing a sh!tty, unconstitutional law like the ACA will KILL 20M people. So, obviously, voting is far more deadly and consequential than owning a gun. So, shouldn't we have stiffer voting control laws???

I'm all for regulating guns. People that cannot properly handle a gun, should never be allowed to handle guns, PERIOD. But what good would that have done in this case???

This man could handle a gun, and quite well. He had no indicators that his mental health was in question. He had nothing that appeared in his routine background checks to prevent him from obtaining guns, even in California.

I think simply ignoring the Bill of Rights is EXTREME. I think attempting to confiscate 300M guns is EXTREME. I think it's ironical that the same people that think confiscating 300M guns is OK, freak out if you suggest deporting 12M criminals who illegal entered or remained without proper documentation.

I find it EXTREME when people REFUSE to enforce our laws regarding immigration, but want more laws passed regarding guns, even if they're redundant, useless and unconstitutional.

For starters .. you are preaching to the converted!  [ranting and raving at me - I shake my head]

Secondly, you took my words  "extreme'ish" on both sides and blew them up, talk about extreme?

This shooter person had NO mental issue - he had a rage, lack of attention anger issue ...  he was an eccentric individual that chose to unleash that rage on the innocent that were having a nice time at a concert.  Of course this is my 'speculation' based on the media 'speculations' that I have read..

Peace 1911 .. I will not be in the street screaming like an idiot - but rest assured I will be fighting for the survival of the Constitution of the United States of America!

I didn't mean to offend you.

I'm not lecturing you... or singling you out. I'm posting for all to read, brother!

I was just answering the question with a question.

I get called a right-wing extremist by liberals because I want a to build a wall on the border.

I don't find anything EXTREME about enforcing our laws. I find it EXTREME to ignore federal laws and refuse to enforce them. I find it EXTREME to grant welfare to illegal aliens and provide them sanctuary at taxpayers' expense (sometimes their lives). I find "so-called" centrist positions to be EXTREME and extremely far left of the Constitution's position.

This is why conversations are so difficult in this nation. Most people don't understand the Constitution. They don't understand that in most cases, what they consider "CENTER" is FAR FAR LEFT.

Center is our founders. They established this nation. They created the center and the values and principles of our country. They created the Constitution and the framework for what should be considered the CENTER.

Anything left of that, like progressive taxes, Medicare, Healthcare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Dreamers, Welfare, SNAP, etc., etc., is EXTREME.

So, on the second amendment... you have people that accept it or support it, which are not EXTREME positions, but DEAD CENTER.

And then you have people that want it abolished or ignored or regulated until your rights are infringed upon. That is EXTREME. That is LEFT.

I rarely see anyone to the RIGHT of center on this argument. I never see people advocating for civilians to have access to Semtex or neutron bombs. That would be EXTREME.

I am not offended .. just wanted you to know we are on the same side - so I was probably a bit snippy, that is on me.

I hear what you are saying - like I said you are preaching to the converted - I just try to stay as close to the middle of the road as I can ..  it does not always work!  I want a wall at the border as well .. if that is not possible can I have a wall build around Montana to prevent the invaders from other states from coming here trying to change 'us' and fencing off access to "our" public lands?

One almost has to laugh at the idea of a conversation - 'we' gun nutz are not going to listen anyway is the progressive point of view .. 

And then you have people that want it abolished or ignored or regulated until your rights are infringed upon. That is EXTREME. That is LEFT.

In the name of a 'false sense' of security .. utopia is a fantasy - and the liberalization of America is not a good thing.  When I think of a liberalized America .. I have visions of Greece!

Hopefully I make sense 1911 ... might take a bit for you to get accustom to my logic : )

Peace!

RIP Tom Petty

I saw that. One of my favorite artists... Sad. 

Very sad MrFrost!  One of my favs as well .. Damn the Torpedoes 

The last dance for.....

Tom Petty..... 

I have no problems discussing "the gun issue", but the partisan politics here does get old. I don't think anyone on either side of the aisle wants something like this to happen, or endorses it. The shooter's brother said that the shooter was not political, not religious, not a member of any groups of any substance related to mass murder. In other words, there is no apparent ideological reason for what happened. I think maybe his roommate who is out of the country can she some light on why this happened. Then again...maybe he was just an angry old d-bag that wanted to go out with a flash in the pan. Who knows. Either way....

