The few concerts I have attended only searched bags.

I never carry a gun around, although I have seriously considered it, but it's another one of those things you have to get permission to do, and if I have to go through any government bullshit... I'll just pass. I hate red tape, and I hate someone telling me what to do, so it's best for me to avoid it.

I felt the same way about going through the hassle. But I decided it would be worth it in the end. In NY, depending on what county you reside in, it can be an absolute nightmare. Took me about 2 months to get my pistol permit, a former coworker who lived in the next county over took 13 months. And God help you if live in NYC, you better be a rich Democrat with some high political connections to even be considered for a permit.

 

Acquiring a pistol permit in Nevada should be a less stressful experience.

 

So wait, that search wouldn't be an infraction on your hallowed 2nd amendment? Even going further and denying entry when in possession of a weapon isn't an infraction?

Don't confuse the 4th Amendment with the 2nd.

 

The 4th prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. The cops can't break your door down and go through your stuff without a warrant.

 

A business can refuse to allow things inside the establishment... like a theatre can prevent you from bringing in a Coke, or video recording the movie. I remember when I had to sneak in a camera into concerts, and just try to go into a night club with your own bottle of Jack Daniels. Some Starbucks won't allow anyone in with a gun... I worry about the guy that brings in the gun and doesn't care what their stupid sign says.

 

I live in Las Vegas, and it's very gun friendly here, but I hear horror stories about cities like Washington DC, where it's illegal to have a gun in your home? I mean seriously... that's clearly unconstitutional.

 

 

Well different parts of nation can have different rule-sets, and as far as I know such provisions (if they are even real and not some NRA scaremongering) haven't been trown at SCOTUS yet, so I might just call that bullcrap...

 

Again, it is your 2nd that makes you believe a weapon is your complete and utter right to have, why should a private enterprise be allowed to infringe on this? The 2nd is only good for the state? The entire thing is only for the state? Guess stealing is allowed then.

 

 

it is your 2nd that makes you believe a weapon is your complete and utter right to have, why should a private enterprise be allowed to infringe on this?

The private enterprise does not interfere with your complete and utter right to have... they just say you're not bringing it into my private enterprise. Your constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not cancel, trump, or override, the rights of the private enterprise to prohibit them from being brought into their private establishment. It's as simple as "If you want to come in here... you're not bringing that with you"... same thing with all the stuff they will take away from you before you get on a plane.

Excellent, if you are ever wish to enter my house you need to waive your right to a fair trial.

The 800 pound gorilla in the room, and the one thing that everyone outside the media bubble wants to know, is why did he do this?

 

The "bump stock" controversy is just another path at attempting to ban semi-automatic weapons. The bump stock does not alter the way the gun operates. It changes how the trigger is pulled by mechanically reversing the action required for firing. Instead of you physically having to pull the trigger to fire the gun for each shot, the recoil of a bullet firing bumps a spring to force the trigger to push into your finger, allowing the gun to fire repeatedly as fast as possible. In essence, it's not a modification to the weapon... it's a modification to how a human being pulls the trigger. It's not anything that can be banned in manufacturing.

 

It's not feasible that anyone can be born in the USA, live 64 years, be a mail carrier, work for the IRS for several years, become enormously wealthy as a real estate mogul, professional gambler, travel the world, and no one know who you are or what you believe in. The last thing I read was some moron wants us to believe he had an "undiagnosed mental illness"... which means nothing. It's right up there with "we think he was a closet gay" or "our running assumption is his target was not people... he had an uncontrollable fear and hatred for cowboy hats... he just couldn't take it when he looked out his window".

 

I want a real explanation why he killed so many people, and it appears there is a vested interest in keeping this guy, and his life, a secret. Where are all the people he has known all his life? Has anyone even checked to see his voter registration? I want to know.

If every black man in America bought and registered a gun tomorrow, Congress would enact strict gun control laws on Friday.

 

 

So wait, that search wouldn't be an infraction on your hallowed 2nd amendment?

 

 

Private event.  2nd amendment applies to the Government, people and companies have the rights to state what can or cannot be brought in (similar to 1st amendment, Government can't tell you to stop something, but your work sure can tell you no politics in the office).

 

 

 

nd any time neither "good guy" or "bad guy" was present all together?

