Off Topic

Active shooter on the Vegas strip

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 30th, 2018 9:12 pm
Penalty Box
Jan 17, 2012
4334 posts
108 upvotes
Toronto
And why do I keep hearing about this gun show loophole? For Christ sakes, it is not a gun show loop hole, it is more the "private people can sell things loophole." Arms companies who sell guns at gun shows have to follow the laws on background checks etc. it is the private seller and the unregulated small time gun-flipper who can sell without background checks. So that being the case, how would we stop that? Would we ban the private sale of weapons or would we force private sellers to carry out background checks? If it is the former, good luck, if it is the latter, how do you propose private citizens do background checks and who is going to enforce it?

There is certainly room to talk about gun controls. The problem, as I see it, is that those who want gun control propose policies that are either unenforceable or unconstitutional. Until they start coming up with policies that will be both effective and legal nothing will move forward.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Mar 18, 2005
18046 posts
1569 upvotes
Niagara Falls
silky28 wrote:
Oct 7th, 2017 9:54 am
And why do I keep hearing about this gun show loophole? For Christ sakes, it is not a gun show loop hole, it is more the "private people can sell things loophole." Arms companies who sell guns at gun shows have to follow the laws on background checks etc. it is the private seller and the unregulated small time gun-flipper who can sell without background checks. So that being the case, how would we stop that? Would we ban the private sale of weapons or would we force private sellers to carry out background checks? If it is the former, good luck, if it is the latter, how do you propose private citizens do background checks and who is going to enforce it?

There is certainly room to talk about gun controls. The problem, as I see it, is that those who want gun control propose policies that are either unenforceable or unconstitutional. Until they start coming up with policies that will be both effective and legal nothing will move forward.
I guess you could treat it like selling a car privately. The sale still has to go through the Government. The US could do something similar big it wanted.

I mean, that's not going to stop criminals, but it does seem odd that it is so easy to purchase a gun.
Penalty Box
Jan 17, 2012
4334 posts
108 upvotes
Toronto
Evil Baby wrote:
Oct 7th, 2017 10:05 am
I guess you could treat it like selling a car privately. The sale still has to go through the Government. The US could do something similar big it wanted.

I mean, that's not going to stop criminals, but it does seem odd that it is so easy to purchase a gun.
I think they pretty much know that gun laws won't stop criminals. That seems pretty obvious by the focus on mass shootings when gang shootings are a much more significant issue. The issue they want to address is the non-criminal gun owner who snaps. The guy with 10 guns who, for whatever reason becomes a sociopath and wants to kill. But the constitution was not designed for that. Restrictions of ones rights is post-facto ie. After they have demonstrated criminality. The government cannot just proactively restrict rights based solely on possibilities.

To get the kind of gun control the Democrats want the courts would have to interpret the constitution in an entirely new way...on which, I think, would under mine its key tenants. But this seems to be where the Democrats are moving politically...farther and farther Left towards people who think social issues need to be address "by any means necessary".
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 22, 2010
1348 posts
215 upvotes
BC
Mike2000z28 wrote:
Oct 7th, 2017 9:34 am
Because that is where the statistics generally lead to and generally self admitting as well. Every case is different, but it is what it is. Noone is out to get you :)
What's in a label? Anyone who kills 60 people and wounds 600 is, in my book, a terrorist. Reasons don't matter to the people killed. Dead is dead.

Interesting take by Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly
“Public safety demands logical gun laws but the issue is so polarizing and emotional that little will be accomplished as there is no common ground,” O’Reilly wrote in the post. “The NRA and its supporters want easy access to weapons, while the left wants them banned.”

“This is the price of freedom," he continued. "Violent nuts are allowed to roam free until they do damage, no matter how threatening they are."
posting.php?mode=edit&f=15&p=28316272

The US to me is like the old Western movies. Violence is the norm. If you have the bad luck to be in the wrong place, too bad.
Trump is to empathy like Food Courts are to ambience.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Oct 15, 2006
4263 posts
444 upvotes
Jeeeez. Some people sure have attached themselves to this thread like a terrorist on a blond swede
Last edited by Kingmoo on Oct 7th, 2017 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deal Addict
Nov 15, 2008
4729 posts
1690 upvotes
qewcool wrote:
Oct 4th, 2017 10:49 pm
Earlier this afternoon, several law enforcement officials told NBC News that investigators are trying to identify a mystery woman seen with Stephen Paddock in the days before the Las Vegas massacre.
Apparently he was consorting with a prostitute in his final days. They've found her and talked to her.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Feb 9, 2003
17272 posts
2100 upvotes
Langley
insync44 wrote:
Oct 7th, 2017 11:19 am
What's in a label? Anyone who kills 60 people and wounds 600 is, in my book, a terrorist. Reasons don't matter to the people killed. Dead is dead.
Well, we use labels and terms to describe things. In order to communicate effectively, we agree on definitions. When one person starts referring to their car as a potato, that confuses our communication. So it's good to use words right.

