Shooting at Mandalay Bay Resort (Las Vegas)

BobKowalski said:
Something I found bizarre (assuming it's not fake) and that is 3% of Americans own 50% of guns in the US. It does tally with something else I was told and that gun ownership is reducing in that the number of gun owners is going down but the number of guns is going up.

I can get owning a gun if you hunt or live in an area with dangerous animals or something. But I have no idea why you would own a gun if you live in a city or where there is no practical need. I also have no idea why you would own assault type weapons or why you would own multiple weapons. Not sure I would be comfortable with the idea of a small number of people stockpiling guns. To be honest I would be questioning the mentality of people who do that.
Click to expand...
The average police response time in the U.S. is eleven minutes for emergencies. It can be longer if you live out in the country.
 
better dead than red said:
The average police response time in the U.S. is eleven minutes for emergencies. It can be longer if you live out in the country.
Click to expand...

I am not disputing there can be practical reasons for owning a firearm especially in remote areas (although I am sceptical of the self defense arguments given the number of accidental shootings). My point is why do 3% of American adults need to stockpile 50% of guns in America? Why does anyone need to posses multiple weapons?
 
BobKowalski said:
I am not disputing there can be practical reasons for owning a firearm especially in remote areas (although I am sceptical of the self defense arguments given the number of accidental shootings). My point is why do 3% of American adults need to stockpile 50% of guns in America? Why does anyone need to posses multiple weapons?
Click to expand...

In 2016, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey which showed 44% of households owned a gun. An additional 5% refused to answer. I'm not sure how the 3% fits. I'm not saying you are wrong. I just haven't read that yet.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
The Constitution of the USA is supposed to protect its citizens. Unfortunately I think more people die because of the Constitution than would die without it. Obviously just my opinion, but the Second Amendment has done that Country no favour's whatsoever.
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment is fine. It is just as dangerous as the 3rd Amendment (No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law). It is also just as relevant to this whole debate. They both are anachronistic and should be generally ignored.

The 2A exists because after the Revolution, the new nation needed a way to defend itself. It did not have a standing army. We used militias instead. The only way that works is if each Militia member had a gun to bring when called up. That context actually makes the entire text of the 2A make a little more sense:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 2A does NOT say that anyone who wants to own a gun can own one. It says you have the right to own a gun for the purpose of serving in your militia.

Since we have a standing army, we no longer generally need militias. The US still has one though just in case. Its called the Selective Service (the draft). If the security of the free state was at risk and the standing army could not suffice, the draft would be instituted and millions of young men would be called up to fight, just like they were in a militia....with ONE BIG EXCEPTION. They wouldn't need to bring their own gun...
 
BlueDeadHead said:
The 2A does NOT say that anyone who wants to own a gun can own one. It says you have the right to own a gun for the purpose of serving in your militia.
Click to expand...
What it actually says is irrelevant though, because decisions tend to be made on precedent, and legal precedent seems to favour a reading of the 2nd amendment that basically says that the government can't restrict access to firearms. At least that's what I've been led to believe.
 
BobKowalski said:
I am not disputing there can be practical reasons for owning a firearm especially in remote areas (although I am sceptical of the self defense arguments given the number of accidental shootings). My point is why do 3% of American adults need to stockpile 50% of guns in America? Why does anyone need to posses multiple weapons?
Click to expand...
Can't answer that, different societies an all but I could ask why there was, maybe still is an epidemic of glassing people in the face when I lived over there. There were literally tens of people with half moon shaped scars around their faces and it was a very regular event...you called my pint a poof kinda stuff.
Not trying to defend the gun owners, just curious about it as I've never heard of such a thing over here
 
BlueDeadHead said:
The 2nd Amendment is fine. It is just as dangerous as the 3rd Amendment (No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law). It is also just as relevant to this whole debate. They both are anachronistic and should be generally ignored.

The 2A exists because after the Revolution, the new nation needed a way to defend itself. It did not have a standing army. We used militias instead. The only way that works is if each Militia member had a gun to bring when called up. That context actually makes the entire text of the 2A make a little more sense:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The 2A does NOT say that anyone who wants to own a gun can own one. It says you have the right to own a gun for the purpose of serving in your militia.

Since we have a standing army, we no longer generally need militias. The US still has one though just in case. Its called the Selective Service (the draft). If the security of the free state was at risk and the standing army could not suffice, the draft would be instituted and millions of young men would be called up to fight, just like they were in a militia....with ONE BIG EXCEPTION. They wouldn't need to bring their own gun...
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, you live in Virginia. Therefore, if you are able bodied the state law considers you part of the militia. Unorganized militia but part of it all the same.
 
better dead than red said:
Where did I say anything about that? I didn't but then you knew that. Instead you are just trying to take cheap shots without adding anything to a civil discission.
Click to expand...
You wrote about the police response times as a reason for people to own firearms. If it's such a cheap shot, you shouldn't have much trouble justifying it.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
What it actually says is irrelevant though, because decisions tend to be made on precedent, and legal precedent seems to favour a reading of the 2nd amendment that basically says that the government can't restrict access to firearms. At least that's what I've been led to believe.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say its irrelevant...but your point is largely correct. What matters today is what the courts say it means. That changes regularly. What does not change is the text of the Constitution unless it is amended. The question is why has legal precedent led to this interpretation when the text is so clear? Madison explicitly explains why one's right to bear arms cannot be infringed.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
You wrote about the police response times as a reason for people to own firearms. If it's such a cheap shot, you shouldn't have much trouble justifying it.
Click to expand...
I didn't say "assault rifle" which is a manufactured term to strike fear in those that don't know any better. You said that. Frankly, a shotgun would do you better for home defence.

