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

[smilesammich 10,727]

2 minutes ago, Merle said:

Of course I don't accept it but I also don't accept the banning or restricting the use of anything that could be used improperly to do harm onto others either. Some of the worst mass murders in history didn't involve guns whatsoever. Guns are just the en vogue means of mass murderers lately. You need mo to do some more googling for you?

you don't accept restricting the use of anything that can be used improperly to do harm to others? interesting.

[smilesammich 10,727]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So you are suggesting the only hope is to take away all guns?

nope didn't say that. are you going to answer my question? those 58 people are dead and can no longer enjoy the freedoms the second amendment provides (provided) them. shame.

[Boiler 46,121]

3 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you don't accept restricting the use of anything that can be used improperly to do harm to others? interesting.

Like the Koran?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Boiler said:

Like the Koran?

any book really. very flammable. hardcovers have sharp edges. 

[Merle 458]

8 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you don't accept restricting the use of anything that can be used improperly to do harm to others? interesting.

If you mean guns, there are plenty of restrictions already on them. I also don't accept the restricting of sticks, stones, hammers, fire, pressure cookers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, saw blades.....

[CaliCat 3,957]

4 minutes ago, Merle said:

If you mean guns, there are plenty of restrictions already on them. I also don't accept the restricting of sticks, stones, hammers, fire, pressure cookers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, saw blades.....

 

That would be a good subject for another thread. In the context of the LV attack they are not, however. 

 

We could resume the conversation by talking about the type of weapons used in LV.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Merle said:

If you mean guns, there are plenty of restrictions already on them. I also don't accept the restricting of sticks, stones, hammers, fire, pressure cookers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, saw blades.....

you don't accept your local burn laws? only you, merle, can prevent forest fires.

i think you accept more restrictions than you realize, you're just hyper focused on the idea that the government wants to take your guns. just an observation.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, Merle said:

If you mean guns, there are plenty of restrictions already on them. I also don't accept the restricting of sticks, stones, hammers, fire, pressure cookers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, saw blades.....

 

     It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone could kill 50 people with a screw driver.  Some of those comparisons are sketchy.

 

    Why not the opposite scenario though?  Say I wan't to carry a jar of ricin around for protection. Any problem with that? 

 

     

[Merle 458]

Just now, smilesammich said:

you don't accept your local burn laws? only you, merle, can prevent forest fires.

i think you accept more restrictions than you realize, you're just hyper focused on the idea that the government wants to take your guns. just an observation.

Current restrictions, yes. Additional restrictions on fire? No. I like BBQ.

[CaliCat 3,957]

2 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

you don't accept your local burn laws? only you, merle, can prevent forest fires.

i think you accept more restrictions than you realize, you're just hyper focused on the idea that the government wants to take your guns. just an observation.

 

By the same token, we should ask why the need to observe local burn laws, when lightning may strike and start a wild fire anyway? 

[Merle 458]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone could kill 50 people with a screw driver.  Some of those comparisons are sketchy.

 

    Why not the opposite scenario though?  Say I wan't to carry a jar of ricin around for protection. Any problem with that? 

 

     

Well I would have listed that but I don't have all day. Isn't it already illegal to have ricin? How can we make it more illegal to use it to kill people in mass quantities? I am having a hard time understanding your point. FYI, howitzers, nuclear weapons, missiles, grenades, and many other things are restricted for civilian ownership as well just in case you want to bring those up.

[Merle 458]

3 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

By the same token, we should ask why the need to observe local burn laws, when lightning may strike and start a wild fire anyway? 

There is only one way to stop that from happening: a lightning ban on all lightning! We need to expel elementary students from drawing pictures of it at school as well.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, Merle said:

Well I would have listed that but I don't have all day. Isn't it already illegal to have ricin? How can we make it more illegal to use it to kill people in mass quantities? I am having a hard time understanding your point. FYI, howitzers, nuclear weapons, missiles, grenades, and many other things are restricted for civilian ownership as well just in case you want to bring those up.

 

How about the weapons used by the LV terrorist? Do any of them fall into those categories? That might make for a more solid argument.

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

1 minute ago, Merle said:

Well I would have listed that but I don't have all day. Isn't it already illegal to have ricin? How can we make it more illegal to use it to kill people in mass quantities? I am having a hard time understanding your point. FYI, howitzers, nuclear weapons, missiles, grenades, and many other things are restricted for civilian ownership as well just in case you want to bring those up.

do you have a problem with the legal bump stocks being restricted?

[Merle 458]

Just now, CaliCat said:

 

How about the weapons used by the LV terrorist? Do any of them fall into those categories? That might make for a more solid argument.

I'm still waiting for you to show me how a 223 caliber cartridge is more dangerous now than it was 30 years ago.