Mass shooting at Las Vegas music festival

[nowt2pctoday]

Yes.

 

With guns.

 

Any more stupid arguments you’d like to make ?

 

Fee free to include several smilies if you run out of ideas.

 

people kill people is that too hard for you, its just a choice of weapon be it machete, axe, bomb or gun and many other household objects? its the nutter thats holding any weapon thats the problem try thinking out of the box!

[ukdobby]

people kill people is that too hard for you, its just a choice of weapon be it machete, axe, bomb or gun and many other household objects? its the nutter thats holding any weapon thats the problem try thinking out of the box!

 

You need to draw him pictures.

[nowt2pctoday]

You need to draw him pictures.

 

yes probably comic picture like Marvel?

[Harrystottle]

Report in the Guardian yesterday saying the shooter could have been using a hand crank device to make his semi-auto rifles fire faster. These things are apparently legal, too.

 

There are 300 million guns in the US (I don't know if this includes illegally held ones). The genie is out of the bottle. Any sort of effective gun control would mean confiscation. It's not going to happen.

 

Although Chris Rock's idea of letting people keep their guns but just charge $10,000 per bullet is a thought.

[sgtkate]

whose we?? we have many nonsensical people here also:roll: and they dont have guns? Guns dont kill people, people do, it could have been a home made bomb just as easily, are you going to ban many household materials just in case????

 

I half agree with you here, but the problem is that people with guns can cause considerably more damage than those without.

 

Let's say this shooter had a severe mental breakdown that wasn't foreseen.

 

Now, in one scenario guns are illegal and whilst obviously you can obtain one through black market channels that would require a certain amount of effort and for someone not well versed in criminal activities quite risky with a high chance of being caught. Therefore the odds of that person being able to obtain a weapon at all is low. He therefore grabs the only 'weapon' in his house, a knife and runs outside where he manages to cut one person before being wrestled to the ground.

 

In another scenario, guns are legal and this person already has some in his house. He grabs an automatic rifle and as much ammo as he can carry and runs outside shooting indiscriminately at anyone he sees. He manages to kill 10 people and injure 50 before a neighbour shoots and kills him.

 

Which of these scenarios do you prefer?

[melthebell]

yes probably comic picture like Marvel?

 

The jokers from batman which is DC

[Puggie]

people kill people is that too hard for you, its just a choice of weapon be it machete, axe, bomb or gun and many other household objects? its the nutter thats holding any weapon thats the problem try thinking out of the box!

 

Unless the likes of Britain and the US are willing to open up and discuss their vulnerabilities, the misery of mass shootings, terrorism, and addiction will remain intractable problems for the foreseeable future.

 

In the social sciences we know that correlation does not imply causation. You'll always be expected to identify a third variable. In the scientific community we identified this 3rd variable decades ago. It's called loneliness.

 

Does anyone find that surprising?

[horribleblob]

Some interesting strands in the LA Times.

 

' One neighbor said Paddock kept to himself or went out with a girlfriend. Sometimes he'd see him eating alone at a McDonald's.

 

"He was a real loner," the neighbor said. "If he saw you a few times, he'd finally say hi." '

[tinfoilhat]

We're the sensible people.

 

We could tell a few other countries how to live and theyd rightly tell us to **** off.

 

---------- Post added 03-10-2017 at 12:11 ----------

 

I half agree with you here, but the problem is that people with guns can cause considerably more damage than those without.

 

Let's say this shooter had a severe mental breakdown that wasn't foreseen.

 

Now, in one scenario guns are illegal and whilst obviously you can obtain one through black market channels that would require a certain amount of effort and for someone not well versed in criminal activities quite risky with a high chance of being caught. Therefore the odds of that person being able to obtain a weapon at all is low. He therefore grabs the only 'weapon' in his house, a knife and runs outside where he manages to cut one person before being wrestled to the ground.

 

In another scenario, guns are legal and this person already has some in his house. He grabs an automatic rifle and as much ammo as he can carry and runs outside shooting indiscriminately at anyone he sees. He manages to kill 10 people and injure 50 before a neighbour shoots and kills him.

 

Which of these scenarios do you prefer?

 

But the gun owning lobby will say thats perfect reason to arm themselves - "look a nutter with a gun. I shall shoot him to defend my family" but their logic extendes to anyone with a bat or a knife. Their logic dictates thats its pointless calling the police - the armed nutter is here, now and the police arent and they have to defend themselves (and their family - gun owners never seeem to go out on their own). And they are fearful some of them, genuinly fearful of their government. We just dont have that mindset.

[The Joker]

Well done,haven't looked at them but suppose it passed time on.

 

Glad to help

 

If you’re still having difficulty understanding the difference between a baseball bat and an assault rifle, then I suggest you point this thread out to your husband, who should be able to explain further.