Vegas Shooting- truly sick

[5MilesBack]

When will people open their eyes and figure out that it is NOT the guns. To anyone proposing ANY type of restrictions or new laws concerning guns........would you propose and/or support similar legislation concerning vehicles when they're used to mow down dozens of people? When terrorists flew planes into buildings were people yelling for plane control legislation? Should knives be banned because they've been used as tools of terror? What about baseball bats and hammers? They all have one thing in common.......THEY'RE JUST TOOLS.

And why is the media and even officials calling this Vegas attack the "worst domestic attack in U.S. history"? Have they already forgotten OKC? 168 people died from that attack. Again......the tool used doesn't matter, only the tool responsible for the attack matters. An attack is an attack.

And another rant......I haven't seen anywhere that this guy had military type weapons. But even if he had.........I still fully support every American's RIGHT to have them. It is also my opinion that every American should take the time for training, and be carrying.

And just one more......people need to stop getting their gun control info from the media, and do the research themselves. The facts don't lie........but the media and anyone with an agenda will and does.

Would you rather walk into a place with 1000 other random citizens that are fully armed (even with fully automatic weapons), or walk into the same venue in a gun-free zone? I'll take the first option every time.

I don't mind the NRA's "Cold Dead Hands" line because IMO the Constitution, the BOR's, and our unalienable rights are non-negotiable. Any restrictions are an infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights. I just can't believe the number of Americans that are so quick to give up those rights with even a tiny infringement. We've already had enough of those infringements.

 

[WoodsWalker270]

In the end, it all boils down to the fact that you cannot legislate free will. No amount of laws, restrictions, or bans can prevent someone from committing a crime. Look at Prohibition in the 1920's for example. Alcohol was completely banned from this country under the 18th amendment, but most were still able to brew/purchase it.
Humanity needs to value life more for this to change. Hunters/military veterans/first responders probably understand this more than most because they've seen it first hand.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

These weren't assault weapons. They were Armalite Rifles. These things do only what the handler makes them do. There is simply too much evidence worldwide that suggests eliminating these to the public, is going to prevent mass killings. I'm not willing to trade shooting for chemical weapons, bombs, etc.... And, I'm not willing to trade freedoms for emotional bandaids. That's easy for me to say because my family wasn't directly affected. But, I'd say it if they were. Based on what 5 miles and a few others stated. Freedom isn't free. Our freedoms come with a cost. And, that cost is worth more than every single American Life.





If you don't see it that way than I can't help you understand my unwillingness to compromise on this. I'm not alone in this feeling. It's what keeps people clinging to our founding documentation and, the Amendments following it that gives Americans their unique identity.





To disagree is one thing. To insist your opinion is correct and that our freedoms are negotiable depending on the current emotional climate is simply disreguarding the responsibility you have been given by being an American. That sounds tougher than its intention. But, it's true.




Our forefathers ensured this country sets its own course. Separate from others. So, there is zero reason to mimic those others. Society is better here than any where in the world for good reason. God Bless you all

 

[Kilboars]

If the left really wanted to stop gun violence they'll stop taking money from Hollywoods daily how to videos and movies on killing with Guns..

If Hollywood was overrun with Republicans and pro gun users that's exactly what the Democrats would be saying. Stop all the violence in the movies and music.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[adamm88]

I think the biggest problems with these events is everyone left and right is reactive when they occcur, We need to be pro active and try and stop these events before they happen, How i dont know but our rights as gun owners as a whole i feel will be taken away if we dont come together. I do think that a bigger issues are enforcing the guns lawas we have on the books already, there is no sense making new laws if you cant enforce old ones.

Society as a whole is a issue which i could start a daily blog on this subject, kids, people have no morals no common sense, its missing amongs ALOT of people today. Sure every one isnt an issue but there are alot of people out there that are, alot of people just dont have a moral compass.

As a father, a son i cant imagine anyone i care about being there, It scares the crap out of me that my kids have to be raised in this kind of wold, but im going to do my best to put them on the right path.

 

[toadmeister]

I agree on the impact of Social media and how it is a bad influence on many or at least unhealthy.

Can't ban Social media however as it is free speach. Really this forum is just another for of Social Media.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[AustinL911]

That was my point about banning social media. It's just as much of a dumb idea as banning/regulating guns. It simply wouldn't work and infringes on a right just the same. But The Left would go nuts if you even hinted at it. Along the same lines as guns; "I dont own guns so regulating them doesn't bother me." Well. "I dont use social media so regulating it doesn't bother me." I could EASILY give it up.

