/ Vegas Shootings a nd Gun Laws

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
krikoman - on 02 Oct 2017
Does anyone think this will make a difference to the US gun laws or are they doomed to keep repeating the same excuses and killing merry-go-round
2
JoshOvki on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

The last 100 odd mass shootings made no difference, I doubt this one will.
1
Guy Hurst - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

No, and yes.
David Martin - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:
I think the horse has rather bolted on this issue. A firearm ban now probably won't achieve much.

A ban on ammunition on the other hand...
Post edited at 12:08
Dax H - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Certainly won't reduce guns, it might increase them though when the NRA start trotting out the usual if more people were armed the could have killed the killer shite.
Tyler - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

It'll no doubt strengthen Trump's determination for tougher boarders. Yes, I am aware that the killer was not an immigrant.
2
Bulls Crack - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Dax H:

Tricky in this situation though - 32 floors up
Chris the Tall - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Dax H:

Given that the killer was on the 32rd floor of a hotel, spraying his victims below with an automatic weapon, I can't see how even the NRA can spin this one. Nevada has some of laxest gun laws in the US, there are hardly any barriers to buying this sort of weapon.
2
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:
> Does anyone think this will make a difference to the US gun laws or are they doomed to keep repeating the same excuses and killing merry-go-round

I'm not sure, but if I had to put money on Trump's response, it would be something like this:

"This guy was a loser, a lone wolf, and Vegas has open carry, right? What is needed here is MORE guns, as when the bad guys, and believe me, there are some really bad guys out there, nobody knows this more than I do, when there are bad guys out there killing innocent, beautiful people, the cops are minutes away. So we stop the bad guys - that is what you've got to do, believe me. That is what we did in the old days, we just shot the bad guys. Am I right?"
Post edited at 12:22
2
krikoman - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Given that the killer was on the 32rd floor of a hotel, spraying his victims below with an automatic weapon, I can't see how even the NRA can spin this one. Nevada has some of laxest gun laws in the US, there are hardly any barriers to buying this sort of weapon.

That was my thought, "How do they spin this?" but like most people I can't see things changing much.

All very sad, especially when you compare the perceived enemies with the actual real enemies.
1
The Lemming - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

With the current persistent?

Not a snowball's hope in hell. The more violent the country becomes then they will counter that with more guns.
lummox - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

As Chris Rock pointed out many moons ago, make bullets $5000 dollars a pop. Then see what happens.
1
john arran - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

I'd say he'd be tempted to cut and paste that and post it as his own ... except it's more than 280 characters!
1
oldie - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Does anyone think this will make a difference to the US gun laws or are they doomed to keep repeating the same excuses and killing merry-go-round <

No. Especially given the current administration and a perception that more control will be an overall vote loser.
Tyler - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> Given that the killer was on the 32rd floor of a hotel, spraying his victims below with an automatic weapon, I can't see how even the NRA can spin this one.

You didn't look hard enough, fully-automatic weapon, already outlawed apparently. Proves gun control doesn't work.
Post edited at 14:00
1
dale1968 on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler it's possible to convert from semi to full automatic

richprideaux - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> You didn't look hard enough, fully-automatic weapon, already outlawed apparently. Proves gun control doesn't work.

There's some speculation (albeit on Reddit, not exactly a great source) that it's a semi-auto weapon/AR but with an attachment that allows it to be fired like a gatling gun. This kind of thing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jif4Wo0LDX8

So possibly a legal weapon with a legal modification. It would explain the slightly erratic firing rate...
1
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
> I'd say he'd be tempted to cut and paste that and post it as his own ... except it's more than 280 characters!

Given that this guy shot from the 32nd floor of a hotel, I'd wager that we see some solution along the lines of "armed room service" from the NRA.
Post edited at 15:04
1
aln - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

Hey, that could've stopped the Kennedy assassination! Well, apart from the magic bullet, 2nd shooter, 3rd shooter, Cia involvement... I know, more guns, we need more guns!
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to richprideaux:
Depends on the weapons some you can just use a small piece of metal in the trigger housing to reduce the need to release and resqueeze. Or more haphazard glue the firing pin in place. The first round has to be fired by physically pushing the mechanism forward, after that it's just hold tight until the mag is empty.
Post edited at 14:58
3
Greenbanks - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Sadly, I very much doubt whether the "warm sympathy" expresssed by DT this morning will propel the gun lobby towards a more sane approach to firearms ownership
richprideaux - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

As I say, Reddit sources...