 

You mean, most day to day interactions? Where nobody does anything violent, and everybody just goes along?  

 

Unfortunately, shit like this happens... 

 

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/to-have-it-and-need-it/article_b9f0b293-a135-527d-a554-93a77bb9745d.html

 

Or, these home invasions, stopped by a "good guy with a gun":

 

http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/redford-twp-homeowner-shoots-intruder-in-hand

 

http://www.wfaa.com/news/carrollton-resident-shoots-early-morning-home-intruder/480792528

 

http://www.timesnews.net/Law-Enforcement/2017/10/03/Don-t-Shoot-Hawkins-burglary-suspect-held-at-gunpoint-by-homeowner.html?ci=stream&lp=1&p=1

 

 

 

 

 

where it's illegal to have a gun in your home?

 

Not any more.  DC vs Heller decision struck that ban down. 

If every black man in America bought and registered a gun tomorrow, Congress would enact strict gun control laws on Friday.

Good morning Shah! Have you had your coffee yet today? This is a stupid, and very racist thing to say. Let's see if I can come up with something comparably stupid.

 

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA, and I have no idea how many are owned by black men. How do you know they don't already have them? How about black women? Do they count too? Are the key words "bought and registered"? Does "stolen and unregistered" count?

 

Half of Congress believes black people are too stupid to show an identification to vote... and I'll give you a clue... it's not the Republicans. I personally know many blacks who own guns, and they are not wanting to kill white people. I personally know many white people who own guns, and they are not afraid of black people owning guns. Your post was racist and not grounded in fact.

 

 

If every black man in America bought and registered a gun tomorrow, Congress would enact strict gun control laws on Friday.

 

 

Good morning Shah! Have you had your coffee yet today? This is a stupid, and very racist thing to say. Let's see if I can come up with something comparably stupid.

 

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA, and I have no idea how many are owned by black men. How do you know they don't already have them? How about black women? Do they count too? Are the key words "bought and registered"? Does "stolen and unregistered" count?

 

Half of Congress believes black people are too stupid to show an identification to vote... and I'll give you a clue... it's not the Republicans. I personally know many blacks who own guns, and they are not wanting to kill white people. I personally know many white people who own guns, and they are not afraid of black people owning guns. Your post was racist and not grounded in fact.

 

If every black man in America bought and registered a gun tomorrow, Congress would enact strict gun control laws on Friday.

Good morning Shah! Have you had your coffee yet today? This is a stupid, and very racist thing to say. Let's see if I can come up with something comparably stupid.

 

There are hundreds of millions of guns in the USA, and I have no idea how many are owned by black men. How do you know they don't already have them? How about black women? Do they count too? Are the key words "bought and registered"? Does "stolen and unregistered" count?

 

Half of Congress believes black people are too stupid to show an identification to vote... and I'll give you a clue... it's not the Republicans. I personally know many blacks who own guns, and they are not wanting to kill white people. I personally know many white people who own guns, and they are not afraid of black people owning guns. Your post was racist and not grounded in fact.

 

 

I heard a guy from Australia US this morning talking about their gun control. He said the reaction of authorities of x person carrying a gun and y person carrying exactly the same gun are very very different. The difference between X and Y being the color of the skin, then they showed a whole lot of bunch of videos of that social experiment. I'm sure you'll be able to google them. The videos didn't look fake or staged, so obviously, the problem of racism appears to lie in law enforcement. TMy post isnt implicating black people, but implying that there's a prejudice against them amongst the current establishment and it flows top to bottom from the President himself. While you're more educated man, but a detailed look at The_donald reddit or breitbart or any of the right wing side's comment section will give a good peek inside a significant chunk of Trump base which is racist & anti-semitic. 

The 800 pound gorilla in the room, and the one thing that everyone outside the media bubble wants to know, is why did he do this?

.

I just hope the answer will give everyone involved some satisfaction/closure. Sadly not every answer given for such massive events are that clear cut.

. 

The "bump stock" controversy is just another path at attempting to ban semi-automatic weapons.

.

Well it kinda makes it into a full-automatic (which is mostly banned no? Funny that!). Modifying any commodity outside its approved/allowed parameters (should) gets you into problem. I don't think you'd allow people putting up barb wire for normal garden fencing or do you?

