You can also do useful stuff with a truck.
But you knew that already.
The shooter in this case was “walking around, open-carry style” with the weapon he used? Not really seeing what your point is. And not really seeing what you’re getting at in your OP. The whole country is to blame because of what this guy did?
Go stick your head in a pig, bucko. I’m pissed as hell that we allow people to keep mowing down people like this. (ETA: That shouldn’t be considered ‘political.’) People are dead today that God wanted to live full and happy lives. And why? Because of a handful of loud and well-financed fanatics with a religious belief that any restriction on firearms is a bad restriction.
Maybe you don’t understand sarcasm, but I’d have thought that came through loud and clear in the thread title.
Collectively?! Most Americans want more restrictions on guns, but the fanatical minority stops us at every turn.
Yeah, and most of us don’t want that risk.
Yeah, sickening that we’re against all this death and injury. (A bullet hole through a human body is a horrible thing even for a survivor, just ask Steve Scalise.)
Why should I ask about the particular asshole? Didn’t you read what you just wrote? You just said that “By allowing guns we know some crazy motherfucker like this is going to go off the deep end sometime and do things like this.” Given that we know someone is going to do shit like this if gun laws are the way they are, what’s important about the particulars of a given shooter?
Well, your point was hardly clear at first; it certainly looked like the usual “we can’t do anything about X because Y is a bigger problem” crap.
Now I see you’re saying “we as a society have chosen to accept the risks of having all these guns.” I suppose by certain definitions, that’s so, but most of the people in this society haven’t.
So yes, fuck Newsweek for suggesting that reinstating the 94 AWB would have done anything to prevent this shooting, but isn’t their mistake being repeated by several posters in this thread as well?
Do we know what kind of weapon it was? Do we know if it was fully automatic or a modified, say, bump-fired semi-automatic? If it was fully automatic, do we know if he had a license?
“The weapon used is already illegal” seems like an unproven assertion at this point.
I’m always amused at people who say that participating in a thread is beneath them or something, so they’re leaving, but they never quite make it out the door.
I just want the record to reflect that I find this thread, especially the title, to be disturbing and the work of a sick mind.
DO we know the weapon(s) used were illegal? What I’ve read so far is that the most likely thing would be an AR type rifle legally modified with a bumper stock or other device.
Well, it would be interesting to know how he managed to get “more than ten” rifles into his room without anyone noticing. At the very least, (and assuming he didn’t move them in just before the shooting) wouldn’t the housekeeping staff have noticed this arsenal laying about?
One could keep the Do Not Disturb sign up for a few days, they’ll just assume you’re a couple honeymooners banging the days away.
Absent laws allowing open carry (no permit, no nothing required for open carry in Nevada), the cops could be called by anyone who saw a guy walking around with a long gun, and almost surely would have been called well before he got into the hotel.
Thought I’d write the OP as a 'if you can’t beat 'em, join ‘em’ post, and celebrate the success of our freedoms.
First housekeeping would have to care. Second, if they weren’t laying about, but instead were in a closable closet (I was just at Mandalay Bay last spring but don’t remember if they have an enclosed closet), then housekeeping probably wouldn’t have seen them - I wouldn’t expect them to routinely look in the closet of occupied rooms.
Then please don’t read Swift’s “A Modest Proposal,” ok?
Swift was actually trying to make a moral point. You’re just slinging shit.
I never let housekeeping in my room when I’m at a hotel. I can be there a week with the Do Not Disturb sign up and it’s never been an issue.
OK then, trying to make a point about the fucking futility of keeping the next mass shooting from happening by actually putting limits on firearms due to a small but well-organized army of fanatics isn’t a ‘moral’ point.
Gotcha. You, too, should feel free to go stick your head in a pig.
You should have lead with that then, instead of your OP title and the OP itself which is, frankly, all about the guns. You are also blaming the wrong people. This didn’t happen because of ‘a handful of loud and well-financed fanatics with a religious belief that any restriction on firearms is a bad restriction’, it happened because of a lone crazy idiot who decided he wanted to kill a bunch of people…and it happened because, we, as a society have collectively chosen to allow people to have access to guns and to make those sorts of choices. Of course, even if we didn’t allow people to have guns it would be no guarantee that these sorts of mass shootings wouldn’t happen, but the thing is, these sorts of mass shootings are infrequent. They only get the attention they get because of people like you who focus on them when they occur and make them into a political point scoring fest. The REAL issue, if there is on, is the day to day and everyday shootings. Perhaps gun control would help with that, perhaps now, but they wouldn’t really prevent something like this. Neither would arming the hotel staff, or the teachers or any other crazy crap like that.
I’m for more restrictions on guns. What’s that got to do with anything? More restrictions on guns wouldn’t stop one-off shootings like this. And collectively, we as a society have decided that restrictions or no, guns are something that a citizen is allowed to have, which was my point.
Well, this isn’t GD so I won’t ask you for a cite, but I think you are wrong…the majority of Americans still believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It’s not just some small fanatic minority.
Yet you chose to make a flip political slam instead of pitting the guy who did all of this. You didn’t even MENTION the guy who murdered over 50 people and hurt 100’s more. Like I said, had you gone that route I’d have been right behind you.
Because an individual decided to murder those 50+ people, and deserves to be slammed in every way possible. We know that by allowing citizens to use alcohol some non-zero number is going to drive and kill some non-zero number of other innocent drivers, but those doing the drinking and driving still deserve our ire when they do stupid shit like that. Just because we as a society collectively assess the risk and decide we are good with them doesn’t mean that those who abuse the system and kill or murder shouldn’t be singled out for abuse.
I never said anything about ‘we can’t-do anything’…nothing even like that. Hell, I’ve never said anything like that in any of these threads. Granted, you might not know my position on anything as I’m not that well known a poster, but I figure Bob probably does since we’ve discussed stuff like this in the past.
Again, I disagree. Most people in our society DO accept the risk, even if they don’t see it in those terms. Just like we collectively accept the other risks involved in allowing different things to be legal in our country. When most people in our society decide, flat out, that guns are no longer allowed to be kept and owned by private citizens then they won’t be (except all the millions that will be hidden or whatever, but that’s another story). Until then, as with other risky things, we have to accept that our decisions have consequences. ETA: This doesn’t mean we can’t, as a society, attempt to mitigate those and lower the toll as best we can. As we have with other things (alcohol for instance, or seat belts or speed limits, etc etc).
Another lie. This guy wasn’t walking a round with his illegal automatic, and there is no link between the open carry of lawful weapons and his obtaining an illegal weapon.
All you can do to support your case is offer falsehoods. That shows strongly that your case is false, since if you had any reality to offer, you’d do that.
I guess the weekend tally of all the dead African-American gang-bangers in Chicago isn’t photogenic enough, or getting sufficient news coverage, to spark the level of outrage the OP is evincing.
What’s disgusting is that we don’t even have any facts in yet on how this guy obtained a fully-automatic weapon, and yet OP and his choir are slinging bullshit about their political agenda, gleefully wallowing in the blood of people not even identified by their next of kin yet just to preposition themsleves for the “next big thing” on their legislative agenda.
And then they bitch and moan and cry and wail about not understanding why Trump won an election.
This thread, right here, is why 1/2 this country hates the other half.
You fucking disgust me.
How do you know 1) his gun was an automatic 2) that is was illegal?
I’m curious as to what restrictions you are in favor of? From what I can tell, any time any restriction is proposed the NRA and friends fire up the ‘slippery slope/gun-grabbers’ machine and shoot them down (hah!), including a rule that people with mental health issues shouldn’t be allowed to purchase weapons.
I’m not saying you are part of the machine - but am interested in what additional restrictions you would be in favor of.