I've watched two Twitter-hosted videos of the incident and both have slightly erratic automatic gunfire. It's definitely some kind of auto, but the very slight irregularity suggests a human element.
1
GarethSL on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to richprideaux:
or a bumpfire stock...

or perhaps he just hooked his trigger finger through a belt loop.

Though from what I understand automatic weapons are legal in Nevada providing they are registered and certain criteria are met.

Regardless, is yet another horrendous incident.
Post edited at 15:05
1
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to richprideaux:

> As I say, Reddit sources...

> I've watched two Twitter-hosted videos of the incident and both have slightly erratic automatic gunfire. It's definitely some kind of auto, but the very slight irregularity suggests a human element.

Would agree. But it won't be used as a reason to modify their laws. Lots of Facebook sympathy pages then they'll all go back to voting for politicians who back the nra.
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to aln:

> Hey, that could've stopped the Kennedy assassination! Well, apart from the magic bullet, 2nd shooter, 3rd shooter, Cia involvement... I know, more guns, we need more guns!

Can't wait for my next trip to the states, only to find that my room order is being delivered by an elderly Mexican lady with SEAL training!
3
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Mexican lady with SEAL training!

Crazy killer waiting for you.... ?
stevieb - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

If the killer had been a muslim immigrant, I think new legislation would have already been on the table by now.
As it is, no I don't think anything will change.
2
MonkeyPuzzle - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Can't wait for my next trip to the states, only to find that my room order is being delivered by an elderly Mexican lady with SEAL training!

I don't see what use balancing a ball on her nose is going to be in a situation like that.
GridNorth - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Nothing will change. One problem is that the two sides have become so polarised. I have some sympathy for the "right to bear arms" view but none at all for making it easy to do so. If I lived in the states I would keep a gun in the house.

Al
2
Dax H - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Given that the killer was on the 32rd floor of a hotel, spraying his victims below with an automatic weapon, I can't see how even the NRA can spin this one. Nevada has some of laxest gun laws in the US, there are hardly any barriers to buying this sort of weapon.

I'm willing to bet they give it a go.
3leggeddog on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Too soon but...


Country and Western can do that to a man.
7
Blue Straggler - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to 3leggeddog:

I was thinking, they might do well to search for a portly man and a slim man in suits and hats driving toward Chicago at night with sunglasses....
2
3leggeddog on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Hit it!
aln - on 02 Oct 2017
pasbury on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

> If I lived in the states I would keep a gun in the house.

> Al

You or members of your family would then be more likely to be killed by gunshot wounds.
4
GridNorth - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

Not if you get them first. I'll have the debate but you say that as though it's a fact and a foregone conclusion whereas it's really an opinion based on some circumstances.

Al

12
Tyler - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

> Not if you get them first.

Get who first? Your family?
1
GridNorth - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

Oops should have been clearer for the pedants and comics. No the intruder of course.

Al
7
Toby_W on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

No, I think he's referring to the fact that most people get shot by their own guns, by family members in accidents.

Cheers

Toby
3
summo on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> You or members of your family would then be more likely to be killed by gunshot wounds.

The problem isn't the guns at home, but the lack of checks enabling just about any one to have one. Limited laws on storage allow easy access for all occupants too.
GridNorth - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Toby_W:
Yes, like I said, a conclusion based on certain circumstances, and in this example the assumption that the said gun owner is irresponsible and incompetent. I don't consider myself as "most" and can't foresee a situation where that would arise. I know the statistics aren't in my favour but statistically I should know someone who has been injured in a car crash but I don't know a single one.

Al
Post edited at 17:29
12
martinturner - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I agree with the majority, that tighter gun laws should be put in place.

But in this case, there's no arguement.
If had his heart set on this, he could have applied for a license (he had no previous convictions and no links with ANY extremists), still gained his guns legally, and carried out the attack.

The only tell tale sign may have been the amount of guns he had.
But, it's Nevada, 20 guns probably still isn't excessive.

Yes, tighter gun laws... but this isn't going to be the massacre to change it all unfortunately
Roadrunner5 - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

This sounded like it was fully automated gunfire, were the others?

I thought more single shot semi automated assault rifles.