. 

It's not feasible that anyone can be born in the USA, live 64 years, be a mail carrier, work for the IRS for several years, become enormously wealthy as a real estate mogul, professional gambler, travel the world, and no one know who you are or what you believe in. The last thing I read was some moron wants us to believe he had an "undiagnosed mental illness"... which means nothing. It's right up there with "we think he was a closet gay" or "our running assumption is his target was not people... he had an uncontrollable fear and hatred for cowboy hats... he just couldn't take it when he looked out his window".

.

More surprised the amount of "let us explain this fellow" is so low, unless offcourse we in europe don't hear every crackpot psychologist being drummed on stage on every newsoutlet in the US...

. 

I want a real explanation why he killed so many people, and it appears there is a vested interest in keeping this guy, and his life, a secret. Where are all the people he has known all his life? Has anyone even checked to see his voter registration? I want to know.

Apart from keeping the investigation rolling smoothly (with some necessary hush-hush), I too am surprised that hasn't come up yet, perhaps he just isn't registered.

 

 

So wait, that search wouldn't be an infraction on your hallowed 2nd amendment?

Private event.  2nd amendment applies to the Government, people and companies have the rights to state what can or cannot be brought in (similar to 1st amendment, Government can't tell you to stop something, but your work sure can tell you no politics in the office).

 

shhhh, I am trying to be obtuse. Trying to show black&white doesn't work even in law.

 

 

 

@Shah: rascism but also good old profiling and stereotyping. Can't really completely block that out.

 

The 800 pound gorilla in the room, and the one thing that everyone outside the media bubble wants to know, is why did he do this?

.

I just hope the answer will give everyone involved some satisfaction/closure. Sadly not every answer given for such massive events are that clear cut.

. 

The "bump stock" controversy is just another path at attempting to ban semi-automatic weapons.

.

Well it kinda makes it into a full-automatic (which is mostly banned no? Funny that!). Modifying any commodity outside its approved/allowed parameters (should) gets you into problem. I don't think you'd allow people putting up barb wire for normal garden fencing or do you?

. 

It's not feasible that anyone can be born in the USA, live 64 years, be a mail carrier, work for the IRS for several years, become enormously wealthy as a real estate mogul, professional gambler, travel the world, and no one know who you are or what you believe in. The last thing I read was some moron wants us to believe he had an "undiagnosed mental illness"... which means nothing. It's right up there with "we think he was a closet gay" or "our running assumption is his target was not people... he had an uncontrollable fear and hatred for cowboy hats... he just couldn't take it when he looked out his window".

.

More surprised the amount of "let us explain this fellow" is so low, unless offcourse we in europe don't hear every crackpot psychologist being drummed on stage on every newsoutlet in the US...

. 

I want a real explanation why he killed so many people, and it appears there is a vested interest in keeping this guy, and his life, a secret. Where are all the people he has known all his life? Has anyone even checked to see his voter registration? I want to know.

Apart from keeping the investigation rolling smoothly (with some necessary hush-hush), I too am surprised that hasn't come up yet, perhaps he just isn't registered.

 

 

So wait, that search wouldn't be an infraction on your hallowed 2nd amendment?

Private event.  2nd amendment applies to the Government, people and companies have the rights to state what can or cannot be brought in (similar to 1st amendment, Government can't tell you to stop something, but your work sure can tell you no politics in the office).

 

shhhh, I am trying to be obtuse. Trying to show black&white doesn't work even in law.

 

 

 

@Shah: rascism but also good old profiling and stereotyping. Can't really completely block that out.

 

 

and maybe and maybe, this mass murderer got overlooked due to the good old profiling and stereotyping. If I was in Vegas, in a good hotel and spend some decent amount of time carrying heavy bags, back and forth etc, you can bet your ass some snowflake somewhere will feel insecure, complain and I'll have a knock on the door, which, I dont mind since I'd have nothing to hide. I'm just saying, the good old profiling perhaps numbed down the cautious senses in this case.

So you're saying the shooting would have been averted, and the dude would have been caught and arrested, if he was black.