.

Condolences to the family and friends of those lost in this tragic event. 

I have no problems discussing "the gun issue"

The problem is that this is more than a "gun issue".  Even the most restrictive laws aren't going to stop people from obtaining a firearm.  It was tried with drugs and we see how that worked out.  (Hell the city with the most restrictive gun laws leads the country in gun related homicides.  Really shows how those laws work.)

Also focusing on the gun isn't going to solve anything.  The real problem is the nitwit that is holding the gun.  I have yet to see a gun just walk into an establishment (let alone walk in and start shooting).  There is ALWAYS a person in control of it.  Just like drunk drivers; a drunk driver kills a family and nobody calls for a ban of cars, they go after the person behind the wheel.  Which is what needs to happen when it comes to this situation.

The Clark county Sheriff reported that an additional 18 weapons, 2,000 rounds of ammo and explosive devices were found at his home in Mesquite.

He also noted that ''electronic devices'' were found and they are in the process of determining what these devices are.

His home in northern Nevada is being searched now.

Guns, booze, gambling, what could possibly go wrong...

But laws do have a detrimental effect. By making the components needed to commit the crime much harder by being illegal. I wonder how many crimes didn't happen because the would-be criminals couldn't get the firearms (or worse, explosives) they wanted before they cooled off.

Stricter laws will not stop a really, really determined person, true. But every layer of red tape and forms gives the criminal another chance to cool off or mess up somehow and get themselves caught. Like talking to a FBI agent instead someone in the black market to get a cheap pistol or lean how to make a bomb. or another type of police while trying to score a automatic weapon and piles of ammo, or someone notices that you're packing a lot of long, slim packages for a "trip".

Can you imagine what it would be like if you could buy explosives like firearms? Go to your local Wall-mart slap you money down and pick your size and type of explosives, designer detonators and fuses sold in hardware. We'd have to change the Nations' name to "United Craters". But you can't, because of State and Federal laws.

 I wonder how the 59 dead souls feel about ''your rights''...Too bad they are dead and can't join in the conversation.

I guess that protecting your rights trumps their right to live.

As Bill O'Reilly says, it's the price of freedom. Old battlefield Bill has a way with words.

I guess that protecting your rights trumps their right to live.

In a previous debate on this issue, one of our gun rights advocates said, "death by firearms is the cost of our freedom". 

There are strict gun laws in the United Kingdom and they are a country that is as free as the United States. 

In the  United Kingdom , access by the general public to firearms is tightly controlled by law which is much more restrictive than the minimum rules required by the  European Firearms Directive , but it is less restrictive in  Northern Ireland . The country has one of the lowest rates of  gun homicides  in the world.
[ wikipedia ] 

England is not as free as America you can be arrested for making racial comments or gestures at soccer matches and before you start I'm mixed race and think people shouldn't use racial slurs.

I'm not going to research it right now, but the United States is a free country, Great Britain is a free country, sure there are differences in our various laws, and we could be argue all day re; which country is more free, but both countries elect their leaders, and those leaders can be removed from office if they are ineffective in doing their jobs.  

Try living in Russia, where speaking against Putin can get you killed. Or try North Korea, or Syria or maybe The Central African Republic. Those are countries where there is little or no freedom.

They're also called SUBJECTS.

I prefer the term Citizen.

I prefer FREE Subject, or FREE citizen, makes no difference to me, as long as they give me a voting booth. 

I wonder how the 59 dead souls feel about ''your rights''...Too bad they are dead and can't join in the conversation.

I guess that protecting your rights trumps their right to live.

I have similar feeling when I see an individual on death row that brutally raped and murder some young person(s) - the horrible deaths they had, and the fear they must have experienced helpless in the hands of a sociopath ... (I can go on)

I only hear the families of the victim crying real tears for their loved ones rights as the brutal murderer is given a postponement because of his/her rights!  [not promoting the death penalty - just an example!]

I understand the argument that you are making .. yet it is a moot point (in my opinion)

And what about Islam? 3000 souls dead because of Islam and jet airliners.