But probably no change sadly.
tim000 - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I think the USA needs to ban all americans from entering the country .
3
aln - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> You or members of your family would then be more likely to be killed by gunshot wounds.

But 6 music yeah!
felt - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Acc to the Guard:

"In a pattern repeated after high-profile mass shootings for years, shares in the US’s two largest gun companies have risen sharply after the Vegas attack.

Sturm Ruger, America’s largest firearms manufacturer, is up over 4%. American Outdoor Brands (formerly Smith & Wesson) is up over 5%. Such rises are typical after a mass shooting as investors bet fear will lead to higher guns sales."
Chris the Tall - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to JoshOvki:

> The last 100 odd mass shootings made no difference, I doubt this one will.

Apparently this is the 273rd mass shooting (where 4 or more people have been shot) this year, averaging exactly one a day.
1
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Apparently this is the 273rd mass shooting (where 4 or more people have been shot) this year, averaging exactly one a day.

The most depressing thing about that statistic is that it suggests it is highly probable that there are 4 people in the US right now, who will be gunned down in the next 24 hours.

Or, that there are 7 people right now who over the next week, will be triggered by various, mental, social and societal factors to go out and kill 4 or more people.
1
Yanis Nayu - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Pointless discussing it. Americans seem happy with the current situation, there's not a cat in hell's chance they'll change and at least it's one thing they're not foisting on the rest of the world.
1
The Lemming - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Just watching all this on the evening news.

The BBC and ITN news is showing quite a lot of footage filmed by mobile phones.

My brain hurts. If I felt that I was in mortal danger, capturing the event would not be on my mind. My focus would be on survival and escaping.

Why would people want to capture what could be their last ever moments rather than fleeing?

They won't respawn.
8
Swirly - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

> I don't consider myself as "most" and can't foresee a situation where that would arise. I know the statistics aren't in my favour but statistically I should know someone who has been injured in a car crash but I don't know a single one.

That's the problem, most don't.
Dave Kerr - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to GridNorth:
> I don't consider myself as "most"

Nobody does do they?

> statistically I should know someone who has been injured in a car crash but I don't know a single one.

Perhaps you and everyone you know is an above average driver too?
Post edited at 19:02
1
Darren Jackson - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to The Lemming:

> The BBC and ITN news is showing quite a lot of footage filmed by mobile phones.

> My brain hurts. If I felt that I was in mortal danger, capturing the event would not be on my mind. My focus would be on survival and escaping.

They were at a concert. People film concerts on mobile phones... Maybe some of them forgot to turn them off during the panic and confusion?

The Lemming - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Darren Jackson:

> They were at a concert. People film concerts on mobile phones... Maybe some of them forgot to turn them off during the panic and confusion?

Hmmm, I doubt that.

The amateur cameramen/women were keeping their heads down while filming. Not eaxctly forgetting about being in the moment and having a recording device capturing the inside of a trouser pocket while fleeing from a mad gunman.

Gerry_Doncaster - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

> I'm not sure, but if I had to put money on Trump's response, it would be something like this:

> "This guy was a loser, a lone wolf...

Yes but immediately before the massacre Trump would have considered this 64 year old white retired accountant armed to the teeth to be a good decent upstanding patriotic American perfectly entitled to own carry round an Arsenal of rifles and machine guns.


1
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Gerry_Doncaster:

> Yes but immediately before the massacre Trump would have considered this 64 year old white retired accountant armed to the teeth to be a good decent upstanding patriotic American perfectly entitled to own carry round an Arsenal of rifles and machine guns.

True. And to further crap over Trump's judgement, he's crushed Obamacare, and now over 500 people are going to be faced with massive medical bills. People are crowd funding to pay for their treatment in reponse to this event. What a mess of a country.
1
bouldery bits - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

It's all very sad.

Why can't we all just get along?
4
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Does anyone think this will make a difference to the US gun laws or are they doomed to keep repeating the same excuses and killing merry-go-round

If killing 25 6-year-olds can't do it, then 58 adult deaths won't - even with 500 people injured. Here is a thought; Number of Americans killed on battlefields in all wars in history:

1,396,733

Killed by firearms in the US since 1968:

1,516,863

(NYT)
Wanderer100 - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

Thats a very sobering statistic.
bouldery bits - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> It's all very sad.

> Why can't we all just get along?