 

Wow, this is how the 21st century brain works. Even when the shooter is white, and the victims are white, it's still because we're racists. Just like climate change, any natural disaster... earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, endangered animals, wildfires, mudslides, even terrorism... it's all happening because Trump pulled out of the Paris Accords. Everything happens because we're a bunch of climate change denying racists. That's rich.

 

Now to the new development... Surprise! They have been lying to us. Why would they do that?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html

 

They knew where the shooter was before he started shooting out the windows, and they don't know why he stopped shooting when he did. He didn't check into the Mandalay Bay on the 28th... he checked in on the 25th. They said he had planned to escape... how could he have possibly escaped when he screwed the door shut? They seem to be more interested in covering their own asses and patting themselves on the back, than the truth. I wonder what else they are lying about? I want to know why he did it. Even if he just wanted to set a new record in killing... I want to know the truth.

Lysistrata, on 08 Oct 2017 - 15:22, said: The "bump stock" controversy is just another path at attempting to ban semi-automatic weapons. . Well it kinda makes it into a full-automatic (which is mostly banned no? Funny that!). Modifying any commodity outside its approved/allowed parameters (should) gets you into problem. I don't think you'd allow people putting up barb wire for normal garden fencing or do you?

 

 

Edit to add this response (had quoted it, and missed that I hadn't typed anything).  The ATF in 2010 (under Obama) doesn't agree with your determination.  It is currently a legal modification to a semi-auto rifle, because it doesn't change the fact that the rifle shoots one bullet for every pull of the trigger.  Just allows you to pull the trigger much faster than normal.  Even if Congress creates legislation to make bump stocks illegal, there are other methods to do the same thing, one that involves shoe string.

 

 

More surprised the amount of "let us explain this fellow" is so low, unless offcourse we in europe don't hear every crackpot psychologist being drummed on stage on every newsoutlet in the US...

 

 

You are completely missing the crackpot "it was a false flag attack", "it was the US military testing a new weapons platform, drones with small arms" BS.  Consider yourself lucky.

 

 

 

and maybe and maybe, this mass murderer got overlooked due to the good old profiling and stereotyping. If I was in Vegas, in a good hotel and spend some decent amount of time carrying heavy bags, back and forth etc,

 

 

This guy was a high roller.  My understanding is, if the casino knew who he was, and how much he gambled, they were extremely nice and helpful to him.  Heavy bags? Who cares, help the man to his room.  Large number of heavy bags? Even better, he's probably staying for a while.  Don't want to piss off a well paying customer.

 

 

Even if Congress creates legislation to make bump stocks illegal, there are other methods to do the same thing, one that involves shoe string.

How about a spring loaded shoulder pad? Try banning something that isn't even attached to the rifle.

 

Even if Congress creates legislation to make bump stocks illegal, there are other methods to do the same thing, one that involves shoe string.

How about a spring loaded shoulder pad? Try banning something that isn't even attached to the rifle.

 

 

Exactly the point I was attempting to make.  

 

The other thing that I usually say to people after something like this happens, we need to focus on the person, and why they did it, rather than on the tool they used.  Got into this with my wife last night, she was trying to get me to agree that banning AR style rifles was necessary.  I told her that if someone is sufficiently motivated, there are other ways to create just as many deaths, if not more.  The two I reminded her of were Nice, France (80+ dead, 450+ wounded), and the Oklahoma City bombing (168 dead, 680 injured).

 

The same tool that was used to murder multiple people in Las Vegas, has also been used by people to defend their homes (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541)

 

I'm an engineer, so I typically look at pros vs cons using statistics, but I try to get a complete picture, because I know how easy it is to lie using statistics.  The one I usually hear is how the number of deaths caused by people with guns go down after guns get confiscated. OK, maybe (I don't buy it, because criminals that commit the crimes won't turn their guns in, but have never researched it to see the numbers behind the stats), but what happens to violent crime in general, and murder in general? Not just those acts committed by people using guns.  What I usually hear is that those numbers go up.

 

Let me twist one a little, and see if I can make my point a little better.  Cities that have more hospitals have more deaths occur in hospitals, so we should ban hospitals, right? Obviously, the answer is no.  Just trying to point out that statistics can be used to lie and deceive, based on someone's agenda.

