Vegas massacre put in perspective

A massacre is one event. Violence in big cities, like Chicago, Miami, LA, Dallas, Houston, New York etc. are MULTIPLE events. That difference matters.

 

Nobody would ever try to ban cars either. You know that.

You still haven't said what threat was posed to Paddock which would explain why he needed 40+ guns.

 

Drunk driving laws don't stop some people from killing other people. Let's just do away with drunk driving laws and let everyone drive drunk.

 

So we should have no laws against murder then? If this is the case, why have the death penalty? If laws stop nothing then therefore fear of their punishment stops nothing so therefore stop all laws and punishment? And we become a nation of...what exactly?

Also, as I recall, Congress WASN'T in the hands of "your" party not that long ago, so please stop with the tired and false idea that somehow democrats or people who support reasonable gun legislation can't win elections. They do, they are, and at this point they are poised to make some gains in 2018 and 2020 both nationally and locally.

 

Mass shootings and gun violence is about how you use a gun not about simply owning a gun. If you want to make gun violence illegal that's fine, oh whoops, it already is. But don't make gun ownership a crime.

 

It's against the law to drive drunk and it's against the law to shoot people. Nobody wants either law repealed.

 

I'm not making gun ownership a crime. And you make a great point. Gun owners are law abiding...until they aren't. Just like people who own cars. I can do things to maximize the punishment for those who commit gun crimes. I can also do things to minimize the risk of guns winding up in the wrong people's hands. Is it fool proof? Of course not. But the best part is that NONE of it requires me to criminalize owning a gun! It only requires a handful of SANE and reasonable measures that most gun owners already support.

And note that the discussion was about the safety of guns. You claimed they were less dangerous than cars. I showed they are not. In fact, statistically guns are very dangerous items.

 

YOU PEOPLE are idiots if you think gun laws stop people from killing anyone. Ban hammers, knives, and motor vehicles until you destroy EVERYTHING, But people with guns are the ones that stop them every time.

When you and your party messes with gun control as an election issue, you will continue losing elections. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Steve

 

What was the threat to Paddock?

 

Except this time in Vegas. I mean technically true, the guy killed himself. So did the Columbine killers. Did you know they exchanged gun fire with a cop BEFORE they went on to kill the majority of the kids in the school? In fact, most mass killings end with the killer choosing the end their own lives, not a fantasy video game hero with a gun. Sorry. So technically what you said is true, but not how you meant it and thus you make an unconvincing argument.

You people? What people am I? Also, it's proven that countries with stricter gun control laws have fewer gun deaths. Hammers, knives, and cars have purposes other than killing and are MUCH less dangerous to American society than guns are. Guns are designed to kill and do so very well in American society. Thus, they are a much bigger threat that as a society, we should do our best to minimize and we haven't done our best at all. You are an idiot for thinking guns are safe. They aren't. They don't keep people alive. In order to do what you say they do, they have to KILL someone. That's their puprose. To let fat, out of shape guys kill easier than if they had to use a bow and arrow or a knife. That's why we invented them. We could arm morons with them and lay waste on the battlefield compared to the greater skill required to kill the same number of people with non-firearms. Duh.

I'm not ashamed of myself. Why would I be? I'm right and your wrong based on the facts. It's YOU who should be "ashamed," if that's even right thing to say. You are the one pushing lies at the expense of people's lives. I'm arguing to save them by putting into place simple laws that minimize the risk guns pose to society within the confines of the constitution. And given that my party has messed with gun control many times before and WON elections, you are still dealing with lies and fantasy.

 

You and your party should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to win elections USING a massacre to get votes, when it is obvious that gun laws only take guns away from people DEFENDING themselves. That's what's idiotic about your losing agenda.

Steve

 

Non sequitur, sawyer. Try again.

 

Just like when Trump claimed massacres by Islamist extremists could ONLY be stopped if he was elected? How is that not the same thing? I'm sorry, both parties hands are dirty. Like Lynard Skynard said, watergate doesn't bother me, does your conscious bother you? I don't care about methods as much as I care about results. If you think the methods matter, then it will be you that loses.

No, it's not obvious than gun laws take away anything from people who defend themselves. Tell me, how do ensuring people on the nofly list, people deemed too dangerous to fly, don't own guns? Does that take away any legal, law abiding citizen's ability to defend themselves? How does ensuring people with a documented history of mental illness not own guns take away your right to defend yourself? Do you think someone who has a problem discerning reality from fantasy because of mental illness should have the ability to kill someone so readily?

That's my two biggies. Other than that, I would be good with gun owners having to have liability insurance to cover the potential damage their guns may do in non-self defense scenarios. But that I'm only luke warm on.

Sorry if that offends you, but I won't feel ashamed no matter how much bold text you use.

 

Then why ban guns? You still haven't said when I said Paddock needed 40 plus guns.

 

Discussion is about outlawing guns because a few nuts go on shooting sprees. That's like outlawing cars because lots of people drive drunk. Far more people die from drunk drivers than from nuts with guns.

 

If it were a possibility, one would outlaw guns before cars as I noted above. Namely, guns are more dangerous because with them in the hands of fewer Americans and with them being used with far less frequency, they manage to kill almost as many people as cars do with greater use and being spread across a more diverse group of Americans. Cars have a main purpose other than killing. Guns do not. If one were to make a case for banning cars versus guns, the stats and logic back banning guns. But of course, no one is going to ban either so to talk about such things is useless hyperbole. It's political hyperbole used by the NRA and others to get votes, nothing more.

 

You agree Paddock didn't his guns for any reason then.

We need busses. We need cars. Paddock didn't need his guns. So there is no correlation between drivers and guns.

 

We need cars. Paddock didn't need his guns. He wanted his guns. You can't seem to draw the distinction between something we need, and something we want.

Lots of people want to drive drunk, because they want to go out and drink and don't care if they have to drive somewhere. But we don't let them do it, just because they "want" to:.

 

What was Stephen Paddock defending himself against last Sunday night in Las Vegas?

 

Paddock KNEW he was doomed soon because 'people with guns' were about to end his life soon.

Steve

 

The people at the concert were not posing any threat to him. Nobody was going to take Paddock's life. He had no need for 40+ guns on that night. Those people died because he was a madman.

 

so people who go to outdoor concerts should expect for this to happen, in one day slaughter and mamed

more gun goon "logik"

 

You and your party should be ashamed of yourselves for trying to win elections USING a massacre to get votes, when it is obvious that gun laws only take guns away from people DEFENDING themselves. That's what's idiotic about your losing agenda.

Steve

 

It's undeniable that cars kill and maim at a far higher rate than guns do and that's the bottom line here. You may not find guns to be a necessity and that's fine, feel free not to own one. Many of us do however feel they are a necessity and resent you putting your opinion on us and using some nut job that kills 59 people as an excuse to take our guns. Believe it or not there are environmentalist that want to take your car because it pollutes and kills and they say move closer to your job and then you don't need a car, you can walk or bike and in truth they are correct. A car is a necessity to you because of the lifestyle you choose but it is not a true necessity.

 

You don't need your car. You choose to live a lifestyle that necessitates a car so in essence you choose to drive a car. You could move out of the burbs and into the city where your husband works. He could walk to work and you could take the train to Grandma's house on Thanksgiving.