The word "terrorism" is defined as violence or threats of violence in order to achieve a political or societal goal. So when using the word terrorism, reasons do matter. We can use words like "murderer" before we know a person's motivation, but we can't refer to him as a terrorist until the motive becomes known, and fits the definition.

Hope that helps.
Banned
Aug 2, 2017
1219 posts
121 upvotes
Logtown
insync44 wrote:
Oct 7th, 2017 11:19 am
What's in a label? Anyone who kills 60 people and wounds 600 is, in my book, a terrorist. Reasons don't matter to the people killed. Dead is dead.

Interesting take by Former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly



posting.php?mode=edit&f=15&p=28316272

The US to me is like the old Western movies. Violence is the norm. If you have the bad luck to be in the wrong place, too bad.
What you call bad luck I call a just reason to arm yourself in self defense.

I spent many years in SF, I stupidly decided one night to meander with some buddies into the Tenderloin area on a Friday night (after a concert, had some time to kill before my ex arrived) and had a gun pulled on me. No one had a gun of course because SF is so insanely uptight about guns and prefer legislating you out of your right to defend yourself against the swath of criminals who are armed regardless of the laws.

Sufficed to say, any time I ever had to go in that region of the city again I was armed (without regard to the local bylaws) and I made sure the criminals knew it. Was never bothered again. That's how chicken shit they are. No bad luck.. better choices. In Canada we simply don't face the various levels of violence Americans face throughout the US. And now that I have a family defending myself and them takes significant priority over the exaggerated fear leftists have over increased amount of non-criminals having guns.

Many people think having a gun means you must shoot someone.. no. The gun itself is a deterrent especially if someone suspects you are armed and capable of defending yourself. Presence alone is an unambiguous deterrent. I learned that first hand.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2013
5315 posts
1929 upvotes
redflagdeals.com
Alt-right websites like InfoWars and Bretibart are now claiming that Paddock has an ISIS video: https://www.infowars.com/former-trump-campaign-official-claims-las-vegas-shooter-made-isis-tape/

The former Trump campaign official (James Brower, his twitter bio and image screams "redneck") claims to have video evidence of Paddock's affiliation to ISIS, but he says "“The reason the video more than likely is never released is because they believe it will trigger the “cells” he speaks of,”

LOL. Let's say hypothetically that this video exists.
He's going to all the alt-right media claiming he has a video that will never be released because "it will trigger cells". How is going to the media about that video any different than releasing the video itself? Now these "cells" he talks about will know that this video exists. I'm not sure what a video could possibly contain that would trigger these "cells". If there really is a video as he claims, he should just release it.

Brower goes on to say, "the source leaking his information is an individual within the Trump cabinet."
If that is the case, I'm sure Mr.Trump would already know and would have it made known to the media already. Trump isn't afraid to associate attacks with ISIS.

None of Browers reasoning about not releasing the supposed video makes any sense, but the alt-right media is eating it up.
A wise RFD'er once said, "Buy now, think later."
I like wearing tinfoil hats.

¯\_(-.-)_/¯

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ "Behold!"
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
29214 posts
2174 upvotes
Winnipeg
AndySixx wrote:
Oct 6th, 2017 3:26 pm
- How am I emotional?
- Tanks and cruise missiles!

No idea man.

US violent crime is up there in general, not just for guns.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... urder-rate

Image

Though, it's funny that guns is what the focus is on.

The fact that the US is a violent country gives more credence to the fact that Americans need the second amendment. Thankfully the "gun nut" SCOTUS agrees.
it's in the constitution, and you can't change that
Deal Fanatic
Nov 24, 2013
5159 posts
1771 upvotes
Kingston, ON
divx wrote:
Oct 8th, 2017 1:34 am
it's in the constitution, and you can't change that
You can. It's been done 27 times. Anything modifying the 2nd is just never going to get through Congress and 3/4 of the states. It's a lack of will, not ability.
Deal Addict
Apr 25, 2001
2049 posts
234 upvotes
Toronto
AndySixx wrote:
Oct 7th, 2017 2:31 pm
What you call bad luck I call a just reason to arm yourself in self defense.

