Las Vegas mass shooting

Dbqgolfer said:
Yes, that is what I got out of that.  I thought you were responding to the second part of my post.  Upon rereading, perhaps you were responding to the first part.
Click to expand...




Nobody is is talking about disarming the population. 

Unless tou ae ate perfectly fine and promote the he idea of people with serious mental illness or serious warning signs of owning guns. 

Which, if that’s the case, then I’m assuming you feel days like this are a small price to pay so we can have an “armed populace”. 

 
Dbqgolfer said:
Personally, I think people should have the right to have a 30 round clip.  The last thing I would want to do is take another life; so if someone is breaking into my home to do harm to my family, I may want to squeeze off 5 or 6 warning shots to give them a chance to rethink their decision, and still have some rounds left in case they don't.
Click to expand...
if 1 warning shot doesn't scare them off the rest of your warning shots won't matter.   and if you take 6 or 7 warning shots do you think your walls will protect your neighbors from random bullets flying around?  even firing into the air those bullets still come back to earth at a lethal velocity.

 
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but did anyone see where a VP/top legal consul of CBS posted on Facebook that the feels no sympathies for the victims because they are country music fans who are probably republican gun toters....nice.   By the way, she has since been fired.

 
Are we calling all the liberal democracies of Europe fascist regimes that disarm their citizenry?

You know what looks a lot less like a democracy? A gerrymandered-to-s#t republic where popular representation is a joke, the big money gun lobby writes the rules, and our 'leader' is going after the livelihoods of his critics while attempting to make public displays of nationalism de facto mandatory.

 
commando said:
apparently there is a loophole in the law that allows people to buy a part that changes the semi auto to full auto.  and what about the large clips?  i asked earlier about that but didn't get any answer.   a clip of 7 rounds is still deadly and too much when a crazy takes aim at innocent people...but what i heard sounded like a large clip or belt feed when i saw video of the attack last night.   might have saved a few hundred people from being injured or killed if there was a smaller limit on how many can be loaded at a time.
Click to expand...
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0039.htm

Federal Law

The 1994 federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which amended the 1968 Gun Control Act, made it illegal to transfer or possess “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” not lawfully possessed on or before the law's enactment. But the law permitted the sale of magazines manufactured before the ban (formerly codified at 18 USC § 922(w)(1) and (2)). (The act also banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons.)

The act defined “large capacity ammunition feeding device” as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device . . . that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” It exempted attached tubular devices designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rim fire (18 USC § 921(a)(31(A) &(B)). The act included a sunset clause, under which the ban expired after 10 years, on September 13, 2004. Congress allowed the law to expire, and consequently, formerly banned high capacity ammunition magazines (and assault weapons) are now legal unless banned by state or local governments.

***Nevada has no such law on the books. 

 
GM_Tood said:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0039.htm

Federal Law

The 1994 federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which amended the 1968 Gun Control Act, made it illegal to transfer or possess “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” not lawfully possessed on or before the law's enactment. But the law permitted the sale of magazines manufactured before the ban (formerly codified at 18 USC § 922(w)(1) and (2)). (The act also banned the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons.)

The act defined “large capacity ammunition feeding device” as “a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device . . . that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” It exempted attached tubular devices designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rim fire (18 USC § 921(a)(31(A) &(B)). The act included a sunset clause, under which the ban expired after 10 years, on September 13, 2004. Congress allowed the law to expire, and consequently, formerly banned high capacity ammunition magazines (and assault weapons) are now legal unless banned by state or local governments.

***Nevada has no such law on the books. 
Click to expand...


that law actually made some sense...so of course it had to be allowed to die.   now i am glad that guy didn't have a mini-gun last night.  if i understand that rule a mini gun would be perfectly legal to own.   can you imagine what he could have done if he could fire 3,000 rounds per minute?

 
zoogs said:
Are we calling all the liberal democracies of Europe fascist regimes that disarm their citizenry?

You know what looks a lot less like a democracy? A gerrymandered-to-s#t republic where popular representation is a joke, the big money gun lobby writes the rules, and our 'leader' is going after the livelihoods of his critics while attempting to make public displays of nationalism de facto mandatory.
Click to expand...
No, we are calling them countries that have limited their citizens gun rights, and expression rights, and religious freedom rights. (probably not a coincidence).

I don't really disagree with the rest.  I live in Iowa where our congressional districts are not gerrymandered, and wish all states would do the same.  I wish Trump would have stayed out of the NFL protests.  What he said would be fine if he were a private citizen, but not appropriate for the President of the United States.  For the record, I'm not a Trump guy, first time in my life I voted for someone other than the Republican for President.

 
BIGREDIOWAN said:
From what I understand a silencer slows the feet per second down as well which in reality limits the distance the rifle will shoot. Doesn't mean it would've resulted in less victims, just adding some information there as well. They definitely aren't as quite as folks think they are in reality. 
Click to expand...
I know a lot of veterans in particular who love them (mainly combat veterans that I know) because of the hearing damage they've already suffered from guns. From that standpoint, suppressors are a great tool.

 
Landlord said:
The entire argument about gun control is an argument about degrees of separation and thickness of filtering. If you can't understand that conceptually, then you really shouldn't even be talking about it.
Click to expand...
I'm fully aware of the degrees of separation and filtering.I'm also fully aware of reality.you being from Chicago,a city with some of the strictest guns laws in the country but yet has a very high gun violence rate should understand this.

 
Dbqgolfer said:
My opinion is that we have that sane limit on such weapons now.....semi-automatic weapons legal, fully automatic weapons liked the one apparently use in Las Vegas, not legal.
Click to expand...
That's what most people were discussing in this thread before you turned it into a diatribe on 'disarming the populace.'

If stricter gun laws could save just one life, isn't that worth it? At the very least, isn't it worth government funded research into gun violence? The reason it doesn't happen is because the NRA and gun activists know exactly what would happen - stricter gun laws. Those opposed to at least seriously vetting the situation are saying they're comfortable with events like today.

We see an illness, we research it, we develop methods to attack it and we carry out those methods. Gun violence is apparently it's own special bird devoid of this treatement.

 
IMHO semi autos are ok.    but fully auto and the parts to change semi auto to full auto are not ok.   and clips should be limited to something like 10.   just a way to somehow limit just how much damage a crazy can do.....and still allow a reasonable gun for hunting and perhaps self defense purposes if needed.   30 round clips are just to big IMO

 
Back
Top