Vegas shooting incident

Wanderer78

nc6000 wrote: »

Even if they change the law tomorrow, what do they do about the probably hundreds of millions of guns and likely billions of rounds of ammunition people already have?

I think it's too late to do anything.

great point, but this cant be allowed fester. i believe america is slowly heading towards a civil war

Captain Obvious

I watched the whole thing unfold on the_Donald subreddit. First they blamed Muslims obviously. Then they produced an eye witness account of two hispanics on stage telling people they were going to die so they switched to blaming Mexicans. Then they heard the woman being sought was of Asian descent so they looked at North Korea as the attacker but then thought about China being the instigator. When they learned more about her they switched to Russia trying to divide the country. Then they found out it was a white native and went with a lefty conspiracy. There's also the CIA false flag theory going too.

seamus

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Islamic state have doubled down on their claim this clown was one of their soldiers. More than likely BS but its coming from their official news agency not some loser on the web.

The US need this to not be an IS attack.

The attacker is an old, white American. Using weapons obtained in the US, in the most American place on earth, attacking a very American cultural expression.

He embodies the biggest fear of anyone with the slightest bit of conservatism - he's not an immigrant, he's not young, he's white. He could be anyone, he can't be typecast or racially profiled. And the simple truth is that without liberal gun laws he couldn't have pulled this off.

If he is verified as being IS, he is proof that IS have the power to attack the US from within, using the US's own hubris against it.

Manic Moran

markodaly wrote: »

Is that what I said? No.

Thi video sums it up nicely.

Or this one, from about as left-wing a source as you are going to find.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/media-inspires-mass-shooters-copycats/

Absolutely, the media is not responsible, but they are also absolutely not helping. We have been talking for years about stopping celebretising these guys. We are not going to get the firearms off the streets even if we were to change the laws, which we won't. But we can remove some of the impetus for the shootings.

wakka12

seamus wrote: »

The US need this to not be an IS attack.

The attacker is an old, white American. Using weapons obtained in the US, in the most American place on earth, attacking a very American cultural expression.

He embodies the biggest fear of anyone with the slightest bit of conservatism - he's not an immigrant, he's not young, he's white. He could be anyone, he can't be typecast or racially profiled. And the simple truth is that without liberal gun laws he couldn't have pulled this off.

If he is verified as being IS, he is proof that IS have the power to attack the US from within, using the US's own hubris against it.

If he does turn out to be ISIS, its pure dumb luck on their part. They have zero 'power' to attack US within, one guy who may have agreed with ISis views just so happened to carry out a deed that appealed to them

markodaly

Madd Finn wrote: »

Well if it makes you feel better about a concert turning into a worse bloodbath than your average 21st century military engagement (and why wouldn't it since battlefield weapons were deployed?) you carry on believing that.

Feeling better about it is the name of the game for those people who call whole swathes of the American population names, without having knowing much or anything about how the system of government works there, or how the heartland of America feels about issue. But sure, it makes people feel better to be superior then those rednecks I suppose.

Frankly, the bull**** arguments that many Americans (and some here) have put up about needing to arm themselves as a safeguard against Government tyranny are so infantile as to be pathetic. "Hey man, if the Gumment's got stealth fighters, attack helicopters, drones, guided missiles, heavy mortars, tanks, flame throwers and nuclear submarines, you ain't got no chance against them if all you got is a shotgun. Dammit you gotta get yourself an AK!!!"

Cearly you know nothing. The IRA of the 1918-1921 variety did ok with limited guns and ammunition. The Provos turned the north into a war zone and fought a modern army with, yes you guessed it, nuclear arms, attack helicopters, tanks etc. to a military stalemate. More recently ISIS carved out a pseudo state with little more than willpower and automatic weapons. Again, you clearly know nothing.

It shows an absolute contempt for democracy and the rule of law. You want to live by the law of the jungle, then bloody well say your country's a jungle!!! Don't pretend to be the "greatest democracy in the world" if you think the government is set to throw you in the Gulag as soon as it gets rid of your six shooter.

