Vegas shooting...?

[abelcainsbrother]

I think we might actually have something we CAN do to prevent mass killings.

http://www.connection2recovery.com/unca ... pic-drugs/

Thoughts?

I have heard the shooter was prescribed valium but people claim valium would have made the shooter unable to carry out the shooting.

[Hortator]

I think we might actually have something we CAN do to prevent mass killings.

http://www.connection2recovery.com/unca ... pic-drugs/

Thoughts?

I have heard the shooter was prescribed valium but people claim valium would have made the shooter unable to carry out the shooting.

I have seen people who take it, they become giggling little school girls.

But the big thing behind psychotropic drugs is that they make you feel like crap, and the prescribed might simply choose not to feel like crap anymore and stop taking them. I feel bad for those people who have something that messed up about themselves.

[neo-x]

Can't guns be banned outright?

In Singapore the penalty of even owning a gun is caning. Owning two guns means you are trafficking arms, which can lead to imprisonment, and found with several guns, may be sentenced to life. If you used a gun, you're screwed. Death Penalty or lifetime sentences await you.
Result = One of the lowest gun crime rate anywhere in the world.

In Japan, you can't own a gun or a sword. Result same as above.
In Germany, they have lots of guns but the criteria are so severe that it's impossible to own multiple firearms. You can't even inherit a working gun. It has to be made unusable before you get your family firearm.

But the number of public shootings in America and the lax laws to still get them or own them seems very odd to me.

[Kurieuo]

In America, it is the right of the people to protect themselves against the Government (right of revolution). Such would be unheard of in many other nations, whether Singapore, Australia, Japan, Middle Eastern and many European states. Should the Government overstep and become tyrannical, then it is a constitutional right of the people can rise up and overthrow.

Such is deeply embedded in the minds of many Americans, bound up in their history of the American Revolution where they fought for freedom and overthrew Brittish rule. Whether wrong or right, such is enshrined and considered sacred to many Americans, one of the highest forms of patriotism is the right of the people to bare arms and revolt against tyranny whether an outside force or their own government.

So then, a solution where the US Government just disarms all citizens like say Australia supposedly did many years back? Such may reduce the crime rates with mass shootings, I'm positive it would. Yet, I guarantee if this happened in the US, there would be a civil war on, many would rise up with arms to revolt against and try overthrow the government. Such would be like throwing down a "red flag", which might very well destablise the country. I hear there are many fringe groups, very patriotic types, who are preparing for the time when the government tries to do such a thing.

It is important for outsiders like us to understand this culture. I have no affiliation to America or its historical foundation, so it is easy for me as an outsider to comment on what would be better. If I put myself in the shoes of an American who feels extremely patriotic though, built upon the history and what birthed the United States, I can see why many do not wish to give up their arms. Any attempt to take them away would be seen as an attack on their freedom. They would not peacefully tolerate the government doing this. I can imagine some states might even secede and become divided again if the White House were to make such demands.

[neo-x]

In America, it is the right of the people to protect themselves against the Government (right of revolution). Such would be unheard of in many other nations, whether Singapore, Australia, Japan, Middle Eastern and many European states. Should the Government overstep and become tyrannical, then it is a constitutional right of the people can rise up and overthrow.

Such is deeply embedded in the minds of many Americans, bound up in their history of the American Revolution where they fought for freedom and overthrew Brittish rule. Whether wrong or right, such is enshrined and considered sacred to many Americans, one of the highest forms of patriotism is the right of the people to bare arms and revolt against tyranny whether an outside force or their own government.

So then, a solution where the US Government just disarms all citizens like say Australia supposedly did many years back? Such may reduce the crime rates with mass shootings, I'm positive it would. Yet, I guarantee if this happened in the US, there would be a civil war on, many would rise up with arms to revolt against and try overthrow the government. Such would be like throwing down a "red flag", which might very well destablise the country. I hear there are many fringe groups, very patriotic types, who are preparing for the time when the government tries to do such a thing.

It is important for outsiders like us to understand this culture. I have no affiliation to America or its historical foundation, so it is easy for me as an outsider to comment on what would be better. If I put myself in the shoes of an American who feels extremely patriotic though, built upon the history and what birthed the United States, I can see why many do not wish to give up their arms. Any attempt to take them away would be seen as an attack on their freedom. They would not peacefully tolerate the government doing this. I can imagine some states might even secede and become divided again if the White House were to make such demands.

Well noted, K. I can understand what you are saying. I am, perhaps, baffled at the idea that everyone is expected to behave responsibly with a firearm, which in the case of America in particular, has proven to be absurd. The cost of bearing those arms seems a lot higher and unfair, compared to a calamity which might not even occur.

Question is then, how do you root out this fear? Or should it remain to be what it is at the moment, and we see people die over and over for the sake of a liberty that's causing more harm than good?