Who disliked this? Let me know why you disagree. I'm interested to know.

Thanks,

BB
7
Darren Jackson - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Who disliked this? Let me know why you disagree. I'm interested to know.

They were probably trying to be ironic?

... Don't sweat it; it's the Internet.

1
ThunderCat - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Does anyone think this will make a difference to the US gun laws or are they doomed to keep repeating the same excuses and killing merry-go-round

I'll make a prediction. Several weeks of hand wringing, and determination that ' this must never happen again', then a period of reflection, then it'll fade into a memory.

Then it will happen again.

Rinse and repeat.
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Who disliked this? Let me know why you disagree. I'm interested to know.

I was minded to ask the same question. But i know there are pathological downvoters on UKC.
9
Shani - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to ThunderCat:

> I'll make a prediction. Several weeks of hand wringing, and determination that ' this must never happen again', then a period of reflection, then it'll fade into a memory.

> Then it will happen again.

> Rinse and repeat.

Statistically it will happen in the next 24hrs. The problem is, unless he kills double figures (or over 4 but of a particularly vulnerable or valued demographic),it is likely to make much of an impression on the news agenda.
1
Dave Kerr - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:
> Who disliked this? Let me know why you disagree. I'm interested to know.

I disliked it because it's a gross over simplification. Mass shooters do what they do for a whole host of reasons but 'not getting on' with others isn't really much of an explanation.

1
bouldery bits - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Dave Kerr:

Thank you for your honesty and insight.

I agree my viewpoint over simplified things. Then again, what's wrong with simple?

Cheers

BB
3
Dave Kerr - on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Then again, what's wrong with simple?

In the right context, nothing.

2
pasbury on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

And further still, his proposed gun law changes will make it easier to buy silencers and force concealed carry permits to be cross state!

Orlando was only last year, a sane America is really a lost cause for the foreseeable future.
1
lithos on 02 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

circa 2/3rds of gun related deaths are suicide in USA, something you rarely see mentioned.
It sucks big time, all of it
Big Ger - on 03 Oct 2017
Roadrunner5 - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

And look at opioid deaths..

Yet Islamic terrorists and illegal immigrants dominate the political agenda.
1
Michael Hood - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Dave Kerr:
Well unless there were two dislikes and you've undone yours as well, then you're either mistaken or deliberately lying (unless there's a software error) because I've just undone mine and there are now zero.

Did it because I was just feeling perverse, probably because although I actually agree with the sentiment I despair that it will ever be achievable.

Edit: I may be pathological but not with down voting.
Post edited at 07:40
2
Dave Kerr - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
Ha ha! You've fallen for my running ruse to out the phantom disliker. Consider yourself exposed.

Actually I thought I had disliked it I certainly meant to. I've done so now just for consistency.
Post edited at 07:47
2
pavelk - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Paddock used automatic guns which are illegal in USA so different gun law could hardly change anything in this case
5
Pete Pozman - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:
What is depressing is the rocket in gun sales yesterday presumably because some Americans are worried that their rights to have guns might be restricted in the wake of this horror. So better stock up just in case. Never mind let's all have a praise meeting.
2
mattrm - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> And look at opioid deaths..

> Yet Islamic terrorists and illegal immigrants dominate the political agenda.

I think we should worry about the toddlers tbh:

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/
garycrocker - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

That's an absurd response. You can still buy the ammunition legally. No one needs to own a weapon designed to kill humans. In the U.K., when the handgun ban came in a robust approach was taken to dealing with privately held weapons after a short amnesty for handing them. Gun control didn't work because there is no gun control at the moment.
2
Stichtplate on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to pavelk:

> Paddock used automatic guns which are illegal in USA so different gun law could hardly change anything in this case

In many parts of the USA you can legally acquire fully automatic weapons right up to belt fed machine guns. Semi-automatic weapons are easily converted to full auto. The formerly issued British army SLR was a semi-automatic and could be converted to full auto in a couple of minutes using only a strategically placed broken matchstick.
Large calibre semi-automatic rifles have no place being in the hands of civilians.
2
garycrocker - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to pavelk:
Yes it could. He had thousands of rounds of ammunition which can still be bought legally. That is an excuse for doing nothing. Semi automatic weapons and handguns were once legal in this country with a FAC. The US could do something about this.
garycrocker - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Stichtplate:

Agree. In fact no semi automatic has a place in civilian hands. A shotgun will do quite well if you must have a firearm to defend your home, very well in fact as you don't have to be a good shot!
3
Stichtplate on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to garycrocker:

> Yes it could. He had thousands of rounds of ammunition which can still be bought legally. That is an excuse for doing nothing. Semi automatic weapons and handguns were once legal in this country with a FAC. The US could do something about this.

