|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 2, 2017 11:07:14 GMT
Yes, here we go again. As I write, 50+ dead, 200+ injured.
If the NRA get their way, every US citizen will be armed because of some historical amendment to the constitution that has no relevance today. When we get to that point these massacres will be more easily prevented, as any potential shooter can can themselves be shot, quickly and efficiently by a chambermaid, or barman or whoever before they get a chance to let off too many rounds.
Absolute madness. Yet to hear a single NRA supporter give a cogent reason why this right to be armed makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 2, 2017 12:25:33 GMT
I've never understood why assault rifles are needed as a right to bear arms. Fundamentally incompatible with defending your home against an intruder. Hand guns, sure.
The problem with the constitution is if you crack it open, you won't ever close it down. I don't support blanket gun ownership, but enough people do that it's a tricky thing for any American govt to change, sometimes depending on where you live. The NRA are a massive roadblock, but there are plenty of people who aren't in the NRA that want to own guns. It's a mess that can't be easily unpicked.
Sadly there are enough idiots out there who believe that shooting politicians or people at a concert is fair game. The humanoid is the largest problem. Guns don't fire themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 2, 2017 12:44:06 GMT
I've never understood why assault rifles are needed as a right to bear arms. Fundamentally incompatible with defending your home against an intruder. Hand guns, sure. The problem with the constitution is if you crack it open, you won't ever close it down. I don't support blanket gun ownership, but enough people do that it's a tricky thing for any American govt to change, sometimes depending on where you live. The NRA are a massive roadblock, but there are plenty of people who aren't in the NRA that want to own guns. It's a mess that can't be easily unpicked. Sadly there are enough idiots out there who believe that shooting politicians or people at a concert is fair game. The humanoid is the largest problem. Guns don't fire themselves. They don't. And I've heard more than one American this morning say 'guns aren't a problem, people are'. As Eddie Izzard once commented in response to that stock cliche: 'but I think guns help'. If guns were difficult to obtain, as in the UK, someone having a bad day or psychotic episode couldn't just pick a gun up and start firing. If Obama couldn't see a way of controlling guns, Trump certainly won't even try. Nothing will change in the US, I know that, but you help but feel incredibly frustrated by the continual reference to people's 'right' to own a deadly weapon.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 2, 2017 12:56:01 GMT
That answer is one I've had when venturing to suggest to American friends that guns are not relevant to life as they were when the constitution was written. Then I'm told to shut up as I'm English and we beat yo ass, etc. The counter I've had to guns are bad, is in the UK we have a serious issue with knife crime and the US don't.
One of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was on guns. Their vision for other areas, such as the electoral colleges were prescient. The best one can do is to restrict the amount of ammo sold, so while people can own lots of guns, if they have no ammo, it's large paperweight.
|
|
|
Post by bazzer9461 on Oct 2, 2017 13:47:32 GMT
Yes, here we go again. As I write, 50+ dead, 200+ injured. If the NRA get their way, every US citizen will be armed because of some historical amendment to the constitution that has no relevance today. When we get to that point these massacres will be more easily prevented, as any potential shooter can can themselves be shot, quickly and efficiently by a chambermaid, or barman or whoever before they get a chance to let off too many rounds. Absolute madness. Yet to hear a single NRA supporter give a cogent reason why this right to be armed makes sense. And the thing Is Pete when Clinton was making noises during the election campaign about banning them Trump is electioneering with gun lobbyists and the right to bear arms.......wonder what the twerp thinks now. Ps I ain’t changed my mind
|
|
|
Post by ZeroTheHero on Oct 2, 2017 14:02:07 GMT
The counter I've had to guns are bad, is in the UK we have a serious issue with knife crime and the US don't. I think your answer to that is that overall, the USA's 'intentional homicide' rate is 4.88 per 100,000 per year whereas the UK's is 0.97. One reason for that is pretty well illustrated by this latest tragedy - you'd be hard put to kill 50 people and injure 200 with a knife.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Oct 2, 2017 14:03:33 GMT
Absolutely awful, and I do get the argument for gun-ownership. While on a roadtrip, we spoke with a man who was very pro-gun, and he explained that burglaries are very, very rare where he lives - after all, burglars are less likely to take a risk when there is a very real chance that the occupant could be armed.
Having said that, how many more of these atrocities do we need for the powers that be to sit up and take notice? Orlando, Sandy Hook, Columbine and now Las Vegas, plus countless more.
