Posted by Guest

Given that it is a working theory that this event was targeted because it was comprised primarily of Christians conservatives, whom likely own guns,

And given that Hillary made clear that a silencer would have been more effective.

And given that a senior legal executive, Hayley Geftman-Gold at CBS viciously lashed-out at the victims of Sunday night’s deadly massacre in Las Vegas, saying she felt ‘no sympathy’ for the fallen because ‘country music fans are often Republican gun toters comments which she posted on social media just hours after this tragedy.

And given that Representative Steven Scalise, severely injured and other Republicans were targeted while at a practice game by a progressive hater of all things conservative.

And since a gentlemen in Denmark was verbal and physical attack and had a drink thrown in his face by a progressive only because he wore a "Make America Great Again....

one can conclude that guns in the hands of progressives makes it more likely that violence will pursue. so now we have another class of individuals that also should be restricted from buying guns.

The rationale and conclusions behind what I just posted is about as ridiculous as the progressive rhetoric about ending gun ownership.

We have witnessed random killings (violence), by knife cars, trucks baseball bats, fists, bombs.

The right question to ask and have answered is not why are these people so violent but more importantly why in their cases does their violence kill people?

A small %, in fact a lower than % of people mentally ill, per capita commit crimes of violence than does the population as a whole nationwide.

What finally caused this seemingly quiet law abiding citizen to turn to such violence? We can agree that the act is one of insanity but it does not necessitate the individual was insane. Timothy Mc Veigh the Oklahoma
bomber perpetuated an insane and violent act but he was not crazy

Finally look around the world and if you look close enough you will see people in many nations who are brutalized because they are unable to defend themselves because they have no weapons (like carrying a knife to a gun fight)

As a nation we need to stop the political rhetoric and deal with the real problem.. and even then we will fail because the cause is often random.

Personal Best Regards:

Posted by Guest

Well, we have had some contributions on misdirecting discussion away from the actual current topic, and we have had a contribution of the current status quo.

Again, there needs to be some intelligent discourse and problem solving here.

This is only and example: Car safety

Years ago, car safety was not a very popular subject. When seat belt laws were introduced, there was negative banter from both citizens and car manufacturers about the "negatives" of seat belts.

Gradually, car manufacturers, prescribed by law, eventually started to design cars with more safety features. Some were successful, some not, but over the past years, car safety has become one of the most popular ways that manufacturers have to "sell" their products.

Gun regulation will take time, but it really must start someplace and there have been technical advances that have been quashed by both manufacturers and gun advocates. Examples are the "smart guns" utilizing the Safe Gun Technology.

Other possible means to keep mentally unstable people from owning, and using firearms could be utilized and enforced.

No, not all things will completely solve the multi-faceted problem we face with gun related violence, but as with advancements in automobile safety, more and more people are surviving. Isn't that something to look at?

Posted by Guest

Why don't we be honest and tell it like it is!! The problem isn't guns... the problem is the people that fire them!! I believe that statistics will show the majority of gun vilolence incidents are perpetrated by men!

Here in The Villages, recently, I can site 3 cases:

1. Murder/Suicide... A man killed his wife and then himself. She was a regular at line dancing, she told her friends she was afraid for her life but she had nowhere to go...

2. A veteran was upset with his treatment at the VA Clinic so he came back with a gun and started shooting! When he finished he said do you believe me now?

3. A married man had designs on the woman next door! She rebuffed him so he put a few rounds thru her front door.

We go ring around the rosy every time this happens!! We regulate most everything why not some types of guns and gun magazines?

COPUFF no longer out west.... release the hounds!!!

Posted by Guest

We regulate many types of guns and magazines. But how would further regulation of guns or magazines have prevented any of the incidents that you cite here?

Posted by Guest

The problem that you're having is that you are being fooled into thinking that legislation will have an effect on what's going on. I'll say it again, LAWS DO NOT PREVENT CRIMES.

This shooter in Las Vegas broke several laws including some gun laws. The guns that he used are basically (though not technically) illegal to own in this country. That did not stop him from acting.