Kind of rich to be talking about the rule of law, when the law of the land in the US expressly protects gun ownership and the only way to change that is to carry out an ammendment to the consitition which no one think is possible as the people, yes those people who vote in a democracy wont allow it. But yea, democracy and the rule of law or something, something.

Despite being the most admired and mimicked country in the world as regards much of its society and culture, almost NOBODY in a free society wants to copy America's nutty "right to bear arms" second amendment.

Many countries have similar openness to guns as America, Canada and Switzerland for example.

Yes, you can own a gun in most democracies. You can even own one in Britain. You just can't shoot anyone with it or have it for that intention. Hunting rifles, shotguns: yes. Battlefield weapons, pistols, automatic rifles: no.

Again, you know nothing as handguns as per SCOTUS is expressly protected. If you don't want to own a handgun, don't buy one. Isn't that how it works?

I would actually take your point that we shouldn't be telling you what to do about the carnage caused by guns in your country. You should be deciding that for yourselves. Like the Strong Silent Hero of many a western movie the important thing is that "I'd like it to be my idea". So what is "your idea" for reducing the gun slaughter that disgraces your nation?

My country? Again, you know nothing as I am Irish.

No don't tell us. Just do it and let us see. Frankly, I believe many Americans just don't see it as a problem. It's part of the bargain of The American Way that one just has to endure, in the same way that we in Ireland must endure our ****ty weather.

Ah, the Us and them argument. Proves my point to a certain degree about Irish armchair experts on America.

The rest of the democratic world's most eloquent condemnation of Second Amendment thinking is not what it, or even its "Internet Warriors" says; it's what it does. We imitate or emulate just about everything American we can: your business methods, your technology, your music, your movies, your fast food, your dress sense; But NOBODY copies your gun laws.

Your? Again you know nothing.

Are you John Snow by any chance?

Samaris

Considering your post rather set you up as being presumably an American poster, since you were deliberately distancing yourself from being Irish and making snarky comments about Irish posters, it's a bit unreasonable to keep dismissing the other poster's response with "you know nothing", as if it's remarkable that he assumed you were American.

No need to be so patronising, especially when you set it up.

Sofiztikated

Apparently there's an active shooter situation in USC.

markodaly

Samaris wrote: »

Considering your post rather set you up as being presumably an American poster, since you were deliberately distancing yourself from being Irish and making snarky comments about Irish posters, it's a bit unreasonable to keep dismissing the other poster's response with "you know nothing", as if it's remarkable that he assumed you were American.

No need to be so patronising, especially when you set it up.

Well, you know what they say about assumptions and I beg to differ about setting anything up.

The poster in question didn't even have the manners or the courtesy to ask me my nationality or the like, instead went on a rant about 'my' country or 'your' nation. He just made a fool of themselves with that post and in a way entirely proves my point that Irish Internet posters know very little about America but pass themselves off as an expert and quickly jump to conclusions.

SEPT 23 1989

Felt so sorry for his brother talking to the press

What is he meant to say?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Feeling better about it is the name of the game for those people who call whole swathes of the American population names, without having knowing much or anything about how the system of government works there, or how the heartland of America feels about issue. But sure, it makes people feel better to be superior then those rednecks I suppose.



Cearly you know nothing. The IRA of the 1918-1921 variety did ok with limited guns and ammunition. The Provos turned the north into a war zone and fought a modern army with, yes you guessed it, nuclear arms, attack helicopters, tanks etc. to a military stalemate. More recently ISIS carved out a pseudo state with little more than willpower and automatic weapons. Again, you clearly know nothing.



Kind of rich to be talking about the rule of law, when the law of the land in the US expressly protects gun ownership and the only way to change that is to carry out an ammendment to the consitition which no one think is possible as the people, yes those people who vote in a democracy wont allow it. But yea, democracy and the rule of law or something, something.