UK gun laws are a bit more complicated than many people would credit. Certain categories of both semi-automatics and handguns can be legally owned in the UK. Even the sort of semi-automatic pistols used in the Dunblane shooting were only ever banned on the UK mainland.
1
aln - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Bill Hicks on gun control. I can't make the link work from this bloody tablet but it's there on YouTube.
Shani - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to aln:

> Bill Hicks on gun control. I can't make the link work from this bloody tablet but it's there on YouTube.

Bill Hicks; Good call!

<Tangent> Bill Hicks on war in the Middle East: "I could understand these wars a lot better if those Arabs would answer one question; What is OUR oil doing under THEIR sand?"</Tangent>
1
aln - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

Bill Hicks is always a good call. I consider myself lucky to have seen him live, we need people like him who tell it like it is.
Shani - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

> Does anyone think this will make a difference to the US gun laws or are they doomed to keep repeating the same excuses and killing merry-go-round

One excellent point I have just come across; the NRA run immediately to the 2nd Amendment (the right of the people to keep and bear arms).

But this amendment was written at a time when the most advanced firearm was (probably) the Kentucky long rifle - capable of firing two or three .60 balls per minute out to an accurate range of 300 yards.
pasbury on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to garycrocker:
> That's an absurd response. You can still buy the ammunition legally. No one needs to own a weapon designed to kill humans. In the U.K., when the handgun ban came in a robust approach was taken to dealing with privately held weapons after a short amnesty for handing them. Gun control didn't work because there is no gun control at the moment.

if any kind of widespread weaponry ban is ever made in the US then the amnesty part could be tricky. there are a lot of very heavily armed nutters who take the 2nd amendment point about armed militias protecting the citizenry from the government seriously.
Post edited at 10:33
1
Tricky Dicky - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

>there are 4 people in the US right now, who will be gunned down in the next 24 hours.

If you include suicides there are 10 people in the USA who will die by gunfire today, another 10 tomorrow, 10 more the day after that, and so on, well over 30,000 a year.

fred99 - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

I seem to remember some similar chilling statistic from long ago;

It was on the lines of more Americans were killed by handguns in the US itself, than were killed on active service in Vietnam.
Apparently facing the Vietcong was safer than the subway in New York !
Phil79 - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> if any kind of widespread weaponry ban is ever made in the US then the amnesty part could be tricky. there are a lot of very heavily armed nutters who take the 2nd amendment point about armed militias protecting the citizenry from the government seriously.

And that is why I can see no likely solution to the problem. There are too many guns (and ammunition) already in circulation, and too many NRA/2nd amendment 'patriots' who would (literally) rather die than give up their weapons.

So even placing restrictions on who can buy what weapons, checks on mental health, bans on 'assault weapons' etc going forward will be pretty ineffectual, as there are so many loop holes and existing weapons lying around that if someone has an intent to kill lots of people with a gun, then they can do it pretty easily.

Perhaps in another two or three generations they might get tired of killing each other and things will start to change?

Comparisons with UK seem pointless too. We've never had a 'gun culture' like the US, and I cant imagine overall numbers of weapons per person in the UK where ever were anything like US levels.
1
Shani - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Phil79:

I note that the site " massshootingtracker.org " is down today....
jonnie3430 - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

Because some people are right twunts and I don't want to"get along," with them, because that means I find their behaviour acceptable.

I think I was the third dislike though, I could give you another two reasons for why we can't "get along," but I'll give the other dislikers a chance to comment on your daft post first.
1
captain paranoia - on 03 Oct 2017
Roadrunner5 - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Phil79:

The second amendment is about a 'well REGULATED militia".. key word.

Also it was about suppressing Slave revolts.


2
neilh - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Phil79:

If Trump stays in long enough- he may be the worm that turns- as like Obama I suspect he will get fed up of having to deal with it. And if he could make the switch... then somehow the culutre might change.

