Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival

[Bonzo77]

so why ban legally held weapons , which were owned by responsible owners ?

 

To help prevent another mass shooting?

[melthebell]

so why ban legally held weapons , which were owned by responsible owners ?

 

Because in the US all of the mass shootings are by people who for whatever reason, snap. And either use their own. Or use legally held guns they can grab.

[alchemist]

carry on keep the cynicism up but banning or legislating against gun owners guns wont stop the nutters:roll:

 

But as we have all explained to you and you seem to be unable to understand, that getting rid of guns would help stop the nutters causing so many deaths.

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2017 at 08:40 ----------

 

so why ban legally held weapons , which were owned by responsible owners ?

 

Because there is NO way that you can guarantee that they will REMAIN responsible. The Vegas shooter was a responsible owner until the day he started shooting innocents

 

---------- Post added 06-10-2017 at 08:45 ----------

 

The main problem with Americans having guns to defend themselves is that FAR too many decide to "defend" themselves first

[sgtkate]

unfortunately just banning things is not the answer too simplistic, you cant legislate for a nutter or terrorist, anyone can hire or drive a car or lorry and inflict hundreds of casualties and death, fly a plane into a building, bomb a marathon plus many other ways to inflict injury and death on a wholesale basis, just think about it seriously if you really wanted to hurt a lot of people??? and had no care of consequences? i get it that you dont like guns fair enough.

what do i propose?? far stricter government watching of extremists and people that view and interact with contacts & material online for a start, not perfect but its a start. maybe that wouldn't catch all but it may put some off

 

I'm ex military and held marksman badges for various rifles so please don't say I'm anti-gun. I'm not at all. I have no problems with people owning guns for sport target shooting, or certain members of the police or security services having them. No-one at ALL needs an automatic weapon except a soldier. Have you ever fired one on auto? If you had you'll know where the phrase scattergun comes from. An automatic weapon is specifically designed for indiscriminate targeting of an area primarily as a fire control technique to keep the enemies heads down while you and colleagues take up a better position to target them more specifically by using semi-auto modes instead. Trying to hit the wide side of a barn with an SA80 on full auto is a challenge let alone a person. The police don't use full autos for that reason, no target shooter would use a full auto, neither would a wildlife hunter, leaving you with it being the weapon choice of soldiers and mass murders. How about we make sure it's only the soldiers that can use them, huh?

 

Also your next line about controlling extremists is a little daft. While of course we should be doing that, gun control isn't a mutually exclusive thing. We can control guns and extremists. But in the recent case of Stephen Paddock, can you tell me what steps should have been taken prior to his murder rampage, given that even a week on the investigators can find NO REASON at all for his seemingly sudden decision to murder 10s of innocent people.

[Padders]

I'm ex military and held marksman badges for various rifles so please don't say I'

Am anti-gun. I'm not at all. I have no problems with people owning guns for sport target shooting, or certain members of the police or security services having them. No-one at ALL needs an automatic weapon except a soldier. Have you ever fired one on auto? If you had you'll know where the phrase scattergun comes from. An automatic weapon is specifically designed for indiscriminate targeting of an area primarily as a fire control technique to keep the enemies heads down while you and colleagues take up a better position to target them more specifically by using semi-auto modes instead. Trying to hit the wide side of a barn with an SA80 on full auto is a challenge let alone a person. The police don't use full autos for that reason, no target shooter would use a full auto, neither would a wildlife hunter, leaving you with it being the weapon choice of soldiers and mass murders. How about we make sure it's only the soldiers that can use them, huh?

 

Also your next line about controlling extremists is a little daft. While of course we should be doing that, gun control isn't a mutually exclusive thing. We can control guns and extremists. But in the recent case of Stephen Paddock, can you tell me what steps should have been taken prior to his murder rampage, given that even a week on the investigators can find NO REASON at all for his seemingly sudden decision to murder 10s of innocent people.

 

Always thought you were a bit of a sniper.

[TheNugget]

Australia introduced gun control in the 90's in 3.5 months after a mass shooting and have had no mass shootings since, despite having just less than 1 per year before he controls.

This came at the political cost of politicians who lost their seats after, but did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. All it takes is the will of the politicians to not be so spineless.

[sgtkate]

Always thought you were a bit of a sniper.

 

Ba-dum-tish!

[Padders]

Ba-dum-tish!

 

:hihi: love ya.

[Guest]

Doesn't Canada have a similar, amount-of-guns-per-head-of-population statistic as the US, but nowhere near the level of gun crime? this would suggest its an issue of culture.

[sgtkate]

Doesn't Canada have a similar, amount-of-guns-per-head-of-population statistic as the US, but nowhere near the level of gun crime? this would suggest its an issue of culture.

 

Canada has very different open carry laws and background checks. I struggle deeply to understand why ANYONE pro or anti-guns would argue against enhanced background checks and a cool-off period prior to buying any weapon?