Many countries have similar openness to guns as America, Canada and Switzerland for example.



Again, you know nothing as handguns as per SCOTUS is expressly protected. If you don't want to own a handgun, don't buy one. Isn't that how it works?



My country? Again, you know nothing as I am Irish.



Ah, the Us and them argument. Proves my point to a certain degree about Irish armchair experts on America.



Your? Again you know nothing.

Are you John Snow by any chance?

The American absolutist interpretation of freedom and the individuals so called unassailable rights to that freedom are just bizarre. It allows individuals such as yourself to rationalise these concepts against the ever growing pile of bodies of American citizens that appear to be denied the prime right, ie the right to life.

pjohnson

markodaly wrote: »

Well, you know what they say about assumptions and I beg to differ about setting anything up.

The poster in question didn't even have the manners or the courtesy to ask me my nationality or the like, instead went on a rant about 'my' country or 'your' nation. He just made a fool of themselves with that post and in a way entirely proves my point that Irish Internet posters know very little about America but pass themselves off as an expert and quickly jump to conclusions.

You claim to be "irish" but your postings really show otherwise.

BillyBobBS

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Apparently there's an active shooter situation in USC.

False alarm. Will be a few of those in the coming days.

markodaly

pjohnson wrote: »

You claim to be "irish" but your postings really show otherwise.

I claim? Born if Offaly but live in Dublin... what next, show my passport and my PSC card so that my posts are taken seriously? What a joke.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nope. It just allows a bit of forward movement in the rifle whilst maintaining a cheek weld. It does nothing to the mechanics of the rifle.

It is possible to 'bump fire' any semi-auto rifle without modification. This is a bump-fire of an unmodified WW2 era M1 Garand. Wooden stock, no pistol grip or any other 'modern' conveniences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQrtzSdVDo

What you do in effect is, instead of pulling the rifle back into your shoulder and then pulling the trigger even further back, you pull the rifle forward with the supporting hand whilst leaving the trigger finger stationary. As the recoil sends the rifle back, it resets the sear for the trigger, and because you have constant forward pressure on the rifle, once the recoil impulse is over, the rifle is drawn forward again and the cycle starts over.

Interesting video there Manic. But surely he's not going to hit anything of consequence firing it like that? Doesn't it make an actual bump stock a dangerous piece of kit, since it would allow some accuracy along with the higher rate of fire?

Panjandrums

This post has been deleted.

RustyNut

markodaly wrote: »

I claim? Born if Offaly but live in Dublin... what next, show my passport and my PSC card so that my posts are taken seriously? What a joke.

So being Irish and all how come you're such an expert on America?

Wanderer78

Panjandrums wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

theyre the good guys with guns

PokeHerKing

Wanderer78 wrote:

theyre the good guys with guns

Unless you're black...

BillyBobBS

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Unless you're black...

No unless you are a criminal.

markodaly

RustyNut wrote: »

So being Irish and all how come you're such an expert on America?

Did I claim to be? No. I know nothing about guns themselves in how the operate, but I also know enough that I wont be making grand simple pronouncements about Americas gun problem on an Irish message board, something many here are doing anyway.

Everyone is a self proclaimed expert now a days, until an actual expert shows up like Manic Moran, then people scuttle off and hide and they know that in an actual debate on the issues, the legalities and the nuances they would get their ass handed to them.

So, we are reduced to inane debate like this, where I have to state that I am no expert (never claimed to be) nor am I American (never claimed to be).

So, do you have an actual point or are people just happy to play the man as the ball is no longer on the field.

It's mad that ISIS claimed responsibility, but then supposedly withdrew said claim. Could be just a lone nut.

ShowMeTheCash

markodaly wrote: »

Well, you know what they say about assumptions and I beg to differ about setting anything up.