That is a real long shot.
baron - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Phil79:
One of the NR A's slogans used to be 'if you criminalise guns, only criminals will have guns'.
Proved to be fairly true in the UK.
Luckily, as you said, there wasn't the same gun ownership in the UK, especially by the end of the 20th century.
neilh - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

I know quite a few Americans and alot of them have in the range of 40-70 guns in their houses.

The UK press cannot believe the number of weapns this guy had.

My own experience suggests its not unusual or exceptional.

USA gun control is just plain weird from our perspective.
1
graeme jackson - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Tricky Dicky:
> If you include suicides there are 10 people in the USA who will die by gunfire today, another 10 tomorrow, 10 more the day after that, and so on, well over 30,000 a year.

I make that 3650. well under 30,000 a year.

However, the figure of over 30,000 gun related deaths is true for 2013 so where do the other 27000 come from
Post edited at 13:35
birdie num num - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Mrs Num Num often shoots me with her gat gun.
I daren’t shoot her back but sometimes I take a pot shot at her mother from a snipers position behind the shed.
4
baron - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to neilh:

I used to work with a couple of people who were furious when they were forced to hand in their handguns following the Dunblane shooting.
There's no chance that most American gun owners would be so compliant.
pasbury on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> The second amendment is about a 'well REGULATED militia".. key word.

> Also it was about suppressing Slave revolts.

Unfortunately the (automatic rifle wielding) cat has been out of the bag for so long now that the original intent is meaningless; even if they manage to re-interpret it in law they'll have civil war on their hands if they try to enforce it.
Lion Bakes on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to graeme jackson:

> I make that 3650. well under 30,000 a year.

> However, the figure of over 30,000 gun related deaths is true for 2013 so where do the other 27000 come from

If the figure was around 3,000 deaths a year from guns no one would be saying a gun ban was necessary.
Shani - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Unfortunately the (automatic rifle wielding) cat has been out of the bag for so long now that the original intent is meaningless; even if they manage to re-interpret it in law they'll have civil war on their hands if they try to enforce it.

For me, this is the elephant in the room. We all look back at the horrors of Columbine, Sandy Hook, and now, Vegas, and are revolted by the ease with which weapons developed for the battlefield, can be so easily obtained and used in a civilian capacity.

But we shouldn't look back for the real horror; like the mobile phone industry, the good capitalists involved in personal armaments are keen to innovate in pursuit of market share; to develop existing markets and capture new ones. So like the mobile phone manufactrurers, we see technological innovation at work in the world of small-arms manufacturing, and from that we can conclude that personal weapons will become cheaper, easier to use, more powerful, quieter (there is currently a bill aimed at legalizing 'suppressors' and silencers), faster loading, more easily concealed, more lethal, more deadly.

My conclusion being that, given the current political trajetory of the US, the biggest gun-horrors actually lie ahead of it as a nation.
Stichtplate on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to birdie num num:

> Mrs Num Num often shoots me with her gat gun.

> I daren’t shoot her back but sometimes I take a pot shot at her mother from a snipers position behind the shed.

I,ve been told that only a silver bullet directly to her right bollock is guaranteed to take down Mrs Num Num.
......wouldn't risk it myself though.
Roadrunner5 - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:
I think a ban on automatic weapons could happen. Raegan got one through.

But if a classroom full of dead 4 year olds wasn't enough I can't see how this will be. However with the shear numbers hurt maybe. It shows how easy an similar attack by an ISIS militant would be.
Jimbocz - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

I’m just sad that Trump is on such a short leash and hasn’t made a fool of himself yet. I can feel it coming.

We should never forget that the parents of children killed at Sandy Hook have had their life made a living hell by right wing conspiracy theorists. According to the conspiracy, the parents are liars and actors whose 6 year old children were never killed, it was all a piece of theatre to facilitate Obama confiscating guns. These poor people can’t even go out in public without being confronted by idiots who believe this.

The biggest champion of this theory is Alex Jones, a radio nutter who broadcasts hours a day of similar bile. Trump is one of his biggest fans and has appeared on his show several times, at least once since Trump became President.

The whole thing disgusts me.

Tricky Dicky - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Tricky Dicky:

> >there are 4 people in the US right now, who will be gunned down in the next 24 hours.

> If you include suicides there are 10 people in the USA who will die by gunfire today, another 10 tomorrow, 10 more the day after that, and so on, well over 30,000 a year.