At some point I feel like the world is going to have to come to accept these types of events are going to happen not matter what. They are awful, but I truly do not think they can be stopped, and I am completely unwilling to chip away at my rights because your emotions tell you it might help even though everyone knows it won't.

I dont think we should stop working towards a solution. But I am adamant the solution won't be more legislation. It'll be finding a way to insert morals and values back into a society that seems to lose more of both by the day.

 

[THBZN]

This is obviously a hot button topic. It touches on too many things that when added together, form a volatile combo: mass shootings, 2nd Amendment rights, freedom of choice, senseless deaths of many via a "tool" as labeled by some, and a tool that we all use in hunting or recreational shooting, etc.

There are no easy answers. This is a multi-faceted problem. It includes everything from how we address mental illness to social media running rampant, to political posturing, etc.

My points and questions are simply based on finding out what can we differently? I would argue that we, the forum members who are hunters and gun owners, recreational shooters, competitive shooters, etc., are in a unique position to offer sane, objective proposals on how we move towards reducing these tragedies.

I am not advocating as some quickly jump to the removal of the 2nd Amendment. Nor instant adherence to other countries' laws. Some people make the comparison to airplanes or hammers or shark teeth....interesting, but they fall short. None of those things are designed to do what firearms do. And guns don't kill, people who own guns do. We have all heard it before.

I don't have the answers, but I have no issue asking more questions. I fear, as do many, that Las Vegas will become overtaken by the next big news story, and we will all be jolted awake again in the coming months or perhaps weeks, when it happens again.

So, purely as an exercise, using the current gun laws on the books, what are we missing? Is there anything else out there that can help reduce mass shootings? Or are we stalled out on this topic?

 

[Rmauch20]

I don't believe there's anything that could've been done that would've stopped the Las Vegas shooter. I'm no subject matter expert on active shooters but I have taken a handful of classes from private parties to Dept Of homeland security that covered what led up to these events and the responses to them.
The shooter in this case according to those that are speaking about him seemed like an every day normal person. He showed no signs of mental illness, radicalized ideologies, picked on or bullied. A quick look at his life from the outside he seem to have it all. So what makes a 64-year-old accountant with an attractive girlfriend, multiple homes, and enough many he can gamble for his leisure activity decide one day he wants to commit this act. Unless there something they're not releasing or they haven't discovered yet it just doesn't make any sense.
In the vast majority of the shooters from Columbine up to the Las Vegas shooter there were signs that we are either missed, ignored, or very well-documented and somehow the person still fell through the cracks And was able to arm themselves and carry out their act.

 

[Murdy]

How would you feel if we infringed on the rest of your constitutional right. How about saying to hell with the 1st ammendment? Let's stop the porn, lying reporters, making everyone a (insert religious beliefs)? What about eliminating the 8th ammendment. That way, water boarding of prisoners would be perfectly legal. Or how about the 5th? We'll let the District Attorney keep trying you in court until it sticks.

Do you get my point? Those ammendments were put in place for a reason. None of them, I repeat, none of them should be infringed upon.

None of those rights are absolute, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you can hold a prisoner without bail in pretrial detention if you show he is a danger to the community or a flight risk; you can kill a criminal if you prove he committed certain offenses; you can't use schedule 1 narcotics in religious ceremonies.

The founders were utilitarians. All rights are typically subject to some balancing; it's a matter of where we draw the line. Myself, I would have no problem with legislation banning external devices (like bump stocks) that allow a semi-auto to function in a manner similar to an automatic weapon. Some of you have asked what law would have prevented this shooting, and I agree, probably none would have prevented it, but if the shooter didn't have access to a bump stock, the damage likely would have been less.

 

[orionthehunter1]

I doubt it you can turn a semi auto into full auto in about 15 minutes and a couple youtube videos. The bump stocks are irrelevant as there are numerous other options that have the same effect.

 

[AustinL911]

None of those rights are absolute, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater; you can hold a prisoner without bail in pretrial detention if you show he is a danger to the community or a flight risk; you can kill a criminal if you prove he committed certain offenses; you can't use schedule 1 narcotics in religious ceremonies.