People who want to kill people will find a way to do it. All states have laws against murdering people but people are murdered every day.

Most guns used in gun crimes have been obtained illegally. We already have laws that do not prevent crimes.

Posted by Guest (Post 1456475)

We are living in a time where there is a great deal of violence, much of which is related to guns.

Extreme voices on both the liberal and conservative way of thinking seem to drown out the necessary intelligent discussion about what to do to diminish the chances that more gun violence will take more innocent lives.

There are compelling instances of both law and emotion being screamed at each other currently, and no-one is looking at ways that we, as a nation, can address this situation.

As of today, and not counting the possible deaths of any of the surviving people who were injured in the gun violence of Las Vegas, over 407 people have had their lives ended as a result of gun violence this year alone. That does not include the many other instances in past years, but it does warrant the questioning of our leaders why has nothing been done to address this issue?

Currently a gun law that would permit silencers to become legal is before Congress, and just recently a bill was defeated in Congress relating to having background checks be performed before a purchase of a firearm could commence.

It looks like we cannot have confidence in our elected representatives to actually represent you, and me: their constituents. It looks like a national organization which has, in the past, directed significant funds to political candidates that support unfettered access to any kind of firearm, and made huge economic efforts against any who would even have an intelligent discourse about some sort of limitations.

Political groups will now rise up and blame their counterparts, but we will still have the problem before us. We need to actually start talking WITH each other, find solutions TOGETHER, and stop being so divisive as a nation and intolerant of each other.

Please contact your representatives and ask them to start talking with each other to address this, and many other problems. If they are not responsive, consider using your VOTE to change direction from being polarized and blaming each other to being an instrument of making America better and working together for that end.

Posted by Guest (Post 1456744)

What the band thought. Caleb Keeter, the group’s lead guitarist, spoke up: “l’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued:
We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.
Enough is enough.

Posted by Guest

What the band thought. Caleb Keeter, the group’s lead guitarist, spoke up: “l’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,” Keeter wrote. “They were useless.” He continued:
We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.
Enough is enough.

Posted by Guest (Post 1456741)

Why then is the USA the "murder by gun" capital of the universe? Other countries don't have this problem. Of course, other countries don't have a Congress which has their balls in the moneyclip of the NRA.

Posted by Guest (Post 1456759)

Well said.

Posted by Guest (Post 1456764)

Article:Largest study to date finds powerful evidence that gun control actually works - ScienceAlert


Actual Study-

https://watermark.silverchair.com/ap...tGFQZYfhVRyX3U

Posted by Guest (Post 1456804)

Posted by Guest

They do background checks already...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Posted by Guest

. First, in the neighboring State of Indiana, there are very lenient gun laws that, because of its close proximity to Chicago, happen to supply the majority of guns that have been identified by police as used in crime.

Posted by Guest

But bringing guns into Chicago from Indiana would be against the law wouldn't it? Why doesn't the law work? Why do criminals bring in the guns if they know it's against the law?.........because criminals don't obey laws.

Posted by Guest (Post 1456827)

Known as the "gun show loophole," most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals -- federal law only requires licensed dealers to conduct checks. ... Some states' requirements are limited only to handgun purchases.

Posted by Guest

I agree. If laws were obeyed our prisons would be empty.

Posted by Guest

Too bad, you both don't realize that by tightening the gun laws in states like Indiana and Wisconsin, fewer guns would be available to be transported to Illinois for illegal use.....

Posted by Guest

wjboyer1

Too bad, you both don't realize that by tightening the gun laws in states like Indiana and Wisconsin, fewer guns would be available to be transported to Illinois for illegal use.....

Posted by Guest

Well............no.

It is already a federal violation for someone to purchase and take delivery of a handgun in a state when they are not a resident of that state.

What Indiana or Wisconsin law would you "tighten" to prevent an activity that is already a federal crime?

Please be specific.

.

Posted by Guest

Too bad that you don't realize that it is ALREADY illegal to purchase a firearm in a state in which you are not a resident, and it is also illegal to sell a firearm to a known or suspected felon. What new laws do you purpose?