Sorry folks, missed a '0' what I meant to say was

"If you include suicides there are 100 people in the USA who will die by gunfire today, another 100 tomorrow, 100 more the day after that, and so on, well over 30,000 a year."

This is based on the Chanel 4 figures of 33, 000 per year, which is roughly 100 per day, but the pedants amongst you will know that 33,000/365 is slightly less.
neilh - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

The issue is also the hunting lobby. Hunting is a huge pastime in the States.Its also reasonably well controlled with people respecting when to shoot/hunt etc.Never forgotten a conversation I had with a guy who had to wait 5 plus years for a licence to shoot brown bear which was allowable for 1 or 2 weeks a year in Wisconsin. And the way he talked about his passion and respect for the bear( which is not easy to hunt- but also in locals eyes was a pest- a great big one ) was interesting. The way they then butcher animals and use the meat etc...not a thing went to waste.Very common in the mid-West to have that sort of background and knowledge.

I just cannot imagine they would ever be able to get gun control through.
balmybaldwin - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> I think a ban on automatic weapons could happen. Raegan got one through.

Did it get repealed then? If not then it's not very effective
baron - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to neilh:

There are many logical reasons why US citizens own guns.
As in your example.
The guns will stay and more people will die and we'll have the same debate again.
garycrocker - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:
And the 2nd amendment was never meant to be about personal protection. It was added at a time when the new US nation had to stand down the majority of its army post revolutionary war and needed a way of defending itself. The amendment goes on to say , '..as part of a well regulated militia.'
r0x0r.wolfo - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> One of the NR A's slogans used to be 'if you criminalise guns, only criminals will have guns'.

> Proved to be fairly true in the UK.

> Luckily, as you said, there wasn't the same gun ownership in the UK, especially by the end of the 20th century.

I'm pretty sure the police and army have a few guns knocking about.

That statement is so stupid. If you make having something unlawful then those who have that thing are criminals. It's a tautology.
1
baron - on 03 Oct 2017
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
I'm fairly sure nobody is talking about disarming the police or army.
While the slogan might be a tautology it seems to have worked.
2
Big Ger - on 03 Oct 2017
krikoman - on 04 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

Sig Sauer, Colt, Daniel Defense and the makers of the bump conversion, must be very proud of their weapons.

Interesting snippet on the news, you can be on the "No Fly" list, because you're a risk to air passengers, yet you can still buy a gun!!

It's a crazy old world.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 04 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> I'm fairly sure nobody is talking about disarming the police or army.

Right.

I'm clearly saying that serving police officers and military which have access to firearms aren't criminals so criminals are not the only people with guns in the UK.

baron - on 04 Oct 2017
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
ok
1
pasbury on 04 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

Thank you for your contribution.
baron - on 04 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

It is, as always, a pleasure.
1
Pete Pozman - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to neilh:

Do they need machine guns for shooting bears? The only justifiable need for a machine gun is zombie apocalypse. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these gun nutters actually think this is really a possibility, considering all the other crazy stuff they believe.
Pete Pozman - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to krikoman:

At least Trump hasn't dedicated a golf trophy to the victims.
neilh - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

We are talking about their gun and hunting culture.

Where on earth did I say they were using machine guns to kill bears.?
Pete Pozman - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to neilh:

Comment not directed at you. I was just being generally sarcastic about US attitudes. Apologies.
Phil79 - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> Do they need machine guns for shooting bears? The only justifiable need for a machine gun is zombie apocalypse. I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of these gun nutters actually think this is really a possibility, considering all the other crazy stuff they believe.

Much of US society seems to be stuck in a cycle of self-reinforcing paranoia, they think the government wants to take their guns, so they buy more thinking they will banned in future, more guns leading to more mass shootings/violence, government talks about gun control, they buy more guys......

Watching a short documentary on Vice, there was a massive spike in gun sales during the 8 years under Obama. Also almost half of all civilian owned firearms in the world are found in the US.
baron - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to Phil79:
3% of the population owns 50% of the guns in the US.
65% of households own a gun.
I'm not quite sure what to make of those statistics.
Post edited at 09:29
1
pasbury on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to Phil79:

Latest I've seen is reports of a spate of videos on Youtube claiming the shooting to be faked! There are apparently many such 'False flag' conspiracy videos around and it's claimed they are produced by gun lobbyists to counter any attempt at gun control.

