Shooting in Las Vegas

[tampa24]

Like many of you I'm sure, I'm very saddened to hear of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Since we have no boogeyman in Islamic garb or Islamic affiliation to blame for this one, can we please talk about common sense gun control laws that prevent private citizens from legally obtaining military-grade offensive weapons?

What sane person with no intent to harm anyone can stand there with a straight face, and say these kind of weapons (like the one used by the killer in Vegas) is a gun one needs to hunt animals in the wild, or to use for defensive purposes? It's an offensive weapon. Not a defensive one. I don't trust any private citizen to own an offensive mass causality weapon. It represents too much power for one individual. It's not healthy for them mentally to even consider using it. No doubt in their daily struggles of life it could take them to some very dark places as they feel victimized or trespassed upon by others and harbor greivances...as no doubt many of us carry grievances at one time or another that we just have to sort through.

If the NRA wants to defend this kind of firepower as legal and a good idea for ownership by private citizens (of diverse mental states and various levels of spiritual maturity)...then they are being delusional and/or intellectually dishonest. At best!

At worst, they are willfully just setting us up for the next mass murder with a higher body count.

 

[louis33705]

The question is not who, why or what causes these horrendous acts. The question is, HOW do we prevent this from happening over and over again?

The mind is sometimes worse than any weapon a person could possess.

 

[elyot1]

Like many of you I'm sure, I'm very saddened to hear of the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Since we have no boogeyman in Islamic garb or Islamic affiliation to blame for this one, can we please talk about common sense gun control laws that prevent private citizens from legally obtaining military-grade offensive weapons?

What sane person with no intent to harm anyone can stand there with a straight face, and say these kind of weapons (like the one used by the killer in Vegas) is a gun one needs to hunt animals in the wild, or to use for defensive purposes? It's an offensive weapon. Not a defensive one. I don't trust any private citizen to own an offensive mass causality weapon. It represents too much power for one individual. It's not healthy for them mentally to even consider using it. No doubt in their daily struggles of life it could take them to some very dark places as they feel victimized or trespassed upon by others and harbor greivances...as no doubt many of us carry grievances at one time or another that we just have to sort through.

If the NRA wants to defend this kind of firepower as legal and a good idea for ownership by private citizens (of diverse mental states and various levels of spiritual maturity)...then they are being delusional and/or intellectually dishonest. At best!

At worst, they are willfully just setting us up for the next mass murder with a higher body count.

You nailed it, Tampa. The NRA is an evil organization. They threaten to spend large amounts of money to oppose any one who votes against sensible gun control and our law makers are more interested in winning elections than they are in doing the right thing.

 

[louis33705]

humpty trumpty said we'll talk about gun control later (and later and later). All government officials who were asked about taking a stand on gun control, all said that this is not the right time.

When the fuck is the right time?

Am I angry? Damn right I am. The Pulse Nightclub massacre is what keeps my blood boiling and my pulse pumping.

 

[tampa24]

humpty trumpty said we'll talk about gun control later (and later and later). All government officials who were asked about taking a stand on gun control, all said that this is not the right time.

When the fuck is the right time?

Am I angry? Damn right I am. The Pulse Nightclub massacre is what keeps my blood boiling and my pulse pumping.

They always say that, "It's not the proper time to be talking about this." [Gun control] "It's insensitive to the victims and their families to politicize this event." "We need to be expressing our sympathy and let the investigation continue before discussing gun control." "That's a conversation for another time." (Which in their minds means NEVER.)

Their other favorite obfuscation and twisted logic is if a shooter who bought his guns legally (like in Orlando), can be called a terrorist or an Islamic terrorist. In that case, no talk of gun control is acceptable or necessary simply because the murders themselves were committed by someone with an foreign inspired political agenda. Huh??? WTH is that logic about? Are those victims any less dead?

I'm sick of it too. It's Second Amendment a**holes and NRA bribe-taking politicians like that who are the most insensitive to the victims and families. They are projecting onto us their own callousness and lack of empathy and human compassion. Sometimes it's out of ideology. Other times like with the congressmen and senators, it's out of corruption and greed. It's all about those NRA bribes greasing their palms and/or pandering to the base of gun enthusiasts who aren't content with just weapons of self-defense. Heck. Why not just let people buy rocket propelled grenade launchers at their local Walmarts too? Those NRA bought-and-paid-for politicians claim to care about the victims and their families. But the truth is they don't give a dam* about them when it comes time to talk (or vote) about sensible gun control laws.