I wonder how the 3000 dead souls feel about ''your rights''...Too bad they are dead and can't join in the conversation about banning Islam and jet planes.

How asinine does your post look now?

Not nearly as asinine as your post 1911...

If the suppressors aren't all that good, what do people and the NRA so hot to get them?

And they do sell sub-sonic ammo in almost any cal.

Shooters hate ear plugs and those ear cups SO much they're willing to part with some decent cash to avoid them?   

Being from Canada I guess I always agreed with strict gun control laws - although there HAVE been multiple killings, they are not so common in Canada than in the USA. Don't try to argue that Canada has one tenth the population of the USA, because the statistics are based on so many per 100,000 so they are an accurate comparison. However, IMO it's too late in the USA for gun controls. So many citizens already own them, and the 2nd Amendment is so strongly backed by the NRA, that it would be a fool's dream to think that such ownership could be curtailed. So, in the circumstances, I believe that every person from the age of 10 up should have the right to carry a lethal gun (for the argument so often given, to protect him/herself from others with guns) 24 hours a day and in absolutely every venue including bars and night clubs where alcohol is served.  Hey, according to gun advocates, how else can anyone protect themselves?  Even wearing a medieval suit of armour all day won't help. "Happiness is a warm gun."

Well brother, we don't beget you your Canadian upbringing. In fact its actually impressive that you can understand of what we understand.

Liberty is inextricably tied to the gun, even in Canada my friend, Even in canada..

Psst: John Lennon wasn't talking about firearms in that song.....

they are not so common in Canada than in the USA.

The better comparison is when the demographics of homicide are broken down.  In the US our homicide rate is skewed by the 15/100k black homicide rate.  The white rate is less than 2/100k Canada is 1.56/100k.  

The black population of Canada is about 3% while in the US it is 13%.

LOL

And you heard that little tidbit..where?

And you heard that little tidbit..where?

Why from the Portland Police Commissioner himself . (who just happens to be the mayor also)

And the article is from the Daily Caller. (in case you want to claim it a RW lie)

The wingnuts just blurt out something from their stock of fake factoids when prompted like lab rats responding to a stimulus.

Really? point out the fake factoid?

The Oregonian ; as posted online by Oregon Live.

Portland police to halt, purge all gang designations
Updated on September 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM Posted on September 8, 2017 at 12:36 PM

Portland police next month will end their more than 20-year-old practice of designating people as gang members or gang associates in response to strong community concerns about the labels that have disproportionately affected minorities.

The Police Bureau recognizes that the gang designations have led to "unintended consequences'' and served as lifelong barriers for those who have shunned the gang lifestyle and tried to get jobs, said Acting Tactical Operations Capt. Andy Shearer.

"This is too long coming,'' said Mayor Ted Wheeler, who serves as the city's police commissioner. "It was the right thing to do.''

Wheeler, who recently selected the first African American woman to serve as the bureau's new police chief, said the decision shows that city police are committed to rebuilding trust with the community.

Capt. Mike Krantz, who helped spearhead the change. "We're not pretending gang violence doesn't exist. We're just taking this one thing away.''

"It takes courage for the bureau to take this step,'' said C.J. Robbins, program coordinator for Black Male Achievement.

Krantz said Friday that the Police Bureau has considered ending gang designations for two years as gang enforcement officers met with parole and probation officers, community members and others to figure out the details. They recently got the approval of former Chief Mike Marshman and current Interim Chief Chris Uehara.

The move also comes as city auditors since last fall have closely examined the bureau's Gang Enforcement Team and its work.

Yet Krantz said some officers have expressed concerns about the decision, and how it will impact their work.

Choo Fair, who works as a mentor for Multnomah County probation and parole and is a former Bloods gang member, praised the move.

"It's a beautiful thing. They can no longer label anybody,'' he said.

"There are still certain characteristics of gang-involved shootings,'' Krantz said. "Was there 30 shots and no one stuck around? Was it a drive-by shooting?''

Police are noticing more shots fired at each shooting. About 3:40 a.m. Tuesday, for example, a house that wasn't the intended target was sprayed with 28 gunshots and two more shots struck its front fence. Remarkably, no one was injured, police said.