 

@Shah: rascism but also good old profiling and stereotyping. Can't really completely block that out.

and maybe and maybe, this mass murderer got overlooked due to the good old profiling and stereotyping. If I was in Vegas, in a good hotel and spend some decent amount of time carrying heavy bags, back and forth etc, you can bet your ass some snowflake somewhere will feel insecure, complain and I'll have a knock on the door, which, I dont mind since I'd have nothing to hide. I'm just saying, the good old profiling perhaps numbed down the cautious senses in this case.

 

 .

Guess that all depends on the training received by those who's job it is to look out for this. You can't really blame the random person in the street for not making the connection nor is it all that simple to likewise blame every security person the shooter might have encountered while this was being planned/executed.

. 

Now to the new development... Surprise! They have been lying to us. Why would they do that?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html

 

They knew where the shooter was before he started shooting out the windows, and they don't know why he stopped shooting when he did. He didn't check into the Mandalay Bay on the 28th... he checked in on the 25th. They said he had planned to escape... how could he have possibly escaped when he screwed the door shut? They seem to be more interested in covering their own asses and patting themselves on the back, than the truth. I wonder what else they are lying about? I want to know why he did it. Even if he just wanted to set a new record in killing... I want to know the truth.

 .

 Well the first timeline I heared had him shooting for 50 min (a Murphy law in idiocy if that was true) so offcourse a new timetable was required. Now it looks at maybe 10min of actual shooting at the crowd (also with potentional shooting of a airports kerosene stock and shooting at his hotel's hallway.

 

Let the police do their thing and don't immedeatly assume the worst (thou some "cover our own asses" will happen regardless) if the trickle of info (be happy you get stuff) changes the timeline of previous establisched "facts".

.

 

Lysistrata, on 08 Oct 2017 - 15:22, said: The "bump stock" controversy is just another path at attempting to ban semi-automatic weapons. . Well it kinda makes it into a full-automatic (which is mostly banned no? Funny that!). Modifying any commodity outside its approved/allowed parameters (should) gets you into problem. I don't think you'd allow people putting up barb wire for normal garden fencing or do you?

Edit to add this response (had quoted it, and missed that I hadn't typed anything).  The ATF in 2010 (under Obama) doesn't agree with your determination.  It is currently a legal modification to a semi-auto rifle, because it doesn't change the fact that the rifle shoots one bullet for every pull of the trigger.  Just allows you to pull the trigger much faster than normal.  Even if Congress creates legislation to make bump stocks illegal, there are other methods to do the same thing, one that involves shoe string.

 

.

I merely pointed out a possible mode of actions against said firing aids, I advocate reform and compromise above radical change anyway. And the idea that you can't control all illegal modifications (ignoring this one) means you shouldn't try to restrict the ones you can take away is a foolish notion to start with. Guess we should start selling switchblades again!

.

 

More surprised the amount of "let us explain this fellow" is so low, unless offcourse we in europe don't hear every crackpot psychologist being drummed on stage on every newsoutlet in the US...

You are completely missing the crackpot "it was a false flag attack", "it was the US military testing a new weapons platform, drones with small arms" BS.  Consider yourself lucky.

 

 .

Well apart from the obvious bullcrap offcourse, those are rather sad cause people follow them...

.

 

I'm an engineer, so I typically look at pros vs cons using statistics, but I try to get a complete picture, because I know how easy it is to lie using statistics.  The one I usually hear is how the number of deaths caused by people with guns go down after guns get confiscated. OK, maybe (I don't buy it, because criminals that commit the crimes won't turn their guns in, but have never researched it to see the numbers behind the stats), but what happens to violent crime in general, and murder in general? Not just those acts committed by people using guns.  What I usually hear is that those numbers go up.

.

The whole idea that gun regulation is meant to stamp out any guncrime is a notion toted by the very people trying to prevent it.

 

The idea of gun regulation is to DIMINISH the amount of gun related crimes, with most notable differences being made to non-premeditated crimes or crimes of opportunity.

 

Yes people are still being shot in Belgium. Yes this also happens in domestic disturbances were people have gun licenses (hey look, we have guns!). The idea, and actual affect, is to diminish the overall numbers of said guncrimes. Which we clearly do viewing from any numbers of statistics between EU and USA can tell you.

 

As for any "rise in numbers" on the non-gun related crimes, I do notice that those happen in a percentage statistical model. Ooo geez, why would that be...

