Given the shooter’s elevated position and range advantage, the “stop a bad man with a gun/good man with a gun” theme needs to be adjusted to include a serviceable anti-aircraft weapon. Perhaps “a good man” with one of those classic German 88s.
Even better where concealed carry is permitted! Whip that puppy out, assemble it, and open fire! Shit, a little too low, that was the Honeymoon Suite…
A tragedy, but a price they’re happy to have us pay so they can have their penis extensions.
Enough to pick your nose. Go back to doing that, and leave your betters alone.
You wanna buy a gun?
Are you a farmer? Do you belong to a gun-club? Are you a hunter? If the answer to these questions is NO, then you don’t get the right to buy a gun.
If the answer to any of the above is YES, then you undergo psychological testing, rigorous training both theoretical and practical, AND you have to undergo them every 3-5 years if you wish to retain your shooters license and right to buy a gun.
If requesting the right to own more than 1 or 2 guns, you’d better have a fucking good reason.
If all of this is too much regulation and a threat to your precious second amendment rights, then go ahead and BUILD THAT WALL. Actually, build two walls, one to the south and one to the north so that non-US folk are safe. Give every person in the US a gun, kids included of course, and you can all go blow each other away.
Jesus America. :mad:
Actually, this would be the part where I say I live in the LA metro area.
It’s also the part where I link to the light rail system in LA.
Then I link to the bus route map.
After that, I wait for you to tell me how despite most of the city having access to really shitty public transportation it is something more than a luxury (or fun) to not walk your ass to the bus and spend hours on it.
This is why I always say keep the guns, ditch the Second Amendment. Its original purpose of providing for national defense and effective resistance to potential oppression is obsolete in a modern militarized nation-state, and its present function of providing firearms fetishization with a veneer of self-glorifying patriotism serves no useful purpose at all.
The Eighteenth Amendment seemed like a good idea at one point. The minimum voting age of 21 years seemed like a good idea at one point. The United States eventually rejected both of them via Constitutional amendment. Just because the Second Amendment also seemed like a good idea at one point doesn’t mean that we’re obligated to keep it around forever either.
According to this Voxarticle:
US has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada and more than 15 times Germany.
Homicides by firearm, per 1 million people: Finland, Sweden, Netherlands, under 4, Switzerland 7.7. US is 29.7.
US has 4.4% of the world’s population…but over 40% of civilian-owned guns.
Most guns, most gun deaths. Gee, guess that’s just a coincidence.
Remember Sandy Hook? 20 little kids died. The US did…nothing. There have been 1,500 mass shootings since that day.
States with more guns have more gun deaths. Probably just a coincidence.
States with tighter gun laws have fewer gun deaths. Probably also just a coincidence.
Also, more guns, more suicides. Apparently having easy access to a tool that’s specifically built to kill people is great for suicide.
Mrs. Smith, your child was killed by a rapid firing semi-automatic weapon, not by an automatic weapon.
Mrs. Smith: Thank you. I feel so much better now.
I think this crap is only going to end when some patriotic gun-loving American goes to an NRA board meeting and shoots down the entire board. Maybe then they’ll get it. The masses getting killed clearly has no impact.
The attitude that you can’t talk about gun control when people have just been shot is just like the one that you shouldn’t talk about climate change right after three massive hurricanes, or that you can’t talk about zoning after the paving over of wetlands had a lot to do with the severity of the flood in Houston.
It’s the Arkansas Traveler theory of politics.
Well, the fact you live in SoCal somewhat explains the vapid posts you’ve made. But a key element of “fun” is that people engaged in it generally recognize that they are doing an activity that brings them satisfaction and enjoyment.
If you were to ask the thousands of drivers in that picture, how many would say they are on that gridlocked freeway to have a good time?
I know you’re moving the goalposts now, so I’m just going to ignore those points.
It’s one hell of a deal for them, as things stand: other people’s lives get sacrificed so that they can have their ‘freedoms.’
As noted, they are brown and probably illegal murderers and drug dealers.
Word.
That’s a secondary high explosive. You light it, it just burns. You still need a detonator. You can’t get them strolling through a construction site, like I could as a kid.
I agree with** Alessan**.