To be honest, it seems paranoia (perhaps equally depicted and reinforced in the media as a doomsday scenario) to me for the reason that none of the other countries has turned tyrannical because their people gave up the right to carry arms.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
To be honest, it seems paranoia (perhaps equally depicted and reinforced in the media as a doomsday scenario) to me for the reason that none of the other countries has turned tyrannical because their people gave up the right to carry arms.

Forget about one of the worst atrocities perpetrated by a government, against its own people?
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?

In the late 1930's, Jews and others who were deemed enemies, had their guns stolen by the government. Did you forget what happened next?

[RickD]

Is everyone ignoring the fact that in all cases of mass shootings in the US, there is one common thread?

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:
To be honest, it seems paranoia (perhaps equally depicted and reinforced in the media as a doomsday scenario) to me for the reason that none of the other countries has turned tyrannical because their people gave up the right to carry arms.

Forget about one of the worst atrocities perpetrated by a government, against its own people?
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?

In the late 1930's, Jews and others who were deemed enemies had their guns stolen by the government. Did you forget what happened next?

Reductio ad absurdum. This isn't even a close relevance. It seems that it is people killing people in the case of America. It's not the govt who is being tyrannical against fellow citizens, it's common people, every time.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
To be honest, it seems paranoia (perhaps equally depicted and reinforced in the media as a doomsday scenario) to me for the reason that none of the other countries has turned tyrannical because their people gave up the right to carry arms.

Forget about one of the worst atrocities perpetrated by a government, against its own people?
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?

In the late 1930's, Jews and others who were deemed enemies had their guns stolen by the government. Did you forget what happened next?

Reductio ad absurdum. This isn't even a close relevance. It seems that it is people killing people in the case of America. It's not the govt who is being tyrannical against fellow citizens, it's common people, every time.

Neo,

I responded to your quote. Look at the underlined above. Kurieuo explained to you why the US has a constitutional right to bear arms. He explained about why the framers of the constitution wrote it in.

You live in a country with virtually no individual rights, you seem to want to understand why we have gun rights, then just dismiss the reason.

[neo-x]

Neo wrote:
To be honest, it seems paranoia (perhaps equally depicted and reinforced in the media as a doomsday scenario) to me for the reason that none of the other countries has turned tyrannical because their people gave up the right to carry arms.

Forget about one of the worst atrocities perpetrated by a government, against its own people?
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?

In the late 1930's, Jews and others who were deemed enemies had their guns stolen by the government. Did you forget what happened next?

Reductio ad absurdum. This isn't even a close relevance. It seems that it is people killing people in the case of America. It's not the govt who is being tyrannical against fellow citizens, it's common people, every time.

Neo,

I responded to your quote. Look at the underlined above. Kurieuo explained to you why the US has a constitutional right to bear arms. He explained about why the framers of the constitution wrote it in.

You live in a country with virtually no individual rights, you seem to want to understand why we have gun rights, then just dismiss the reason.

I understand the why, I don't understand the rationale for the reason given, in this time, maybe it made sense when you were British colonies. It seems to be counterproductive given the worse situation you face.

[RickD]

Neo wrote:
To be honest, it seems paranoia (perhaps equally depicted and reinforced in the media as a doomsday scenario) to me for the reason that none of the other countries has turned tyrannical because their people gave up the right to carry arms.

Forget about one of the worst atrocities perpetrated by a government, against its own people?
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?

In the late 1930's, Jews and others who were deemed enemies had their guns stolen by the government. Did you forget what happened next?

Reductio ad absurdum. This isn't even a close relevance. It seems that it is people killing people in the case of America. It's not the govt who is being tyrannical against fellow citizens, it's common people, every time.

Neo,

I responded to your quote. Look at the underlined above. Kurieuo explained to you why the US has a constitutional right to bear arms. He explained about why the framers of the constitution wrote it in.

You live in a country with virtually no individual rights, you seem to want to understand why we have gun rights, then just dismiss the reason.

I understand the why, I don't understand the rationale for the reason given, in this time, maybe it made sense when you were British colonies. It seems to be counterproductive given the worse situation you face.

Until it's changed, it's the law of the land.

And I'd argue, with where evidence points, mental health and mental health drugs, are the much bigger issue. Not guns. And this is coming from someone who has never shot a gun, much less owned one.

[Philip]

Neo: The cost of bearing those arms seems a lot higher and unfair, compared to a calamity which might not even occur.

People that do not live in America don't seem to realize that vast millions of guns are in private hands - ALL kinds of large-caliber rifles, handguns, semi-automatics. And they are cheap to buy. So NO new gun laws are going to eliminate people obtaining guns - you can already buy them everywhere, privately, with such sales being untraceable. And, for the most part, there would be no way of knowing who has what guns to legally confiscate them - because private sales between individuals have long typically not been recorded. If a record existed of a person owning a gun, and a law were passed to force turning it in, the person could simply lie and say they had sold it - which is what all the criminals would do.