You only have to look back here in the UK. The last mass-shooting I remember was back in 1996, and the awful events at a Dunblane primary school where 16 little school-children, plus their teacher perished. The laws were tightened up after that, and there were very few red-neck politicians going "Hey bwoy, but eets written in our constitution".
|
|
|
Post by HeyMcAleny on Oct 2, 2017 14:27:25 GMT
It's very horrible and sad but I hope no one is shocked or surprised. Mass shootings are simply part of life in the USA, and there are plenty more to come.
Assault rifles for home protection are a joke. In the extremely unlikely event you end up in a shoot out in your home, you are likely to kill your family and even neighbours as the bullets tear through the walls and windows of the house.
This one could be difficult for the NRA to explain away. The usual defence is that an armed response could have prevented or curtailed an attack, thus turning a tragedy into an advert for gun ownership (gun sales tend to increase following a mass shooting). But how would that have helped here? Can you imagine thousands of people turning round and firing rounds into the Mandalay Bay Hotel? Then the residents in the hotel start firing back at the crowd.
Most guns that kill people actually kill the owner. Feeling depressed with a gun in the house is a really bad mix.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Oct 2, 2017 14:28:56 GMT
The control of assault style weapons, & conversion kits there of, is more stringent than it ever has been in the US and have been for some time. "The only assault rifles legal to purchase for civilians in the US are the ones that have been registered between 1934 and 1986."
Yes you can easily buy "single shot" weapons but this bloke had a proper arsenal in his hotel room.
No accounting for bad people.... who is worse the person who pulls a knife and kills one or the one who shoots 50+ with assault weapons? Both murderers both should go the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Oct 2, 2017 14:34:47 GMT
That answer is one I've had when venturing to suggest to American friends that guns are not relevant to life as they were when the constitution was written. Then I'm told to shut up as I'm English and we beat yo ass, etc. The counter I've had to guns are bad, is in the UK we have a serious issue with knife crime and the US don't. One of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was on guns. Their vision for other areas, such as the electoral colleges were prescient. The best one can do is to restrict the amount of ammo sold, so while people can own lots of guns, if they have no ammo, it's large paperweight. When the US Constitution was written, the 'right to bear arms' was designed to facilitate the forming of a militia to defend the new country. It wasn't designed to allow every person, including nutters, to carry a gun to potentially both defend themselves and commit mass murder. The knife crime comparison is ludicrous: kid with a knife versus machine gunner with unlimited ammunition. Not sure how you can restrict the amount of ammo sold either. Wouldn't the buyer buy their allowance in one store then go next door to buy more? For the Americans, the genie is out of the bottle. I see another poster has, bizarrely, written: 'who is worse the person who pulls a knife and kills one or the one who shoots 50+ with assault weapons?' I think we all understand that murder is bad and murderers are bad. The point is the opportunity for mass murder is far greater in the US than in the UK, and there will always be people, for whatever reason, who take advantage of that.
|
|
|
Post by m on Oct 2, 2017 14:42:16 GMT
The control of assault style weapons, & conversion kits there of, is more stringent than it ever has been in the US and have been for some time. "The only assault rifles legal to purchase for civilians in the US are the ones that have been registered between 1934 and 1986." Yes you can easily buy "single shot" weapons but this bloke had a proper arsenal in his hotel room. No accounting for bad people.... who is worse the person who pulls a knife and kills one or the one who shoots 50+ with assault weapons? Both murderers both should go the same way. Who is worse is an irrelevant question. The crime of killing 50 is greater than the crime of killing 1.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Oct 2, 2017 14:48:07 GMT
Of course the opportunity for mass murder is greater where weapons are easily acquired. However they have a democracy where they could happily choose to make gun ownership illegal. The majority choose not to & with every choice there is a risk involved.
There will be a froth of those against the right to bear arms, the NRA et al will push money in the right direction and it will disappear under the carpet....until next time.
Luckily the UK has moved on from the 17th/18th Century mentality.
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Oct 2, 2017 14:57:51 GMT
Believe they are at 273 mass shootings in 275 days (according to their definition). There have been 43 people shot by toddlers this year alone, including last week 2 toddlers being shot by another toddler in day care....
|
|
|
Post by m on Oct 2, 2017 15:17:40 GMT
Why oh why oh why weren't ALL the toddlers armed?
|
|
|
Post by HeyMcAleny on Oct 2, 2017 16:22:40 GMT
Astonishingly, on average there would have been nearly 100 gun deaths recorded in the USA today anyway. It blows your mind.
