Evidence for God from Science

I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't come up.

There’s just not much to say.

Try to say something nice comes off as “meaningless platitudes” to Facebook friends. Try to have a discussion, and people will accuse you of “making hay” of 59 Dead people and 527 injuries, which is ghoulish behavior I will admit.

My Facebook feed is a long string of “damned if you do/don’t” right now.

Rather than going to go into my emotional response to this horrific event, I'm going stick to the issue of guns and gun control.

So apparently 59 people were killed, and another 500+ or so were wounded or injured as a result of the chaos caused by the shooting. My understanding is that most of those 500 have either bullet wounds or shrapnel wounds caused by near misses. That's horrifying.

Apparently it's also possible to purchase a high capacity, high-powered semiautomatic rifle and to then bolt on an external mechanism that will allow that rifle to function - more or less - as an automatic weapon. All of that is apparently legal.

It's also apparent that the LVPD response was rapid and that they did everything that they could have possibly done to prevent this terrible tragedy.

So is this the time for an open discussion about gun control in the US, or should we just accept that this is part of life in America?

I think that everyone agrees this was incredibly tragic and that there is much we still don't know about what happened.
We all agree that there will always be a segment of the population FOR gun control and a segment AGAINST it.

I guess the issue really is what KIND of gun control and to what EXTENT.

RE: response time:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... g-response

PaulSacramento wrote:I guess the issue really is what KIND of gun control and to what EXTENT.

I agree. That obviously should be the discussion. Unfortunately the NRA takes a hardline, no discussion, no compromise position, and they have the ability to shut down the conversation before it ever starts.

Personally, I have no problem with people owning guns. I don't hunt, but I'm glad others do - it's an important part of population management for species that no longer have enough natural predators.

Where I draw the line is with high-capacity, high-powered, semiautomatic weapons. And I didn't even know that things like trigger cranks and bump stocks existed. Here's a little about that, by the way.

I don't understand how anyone could argue that an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is anything other than a weapon of war. I don't understand why a national gun registry would be such a big deal.

Anyone here in Canada can have a firearm.
They simply have to apply for a license.
Much like one has to for a car or to fish, heck even get married.

The process involves taking a safety course and passing to make sure one understands the dangers of firearms.

Rifles and shotguns can be owned with a regular firearm's license and handguns can be owned with a restricted firearm's license, which anyone can apply for as well.

Caveat: A background check is made to ensure that the applicant is not mentally unstable or has a criminal record.

I don't see an issue with that type of gun control.

PaulSacramento wrote:RE: response time:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... g-response

Doesn't seem like they could have done any better. They were getting shot at, there was confusion everywhere, and they had to consider the possibility of multiple shooters or a gunman on the move. I've seen some people argue that they could have shot back at the hotel, but it's Las Vegas, not 1945 Berlin. Cops can't just spray bullets at a hotel.

The simple fact is that our police aren't set up to deal with this kind of insanity, and frankly I'd be more frightened if they were.

edwardmurphy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:RE: response time:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... g-response

Doesn't seem like they could have done any better. They were getting shot at, there was confusion everywhere, and they had to consider the possibility of multiple shooters or a gunman on the move. I've seen some people argue that they could have shot back at the hotel, but it's Las Vegas, not 1945 Berlin. Cops can't just spray bullets at a hotel.

The simple fact is that our police aren't set up to deal with this kind of insanity, and frankly I'd be more frightened if they were.

Agreed, I would only think that the SWAT should have been dispatched earlier.

PaulSacramento wrote:Anyone here in Canada can have a firearm.
They simply have to apply for a license.
Much like one has to for a car or to fish, heck even get married.

The process involves taking a safety course and passing to make sure one understands the dangers of firearms.

Rifles and shotguns can be owned with a regular firearm's license and handguns can be owned with a restricted firearm's license, which anyone can apply for as well.

Caveat: A background check is made to ensure that the applicant is not mentally unstable or has a criminal record.

I don't see an issue with that type of gun control.

Makes sense to me, but if you propose that in the States you'll get called a crazy, anti-gun leftist.

edwardmurphy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Anyone here in Canada can have a firearm.
They simply have to apply for a license.
Much like one has to for a car or to fish, heck even get married.

The process involves taking a safety course and passing to make sure one understands the dangers of firearms.

Rifles and shotguns can be owned with a regular firearm's license and handguns can be owned with a restricted firearm's license, which anyone can apply for as well.

Caveat: A background check is made to ensure that the applicant is not mentally unstable or has a criminal record.

I don't see an issue with that type of gun control.

Makes sense to me, but if you propose that in the States you'll get called a crazy, anti-gun leftist.

Assuming such controls exist here in the U.S., how would that have changed anything? Note that I'm not against such controls (even though I'm a crazy for-gun rightist ). Anyone intent on harming others will always find a way to do it.

Byblos wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Anyone here in Canada can have a firearm.
They simply have to apply for a license.
Much like one has to for a car or to fish, heck even get married.

The process involves taking a safety course and passing to make sure one understands the dangers of firearms.

Rifles and shotguns can be owned with a regular firearm's license and handguns can be owned with a restricted firearm's license, which anyone can apply for as well.

Caveat: A background check is made to ensure that the applicant is not mentally unstable or has a criminal record.

I don't see an issue with that type of gun control.

Makes sense to me, but if you propose that in the States you'll get called a crazy, anti-gun leftist.

Assuming such controls exist here in the U.S., how would that have changed anything? Note that I'm not against such controls (even though I'm a crazy for-gun rightist ). Anyone intent on harming others will always find a way to do it.

With the RIGHT kind of control you don't eliminate gun crime but you can reduce it.
No gun control exists that eliminates gun crime.
I am sure if this guy didn't have his guns, he would have found another way.

I think many people look at the sheer NUMBER and think that without a gun the number would, at least, be reduced.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Anyone here in Canada can have a firearm.
They simply have to apply for a license.
Much like one has to for a car or to fish, heck even get married.

The process involves taking a safety course and passing to make sure one understands the dangers of firearms.

Rifles and shotguns can be owned with a regular firearm's license and handguns can be owned with a restricted firearm's license, which anyone can apply for as well.

Caveat: A background check is made to ensure that the applicant is not mentally unstable or has a criminal record.

I don't see an issue with that type of gun control.

Makes sense to me, but if you propose that in the States you'll get called a crazy, anti-gun leftist.

Assuming such controls exist here in the U.S., how would that have changed anything? Note that I'm not against such controls (even though I'm a crazy for-gun rightist ). Anyone intent on harming others will always find a way to do it.

With the RIGHT kind of control you don't eliminate gun crime but you can reduce it.
No gun control exists that eliminates gun crime.
I am sure if this guy didn't have his guns, he would have found another way.

I think many people look at the sheer NUMBER and think that without a gun the number would, at least, be reduced.

Timothy McVay did not use a single gun, yet he brought down a building and countless lives were lost. 9/11 terrorists did not use a single gun, yet they brought down 2 skyscrapers and thousands of lives were lost.

Reduced? I don't think so.

Ok, allow me to be more specific:
The view is that if you reduce the availability of automatic weapons then deaths, mass deaths as the case in Vegas, by firearms, will be reduced.

PaulSacramento wrote:Ok, allow me to be more specific:
The view is that if you reduce the availability of automatic weapons then deaths, mass deaths as the case in Vegas, by firearms, will be reduced.

But that's exactly the myth gun control advocates want everyone to believe, except it is only a myth. You really think for one second if Paddock didn't have access to the large cache of weapons he had, that he wouldn't have found another way of committing mass murder, perhaps at a much larger scale? When the intent is there, a way is always found. That's the bottom line.