At least 50 dead, 400 injured in shooting near Mandalay Bay casino, 1 suspect 'down'

[Mr&Mrs G. 903]

3 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

According to lying crooked Hillary, this whole thing could have been prevented if silencers were illegal 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/04/hillary-clinton/no-gun-silencers-wouldnt-have-worsened-las-vegas-s/

 

Our ruling

Hillary Clinton suggested gun silencers would have worsened the Las Vegas attack in a tweet.

It’s certainly possible that silencers or suppressors could make some shootings worse than they would be otherwise. But the specifics of the Las Vegas shooting don’t fit that scenario. Experts told us it’s highly unlikely a silencer would have made the Las Vegas shooting even more deadly, because of the distance of the shooter from the crowds and because of the crowded, urban environment where the victims were targeted.

Gun silencers can slightly lower the visual and sound impact of a shooter, but experts agreed the impact would have been negligible in the case of Las Vegas.

 

We rate this statement False.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/04/hillary-clinton/no-gun-silencers-wouldnt-have-worsened-las-vegas-s/

 

Our ruling

Hillary Clinton suggested gun silencers would have worsened the Las Vegas attack in a tweet.

It’s certainly possible that silencers or suppressors could make some shootings worse than they would be otherwise. But the specifics of the Las Vegas shooting don’t fit that scenario. Experts told us it’s highly unlikely a silencer would have made the Las Vegas shooting even more deadly, because of the distance of the shooter from the crowds and because of the crowded, urban environment where the victims were targeted.

Gun silencers can slightly lower the visual and sound impact of a shooter, but experts agreed the impact would have been negligible in the case of Las Vegas.

 

We rate this statement False.

Of course its nonsense and absolute morons like her, that prattle on with utter non sense, for nothing more than publicity, make an honest attempt to fix the problem near impossible. What real idea does Hillary have to reduce the gun death epidemic in this country, that has almost zero to do with Gun show, mental illness or assault weapons 

[Merle 458]

17 minutes ago, Mr&Mrs G. said:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/oct/04/hillary-clinton/no-gun-silencers-wouldnt-have-worsened-las-vegas-s/

 

Our ruling

Hillary Clinton suggested gun silencers would have worsened the Las Vegas attack in a tweet.

It’s certainly possible that silencers or suppressors could make some shootings worse than they would be otherwise. But the specifics of the Las Vegas shooting don’t fit that scenario. Experts told us it’s highly unlikely a silencer would have made the Las Vegas shooting even more deadly, because of the distance of the shooter from the crowds and because of the crowded, urban environment where the victims were targeted.

Gun silencers can slightly lower the visual and sound impact of a shooter, but experts agreed the impact would have been negligible in the case of Las Vegas.

 

We rate this statement False.

And just like everything else, if a criminal wanted a suppressor (calling it silencer is a Hollywood thing) he would get one no matter what the laws are. Suppressors aren't too difficult to manufacture. I've even seen YouTube videos where people show you how to make them out of flashlight bodies.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

For those who claim guns are only around to kill people, bear in mind that they are also handy for killing animals.  As in obtaining food for the table.  When used to kill animals, I think we can all agree that is a good thing?

 

For those who think guns are the root of the problem with homicides in the US, what would you see as a step in the right direction towards reducing said gun deaths?

 

Please leave emotions on the table when replying.  There are a lot of intelligent people here, and perhaps we could come to an agreement on methods to make the problem better, regardless of which political leanings we each hold.

[yuna628 9,717]

12 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

For those who claim guns are only around to kill people, bear in mind that they are also handy for killing animals.  As in obtaining food for the table.  When used to kill animals, I think we can all agree that is a good thing?

 

For those who think guns are the root of the problem with homicides in the US, what would you see as a step in the right direction towards reducing said gun deaths?

 

Please leave emotions on the table when replying.  There are a lot of intelligent people here, and perhaps we could come to an agreement on methods to make the problem better, regardless of which political leanings we each hold.

From a person that loves animals? No I cannot agree it's a good thing to kill animals for sport. For food only? You'd be hard pressed to find an average American that is actively shooting animals to put food on the table every night. Naturally though I understand it's important for a weapon to be used in some states where one may come into contact on a regular basis with potentially threatening wildlife, and acknowledge that one should have the ability to protect oneself - provided that person is responsible, sane, and does so without danger or threat to others around them.