He expects it also will affect county parole and probation officers, who sometimes find an offender in violation of their probation because they continued to hang out with known gang members.

So where's the fake?

I suppose you think blaming mass shootings and gun violence on Democrats is also not fake.

Where did I blame democrats for mass shootings? Point it out? Please, please, POINT IT OUT!

You know, those Democrats that are liberal/socialist/Nazi, right?

Where did I accuse any democrats of being any such thing? Again, please, please, POINT IT OUT!

And what does any of this have to do with the shooting in Las Vegas? Who claimed it did?

CoH made a statement about Democrat policies that are usually confined to the big cities, one which turns out to be absolutely true. Coincidentally it is also the same claim you made out to be republican fake news.

But in actuality it isn't is it? now since you have been proven absolutely wrong again, you need to conflate the issues so you can give yourself an escape from the absolute truth that you haven't a clue what your talking about...

AGAIN!

It is about democrat policies that have destroyed our cities, that is really what it has come down to hasn't it? Got anything to say about that? I mean do you have anything actually relevant to say other than the republicans are crazy liars?

Because frankly you haven't demonstrated the capability to have a cogent discussion on anything except and unless the issue is already decided in your politically biased favor... (or have a bunch of friends around to shout everyone else down)

Proven wrong again....

Gotta be tough, or your just too easy.

You have a pleasant day

So you are equating gun violence with Democratic policies,

I do as well!

Dems will never be tough on law and order because they would be attacking their base of support.  Instead of targeting criminals that do vote they choose to blame things that don't vote like guns or drugs.  They also blame the NRA and the second amendment.  That is politically safe since they live in a dem voting area.  By not targeting criminals they enable crime.  After all a pol can't get reelected if they hack off their base.

"the problem can be laid at the feet of Democrat run cities and Democrat policies" clearly in reference to gun violence.

Inner city gun violence? absolutely! why can I do such? cause they have been in the control of the liberal policies of the politicians they elect....

Plain factual truth....

You say "It is about democrat policies that have destroyed our cities." So you are equating gun violence with Democratic policies,

Again absolutely, for the same reasons I outlined above. Inner city gun violence that is.

.....and in context of this discussion Democratic policies are to blame for the Las Vegas shooting, and all the mass shootings, and gun violence in general in the USA, according to you. Right? 

WRONG {snicker} I haven't conflated the two, YOU HAVE..... 

So I ask you, where have I accuse democrats of being responsible for the Las Vegas shooting? POINT IT OUT!

Where have I accused democrats of being responsible for mass shootings? POINT IT OUT!

Where have I accused Democrats of gun violence in general? Inner city violence yes I have accused the democrats of it cause they are the ones in charge, they are setting the policies, there are no republicans to blame for the laws in those cities is there? Republicans haven't had control of them for decades have they? so yeah is the inner city violence problem is to be laid at the feet of anyone it is to be laid at the feet of those in power. Which at this time are democrats. But when you claim across the entire USA I say WAY TO GO!!!! Democrats have been the greatest gun salesmen the world has ever seen..... Oh, our last president, the greatest single asset of the gun sales industry in American History. Gun sales exploded under his leadership. Thank you president Obama! That is what I say about democrat gun policies nationwide. Always have always will.

But overall, for the conversation aspects here, your reduction to deflection and changing the object of the discussion after realizing you can't possibly be right, are the tactics of the defeated.

And I don't need to shame you for that, your own writings are sufficient to complete that task without any help from me....

Hope you have a nice day.....

I'm through toying with you on this, your beginning to bore me...

You have nothing to offer it is now plain.

Essentially not worth anyone's time.

can't point it out huh?

I expected such...

Sad, really really sad...

Talk about deceptive!

The cities you call republican are called that because they are in a republican congressional district

Jackson MS has a dem mayor

Baton Rouge has a dem mayor

Little Rock has a dem mayor

Cincinnati has a dem mayor

Dayton has a dem mayor

South Bend has a dem mayor

Kansas City KS has a dem mayor

Wilmington NC has a dem mayor

Chattanooga TN has a dem mayor.

All of the cities highlighted on your link have dem mayors. 

LOL

I'm impressed by your sarcasm. Congratulations, well done.