Now two thirds of those are suicides, admittedly.
Just taking the homicide numbers then, there would have been 30 gun related deaths today anyway.
Which gives you the unbelievable result that on average, more people were murdered over the weekend with a gun than were murdered in Vegas.
It's just.....words fail me.
Looking at those suicide numbers make you realise that just on that basis alone, it's in people's interest not to have a gun in their house. It's way too easy it seems to just pull the trigger in a moment of anguish.
God help some of the posters on this forum if gun laws were ever relaxed in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by ox4eva on Oct 2, 2017 16:41:59 GMT
Terrible and depressing
|
|
|
Post by tomox on Oct 2, 2017 17:44:09 GMT
Shocking. Wish they had caught the b*stard and made him live with what he's done.
|
|
|
Post by flean on Oct 2, 2017 18:11:52 GMT
Impossible not plaster these over the global news, but just wonder if not having international infamy would make some of these twisted animals think twice before doing it.
|
|
|
Post by essexyellows on Oct 2, 2017 18:28:23 GMT
God help some of the posters on this forum if gun laws were ever relaxed in the UK. There in lies the difference. We started to control firearms around about 1900 and have gradually tightened the legislation to "legitimate use" & "safe storage". There are about 2 million licensed guns in the UK and, being licensed, "we" (or the state) knows where they all are. My FAC runs for 5 years with a "flag" on my GP`s record if my mental health deteriorates....high risk for a U`s supporter!! lol Alongside that there are regular weapons & storage checks, checks on quantity of ammunition, paperwork etc and all for a .17HMR. You also need upto date permission in writing from a landowner to use it on their land. Gun cabinet can`t be attached to a partition wall or be anywhere visible.... mines floor & wall bolted and cost £350 plus fitting. And if you get a criminal record for anything............ its goodbye to the lot.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Oct 2, 2017 20:25:12 GMT
That answer is one I've had when venturing to suggest to American friends that guns are not relevant to life as they were when the constitution was written. Then I'm told to shut up as I'm English and we beat yo ass, etc. The counter I've had to guns are bad, is in the UK we have a serious issue with knife crime and the US don't. One of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was on guns. Their vision for other areas, such as the electoral colleges were prescient. The best one can do is to restrict the amount of ammo sold, so while people can own lots of guns, if they have no ammo, it's large paperweight. When the US Constitution was written, the 'right to bear arms' was designed to facilitate the forming of a militia to defend the new country. It wasn't designed to allow every person, including nutters, to carry a gun to potentially both defend themselves and commit mass murder. The knife crime comparison is ludicrous: kid with a knife versus machine gunner with unlimited ammunition. Not sure how you can restrict the amount of ammo sold either. Wouldn't the buyer buy their allowance in one store then go next door to buy more? For the Americans, the genie is out of the bottle. I see another poster has, bizarrely, written: 'who is worse the person who pulls a knife and kills one or the one who shoots 50+ with assault weapons?' I think we all understand that murder is bad and murderers are bad. The point is the opportunity for mass murder is far greater in the US than in the UK, and there will always be people, for whatever reason, who take advantage of that. The only militias they have are the gangs. When you see the amount of kids killed in gang warfare in places like Chicago each year, I believe it's higher than all of the people killed in Afghanistan in the same period. It's astounding that people protest so much about police violence over there, but don't look at gang violence. Guns are means for the slaughter and the controls they've put in Chicago are irrelevant. The bangers go elsewhere. If you completely stopped manufacturing it and imports of ammo, it would slow it down. But it won't do much than stem a little of the flow. Until a majority of people accept they need gun control, nothing will happen. I'm just reading about the sort of planning the moron did showed a high amount of premeditation and planning. He wanted to kill people. I cannot understand how deranged someone is to do that.
|
|
|
Post by holdsteady on Oct 2, 2017 21:16:07 GMT
Americans seem resigned to mass shootings now, only the numbers slain and the Vegas location have bought this one greater publicity and attention, it's a fairly regular event that a nutter/evil c*nt takes his frustration out on innocent people.
It won't change a thing, if the previous massacres, including the various school shootings didn't then why would the fact that a few more people died this time make a difference, this particular camel seems to have no fear of any extra straw.
