Las Vegas Gun Attack

A place to discuss anything.
Post Reply
User avatar
ShaunWhite
Posts: 9731
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am

bennyboy351 wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:58 pm
Euler wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:51 pm
I may be talking out of turn here, but it's possible that not letting people buy semi-automatic weapons may help stop these sort of things. I don't know, just a thought.
I believe that right-minded citizens SHOULD be able to defend themselves using firearms IF necessary
I fully respect your opinion but mine is that it's all about perceived threat. We have an almost 0% chance in this country of being faced with a life threatening situation that requires lethal force and because of that, increased gun ownership will result in more innocent dead, accidental or otherwise than saved potential victims. The vast majority of gun deaths in the US do not arise from defending life or death situations and there's no reason to think it wouldn't be the same here.

It's no coincidence that the type of people who feel they need to hoard a huge arsenal are also the type who wear a tin foil hat to protect against alien transmissions. In a country like the states where guns are part of the culture OK, allow one gun maybe two and 20 rounds of ammo "for defence". But if you have more than is necessary you clearly have serious issues with threat perception. Exceptions could obviously be made for 'sport' with a requiremnt to leave guns at the club etc and no doubt other special circumstances. 50 guns and 10,000 rounds isn't about self-defence, it's a cry for help.
User avatar
bennyboy351
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:01 pm
Location: West Midlands, England.

ShaunWhite wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:46 pm
bennyboy351 wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:58 pm
Euler wrote:
Mon Oct 02, 2017 9:51 pm
I may be talking out of turn here, but it's possible that not letting people buy semi-automatic weapons may help stop these sort of things. I don't know, just a thought.
I believe that right-minded citizens SHOULD be able to defend themselves using firearms IF necessary
I fully respect your opinion but mine is that it's all about perceived threat. We have an almost 0% chance in this country of being faced with a life threatening situation that requires lethal force and because of that, increased gun ownership will result in more innocent dead, accidental or otherwise than saved potential victims. The vast majority of gun deaths in the US do not arise from defending life or death situations and there's no reason to think it wouldn't be the same here.

It's no coincidence that the type of people who feel they need to hoard a huge arsenal are also the type who wear a tin foil hat to protect against alien transmissions. In a country like the states where guns are part of the culture OK, allow one gun maybe two and 20 rounds of ammo "for defence". But if you have more than is necessary you clearly have serious issues with threat perception. Exceptions could obviously be made for 'sport' with a requiremnt to leave guns at the club etc and no doubt other special circumstances. 50 guns and 10,000 rounds isn't about self-defence, it's a cry for help.
I see your point, but as of now, we in this country are facing more in the way of hidden dangers than we have for a long time. I realise it is very difficult to decide who is or isn't the right kind of person to carry a firearm, but if the police can weed out the nutters, then surely civilian nutters can be excluded in a similar fashion?

Sadly, I think most of our current politicians live in cloud-cuckoo land and haven't had the experience - neither do they have the b*lls - to stick their heads above the parapit and make real decisions! :-)
CallumPerry
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 5:12 pm
Location: Wolverhampton

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
User avatar
mjmorris335
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 11:29 am

CallumPerry wrote:
Thu Oct 05, 2017 1:55 pm
I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
The bit about slavery in Part 2 certainly hit a nerve... :lol:

Mike
User avatar
Dublin_Flyer
Posts: 688
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:39 am

User avatar
BetScalper
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm

It wouldn't be possible to sort out the gun problem in the USA due to the following....

- There is no gun register. It's not like the UK whereby the Government/Police know what legally held firearms an individual has. Even if they banned them tomorrow, how would they enforce it. There is not enough Police / Soldiers to search every property looking for firearms. Legally that would mean mass search warrants which no judge is going to sign off on. Also, many have stockpiled firearms and ammunition in underground bunkers in the desert and other remote locations.

And to cap it all I would like to see them try and disarm Texas. You would end up with civil warfare. In that state machine guns and rocket launchers are allowed to be owned by anyone passing an FBI on-line background check.

Many are not aware but one of the reasons behind the 2nd Amendment was to allow citizens to take up arms against the Government if needed.

Don't forget that not everyone lives in New York, allot live in very remote areas with the Police around 2 hours away. Home invasions in these areas are very high so people need a way of protecting themselves and property.

It's very easy for Piers Morgan and others to say ban them. But if you don't know who has what or how many then how on earth are you going to do it in a vast country like the USA ? It was easy in the UK and Australia as the Police had records of each gun owned and the serial number.

Illegal Drugs are banned but look how easy they are to get.