. 

Let me twist one a little, and see if I can make my point a little better.  Cities that have more hospitals have more deaths occur in hospitals, so we should ban hospitals, right? Obviously, the answer is no.  Just trying to point out that statistics can be used to lie and deceive, based on someone's agenda.

.

And for those statistics you both employ correlating (aka it is easy to have more death certificates when there are more people available to receive them) together with using the correct statistical tools (here one should go for #deaths/hospital/population for instance).

 

It all depends on how carefull you look at the numbers generated and find the correct statistical tool to get to a founded answer for your questions. Numbers can (and will be) twisted to work for people's agenda, it is with this in mind that people themselfes should be mindfull of what exactly is said with a statistic and if they can belief in the bringer of said statistic.

The whole idea that gun regulation is meant to stamp out any guncrime is a notion toted by the very people trying to prevent it.   The idea of gun regulation is to DIMINISH the amount of gun related crimes, with most notable differences being made to non-premeditated crimes or crimes of opportunity.

 

 

 

Every Town for Gun Safety has on their website the tag line "The Movement to End Gun Violence".

 

It's in the name "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence".

 

Slate article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/07/everytown_for_gun_safety_michael_bloomberg_s_anti_gun_group_is_taking_on.html

 

 

Like other gun reform groups, Everytown has also made a point of describing its mission as “gun violence prevention,” not gun control, a term that has come to be seen as politically radioactive.

 

Now, granted the last one is more specific to talking about how the groups don't want to be termed gun control groups, but they do talk about preventing gun violence.  To me, if you're preventing something from happening, you're stopping all instances.

 

 

As for any "rise in numbers" on the non-gun related crimes, I do notice that those happen in a percentage statistical model. Ooo geez, why would that be...

 

OK, I'm going to admit to being stupid right now.  I actually went out, searched for graphs that showed what I was looking at, then saw you said you do notice, not do not notice (how I originally read it).  Are you agreeing with me, and I'm too dense to figure it out right now? 

 

Damn it, I need more caffeine before trying to argue with Betsy.

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DJ-KA2WhhLo/UNZr8agpVqI/AAAAAAAAFH4/f6rrTVN7q6I/s1600/Screen+Shot+2012-12-22+at++Saturday,+December+22,+9.26+PM.png

Now you attacking slogans? Care to do the same with the "they will take all our guns" ones? >_> You have shown you understand the difference between slogans and policy, dunno what we are even disagreeing about to be fair . I also already stated we still have guns in Belgium being legally owned, only the nutcases on either side want an all-or-nothing deal.

 

As for your graph, it shows total homicide rate in the UK, independant of gun-related homicide. This has been on the rise for nearly every country (unrelated to gun ownership)., What I believe a more strict gun ownership decreases is the crimes of oppertunity and accidents. As you rightly put forth you can't stop a well planned out crime with just legislation, for that you need the men and women in blue. And while as a side-effect the amount of homicides may decrease aswell, the main goal of just a gun ownership rethinking should be accidentental and oppertunity gun deaths.

 

A more restricted gun ownership doesn't automatically lower gun homicides as "the people" already having such plans and guns won't be targetted. Neither would they be stopped by handing everyone a gun (and proper training), in the long run it would mean an increase in gun related deaths. You still have to kill someone, either the target or the attacker, statistical thus you will find an increase when both and/or bystanders are additional affected.

 

Some quickly googled graphs, interpret them at your own accord: (1), (2), (3)

 

 

No need for more caffeine, definatly not before going to sleep

 

 

As for your graph, it shows total homicide rate in the UK, independant of gun-related homicide.

 

 

I had three more, that I deleted after reading your statement the second time.  Thought I had gotten that one as well.

 

By the way, I notice your second graph you linked didn't include Mexico or Russia.  Another wonderful way to skew results (just remove the ones that don't conform to what the presenter is trying to show).

 

 

 

What I believe a more strict gun ownership decreases is the crimes of oppertunity and accidents.

\

 

I'll say maybe to this one.

 

 

 

As you rightly put forth you can't stop a well planned out crime with just legislation, for that you need the men and women in blue.