This last shooting threw them (NRA gun enthusiasts) off their game. One of their favorite talking points that I get so sick of is, "The problem in this shooting was not that that too many people have guns...it's that not enough of them did."

The answer to every mass killing seems to be that more guns in more hands are needed.

"More good people need guns to protect themselves against that bad ones who do."

And what good would that have done the people being slaughtered in the concert venue trapped like fish in a barrel? The "good", white, heterosexual guy with no foreign influences...was using military grade OFFENSIVE weapons from a considerable distance away from the target of his massacre. Hypothetically, what handguns or even rifles carried by those inside would have been useful inside the confines of that concert? Defensive weapons were no match for his firepower, camouflage and distance. Even if some people had weapons with strong enough firepower that they could fire back from the concert grounds to the distance of the shooter, they still weren't sure where the fire was coming from. And how good of a shot would they likely be anyway? Amateurs at night in the dark? Would they possibly have started firing at the correct hotel...but end up blasting into rooms above, below and beside the shooter's? Where other innocent families might be inside with their children? And what of people who might start shooting at the wrong buildings which they only think is the direction the gunshots are coming from? I don't see a happy ending to that scenario either.

And how are the police supposed to know if any people shooting from inside the concert are good guys...or part of the bad guys who need to be killed quickly by the police themselves?

No, Mr. NRA. More guns in this situation would not have helped the victims or saved lives at all. In fact it might only have succeeded in increasing the body count and needless loss of life due to friendly fire.

 

[elyot1]

They always say that, "It's not the proper time to be talking about this." [Gun control] "It's insensitive to the victims and their families to politicize this event." "We need to be expressing our sympathy and let the investigation continue before discussing gun control." "That's a conversation for another time." (Which in their minds means NEVER.)

Their other favorite obfuscation and twisted logic is if a shooter who bought his guns legally (like in Orlando), can be called a terrorist or an Islamic terrorist. In that case, no talk of gun control is acceptable or necessary simply because the murders themselves were committed by someone with an foreign inspired political agenda. Huh??? WTH is that logic about? Are those victims any less dead?

I'm sick of it too. It's Second Amendment a**holes and NRA bribe-taking politicians like that who are the most insensitive to the victims and families. They are projecting onto us their own callousness and lack of empathy and human compassion. Sometimes it's out of ideology. Other times like with the congressmen and senators, it's out of corruption and greed. It's all about those NRA bribes greasing their palms and/or pandering to the base of gun enthusiasts who aren't content with just weapons of self-defense. Heck. Why not just let people buy rocket propelled grenade launchers at their local Walmarts too? Those NRA bought-and-paid-for politicians claim to care about the victims and their families. But the truth is they don't give a dam* about them when it comes time to talk (or vote) about sensible gun control laws.

This last shooting threw them (NRA gun enthusiasts) off their game. One of their favorite talking points that I get so sick of is, "The problem in this shooting was not that that too many people have guns...it's that not enough of them did."

The answer to every mass killing seems to be that more guns in more hands are needed.

"More good people need guns to protect themselves against that bad ones who do."

And what good would that have done the people being slaughtered in the concert venue trapped like fish in a barrel? The "good", white, heterosexual guy with no foreign influences...was using military grade OFFENSIVE weapons from a considerable distance away from the target of his massacre. Hypothetically, what handguns or even rifles carried by those inside would have been useful inside the confines of that concert? Defensive weapons were no match for his firepower, camouflage and distance. Even if some people had weapons with strong enough firepower that they could fire back from the concert grounds to the distance of the shooter, they still weren't sure where the fire was coming from. And how good of a shot would they likely be anyway? Amateurs at night in the dark? Would they possibly have started firing at the correct hotel...but end up blasting into rooms above, below and beside the shooter's? Where other innocent families might be inside with their children? And what of people who might start shooting at the wrong buildings which they only think is the direction the gunshots are coming from? I don't see a happy ending to that scenario either.

And how are the police supposed to know if any people shooting from inside the concert are good guys...or part of the bad guys who need to be killed quickly by the police themselves?

No, Mr. NRA. More guns in this situation would not have helped the victims or saved lives at all. In fact it might only have succeeded in increasing the body count and needless loss of life due to friendly fire.

Stated perfectly, Tampa.

 

[tampa24]

Great takedown of Sean Hannity: