Shooting in Las Vegas

[donquixote99]

[QUOTE=Dondilion;362159]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Hillary is no "liver and onions".

Opinions vary on both haves of my metaphor, but I stand by the whole thing.

[finnbow]

One GOP Congressman's view on the shooting:

“I think if that guy had known that there were armed personnel with the types of weapons he had that would immediately shoot at him, that might have deterred him. I don’t know,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) suggested. “That did work in the Old West. You didn’t go around shooting people up too much, despite all the Hollywood movies, because if you did, someone was gonna shoot you. And that did work.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...form-las-vegas

[whell]

Another view:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.1e5c50575c0c

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by finnbow

One GOP Congressman's view on the shooting:

“I think if that guy had known that there were armed personnel with the types of weapons he had that would immediately shoot at him, that might have deterred him. I don’t know,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) suggested. “That did work in the Old West. You didn’t go around shooting people up too much, despite all the Hollywood movies, because if you did, someone was gonna shoot you. And that did work.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...form-las-vegas

Oh shit! People should go about with their rifles visible.

[Pio1980]

Try a web search on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, folks, pretty much a quagmire of responses.

[CarlV]

My viewpoint is the guy was shut down after 9 minutes and considering all things I think that was really good. If he had to reload smaller clips it would take time and bullet count away and increase the possibility of gun jamming. If he didn't have those bump stock things it would seriously reduced the bullet count even more.
Who knows how high the body count could have been had he used silencers. Encouraging mass murder is what the NRA has come to stand for and the whole country and our media is full to the rim with their shills.

What any of these things have to do with the 2nd amendment is beyond me. Flame away.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by CarlV

Who knows how high the body count could have been had he used silencers. Encouraging mass murder is what the NRA has come to stand for and the whole country and our media is full to the rim with their shills.

Very good point about silencers.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

Another view:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.1e5c50575c0c

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

Asshole view.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Try a web search on the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, folks, pretty much a quagmire of responses.

Second Constitutional Convention required. The first thing that needs to happen in this country when it comes to the law is to stop the never ending arguing about what the slave owning, white male, elitist landowners intended.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by CarlV

My viewpoint is the guy was shut down after 9 minutes and considering all things I think that was really good. If he had to reload smaller clips it would take time and bullet count away and increase the possibility of gun jamming. If he didn't have those bump stock things it would seriously reduced the bullet count even more.
Who knows how high the body count could have been had he used silencers. Encouraging mass murder is what the NRA has come to stand for and the whole country and our media is full to the rim with their shills.

What any of these things have to do with the 2nd amendment is beyond me. Flame away.

But don't you care about the hearing loss of hunters? Aren't you heartless!

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said there is no plan for the House to act soon on the silencer bill, which a Republican-led House committee backed last month. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina, said it would help hunters protect their hearing.

Talk about an absolute bullshit reason, how can they make such claims with a straight face?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...003-story.html