 

In my opinion, it takes more than just police.  Police can't be everywhere.  Add to that, in the US at least, the government in general, and the police in particular, are under no responsibility to protect us as individuals (1), (2), (3)  Just a heads up, number 3 is a disturbing case.

 

So, based on that, I'm responsible for the safety and security of myself and my family.  Because of that, I want the most effective means available to me, and that is currently a gun.  

 

 

 

A more restricted gun ownership doesn't automatically lower gun homicides as "the people" already having such plans and guns won't be targetted. Neither would they be stopped by handing everyone a gun (and proper training), in the long run it would mean an increase in gun related deaths. You still have to kill someone, either the target or the attacker, statistical thus you will find an increase when both and/or bystanders are additional affected.

 

 

I actually don't want everyone to have guns.  It takes a certain mindset to carry a gun for self protection, and some people just don't have it.  There are some (like my wife) that can't hurt a fly.  Then there's the flip side, where someone can get set off by the smallest thing.  Give you an example, which just so happened to be the first day I ever carried concealed after getting my license.  Was driving my car with my son in the passenger seat.  Traffic is pretty heavy, and I'm in the inner most lane, pretty well boxed in.  Look in my rear view mirror, and this guy is just flipping his shit.  Totally upset about something, giving me the middle finger, then waving his hands, trying to tell me to get over and out of his way.  Watched him change lanes to the right (so he's now in the middle lane of a road with 3 lanes each direction), speed up next to me (so he's essentially next to my son), and continue to give me the middle finger.  That is someone that I don't think should be carrying a gun, because of what appeared to be an anger issue (maybe it was a bad day for him, don't know don't care).

 

You also state that gun related deaths will increase.  Maybe.  In my mind, definitely if 100% of the population is carrying, because the criminal will weight the chances of getting shot, and choose to shoot first.  I want to say that I read somewhere that about 10% of the population is enough.  That's just enough to make the criminal not want to shoot right away, but enough that the criminal is likely to encounter someone that is armed. 

 

Not all incidents where a gun is drawn end up in a death or injury.  End of my work day, so I can't search it, but I hear many times where a armed defender gets the drop on a criminal, and the criminal gives up.  I think I linked to a couple of stories up above where that happened (home invasions)

 

The one statistic related to guns that scares me is the suicide one.  Unless there's a history of suicide attempts, background checks, etc won't stop suicide attempts.  Going back to statistics, though, this is usually included in the number of "gun deaths" (have I said how I hate that phrase, the gun doesn't cause the death, it's just a tool).  Per the CDC in 2013, "between the years 2000-2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States."  The reason it scares me is, the methods to stop criminal use of guns won't work to prevent suicides, but because of the way the "gun banners" (I don't have a better term for them, especially with Feinstein on record as saying she hopes the bump stock legislation is the start of a slippery slope) present the statistics, it's always that "gun violence" is a problem, and implementing this law (in addition to the 10,000 already on the books) will stop it.

 

As for your graph, it shows total homicide rate in the UK, independant of gun-related homicide.

I had three more, that I deleted after reading your statement the second time.  Thought I had gotten that one as well.

 

By the way, I notice your second graph you linked didn't include Mexico or Russia.  Another wonderful way to skew results (just remove the ones that don't conform to what the presenter is trying to show).

 

.

I just googled "UK gun deaths" or something to that notion. Offcourse I would/could cherrypick the ones most fitting my point

.

 

 

As you rightly put forth you can't stop a well planned out crime with just legislation, for that you need the men and women in blue.

In my opinion, it takes more than just police.  Police can't be everywhere.  Add to that, in the US at least, the government in general, and the police in particular, are under no responsibility to protect us as individuals (1), (2), (3)  Just a heads up, number 3 is a disturbing case.

 

So, based on that, I'm responsible for the safety and security of myself and my family.  Because of that, I want the most effective means available to me, and that is currently a gun.

 

.

Well that is one of the basic differences in culture between EU on 1 side and USA on the other. And while we can agree that fuck-ups happen and will happen in the future, the entire notion that "hope the cops come" is an alien notion on this side of the pond.

.