Here is the impossible: 1) To confiscate all guns - or anywhere near that; 2) To stop anyone from illegally obtaining guns because of the vast millions of them already available. Heck, I've got guns in my family that are nearly 100 years old. So, you cannot eliminate guns in America. If another one were never manufactured, 200 years from now, there would still be vast millions of guns here. And the guns later manufactured (post the '60s) are often of high quality components that if maintained, would last centuries. Here is all you could do, you could legally prevent the impulsive types or those with a mental illness history that for whatever reason decided to go buy a gun and kill or massacre. But as for those who plan their murder and mayhem - they can easily buy stolen or illegal guns - because they're EVERYWHERE, and CHEAP. The determined killer will not be stopped finding high-power, large-clip guns. Period! It's a fantasy to think so! The two centuries or so of people legally owning all manner of guns has built an enormous inventory in private hands. And there is little way of finding out who has what weapons. Records are only sporadic for a fraction of more recent gun sales. And, people sell and trade their weapons - with absolutely no records of such transactions.

So, access to U.S. guns will go on, even if made illegal. Criminals using weapons for mayhem - they don't care about laws! If banned, the only people who would turn in the weapons would be law-abiding types (or the exceptionally foolish, due to the danger that would put them in) - and knowing criminals would not turn in their guns - millions of law-abiding types would merely hide their guns, due to clearly understanding the dangerous threat posed by only criminals being armed. So, it's not that people want their guns to be protected against state tyranny - ha, VERY few could pose a threat to professional soldiers, even briefly. It's that people want to be able to protect themselves against criminals and murdering thugs - who have all manner of cheap, high-power guns available. So, the vast millions of weapons are already here - it's delusional to think we can just write some drastic, new gun laws and make the gun problem go away. It's totally impossible!

Nonetheless, we COULD and SHOULD tighten some aspects of what types of weaponry that can be sold new. WE should, as sensible. But, again, that's only going to stop the impulsive types from LEGAL purchasing such items. So, you can slow some of these people down, but can't prevent them from private or illegal purchases. You could slow down people with criminal or mental records. But that's about it, as the determined person will still easily find USED/privately sold whatever gun he desires, illegally. And, unfortunately, there's no way of changing that.

[edwardmurphy]

Couple of thoughts. -

The right to rebel might have had some relevance in the early 1800s, but these days it's completely meaningless as anything other than a marketing tool to gull preppers out of their money. Anybody who rebels against the government of the United States is going to be crushed. Collecting guns to protect yourself from the government is the equivalent of keeping a bottle of monster spray in your toddler's room.

Regarding the connection between pharmaceuticals and gun violence, it's definitely a possibility - although mass shootings predate pharmaceuticals - but it's ludicrous to argue that the easy availability of guns isn't the primary issue.

[RickD]

Couple of thoughts. -

The right to rebel might have had some relevance in the early 1800s, but these days it's completely meaningless as anything other than a marketing tool to gull preppers out of their money. Anybody who rebels against the government of the United States is going to be crushed. Collecting guns to protect yourself from the government is the equivalent of keeping a bottle of monster spray in your toddler's room.

Regarding the connection between pharmaceuticals and gun violence, it's definitely a possibility - although mass shootings predate pharmaceuticals - but it's ludicrous to argue that the easy availability of guns isn't the primary issue.

You do realize the issue isn't about rebelling against the government? It's about government tyranny. I'm not saying that I think our government will or will not get to the point of that, but that's what the 2nd amendment is.

[Philip]

Regarding the connection between pharmaceuticals and gun violence, it's definitely a possibility - although mass shootings predate pharmaceuticals - but it's ludicrous to argue that the easy availability of guns isn't the primary issue.

Yes, it's the issue, alright - but that cat is LONG out of the bag (in the U.S.)! As it's a fact that you cannot stop, and can, ONLY very briefly, slow down the impulsive nut job with a mental history, or a criminal with a history - because of the immense illegal availability. HOWEVER, slowing these people down, or hopefully, for those mental, that their quick access to legal purchase is prevented, MIGHT help, and it's smart to do so. There's often a waiting period, in some states, background checks, etc. But if there is no record or history, that won't ultimately stop legal purchases. And it surely can't prevent illegal ones. There should also be a mandatory way of people selling weapons privately, for a very small fee, to have a mandatory background database check done on private sales. Immediate sales at gunshows - if they can't do an immediate background check, it shouldn't be allowed. And there should be mandatory records filed of all such sales. But that's still not going to stop criminals or the determined mentally ill - it just slows them down. Also, there ARE certain levels of weapons being widely available that make us less safe. And allowing more and unlimited legal sales of such does add to our dangers - and yet, weapons with crazy firepower and range are still out there, all over, and easy to obtain, privately. And many of them stolen. Let's just not make certain weapons legal - as it can help, even if only somewhat. And yet, if not guns, nuts will turn to cars or bombs to kill.

Uber liberal Democrat and senator Diane Feinstein admits no gun laws would have stopped the Vegas shooter: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10 ... sacre.html