Gun Control

[Go Braves]

He could've caused a diversion that sent the crowd out in a panic, then mowed them down that way.
Something like Manchester could've killed that many people. There were aviation fuel tanks near the site he tried to blow up with his gun, but was too far away. He had explosive material in his car and bombs in his home.

The San Bernardino shooters were building bombs in their garage.

Here's why I'd disagree with you:

This was highly premeditated. He sought out various venues. He collected his weapons over a period of a year, passed every background check. He planned this out almost perfectly. He had cameras set up everywhere to watch for the cops. He turned off the smoke alarms. He broke out two windows and shot on each side to keep everyone herded together in his 'kill zone'. He knew what he was doing. He chose the time and the place.

I don't know how any further gun control, background checks, etc, would've stopped this guy. he was a ghost. All these mass shooters are ghosts. You take away the tools they choose, they find something else. So, that's why I say guns aren't the issue. No gun control would've stopped him.

Wb.

I couldn't disagree with your reasoning more, Saucy.

For one, it's a whole lot more complicated to build a bomb than to buy guns. He had something like 47 guns, guns that could shoot off hundreds of rounds in seconds. He had ease in buying all those guns. When my bank thinks there's been suspicious activity on my account, they notify me. If there was a gun registry, a fellow buying that many guns should trigger a concern. I'm a gun owner, but I see it as pure stupidity & ungodly selfishness to not want some reasonable gun laws.

 

[dogs4thewin]

You have no such right. It's not your business.

Thank you. You do not have that right if you are that uncomfortable in your nieborhood save your money and move. You do not have the right to impose extra cost for your safety.

 

[dogs4thewin]

True. The government would interfere with the manufacture of guns and design.
Even more than current safety requirements.

and they do not have that right your personal safety does not outweigh others' rights.

 

[SkyWriting]

There was at least one service cart in the hallway. A camera had been planted on that cart so that the shooter could see who was coming. He could have planted a bomb on that cart. Law enforcement needs to make sure of what dangers they may be facing before they proceed. If they had just rushed that door they could have been setting themselves up to be killed themselves before they could help anyone.

If you read the accounts from the street, security ignored and stepped over people
on the ground in an effort to find the shooter and stop the killing first.
I can't help the 72 minute delay. But I can help all be better informed.

From 'shots fired' to all clear: 72 minutes of terror in Las Vegas

 

[twinserk]

Silencers are illegal.
Not becasue they degrade accuracy.

Suppressors are not illegal, just regulated by the NFA.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So?

They do not have that right nor should they.

 

[Go Braves]

The fact is, the government doesn't have the power to get rid of these weapons. They would just go underground, like illicit drugs. Legislation to ban said type of firearms would do nothing but ensure that criminals were the only ones in possession of them. The day the government succeeds in removing illegal drugs from entering and being sold in our country, is the day your point becomes valid.

The US has far more mass shootings than other countries, so it sure is painting our government as pathetic as can be that you think that. My point is valid, regardless of what you think of it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thank you. You do not have that right if you are that uncomfortable in your nieborhood save your money and move. You do not have the right to impose extra cost for your safety.

Safe manufacture and use of products is a primary function of government
and the biggest cost in manufacturing most consumer products by far, already.

Thanks all! I have not had to change the wording on the OP one bit
even after sending the URL to three senators.

 

[Saucy]

Wb.

I couldn't disagree with your reasoning more, Saucy.

For one, it's a whole lot more complicated to build a bomb than to buy guns. He had something like 47 guns, guns that could shoot off hundreds of rounds in seconds. He had ease in buying all those guns. When my bank thinks there's been suspicious activity on my account, they notify me. If there was a gun registry, a fellow buying that many guns should trigger a concern. I'm a gun owner, but I see it as pure stupidity & ungodly selfishness to not want some reasonable gun laws.