I actually don't want everyone to have guns.  It takes a certain mindset to carry a gun for self protection, and some people just don't have it.  There are some (like my wife) that can't hurt a fly.  Then there's the flip side, where someone can get set off by the smallest thing.  Give you an example, which just so happened to be the first day I ever carried concealed after getting my license.  Was driving my car with my son in the passenger seat.  Traffic is pretty heavy, and I'm in the inner most lane, pretty well boxed in.  Look in my rear view mirror, and this guy is just flipping his shit.  Totally upset about something, giving me the middle finger, then waving his hands, trying to tell me to get over and out of his way.  Watched him change lanes to the right (so he's now in the middle lane of a road with 3 lanes each direction), speed up next to me (so he's essentially next to my son), and continue to give me the middle finger.  That is someone that I don't think should be carrying a gun, because of what appeared to be an anger issue (maybe it was a bad day for him, don't know don't care).

.

Well my "arm everyone" is another black/white comment. I would indeed be on the side of safety and training. See this I would classify as a possible source of gundeath by oppertunity.

. 

You also state that gun related deaths will increase.  Maybe.  In my mind, definitely if 100% of the population is carrying, because the criminal will weight the chances of getting shot, and choose to shoot first.  I want to say that I read somewhere that about 10% of the population is enough.  That's just enough to make the criminal not want to shoot right away, but enough that the criminal is likely to encounter someone that is armed.

.

Probably there is some magic number indeed, but it also depends on cultural background of the society itself. The thing you should clearly know is that the USA's vastness doesn't help any notion of "await good-guy with gun", such thinking should indeed be maintained.

. 

Not all incidents where a gun is drawn end up in a death or injury.  End of my work day, so I can't search it, but I hear many times where a armed defender gets the drop on a criminal, and the criminal gives up.  I think I linked to a couple of stories up above where that happened (home invasions)

.

Definatly, as happens when police arrive aswell. Sadly this also ties into #crime in general, you can totally obscure a diminshing in gun-shooting events by rising criminal acts.

. 

The one statistic related to guns that scares me is the suicide one.  Unless there's a history of suicide attempts, background checks, etc won't stop suicide attempts.  Going back to statistics, though, this is usually included in the number of "gun deaths" (have I said how I hate that phrase, the gun doesn't cause the death, it's just a tool).  Per the CDC in 2013, "between the years 2000-2010, firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States."  The reason it scares me is, the methods to stop criminal use of guns won't work to prevent suicides, but because of the way the "gun banners" (I don't have a better term for them, especially with Feinstein on record as saying she hopes the bump stock legislation is the start of a slippery slope) present the statistics, it's always that "gun violence" is a problem, and implementing this law (in addition to the 10,000 already on the books) will stop it.

.

I catagorize them as gun-deaths by oppertunity aswell (hence alot of statistics speak about homicide or crime related deaths).

 

As before we can never minimize the danger to 0%, but a rudumentary background check could weed out a portion (depending on reliability of database, input frequency, ...) of suicides.

 

This is also something that gun related legislation shouldn't be the priority, the focus should be a strenghtend social infrastructure to reach out and help those individuals in need, many will have some prior attempts or other episodes that call out to the world about their suicidal thoughts.

Really strange things are happening. They can't get their timeline straight and things keep changing. Now the Mandalay Bay security guard has vanished. He was supposed to appear on several TV channels to tell his story, but suddenly canceled. No one has seen him since October 10th. Smells like a cover up.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16/las-vegas-guard-jesus-campos-vanished-after-visiting-urgent-care-clinic-union-leader-says.html

Other possible theories involve:

- Mandalay Bay bosses paying him off so the story gets into the "this is yesterday's news" faster.

- Security guard perhaps lied about his involvement (either specific or in general) and fled.

- Giant Dem spy ring executed him in a local pizza joint.

 

 

- Giant Dem spy ring executed him in a local pizza joint.

 

 

 

Damn it Betsy, get it right.

 

The pizza joint is where the fat cat pedophiles are at.

 

They'll find his body in some back alleyway, along with some random drugs that will be "found in his system"....

 

 

 

 

Please tell me that everyone can hear the sarcasm I'm using.

 

 

 

- Mandalay Bay bosses paying him off so the story gets into the "this is yesterday's news" faster.

 

On a side note, I could believe this, especially since it's the news interviews that he's bailing on, and he supposedly had a meeting with MGM higher ups prior to disappearing. 

 

Give it about another week, and we'll find out what's going on with him.