Posted by Guest

wjboyer1

Firearm Acquisition Without Background Checks: Results of a National Survey. - PubMed - NCBI

Posted by Guest

This study has no relationship to the discussion. This study is about transactions between individuals who live in the same state.

It is a federal violation for individual sales where one person is a resident of a state other than where the transaction occurs.

The only way such transactions can occur is by using a "middleman" in both states who has a Federal Firearms License. The FFL holder must do a background check.

Again, what state law would you "tighten" to control an activity that is already a violation of federal law?

Carl in Tampa

.

Posted by Guest

How Gun Traffickers Get Around State Gun Laws - The New York Times

Trace the Guns

Posted by Guest

Thank you for making my earlier point...criminals DO NOT obey laws, they either find a way to work around them or, if that's not possible, just disregard them.

However, I completely understand your mindset. Liberals can NEVER have too many laws or too many taxes.

Posted by Guest

Closing loopholes in present laws can make a difference. It looks like your focus is not on making things better, but keeping the same laws and keeping the same level of gun violence.

Posted by Guest

What 'loophole' is responsible for the mass murder that happened in Las Vegas, and how would you purpose that it be closed?

Posted by Guest

Evidently you only focus on the most recent event. This subject is a discussion of ALL gun violence and how we can improve our current laws and jurisdictions to prevent as many incidents of gun violence possible. This tragedy is just a terrible example of the availability of many types of firearms as well as "bump" technology that can modify weapons to increase the rapidity of gunfire. We all need to examine these weapons and technologies and make efforts to limit/control their availability.

Posted by Guest

The liberal way of thinking is that if we can just pass enough laws and spend enough money, we can solve any problem.

The problem is cultural, many in our society no longer value human life.

Posted by Guest

You seem to think the problem is a "liberal" vs "conservative" issue.

I look at it as a life or death issue.

Which side are you on? Life? or death? Looks like you are part of the society that no longer values human life.

Posted by Guest

Why then is the USA the "murder by gun" capital of the universe? Other countries don't have this problem. Of course, other countries don't have a Congress which has their balls in the moneyclip of the NRA.

Posted by Guest

Want charts and graphs to show the problem?

America’s unique gun violence problem, explained in 17 maps and charts - Vox

Posted by Guest

But bringing guns into Chicago from Indiana would be against the law wouldn't it? Why doesn't the law work? Why do criminals bring in the guns if they know it's against the law?.........because criminals don't obey laws.

Posted by Guest

Too bad, you both don't realize that by tightening the gun laws in states like Indiana and Wisconsin, fewer guns would be available to be transported to Illinois for illegal use.....

Posted by Guest

Evidently you only focus on the most recent event. This subject is a discussion of ALL gun violence and how we can improve our current laws and jurisdictions to prevent as many incidents of gun violence possible. This tragedy is just a terrible example of the availability of many types of firearms as well as "bump" technology that can modify weapons to increase the rapidity of gunfire. We all need to examine these weapons and technologies and make efforts to limit/control their availability.

Posted by Guest

The liberal way of thinking is that if we can just pass enough laws and spend enough money, we can solve any problem.

The problem is cultural, many in our society no longer value human life.

Posted by Guest

Possibly. And, it looks like you are the part of society that goes through life with their head up their ass and thinks more regulation, more laws and more spending is the answer to EVERYTHING...how naive you are.

Why not just call for the banning of all firearms and call it a day?

Posted by Guest

Possibly. And, it looks like you are the part of society that goes through life with their head up their ass and thinks more regulation, more laws and more spending is the answer to EVERYTHING...how naive you are.

Why not just call for the banning of all firearms and call it a day?

Posted by Guest

hmmmm......firearms are not limited to handguns

Other posts have suggested tightening or closing the loophole allowing sales of firearms without background checks at gun shows, private sales....try reading each post and don't jump all over the one thing that you happen to disagree with. Keep the laws as they are: we will have more and more gun related deaths. Change the laws to make them more effective, fewer gun deaths. It looks obvious which alternative you want.....