Estimates suggest there are over 300 Million unregistered guns in the USA. It would take 100 + years to find and document them. And how much would that cost ?
User avatar
jimibt
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:42 pm
Location: Narnia

BetScalper wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:32 pm
It wouldn't be possible to sort out the gun problem in the USA due to the following....
--
tbh, it wouldn't be possible due to there being a combination of no will and no incentive. the issue (problem) is deep rooted in the very fact that you state i.e - the 2nd amendment was passed in order to regulate government. we live in (hopefully) more enlightened times with nearly 250 years passing since the civil war. maybe the immediate aftermath of that event having passed will allow the US to reappraise the rationale presented for the 2nd amendment - doubtfully yours....
User avatar
BetScalper
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm

jimibt wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:52 pm
BetScalper wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:32 pm
It wouldn't be possible to sort out the gun problem in the USA due to the following....
--
tbh, it wouldn't be possible due to there being a combination of no will and no incentive. the issue (problem) is deep rooted in the very fact that you state i.e - the 2nd amendment was passed in order to regulate government. we live in (hopefully) more enlightened times with nearly 250 years passing since the civil war. maybe the immediate aftermath of that event having passed will allow the US to reappraise the rationale presented for the 2nd amendment - doubtfully yours....
Agreed...

But as far as I know you cannot change the constitution unless ALL 50 states agree. Removing gun rights would not be something Texas, Nevada, Alaska, Florida and many other states would allow. You would end up with another North v South disagreement. And we all know what happened last time.

Having said that, they did manage to limit Firearms ownership in New York.

However, I do find it rather strange that one can own a working rocket launcher or buy dynamite with a drivers licence. :o
MickelC
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:01 pm

deansaccount wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:06 am
The end result of this will be..... more people going out and buying more guns, to 'protect' themselves.
Ok and why not should I buy a gun to defend me and my family. I consider this as a part of constitution.
deansaccount
Posts: 120
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 5:19 pm

MickelC wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:33 pm
deansaccount wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:06 am
The end result of this will be..... more people going out and buying more guns, to 'protect' themselves.
Ok and why not should I buy a gun to defend me and my family. I consider this as a part of constitution.
As a responsible gun owner, with children, I assume this will be locked away somewhere extremely secure?
ajdal
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:05 am

I've read enough on forums to realise Americans will never give up their guns and that is their prerogative... It's a scary thought that the next nut job now has to get to ridiculous death figures to become infamous.... I love the fact that I've hardly ever seen a gun, and no-one I know owns one... can you just imagine the carnage in some of those recent attacks if those automatic guns had been acquirable over here.
User avatar
to75ne
Posts: 2413
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:37 pm

MickelC wrote:
Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:33 pm

Ok and why not should I buy a gun to defend me and my family. I consider this as a part of constitution.
not in the UK. The right to keep and bear arms is not legally or constitutionally protected in the United Kingdom, so i am assume your not British.
User avatar
BetScalper
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm

They shouldn't have to give up their guns and nor will they. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions would willingly take on Law Enforcement and the government to protect their rights.

The USA has a different culture and history compared to Europe and elsewhere.

Depending on the state anyone without a criminal record can apply and obtain a class 3 firearm (fully auto) if he/she wishes too.

Switzerland and Austria have some serious firepower available to their citizens too. But unlike the USA they don't seem to have mass killings. One reason could be that America has a HUGE drug problem.

But don't forget how big the USA is. Allot of people live in the sticks with the Police around 2 hours away. If you get a home invasion then you need something to protect yourself, family and property with.

Where do you think the term WILD WEST comes from ? :lol:
cyxstudio
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 11:18 pm

jimibt wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:52 pm
BetScalper wrote:
Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:32 pm
It wouldn't be possible to sort out the gun problem in the USA due to the following....
--
tbh, it wouldn't be possible due to there being a combination of no will and no incentive. the issue (problem) is deep rooted in the very fact that you state i.e - the 2nd amendment was passed in order to regulate government. we live in (hopefully) more enlightened times with nearly 250 years passing since the civil war. maybe the immediate aftermath of that event having passed will allow the US to reappraise the rationale presented for the 2nd amendment - doubtfully yours....
Actually from what i heard the real intention of the 2nd amendment is for the United States to be able to quickly raise an army when they need one since during the early days of the US they have no standing army, hence why it specifically mention " a well regulated militia"
User avatar
Kafkaesque
Posts: 886
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:20 am

Of all the topics where nothing good will ever come of debating it, this would be it. Especially online.

FWIW, like most Europeans I'm baffled by the American situation regarding guns (despite spending a year deep in the heart of Texas as a teenager). However, the internal debate over there is bad enough. Nothing good will ever come from foreigners barging in. They'll have to come to terms with it and deal with it in their own time. For now, we'll always be ignorant foreigners, who should mind our own business, to the pro-gun voice.

On a lighter note, I feel this speaks volumes about the mindset: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09 ... open-fire/
Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”