 

My issue is ensuring that those who want a gun are sane and should be fit to own one. My neighbors own many guns - they use them for hunting, but it's their behavior with them the rest of the time that is disturbing.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 people every year. Ban cars.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, yuna628 said:

From a person that loves animals? No I cannot agree it's a good thing to kill animals for sport. For food only? You'd be hard pressed to find an average American that is actively shooting animals to put food on the table every night. Naturally though I understand it's important for a weapon to be used in some states where one may come into contact on a regular basis with potentially threatening wildlife, and acknowledge that one should have the ability to protect oneself - provided that person is responsible, sane, and does so without danger or threat to others around them.

 

My issue is ensuring that those who want a gun are sane and should be fit to own one. My neighbors own many guns - they use them for hunting, but it's their behavior with them the rest of the time that is disturbing.

I have never killed an animal for sport.  For food, or to protect my property only.  For people who have only ever lived in a city, I get that this might be hard to understand, but it is a real thing.

 

It sounds like you are referring to mental health checks?  Not opposed at all, but not sure how effective they would be.  Certainly would be worth implementing and trying, as long as they don’t exclude people indiscriminately, such as I have seen suggested for all military veterans.

[CaliCat 3,957]

10 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

For those who claim guns are only around to kill people, bear in mind that they are also handy for killing animals.  As in obtaining food for the table.  When used to kill animals, I think we can all agree that is a good thing?

 

For those who think guns are the root of the problem with homicides in the US, what would you see as a step in the right direction towards reducing said gun deaths?

 

Please leave emotions on the table when replying.  There are a lot of intelligent people here, and perhaps we could come to an agreement on methods to make the problem better, regardless of which political leanings we each hold.

 

 

We need to change the way we look at guns, and what the true reason for the 2nd amendment. At the time it was written, the country was new and fragile, whereas we now live at times when America is a mature country. Chances that your guns will do you you any good in the case the British decide to claim back the colonies, or the Russians decide to invade us are as laughable as the possibility of either event taking place. For the same reason, for all the nuts who are preparing to resist a takeover by the government, they need to wake up. They wouldn't survive a week without the comforts or modern life, and trust me, if the government were intent to take your land or your guns, they would.  

So, we need to ask ourselves, what is the purpose of all these semi-automatic and high capacity guns, other than to offer you with the vision of the possibility of all the harm you can do? Why don't these terrorists go into a concert venue carrying 29 or 30 handguns to kill people? Ironically, these rifles offer them the possibility and the means to commit mass murder from the comfort of a well-appointed air-conditioned suite, inside a modern hotel.

Some people will argue that there is that adrenaline rush of firing one of these beauties, and even try to romanticize and glorify these weapons. Well, you can get the same rush from cocaine or another drug, but on the flip side drugs will harm you, whereas for these terrorists, the rush comes from killing other people.

Yet, many people posit that criminals have guns, and that outlawing these rifles would not make a difference. That is a fallacy. None of the mass murderers associated with gun massacres were criminals until the moment they started unloading their weapons on innocent people. So, while it's true that criminals will continue to have guns, that is something the police force and law enforcement is there for. While it's true that criminals will continue to use guns to kill people, I would argue that the victims in Columbine, Aurora Sandy Hook, Orlando, and now Las Vegas would still all be alive, if these so-called law abiding individuals didn't have the weapons they used to commit their crimes available to them. I also find it hard to fathom they would go out of their way to acquire guns illegally to commit these crimes.

So, while the guns didn't shoot themselves on their own accord, it's their ease of availability that keep turning these tragedies into news pairing for our meals. I think we're at a point where for many people these mass shootings have become just another segment in the news cycle.

 

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Well that was in the area code 

hemisphere, that's the most i can allow.

[eieio 1,594]

There is no need to have a conversation about gun control. Man made global warming is going to kill us all anyway. Why waste time on that when we all only have a few short years to live?