Some gun rights advocates call for broader gun ownership in the interest of there being a slightly higher chance of a “good guy with a gun” showing up. I don’t think that’s actually helpful. Why bank on there being some altruistic gun enthusiast just happening to be there while packing heat?
But having a system wherein security officers can intervene quickly would confront the problem more directly. And yes, that is a sort of gun “control,” but not a gun “ban.” Some people don’t get that.
Is that why they call you “Lefty”?
Well. OK. but these guys are effectively rent-a-cops. To what extent are they to be trained, relative to an actual cop? Are they to be deputized? What are the legal limits to their authority? Do you pay them on a full-time basis, or just event by event? And does this sort of thing already provide a handy source of moonlight revenue for local police? Always good to have them smiling.
Who will insure them, and to what extent? It would be a can of worms, if worms had fangs.
I usually encounter the argument from the pro-gun types in threads like these that suicides shouldn’t count. I used to be buffaloed by that argument until I saw the stats. Per your link, 96.5% of suicide attempts by gun are successful, compared with 5.1% by cutting, and 7.4% by poison. (TBH, those don’t strike me as the most likely means. I’d expect hanging to have a higher ‘success’ rate, ditto jumping off a cliff or high bridge.)
When you’re feeling suicidal and you have a gun handy, all you have to do is pull the trigger and boom, that’s it. All it takes is a momentary impulse. Any other method takes more thought, more work, so more opportunity for the moment to pass, or for a friend to find you and talk you out of it.
Sure, some small percentage of those gun suicides would have been sufficiently determined to end their lives, absent a gun, that they would have succeeded regardless. But it’s clear that the vast majority wouldn’t have. So they can’t brush the ~22,000 gun suicide deaths annually under the rug.
The gun types also frequently would do the whatabout argument relative to automobile deaths. Used to be that there were way more automobile deaths than gun deaths. In 2014-2015, gun and automobile fatalities have been almost exactly equal.
And of course, the big difference there is that, as I mentioned upthread, we’ve done a lot to address automobile safety. Maybe not as much as we should have, but still a lot. With guns, we haven’t done jack shit, because the pro-gun types don’t want us to infringe on their precious freedoms, which are more valuable to them than their fellow citizens’ lives.
Hell, I was a security guard when I was young and otherwise would have been unemployed. I had zero training. (No gun, fortunately.)
Alessan’s solution would work well in Israel if Israel’s gun laws and attitudes were the same as ours. Israel has near-universal conscription, so it’s a nation where the vast majority of the population has been trained in gun use as part of their military service. We don’t have a population like that to draw on, so I can’t see its working here.
I repeat my response to Alessan: This whole massacre took place in four or five minutes, with a sniper-style shooter firing rapidly from a high-rise hotel room window (from behind a locked door) into a crowd, with no warning of any kind. By the time your hypothesized security officer managed to figure out what was happening and “intervene quickly”, hundreds of people would already be dead or wounded.
And that’s not even taking into account the potential extra carnage if the security officer didn’t manage to correctly figure out what was happening and mistakenly shot innocent people.
I’m not dissing the good intentions or (at least in many cases) the courage and skill of “good guys with guns” willing to confront bad guys with guns. But in the vast majority of these crimes, the bad guy with a gun has a huge tactical advantage over his potential adversary, in that he knows what he’s going to do and the adversary does not.
No it isn’t. Unless you’re trying to argue that the security officer would be able to “control” the shooter’s gun(s) by quick action before any casualties occurred. To which I respond: See above. It’s a nice idea but not bloody likely.
I haven’t even budged the goal posts I just think you’re so blinded by your hatred of guns you can’t see them. How can you say those people on the freeway are choosing to drive because it gives them more satisfaction and enjoyment then riding the bus?
I understand that being from DC the thought of something going bang makes you wet yourself but in reality, there are 17 states that constitutionally allow subsistence hunting but none that recognize driving is required to live.
As far as your stupid question I would say none of them would say they are having fun but if you asked them if they would rather ride the bus they would recoil in horror as a choice that is a million times worse.
Given that the average large Vegas casino has clients who 1) are carrying, 2) are drunk and 3) are very upset about losing money at the tables, I’d be very surprised if there were not armed guards available. I doubt that the average advocate of more gun control opposes armed trained guards in places like this. I don’t. Just makes sense.