The poster in question didn't even have the manners or the courtesy to ask me my nationality or the like, instead went on a rant about 'my' country or 'your' nation. He just made a fool of themselves with that post and in a way entirely proves my point that Irish Internet posters know very little about America but pass themselves off as an expert and quickly jump to conclusions.

You want manners and courtesy after making statements like?

"Irish Internet warriors who know next to nothing about America are always quick to jump and a bandwagon."

So if you are not American are you a kbw who knows nothing about American?

Oh wait you are smarter then everyone else and know more about America then everyone else is that it?

You said you wanted to have debate....
OK in your infinite wisdom how would solve this issue?

On one hand you try to argue the militia point but then you also try to use the Canada example.
Canada does not have the same gun issues which has a lot to do with the fact that guns in Canada are tools, guns in America area weapons.
Owning a hand gun in Canada is difficult and their laws are better.
Switzerland is a small country with a small population which is relatively wealthy, again with a completely different history, different economy, different foreign policy when it comes it invading other nations so again different tensions.

So what would you do to reduce gun related deaths seeing the USA has the highest of any first world nation by a long way?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Did I claim to be? No. I know nothing about guns themselves in how the operate, but I also know enough that I wont be making grand simple pronouncements about Americas gun problem on an Irish message board, something many here are doing anyway.

Everyone is a self proclaimed expert now a days, until an actual expert shows up like Manic Moran, then people scuttle off and hide and they know that in an actual debate on the issues, the legalities and the nuances they would get their ass handed to them.

So, we are reduced to inane debate like this, where I have to state that I am no expert (never claimed to be) nor am I American (never claimed to be).

So, do you have an actual point or are people just happy to play the man as the ball is no longer on the field.

What about the millions of Americans who want gun control? Are you going to accuse them of inane debate or not having an actual point too?

ShowMeTheCash

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

How is someone able to carry 10 rifles into a hotel room?

That was the first thing I thought!

BorneTobyWilde

BorneTobyWilde

If the US had a referendum on gun laws then things would change. Referendums are dangerous, it's why they don't use them. US would be a different place is the people decided more, and not the 80 year olds on capitol hill.

tomwaterford

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What about the millions of Americans who want gun control? Are you going to accuse them of inane debate or not having an actual point too?

Tbf the way the police seem to regularly shoot people with relative impunity over there...you can't blame people for wanting to be armed


Change starts from the top down,if they want people to disarm,begin by increasing unarmed police patrols

mzungu

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Felt so sorry for his brother talking to the press

What is he meant to say?

I often wonder why the US media are so hell bent on doing that. The man finds out his brother has carried out the worst mass shooting in recent memory (and given the competition, that's pretty bad) and two minutes later he has a camera and a mic shoved in his face being given the third degree by the media, all this while he is probably in a state of shock. That's the last thing anybody would want. It was uncomfortable to watch, so it must have been unbearable for him.

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting video there Manic. But surely he's not going to hit anything of consequence firing it like that? Doesn't it make an actual bump stock a dangerous piece of kit, since it would allow some accuracy along with the higher rate of fire?

To a point, yes, but I showed the Garand video to make a point. Being an older, larger calibre, the thing has a single-shot kick on it like a mule, let alone in rapid fire. Accuracy is far better from the shoulder with a smaller round such as a 5.56. The bumpfire stock certainly does make it easier because of the constant cheek weld, but it's a relative statement, really.

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Itssoeasy

mzungu wrote: »

I often wonder why the US media are so hell bent on doing that. The man finds out his brother has carried out the worst mass shooting in recent memory (and given the competition, that's pretty bad) and two minutes later he has a camera and a mic shoved in his face being given the third degree by the media. That's the last thing anybody would want.

I'd love to know how the media found out where he lived. The interview I saw, you tell he was still trying to get the whole thing straight in his head himself.