The sound of racking will send many burglars back from where they came. And if you live in a terrace house there's less chance of killing your neighbour.

You won't "win" this by making straw man arguments, snide comments and being a little bit of a jerk. If you want a reasonable discussion, great. If you are just going to run in and throw punches (weak ones at that) then jog on.
 
better dead than red said:
You are a reasonably smart fellow. If I can find it, and I'm merely a 40 hour/wk blue collar guy, you can too. ;)
Click to expand...

I do not know where to assemble when called up to serve (I don't even know what to wear!) and I have lived in this state for more than 40 years. Well regulated?

And since my original point was the 2A is anachronistic, bringing up State law that is equally so does nothing to make your argument.
 
BlueDeadHead said:
I do not know where to assemble when called up to serve (I don't even know what to wear!) and I have lived in this state for more than 40 years. Well regulated?

And since my original point was the 2A is anachronistic, bringing up State law that is equally so does nothing to make your argument.
Click to expand...
I wasn't really making an argument. More like, I was giving you a fun fact that not many are aware of. When "shit goes down" I suppose the Governor will put out the call for the unorganized militia.

You can meet on the village green and just come as you are like the original Minutemen. No need for anything fancy. The snot nosed VMI cadet or Va Tech cadet corps member they'll put in charge of your fire team/squad/platoon will likely get everyone killed anyhow. :)

The part you want is at the very bottom.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_militia

btw calling you reasonably smart wasn't meant as an insult. Hope you didn't see it that way.
 
better dead than red said:
I didn't say "assault rifle" which is a manufactured term to strike fear in those that don't know any better. You said that. Frankly, a shotgun would do you better for home defence.

The sound of racking will send many burglars back from where they came. And if you live in a terrace house there's less chance of killing your neighbour.

You won't "win" this by making straw man arguments, snide comments and being a little bit of a jerk. If you want a reasonable discussion, great. If you are just going to run in and throw punches (weak ones at that) then jog on.
Click to expand...
And you won't "win" this by trying to portray yourself as the arbiter of reasonable discussion and then insulting people in the very same paragraph. I said assault rifle, that's true. It's irrelevant what type of gun I said, the point stands. The idea that buying a gun is a rational response to the threat of burglary and the fact that the police might take a while to come out is extremely odd. Now I accept that it is the stated reason that a lot of people own a gun, but I think they'd be far better spending that money on things that might actually help, like good quality doors and windows, burglar alarms and home insurance. All of which have the advantage of continuing to work when you're not there, which as I understand it, is the burglar's preferred time to call in. Burglars are typically adverse to houses that have people in them, and as such, if you find yourself in a house with a burglar, the sound you make needn't be that of a gun to send them fleeing. Now you might get situations where it's more of an armed robbery, which is obviously far more frightening, but again, all they want is your stuff, so it wouldn't seem like a particularly good solution to escalate that situation into a you vs. them confrontation with firearms. And obviously most countries where you can get a gun agree with this, because self-defence or home defence is not typically an accepted reason to be given a licence. There might be an argument that the widespread ownership of guns acts as a deterrent for burglars in the first place, but the statistics don't seem to back this up, with only 2 European countries having a higher rate of burglaries that the USA.
 
TCIB said:
What do you think would need to happen to get some form of political momentum for this. What does the US public need to do to make congress and such listen and listen damned carefully. For example can states call for no confidence in their representative and have them sacked almost instantly? is there any provision for such action or similar?
Click to expand...

As I wrote before, this isn't a debate between proponents and opponents of gun safety/control. It's a debate between people with guns and those without. Who "wins" should be obvious. It can't, and wont, change. The genie left the bottle eons ago. Even the rational who own guns are a threat, because people are mutable and guns aren't. Gun owners have exactly zero incentive to work toward a solution, none. Ever met a gun owner who thinks he/she is irresponsible or demented? I haven't. And won't. Sorry to be so cynical. I gave up on this a long time ago. My only solace is the relative rarity of these mass shooting events, staying out of dangerous parts of town, and trying not to pick fights with people I don't know. Do I live in fear? Of course. For myself, but especially for my kids. My Assemblyman, Congressman and Senator are all staunch anti-gun advocates already.
 
JPBB said:
Of course, you are not in favour of a man killing 60 people.

However, the patronising "now is not the time" to discuss gun control bullshit that we hear from Americans shows that you do not really want to solve this problem. If the killing of a school full of kids at Sandy Hook did not motivate you to make changes to your gun laws nothing will. You are the only country where this type of lunacy regularly happens and you still pretend you are helpless to stop it.

And all your bullshit about the 2nd amendment is sickening and hypocritical, if it was a brown man doing this in the name of terrorism instead of a white man you would have new laws tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Its sad to say but you are SO right. America has no chance in changing. There could be 1000 people killed in a mass shooting and they will always find a way to blame either terrorists, mental illness, or something else. People forget taking away the instruments that make it so easy to kill does help a lot in limiting damage. A mentally ill person will not kill many if any people if they can only get easy access to a knife, not a rifle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top