You really should hang a "sarc" at the end though, because some people...

What sarcssm? The more the merrier. I'm not arguing for controls - it's too late for that. I'm proposing universal distribution. As Scrooge said: "It will reduce the excess population."

Seems like you have a great comprehension and appreciation of sarcasm.

Well, I don't give a shit what you have to say about anything I write.

I'm not arguing for controls - it's too late for that.

Why? It should be illegal to possess any device that makes it possible to convert any firearm to operate as an automatic weapon. 

There also should be much more stringent controls over who should be able to purchase a military style automatic firearms, and how many rounds can be held in a weapon.

I know there are a lot of that kind of equipment already out there at this time, but that is not a reason to start getting control of the problem. If we start to make firearm possession safer today, it will eventually have a positive effect in the future.

Iroquois Indian saying;

 "In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."

Iroquois Indian saying;
 "In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."

An absolutely brilliant saying, unfortunately rarely applied.

Gun death statistics indicated by Wikipedia are:

Total deaths by gun (includes homicide, suicide, accidental, etc) USA 10.54 per 100,000 while Canada is 1.97 per 100,000.  Homicide statistics specifically, are 3.60 per 100,000 in the USA while in Canada it is 0.38 per 100,000.

I don't see that it makes a huge difference what colour the perpetrators or victims are.  There are lots of people of colour in Canada even if not exactly the same percentages as in the USA.  The statistics show such a large difference, I think the point is made anyway.

en.wikipedia

LOL

And you heard that little tidbit..where?

LOL

I'm impressed by your sarcasm. Congratulations, well done.

You really should hang a "sarc" at the end though, because some people...

I see accidental repeats happen here too. sorry folks.

Josh Abbott Band Guitarist Flips Gun Control Stance Following Las Vegas Shooting: 'We Need Gun Control RIGHT. NOW.'

Josh Abbott Band guitarist Caleb Keeter took to Twitter on Monday morning (Oct. 2) to share his thoughts on gun control in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting that left more than 50 people dead and 500 injured.

The Texas country group performed at the Route 91 Harvest festival on the Las Vegas Strip on Sunday afternoon (Oct. 1), where hours later an active shooter began firing into the audience from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. Keeter, previously a lifelong gun rights advocate, said witnessing the ensuing chaos firsthand caused him to realize how ineffective he and his crew were as the incident unfolded.

" I've been a proponent of the 2nd Amendment my entire life," he wrote. "Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with CHL licenses, and legal firearms on the bus. They were useless."

The guitarist added that his bandmates and crew couldn't access their firearms during the attack because police could have mistaken them for attackers as well. He praised the police officers for defusing the situation as quickly as possible, and said the shooting gave him a wakeup call on the need for tighter gun legislation.

"We need gun control RIGHT. NOW.," he wrote. "My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn't realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it."

Keeter followed up his original statement with another more hopeful, defiant tweet: "That being said, I'll not live in fear of anyone. We will regroup, we'll come back, and we'll rock your f------ faces off. Bet on it."  

How sad that it takes the worst mass shooting in US history for a gun nut to realize how wrong he has been his entire life.

A perfectly reasonable response to this tragedy.  I would have melted down every gun I own after Sandy Hook if it meant it would never happen again........but in time, after the shock wears off, you realize that secured weapons owned by responsible citizens are not the problem.  

So so what do we do?

Well, what I'm going to do is read the obits and the stories behind the victims and mourn.  There are going to be moments of unimaginable sadness in the coming days, but I feel it is important to process those before engaging in an all out gun debate. 

The AP is reporting sources say the guy used a "Bump fire stock" to modify to full auto.  It's a legal addition to the AR platform.

Oh, good.  We need more legal weapons that can kill as many innocent people as possible, and as fast as possible.  I hope the guy who invented this really important technology is happy.  Anything for a buck.

I was wondering if that was the case. I like my ARs. Can't say that I'm a fan of the slide fire stock though. Those clearly impact the firearm's performance. Big difference in those and a forward grip. 

I like my ARs 

Are you planning to start a revolution?

Can't say that I'm a fan of the slide fire stock though. Those clearly impact the firearm's performance. 