Odelay

mzungu wrote: »

I often wonder why the US media are so hell bent on doing that. The man finds out his brother has carried out the worst mass shooting in recent memory (and given the competition, that's pretty bad) and two minutes later he has a camera and a mic shoved in his face being given the third degree by the media, all this while he is probably in a state of shock. That's the last thing anybody would want. It was uncomfortable to watch, so it must have been unbearable for him.

Not only finding out he had killed so many people but he also had to deal with hearing his brother died a few hours earlier.

screamer

mzungu wrote: »

I often wonder why the US media are so hell bent on doing that. The man finds out his brother has carried out the worst mass shooting in recent memory (and given the competition, that's pretty bad) and two minutes later he has a camera and a mic shoved in his face being given the third degree by the media, all this while he is probably in a state of shock. That's the last thing anybody would want. It was uncomfortable to watch, so it must have been unbearable for him.

I felt sorry for him too. But it seems almost like they seek them out and they feel compelled to distance themselves lest people think they were involved. It's awful really for innocent relatives to have to protest their innocence and deal with the death of their loved one. Even if they did something awful he was still their brother/ son etc.

StinkyMunkey

I've seen countless arguments why stricter gun controls would be a good thing, most of them with good merit. I've yet to see one good argument why the American public need military grade assault weapons "OR" harmless law abiding citizens with non military assault weapons depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

I've come to realise that the carnage will continue unabated and will never end. The people who are against any stricter gun controls use mind numbing arguments to try and somehow legitimise the general public having insane weapons.

Arguments such as:

Ban cars, after all cars kill people too.

Ban all knives, cause people kill with them too.

You need an AR 15 to defend your property.

Hitler and all the other nut jobs disarmed the general public and then slaughtered them - this one may have merit where Trump is concerned.

Everyone should have a gun, that way no one will be able to commit any atrocity.

I am a law abiding citizen and shouldn't be punished because of some nuts with guns shooting **** up.

It's my right to bear arms.

Most crimes are committed with illegal guns.

Other countries are allowed to have guns, with the usual stats and such to back up the claim - the classic auld, well he has one, why can't I have one.

The list goes on, and yet when I have in the past pointed out the holes in their logic, they just can't see any correlation between gun culture in the states and gun deaths.

The deaths will continue and nothing will change, and a few months from now I'll be reading another thread about some senseless massacre, shaking my head and thinking am I the only one who wishes their was stricter gun controls across all the US.

darced

This post has been deleted.

SimonTemplar

Pretty interesting audio of the moment SWAT entered the guy's hotel room. I'm getting a strong 70s Eastwood vibe from the SWAT leader: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41474018/las-vegas-shooting-moment-police-burst-into-gunman-s-room

Danzy

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'd love to know how the media found out where he lived. The interview I saw, you tell he was still trying to get the whole thing straight in his head himself.

Just imagine the phone call, your brother, the accountant, is dead and he has shot 600 people.

Christ.

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

To a point, yes, but I showed the Garand video to make a point. Being an older, larger calibre, the thing has a single-shot kick on it like a mule, let alone in rapid fire. Accuracy is far better from the shoulder with a smaller round such as a 5.56. The bumpfire stock certainly does make it easier because of the constant cheek weld, but it's a relative statement, really.

That last one an attempt to equate gun ownership to freedom of speech?

Because it's not really equitable, we both know people can purchase military grade weaponry we basically impunity over in the US. One states anti gun stance means nothing when one can buy a gun legally or illegally easily over the state line and bring it back in.

Its a national problem when you are discussing how a stock doesn't really make a semi automatic an automatic. Symantics... The long and short of it is you can murder hundreds of people in minutes and it's easy to easy far too easy.

And America for all its guff about educating the world on what life and freedom is all about allows tens of thousands of its children to die every year because of its single greatest enemy.. Fear.

BorneTobyWilde

Manic Moran wrote: »

Still the same, we speak we write

Manic Moran

The list goes on, and yet when I have in the past pointed out the holes in their logic, they just can't see any correlation between gun culture in the states and gun deaths.