The founders were utilitarians. All rights are typically subject to some balancing; it's a matter of where we draw the line. Myself, I would have no problem with legislation banning external devices (like bump stocks) that allow a semi-auto to function in a manner similar to an automatic weapon. Some of you have asked what law would have prevented this shooting, and I agree, probably none would have prevented it, but if the shooter didn't have access to a bump stock, the damage likely would have been less.

The problem becomes, where do you stop? The Left would like to to believe that the next piece of legislation would be the last, but that simply isn't the case. Gun rights have slowly been whittled away for the past 80+ years.

So say we ban these stocks (which for the record, I think are stupid), and the next guy still kills 60 people with a regular old semi auto. Are we going to go after those now? Yep.

So we ban semi auto. The next guy kills 50 people with a bolt action. Are we gonna ban those now? Yup, because that's a "sniper rifle" (I can see the headlines now).

The point is, it'll never stop until the left gets what they want, which is outright banning and confiscation. You'll never hear them admit to that, but it's always been what they've wanted.

 

[5MilesBack]

but if the shooter didn't have access to a bump stock, the damage likely would have been less.

I doubt it. In 11 minutes I could have done similar or even worse damage than this guy did with my bolt action rifle. The tool doesn't matter........it's how you use it. So firearm, flame thrower, bombs, a truck, or even a baseball bat.........and people are going down.

That's how you know it's an agenda........because guns and gun accessories are the only things the left ever goes after.

 

[Murdy]

Seriously, you couldn't load 500+ rounds into a bolt-action rifle in 11 minutes, much less shoot them accurately.

I get the strategy of keeping the fight on the fringe (like bump stocks) so we don't end up fighting over the core (semi's and bolts and such), but we also run the risk of appearing unreasonable and alienating that vast group of people in the middle who probably haven't made up their minds yet and will probably decide this issue. Slippery-slope arguments don't really meet the substance of an arguably reasonable proposition, so they are not terribly persuasive to those not already invested in an issue--that is, the middle doesn't care if it leads to something else.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I doubt it. In 11 minutes I could have done similar or even worse damage than this guy did with my bolt action rifle. The tool doesn't matter........it's how you use it. So firearm, flame thrower, bombs, a truck, or even a baseball bat.........and people are going down.

That's how you know it's an agenda........because guns and gun accessories are the only things the left ever goes after.

Well said. This guy was shooting red dot scoped, Armalite rifles, in the dark, at over 400 yards, with bump stocks that ensured he likely pelted a huge area. Had he been looking through a high powered optic, shooting controlled shots, its scary to think of just how many he could have killed.

 

[ozyclint]

post #89 touches on an issue that events like this highlight. what scares me is that events like this will make governments think they have a mandate to increase surveillance on all citizens on the premise that 'we are trying to keep you safe'. 'if we don't know everything about everyone how can we prevent this sort of thing?' hence the rights and liberties of all are eroded.
ironically convenient for them.

 

[AustinL911]

post #89 touches on an issue that events like this highlight. what scares me is that events like this will give governments a mandate to increase surveillance on all citizens on the premise that 'we are trying to keep you safe'. 'if we don't know everything about everyone how can we prevent this sort of thing?' hence the rights and liberties of all are eroded.
ironically convenient for them.

I totally agree. They keep pushing for 'Universal Background Checks' like it's some simple thing. HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY BE AGAINST IT?!?!?!??!

Well...in order to do it effectively, you'd have to create a registry. How convenient is that for them? GTFO of here with that crap.

 

[Rmauch20]

A registry or we would just have another law on the books that's basically unenforceable.

 

[Where's Bruce?]

As more and more civilian videos surface, the picture appears to be changing. I don't think we know the whole story yet.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: Official story of Las Vegas shooting unravels; physical impossibility of lone gunman senior citizen makes narrative ludicrous – NaturalNews.com

One thing I am certain of...you cannot defeat evil by taking away it's tools. Evil will adapt. Even if every firearm in America were confiscated, a lone vehicle and a crowded area is all you need to injure and kill innocents. You cannot ever be completely safe.

 

[AustinL911]

One thing I am certain of...you cannot defeat evil by taking away it's tools. Evil will adapt. Even if every firearm in America were confiscated, a lone vehicle and a crowded area is all you need to injure and kill innocents. You cannot ever be completely safe.

Werd. The guy had the makings of an ANFO bomb in his vehicle. Oklahoma will tell you about those if you ask them. Please explain to those families how much safer their loved ones would have been with more gun control in place.