I spent many years in SF, I stupidly decided one night to meander with some buddies into the Tenderloin area on a Friday night (after a concert, had some time to kill before my ex arrived) and had a gun pulled on me. No one had a gun of course because SF is so insanely uptight about guns and prefer legislating you out of your right to defend yourself against the swath of criminals who are armed regardless of the laws.

Sufficed to say, any time I ever had to go in that region of the city again I was armed (without regard to the local bylaws) and I made sure the criminals knew it. Was never bothered again. That's how chicken shit they are. No bad luck.. better choices. In Canada we simply don't face the various levels of violence Americans face throughout the US. And now that I have a family defending myself and them takes significant priority over the exaggerated fear leftists have over increased amount of non-criminals having guns.

Many people think having a gun means you must shoot someone.. no. The gun itself is a deterrent especially if someone suspects you are armed and capable of defending yourself. Presence alone is an unambiguous deterrent. I learned that first hand.
You have a story for all situations, funny you did not mention your wife and kids. Most folks even armed will and have taken flight during stressful situation. Most gun owners are not trained to respond to emergencies. We have the police who are some what trained and paid for this situation. Getting back the Terrorist who killed 58 and wounded hundreds. Why are folks trying to point a finger at ISIS. What you cannot believe and older white male could commit such a heinous act. Additionally, why do folks ignore the first line of the 2nd Amendment. So gun owners are not a regulated malitia.
Banned
Aug 2, 2017
1219 posts
121 upvotes
Logtown
maddawg wrote:
Oct 8th, 2017 9:51 am
You have a story for all situations, funny you did not mention your wife and kids. Most folks even armed will and have taken flight during stressful situation. Most gun owners are not trained to respond to emergencies. We have the police who are some what trained and paid for this situation. Getting back the Terrorist who killed 58 and wounded hundreds. Why are folks trying to point a finger at ISIS. What you cannot believe and older white male could commit such a heinous act. Additionally, why do folks ignore the first line of the 2nd Amendment. So gun owners are not a regulated malitia.
I moved to Canada after I got married. My first kid came a year later. I've actually posted this before.

Anyways, you're free to believe what you like, SCOTUS has decided numerous times, including DC v Heller, that gun ownership rights is an inherent right of Americans unconnected with a "militia". They have an arsenal of historic framework of data that backs up their claim showing even the founding fathers that set up the Constitution had this in mind.

You're free to believe whatever you like though. This is just not an issue you stand a chance of getting your way on.
Mike15 wrote:
Oct 8th, 2017 9:29 am
You can. It's been done 27 times. Anything modifying the 2nd is just never going to get through Congress and 3/4 of the states. It's a lack of will, not ability.
Agreed, but there's also been no just cause to amend the 2nd. Why do it? Legislate people out of the right to defend themselves? The fact that the US is a violent country in general shows the need to defend ones self, friends, and family, not to mention property, is rife. At this point there's no way the populace would allow this right to be abridged. People are free to debate the petty stuff like silencers, AR-15's, and whatnot, the 2nd is there to stay, and for good reason.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
29214 posts
2174 upvotes
Winnipeg
Mike15 wrote:
Oct 8th, 2017 9:29 am
You can. It's been done 27 times. Anything modifying the 2nd is just never going to get through Congress and 3/4 of the states. It's a lack of will, not ability.
it's their 2nd founding principle, you can't touch it without changing the american identity, and you know how serious the americans are about their america.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
29214 posts
2174 upvotes
Winnipeg
AndySixx wrote:
Oct 8th, 2017 11:31 am
I moved to Canada after I got married. My first kid came a year later. I've actually posted this before.

Anyways, you're free to believe what you like, SCOTUS has decided numerous times, including DC v Heller, that gun ownership rights is an inherent right of Americans unconnected with a "militia". They have an arsenal of historic framework of data that backs up their claim showing even the founding fathers that set up the Constitution had this in mind.

You're free to believe whatever you like though. This is just not an issue you stand a chance of getting your way on.


Agreed, but there's also been no just cause to amend the 2nd. Why do it? Legislate people out of the right to defend themselves? The fact that the US is a violent country in general shows the need to defend ones self, friends, and family, not to mention property, is rife. At this point there's no way the populace would allow this right to be abridged. People are free to debate the petty stuff like silencers, AR-15's, and whatnot, the 2nd is there to stay, and for good reason.
why not come to a comprise and just allow handguns with max ammo count of 8?

Top