Because there isn't one. Over the years, firearms ownership in the US has dwindled. The days where kids would bring semi-auto rifles to school because they were going to go hunting afterwards with their friends are long gone. With the exception of concealed carry laws, which have not been shown to make any difference on the societal level, the US's laws have gotten gradually tighter and tighter, with more and more restrictions over the years. The US has always had a gun culture. The Swiss, the Italians, the Finns, the Czechs, the Cretans. They all have gun cultures.

The correlation is the lack of empathy which is being shown in the US to one's fellow man. The willingness to resort to violence to make a point. The willingness to shoot someone over a pair of sneakers, because of some perceived 'disrespect', or just because it would be a 'cool gang initiation' (Seriously, I know a guy who got shot as a result of one). The willingness to make a child fatherless in order to make the evening news. The lack of fundamental human decency.

The US has had firearms for two centuries. We've had common access to semi-automatic firearms for over a half-century. This sort of thing didn't happen then. Our problem is really in the last two, two and a half decades, where in the US we have somehow lost the value of innocent life. We have a parenting problem. We have a social responsibility culture problem. The gun culture isn't the problem, because it hasn't changed except to be reduced in scope.

That last one an attempt to equate gun ownership to freedom of speech?

Close. It equates interpretation of the Constitutional writings between the two subjects. The principle is irrelevant to the mechanism, and no court has attempted to say otherwise.

sjb25

Picture says a lot people give out a lot about police but it's them along with fire and ambulance personal who have to do the job when everyone else is running away

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because there isn't one. Over the years, firearms ownership in the US has dwindled. The days where kids would bring semi-auto rifles to school because they were going to go hunting afterwards with their friends are long gone. With the exception of concealed carry laws, which have not been shown to make any difference on the societal level, the US's laws have gotten gradually tighter and tighter, with more and more restrictions over the years. The US has always had a gun culture. The Swiss, the Italians, the Finns, the Czechs, the Cretans. They all have gun cultures.

The correlation is the lack of empathy which is being shown in the US to one's fellow man. The willingness to resort to violence to make a point. The willingness to shoot someone over a pair of sneakers, because of some perceived 'disrespect', or just because it would be a 'cool gang initiation' (Seriously, I know a guy who got shot as a result of one). The willingness to make a child fatherless in order to make the evening news. The lack of fundamental human decency.

The US has had firearms for two centuries. We've had common access to semi-automatic firearms for over a half-century. This sort of thing didn't happen then. Our problem is really in the last two, two and a half decades, where in the US we have somehow lost the value of innocent life. We have a parenting problem. We have a social responsibility culture problem. The gun culture isn't the problem, because it hasn't changed.

Spoken like a proper activist.

Semi automatics in a household isn't normal. It should never be normal.

There is more access to guns than ever before in the US and there is more guns than ever before. You know this don't play with this falling ownership crap

A Battered Mars Bar

You'd have to wonder

Gatling

So he had 20 rifles in the hotel and 2 mounted on tripods suggests a very thoughtful process was used by the shooter rather than an random mass shooting ,

No wonder he managed to be so effective using automatic fire

MadYaker

Were there over 300 million legally owned fire arms in the US 25 years ago? I doubt it. Id also wager that if you did the maths on it, guns have become more affordable in that space of time. Could be wrong though.

You can't easily solve cultural and societal problems by changingn laws. But you can make guns harder to get by changing laws. Bring in better background checks and mental health screening. Bring in draconian prison sentences for distribution and possession of illegal or non registered guns. If you get convicted of a violent offence you should never be allowed to legally own a gun.

There is no good reason for a normal civilan to own multiple semi automatic high calibre rifles. If you want to hunt game or defend your home, pistols, shotguns and bolt action rifles are enough.

Manic Moran

Manic Moran wrote: »

Close. It equates interpretation of the Constitutional writings between the two subjects. The principle is irrelevant to the mechanism, and no court has attempted to say otherwise.