Yes! Stephen Paddock used a forward grip and he got 59 dead and over 520 wounded in only nine minutes!

Forward grip, converted  semis are the firearm of the day! I don't know why everyone feels bad about what happened in Vegas, Paddock just proved converted semis are very effective killing machines, Everybody should own one. s/

Truth is, although the AR is growing in popularity, it is clearly not the gun of the day. The FBI keeps good stats, which show that rifles, bolt action, lever action, semi-auto, are used in around 200 homicides annually. Feet and hands are used in around 300. 

What about the mass shootings? This is a terrible event, that goes without saying. Getting rid of the AR won't stop mass killings. McVeigh killed 168 and wounded about 700. 

I'm not going to argue for the slide fire or bump fire stock. If a person wants one, they should have to jump through the same hoops a person goes through to get their hands on a full auto firearm. That's clearly something that enhances the gun's performance. Forward grip? No, the gun still shoots the same, with or without a forward grip. If they made the shooter more accurate and quick, every three gun competitor would have one attached. 

The thing is, freedom isn't perfect.  This idea that freedom is evil, and therefore government oppression would solve our problems is pure insanity.

Marshall James?! A Newsvine refugee! This is the first post I've seen of yours on this site.

Welcome to NewsTalkers!

I'm glad to see you here, now we can get back to our constant disagreements.

For the most part, cries for new gun control laws are pointless.

However, in the case of Vegas, if the shooter had not had fully automatic weapons, I don't think there is much question he would have shot way less people. He could still have killed people, but it might have been 10 instead of 60. And the injured might be 50 instead of 500. That's pretty significant.

Most other limitations on guns, like outlawing certain semi-auto rifles or limiting magazine size are easily overcome and therefore, pointless. One of the eyebrow-raising facts of this case is the large number of guns the man had. This fact is presented as if it were significant and people are talking about this should be some kind of red flag and there should be limits on the number of guns a person can own.

But the truth is that it doesn't matter that he had 19 guns in the room. He can only shoot one at a time. Some people reflexively think that legislation will solve every problem - and sometimes it can - but not always.

Hal,

Show me a single country in which gun control has lowered homicides.  You can't.  Every time something like this happens the gun control nuts stoke up the same old lies.

Here is an interesting read for you and instead of just attacking the source I would challenge you to disprove even one fact given in the article.  Once again, I know you can't.

gunfacts.info

Hal,

Show me a single country in which gun control has lowered homicides.  You can't.  Every time something like this happens the gun control nuts stoke up the same old lies.

You asked the wrong person. 

According to a BBC News article posted Jan. 6, 2017 ;

Japan has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. In 2014 there were just six gun deaths, compared to 33,599 in the US. What is the secret?

If you want to buy a gun in Japan you need patience and determination. You have to attend an all-day class, take a written exam and pass a shooting-range test with a mark of at least 95%.

There are also mental health and drugs tests. Your criminal record is checked and police look for links to extremist groups. Then they check your relatives too - and even your work colleagues. And as well as having the power to deny gun licences, police also have sweeping powers to search and seize weapons.

That's not all. Handguns are banned outright. Only shotguns and air rifles are allowed.

In this country, you can buy a rifle or shotgun in Wal-Mart. 

And they've also been that way for centuries.

Yes they have. Guns laws went into effect there in the 1500s. 

And it proves one thing ..... it worked.

Your question was to show you one country......  "Show me a single country in which gun control has lowered homicides. You can't."   

Well there you have one of them, there are more.

Further, they have a much different culture.  They actually value familial values, RESPECT and ACCOUNTABILITY ingrained in them and do not live in a me-me-me entitled culture like the US.

THAT IS YOUR REASONING FOR WHY WE SHOULD ALLOW ALMOST ANYONE IN THE US TO OWN COMBAT TYPE FIREARMS?!

People like you are one of reasons I come here to comment. You can take a serious discussion and turn it into a comedy strip.

If Americans lack in respect and accountability, and lack in family values, why would you want to allow people like that to possess combat style weapons? 

Seems to me you have little respect for Americans (you're not from Russia are you?)

Anyway, according to you Americans are the last people in the world that should possess auto or semi-auto weapons.

Thank you for supporting my position.