When you love the right to buy/own weapons that belong in an Arnie movie from the 80's, when that makes you feel safe despite the fact that same right extends to every grudge bearing fruit loop you come into contact with, when you declare that no government has the right to remove your own private arsenal even if it may help to save hundreds, even thousands of innocent lives each year, then you are a special kind of mental case who would end up being sectioned in a sane country.
|
|
|
Post by williammuir (banned) on Oct 2, 2017 21:26:44 GMT
Yes, here we go again. As I write, 50+ dead, 200+ injured. If the NRA get their way, every US citizen will be armed because of some historical amendment to the constitution that has no relevance today. When we get to that point these massacres will be more easily prevented, as any potential shooter can can themselves be shot, quickly and efficiently by a chambermaid, or barman or whoever before they get a chance to let off too many rounds. Absolute madness. Yet to hear a single NRA supporter give a cogent reason why this right to be armed makes sense. 50+ dead, 200+ injured
|
|
|
Post by lincolnyellow1 on Oct 2, 2017 22:25:04 GMT
Le Tissier only missed one penalty in his whole career, why the fcuk don't our marksman take the bastards out with a shot to the lewith a gun take
|
|
|
Post by carefreeoufc on Oct 3, 2017 6:33:19 GMT
What are the restrictions on purchase in Canada? I remember reading some time ago that Canadian gun ownership was higher per individual in comparison to the US.
Personally I don't think it's just about the control of issue of weapons I think it's a historical mindset of the nation as much as it is about gun ownership and control.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Oct 3, 2017 6:33:49 GMT
That answer is one I've had when venturing to suggest to American friends that guns are not relevant to life as they were when the constitution was written. Then I'm told to shut up as I'm English and we beat yo ass, etc. The counter I've had to guns are bad, is in the UK we have a serious issue with knife crime and the US don't. One of the biggest mistakes the founding fathers made was on guns. Their vision for other areas, such as the electoral colleges were prescient. The best one can do is to restrict the amount of ammo sold, so while people can own lots of guns, if they have no ammo, it's large paperweight. When the US Constitution was written, the 'right to bear arms' was designed to facilitate the forming of a militia to defend the new country. It's the second amendment in fact. Part of the Bill of Rights whose aim was to enable the citizen to defend his rights again a supervening federal state. Much needed legislation, it turns out for the USA. But that's not the argument we want here.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Oct 3, 2017 6:36:58 GMT
Shame it didn't limit electoral spending which would have prevented elections (and representatives) USA from being bought by 'interests'; and, perhaps, the supervening state.
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Oct 3, 2017 12:25:00 GMT
What are the restrictions on purchase in Canada? I remember reading some time ago that Canadian gun ownership was higher per individual in comparison to the US. Personally I don't think it's just about the control of issue of weapons I think it's a historical mindset of the nation as much as it is about gun ownership and control. USA has 112 guns per 100 residents (according to best estimated studies of 'private gun ownership' to include legal and illegal). This is almost twice the rate anywhere else. Canada is 30.8 guns per 100 residents. UK is 6.6 per 100.
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Oct 3, 2017 12:40:55 GMT
Certainly if the US are not prepared to outright ban guns, then they should certainly consider restricting the types of guns that you can buy. Republicans will argue about self defence, but what's the difference between a fully-automatic M-16 Assault rifle, and a bog standard 12 bore rifle used by gamekeepers?
If you point a bog standard 12 bore rifle at me, I'll sh*t my pants, I'll do whatever you tell me to do. Either way you get the desired effect. The only thing you can't do with a 12 bore is commit massacres like the one in Las Vegas.
|
|
|
Post by oufcgav on Oct 3, 2017 12:58:01 GMT
Certainly if the US are not prepared to outright ban guns, then they should certainly consider restricting the types of guns that you can buy. Republicans will argue about self defence, but what's the difference between a fully-automatic M-16 Assault rifle, and a bog standard 12 bore rifle used by gamekeepers? If you point a bog standard 12 bore rifle at me, I'll sh*t my pants, I'll do whatever you tell me to do. Either way you get the desired effect. The only thing you can't do with a 12 bore is commit massacres like the one in Las Vegas. Sales of fully automatic are fairly well restricted, but then they don't restrict the open sale of devices to make a semi-automatic behave like an automatic. Also doesn't make sense that regulations vary state to state. Chicago is often quoted as a high-regulation area that has high gun crime. But what the gun lobbyists don't say is that a 15 minute drive away is a low regulation area, and the majority of guns used in crime there are not 'local'.
|
|