Speaking of interpretations, aren't many Americans misinterpreting what the 2nd amendment is all about when they claim the right to own a gun on the basis of what they think it to be. The 2nd amendment links the concept of gun ownership as a basis to give clout to the 'necessity of a well regulated militia' if such a militia may be needed. In 21st century America, is there a need for the necessity of such a body?

PaulKK

Manic Moran wrote: »

The correlation is the lack of empathy which is being shown in the US to one's fellow man. The willingness to resort to violence to make a point. The willingness to shoot someone over a pair of sneakers, because of some perceived 'disrespect', or just because it would be a 'cool gang initiation' (Seriously, I know a guy who got shot as a result of one). The willingness to make a child fatherless in order to make the evening news. The lack of fundamental human decency.

The US has had firearms for two centuries. We've had common access to semi-automatic firearms for over a half-century. This sort of thing didn't happen then. Our problem is really in the last two, two and a half decades, where in the US we have somehow lost the value of innocent life. We have a parenting problem. We have a social responsibility culture problem. The gun culture isn't the problem, because it hasn't changed except to be reduced in scope.

If that is the social attitude wouldn't it be better if you couldn't just rock in to the outdoor store, show your driving license and walk out with a gun 10 mins later?

I don't see how tighter gun laws would ever be a bad thing. Being allowed to open carry etc just seems to be crazy. Its not the wild west anymore. This is 2017.

AnneFrank

As someone pointed out earlier there is millions of guns already, new laws won't make a difference, and the industry is so big and profitable, it's crazy and I don't see a solution, I just hope our little island never ends up that way

StinkyMunkey

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because there isn't one. Over the years, firearms ownership in the US has dwindled. The days where kids would bring semi-auto rifles to school because they were going to go hunting afterwards with their friends are long gone. With the exception of concealed carry laws, which have not been shown to make any difference on the societal level, the US's laws have gotten gradually tighter and tighter, with more and more restrictions over the years. The US has always had a gun culture. The Swiss, the Italians, the Finns, the Czechs, the Cretans. They all have gun cultures.

The correlation is the lack of empathy which is being shown in the US to one's fellow man. The willingness to resort to violence to make a point. The willingness to shoot someone over a pair of sneakers, because of some perceived 'disrespect', or just because it would be a 'cool gang initiation' (Seriously, I know a guy who got shot as a result of one). The willingness to make a child fatherless in order to make the evening news. The lack of fundamental human decency.

The US has had firearms for two centuries. We've had common access to semi-automatic firearms for over a half-century. This sort of thing didn't happen then. Our problem is really in the last two, two and a half decades, where in the US we have somehow lost the value of innocent life. We have a parenting problem. We have a social responsibility culture problem. The gun culture isn't the problem, because it hasn't changed except to be reduced in scope.



Close. It equates interpretation of the Constitutional writings between the two subjects. The principle is irrelevant to the mechanism, and no court has attempted to say otherwise.

I agree with most of what you say. Like you said, life is cheap.

Unfortunately there has been a very disturbing trend over the last couple of decades especially where anyone with any gripe seems to feel the need to gun random innocents down.

If you ask me, do I think stricter gun controls will end this type of thing, then I'd say no, but I do feel it would be a step in the right direction in educating people.

Honestly I think any country with such easy access to weapons will inevitably suffer like the states have. Banning guns will never work, but I feel that better back round checks and more money spent on promoting safer use of fire arms is a good thing.

More needs to be done in preventing fire arms falling into the wrong hands, stricter regulations and better education. Don't promote guns, promote what happens when things go wrong.

Stonedpilot

smokingman wrote: »

You are the type of person I can quite clearly imagine jerking off to the sight of those dead bodies. Let me guess...the government are lizard people yes?

Jerking off to dead bodies are your words that manifested as your thoughts.Not mine.

Some sick projecting going on here. You need help pal.