That's the level of fanaticism the US has to deal with.
Phil79 - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

So according to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

There are 112 guns per 100 people in the US.

Population is 323 million, so that's 360 million guns.

If half of these (180 million) are owned by 3% of population (9.6 million), that's nearly 10 million people who own around 18 guns each!! Not alarming in any way.

God bless America.
Phil79 - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> Latest I've seen is reports of a spate of videos on Youtube claiming the shooting to be faked! There are apparently many such 'False flag' conspiracy videos around and it's claimed they are produced by gun lobbyists to counter any attempt at gun control.

Yeah I've seen the same, its the same after every mass shooting.

Read an article somewhere about one of the Sandy Hook parents who lost a child being constantly abused on the web by people saying it was all fake etc. Some people are below contempt.

baron - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to Phil79:

To quote the NRA 'guns don't kill people, ................'.
Which is true.
And that's the way that many people in the US see it.
nufkin - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> 3% of the population owns 50% of the guns in the US.
> 65% of households own a gun.
> I'm not quite sure what to make of those statistics.

I suppose in some cases it's not too surprising - for someone who hunts, say, it's likely they'd hunt different beasties, so might be expected to have a gun for ducks and a gun for deer. And probably the n+1 rule that applies to most other hobbies/interests equally applies here. It probably doesn't really occur to many of the people with guns that they're amassing small arsenals because they didn't start out thinking 'I need x guns before I'll be happy', just as I didn't expect to have at least four different pairs of climbing shoes on the go when I started out.

Obviously shoes and guns aren't quite analogous, but most people probably aren't really thinking about killing people when they buy their gun
baron - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to nufkin:
It's certainly easy to see how a gun owner could end up with their own mini arsenal and only a tiny minority of gun owners ever use them for criminal activities.
Sometimes the sheer size of a weapons collection adds to the 'all american gun owners are insane' school of thought.
bouldery bits - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to jonnie3430:


> I think I was the third dislike though, I could give you another two reasons for why we can't "get along," but I'll give the other dislikers a chance to comment on your daft post first.

Congratulations on winning the daft post competition!

This is why we can't all get along and have nice things.
1
mark s - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> To quote the NRA 'guns don't kill people, ................'.

> Which is true.

> And that's the way that many people in the US see it.

You can turn that argument back on them and say "Ok let n Korea have it's nuclear weapons,as it's not the weapon that kill people people do"
MG - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> To quote the NRA 'guns don't kill people, ................'.

> Which is true.
It's not really. The number of accidental deaths from Gu s is very high.
baron - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to MG:

Something like 500 deaths per year due to accidents.
Tragic.
But a low % given the 300 million guns in circulation.
All the firearms deaths in the US add up to 1.5% of total deaths per year.
Again tragic but not quite the carnage that some would make it out to be. (Mass shootings excepted).
krikoman - on 05 Oct 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> At least Trump hasn't dedicated a golf trophy to the victims.

There's a hole in one joke there, somewhere I think.

But I'll leave that to others to work out.
GrahamD - on 06 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

A 1 in 66 chance of dying from gun violence ? Doesn't sound that great especially as its not particularly age related like, say heart disease.
baron - on 06 Oct 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

It's not 1 in 66 as most gun deaths are suicide.
So unless your planning to kill yourself it's about 11,000 deaths out of the 2.5 million people who die each year in the US.
neilh - on 06 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

And injuries..... 58 dead and 500 or so injured?
profitofdoom on 06 Oct 2017
In reply to neilh:

> That is a real long shot.

Was that a joke or unintentional
GrahamD - on 06 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

People don't necessarily 'plan' to kill themselves. They kill themselves when they are at a particular psychological low point AND the opportunity is present. If guns are ever present then half the equation is always met.
summo on 06 Oct 2017
In reply to baron:

> It's not 1 in 66 as most gun deaths are suicide.
> So unless your planning to kill yourself it's about 11,000 deaths out of the 2.5 million people who die each year in the US.

So is it statistically acceptable that some kids will with almost 100% certainty get shot at school in the next 12 months? And it's acceptable for USA politicians to do absolutely nothing to reduce this risk to the smallest margin possible.

The USA makes the rest of the world look sane.
baron - on 06 Oct 2017
In reply to summo:

Of course it's not acceptable.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.