 

Besides ,currently our guns laws are the best in the world. Time to give a little more money to the NRA and continue to vote for those who support the NRA. That should be about the extent of the conversation.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

From a person that loves animals? No I cannot agree it's a good thing to kill animals for sport. For food only? You'd be hard pressed to find an average American that is actively shooting animals to put food on the table every night. Naturally though I understand it's important for a weapon to be used in some states where one may come into contact on a regular basis with potentially threatening wildlife, and acknowledge that one should have the ability to protect oneself - provided that person is responsible, sane, and does so without danger or threat to others around them.

 

My issue is ensuring that those who want a gun are sane and should be fit to own one. My neighbors own many guns - they use them for hunting, but it's their behavior with them the rest of the time that is disturbing.

No the avg american does not hunt for food, but many Americans do especially in Alaska.  I own many firearms but don't hunt. Just don't have the stomach to watch things suffer, for fun . Would if it meant going hungry and don't begrudge those that do. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, eieio said:

There is no need to have a conversation about gun control. Man made global warming is going to kill us all anyway. Why waste time on that when we all only have a few short years to live?

 

Besides ,currently our guns laws are the best in the world. Time to give a little more money to the NRA and continue to vote for those who support the NRA. That should be about the extent of the conversation.

 

 

Yes join the NRA. It keeps the postman and telemarketers in a job. I did not renew simply because they buried me in mail and phone calls. 

 

Been giving blood and the red cross is just as bad. Worse than a bunch of car salesmen 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

23 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

hemisphere, that's the most i can allow.

I was thinking Montana area code not LA, but I will take hemisphere and sit down with a smile 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

We need to change the way we look at guns, and what the true reason for the 2nd amendment. At the time it was written, the country was new and fragile, whereas we now live at times when America is a mature country. Chances that your guns will do you you any good in the case the British decide to claim back the colonies, or the Russians decide to invade us are as laughable as the possibility of either event taking place. For the same reason, for all the nuts who are preparing to resist a takeover by the government, they need to wake up. They wouldn't survive a week without the comforts or modern life, and trust me, if the government were intent to take your land or your guns, they would.  

So, we need to ask ourselves, what is the purpose of all these semi-automatic and high capacity guns, other than to offer you with the vision of the possibility of all the harm you can do? Why don't these terrorists go into a concert venue carrying 29 or 30 handguns to kill people? Ironically, these rifles offer them the possibility and the means to commit mass murder from the comfort of a well-appointed air-conditioned suite, inside a modern hotel.

Some people will argue that there is that adrenaline rush of firing one of these beauties, and even try to romanticize and glorify these weapons. Well, you can get the same rush from cocaine or another drug, but on the flip side drugs will harm you, whereas for these terrorists, the rush comes from killing other people.

Yet, many people posit that criminals have guns, and that outlawing these rifles would not make a difference. That is a fallacy. None of the mass murderers associated with gun massacres were criminals until the moment they started unloading their weapons on innocent people. So, while it's true that criminals will continue to have guns, that is something the police force and law enforcement is there for. While it's true that criminals will continue to use guns to kill people, I would argue that the victims in Columbine, Aurora Sandy Hook, Orlando, and now Las Vegas would still all be alive, if these so-called law abiding individuals didn't have the weapons they used to commit their crimes available to them. I also find it hard to fathom they would go out of their way to acquire guns illegally to commit these crimes.

So, while the guns didn't shoot themselves on their own accord, it's their ease of availability that keep turning these tragedies into news pairing for our meals. I think we're at a point where for many people these mass shootings have become just another segment in the news cycle.

 

Although the mass shootings make news, they are a tiny tiny fraction of gun deaths. Last time I checked assault looking guns killed less people than hands and feet. Almost 400 people have been kiled just in chicago aline this year, almost entirely wirh cheap illegal handguns. 

 

What do you propose to a adress the real issue of handguns 

[Merle 458]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Although the mass shootings make news, they are a tiny tiny fraction of gun deaths. Last time I checked assault looking guns killed less people than hands and feet. Almost 400 people have been kiled just in chicago aline this year, almost entirely wirh cheap illegal handguns. 

 

What do you propose to a adress the real issue of handguns 

You can keep yourself up to date with all the Chicago tomfoolery here: http://heyjackass.com/