I don't think the number of guns would've mattered, and owning that many isn't indicative of anything other than someone loves guns. So, what happens if someone buys a lot of guns? The feds are tipped off, they question him, what then? The Orlando shooter was already on FBI surveillance twice. They can't stop you from buying a gun if you have a clean record.

 

[Hank77]

How many mass casualty events do you know of that are achieved with "other weapons"?

The Oklahoma City bombing. 168 dead, almost 700 injured.

 

[SkyWriting]

and they do not have that right your personal safety does not outweigh others' rights.

It really does. All others in fact.

 

[Dawnhammer]

Do the math. Europeans, like Americans have not reproduced to increase their population, and are barely maintaining their population at 1.9 %. Muslims have 4 or more children and many have up to 4 wives bearing more children as well.

Cute, but you stated that European countries had populations that were now minorities to refugees which is clearly false.

What you are talking about is demographical chance inside nations that if the current trends continue - which is debatable - will make white people a minority in few decades.

Of course by then those other people will be citizens and not refugees so your point fizzles.

If you are white supremacist this is kind of bad news, otherwise nation’s fates should be deemed by actions they take not by what colour or what religion they happen to be.

 

[Go Braves]

I don't think the number of guns would've mattered, and owning that many isn't indicative of anything other than someone loves guns. So, what happens if someone buys a lot of guns? The feds are tipped off, they question him, what then? The Orlando shooter was already on FBI surveillance twice. They can't stop you from buying a gun if you have a clean record.

Well Saucy the number of guns, the type of guns does matter. Flags should have been raised to stop him from continuing to stockpile.

 

[Go Braves]

The Oklahoma City bombing. 168 dead, almost 700 injured.

That happened 22 years ago. Mass shootings, they're pretty much a weekly event in the US.

 

[Hank77]

A restriction which Congress is now trying to lift.

They should stay illegal.

 

[SkyWriting]

The Oklahoma City bombing. 168 dead, almost 700 injured.

I'm not opposed to the same requirement for buildings.
Most can locate those explosions though.

 

[Saucy]

Well Saucy the number of guns, the type of guns does matter. Flags should have been raised to stop him from continuing to stockpile.

Well, at this point, it's unknown exactly how many guns he actually used. Maybe he only used 1-2 of them. Most of these mass shootings only use a few. They also had/used shotguns, handguns, and others.

 

[ConvictionofGod]

The problem is not the guns. Take away the guns, or make their use impractical, and criminals will merely resort to other weapons to achieve their desired result.

The problem, is the people. Why do those people want to kill? Because they grew up in a broken home, with a corrupt value system is my guess.

true you cant legislate murder. even something as Draconian as banning all guns, a door to door search and seizure would bankrupt america, not possible.

 

[Hank77]

Wb.

I couldn't disagree with your reasoning more, Saucy.

For one, it's a whole lot more complicated to build a bomb than to buy guns. He had something like 47 guns, guns that could shoot off hundreds of rounds in seconds. He had ease in buying all those guns. When my bank thinks there's been suspicious activity on my account, they notify me. If there was a gun registry, a fellow buying that many guns should trigger a concern. I'm a gun owner, but I see it as pure stupidity & ungodly selfishness to not want some reasonable gun laws.

Speaking banks and guns. When I first moved here 40 yrs ago I needed a $1,000 loan to get through until my new job started and I got my first check. The local bank gave me that loan using two rifles as collateral. They didn't know me from Adam but they were well aware of what those rifles were worth.
Some people collect guns and guns are an investment for some people. Just as some women invest in jewels. It's quick cash when you need it. What you are saying is that people should only be allowed to own so many guns without being intimated by law enforcement.

 

[Hank77]

Safe manufacture and use of products is a primary function of government
and the biggest cost in manufacturing most consumer products by far, already.

Thanks all! I have not had to change the wording on the OP one bit
even after sending the URL to three senators.

I love it. Three senators will be connected to a Christian forum and they will see the response to your OP. Good.