Las Vegas: Active shooter reported near Mandalay Bay

[driftdiver]

There is no law that would have stopped the Vegas shooter. The goal of gun laws is
not to prevent gun violence but rather to disarm the American people so they can not
resist a tyrannical  government. It's a bait and switch like just about everything gov
does.

Much more important is finding out why the shooter did what did did. What was his
motivation and who motivated him. Then we might be able to stop the next shooter
before he/she shoots.

@jpsb
Look at what's happened in England and Australia.  Self defense of any type has been outlawed.

Use a pen to defend yourself from a rapist, go to jail.  Raise a bat in defense, go to jail.

I for one will not give up my firearms.  Period.  I will not register either.

[roamer_1]

No,  the question is what sorts of laws and protections can stop the copycats.   We now have the ghastly model of a methodical killer sniping at strangers from the high floors of a building.   That's an open invitation to copycats.   We will be seeing hotels requiring folks to go through metal detectors,  hotels requiring guests to keep guns in gun safes and not in guest rooms,  and hotels and other public spaces banning the carrying of firearms. 

accomplishing *nothing*.

What would stop the copycats is LEO snipers pre-positioned at such venues. The only thing that stops a sniper is a sniper.

As for the implement of destruction, why shouldn't it be subject to regulation?   I don't advocate restrictions on the frequency of gun purchases or the size of a gun collection,  but I sure as hell advocate registration and insurance.  The same basic regime we require of those we permit to drive cars on public streets.    Guns, like cars, are useful but dangerous implements and should be registered with the authorities and made subject to a requirement that their owners insure them with respect to the potential mayhem they can cause.

Idiocy.

So if I cannot afford insurance, I have no right to self-defense?
What if life happens and the guns I used to be able to insure, I can no longer afford? Confiscation and forced sale of my father's gun that was handed to me on his death bed?

What of all my hillbilly friends who have *no* money and depend upon their guns for subsistence?
Would you take food from their mouths?

The entire West hunts for food. *ALL* of us. We all shoot varmints that attack our livestock.  We live far away from LEOs that will at some point come and put somebody in a body bag. Many can't hardly afford to eat and you want to saddle them with a confiscatory insurance?

BULLSHIT. As is the idea of national registry, which will only be used later for confiscation.

WHAT PART OF 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? 

[jpsb]

@jpsb
Look at what's happened in England and Australia.  Self defense of any type has been outlawed.

Use a pen to defend yourself from a rapist, go to jail.  Raise a bat in defense, go to jail.

I for one will not give up my firearms.  Period.  I will not register either.

I'm pushing 70, I can not defend myself without a firearm so I am keeping mine. All of them. I like each and every one of them.

[roamer_1]

Yup.  But I'd like to stop/deter the copycats.   Banning bump stocks sounds like a small step in that direction.  Let's not forget that bump stocks were declared legal by Obama's ATF.   

ROTFLAMO!
You can bumpstock a gun with a pencil and a rubberband! 

[Jazzhead]

.
As far as gun ownership goes, the number of guns you have is of no consequece. Your ownership of them does. Your Ownership.

Correct.  That's why don't support restrictions on the frequency of gun purchases, or the size of a gun collection.   I want every gun owner to carry insurance in the same way a driver must.  If you can afford to insure a colossal gun collection, then have at it.   If not, stick to one or two.

[bigheadfred]

@Jazzhead

I advocate registration and insurance for anyone who advocates for gun control.  History has proven it's dangerous and has contributed to millions of deaths.

I advocate for the stoppage of any visual representation of people killing other people. And that goes right down to hanging Christ on the cross. The article that was ignored I posted a couple of six pages back. You want to change the world? STOP being "entertained" by visuals of the horror inflicted by people on each other.

You think it doesn't Matter? It does. They have proven the power of prayer--even long distance prayer. So why would it be so hard to believe that the same process doesn't work in the opposite.

If "you" got some enjoyment out of seeing this guy's suicide headshot you have a sick mindset that feeds the beast. Stop it.

[roamer_1]

So to satisfy your desire to play real life Minority Report...the only way to satisfy what you seek is total confiscation.

Not even.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

[txradioguy]

Correct.  That's why don't support restrictions on the frequency of gun purchases, or the size of a gun collection.   I want every gun owner to carry insurance in the same way a driver must.  If you can afford to insure a colossal gun collection, then have at it.   If not, stick to one or two.

Crap in one hand demand in the other...see which fills up first.

What you "want" is just another Liberal end run around the black letter law laid out in the Second Amendment...can't say I'm shocked coming from you.

[Jazzhead]

accomplishing *nothing*.

What would stop the copycats is LEO snipers pre-positioned at such venues. The only thing that stops a sniper is a sniper.

Idiocy.

So if I cannot afford insurance, I have no right to self-defense?
What if life happens and the guns I used to be able to insure, I can no longer afford? Confiscation and forced sale of my father's gun that was handed to me on his death bed?

What of all my hillbilly friends who have *no* money and depend upon their guns for subsistence?
Would you take food from their mouths?

The entire West hunts for food. *ALL* of us. We all shoot varmints that attack our livestock.  We live far away from LEOs that will at some point come and put somebody in a body bag. Many can't hardly afford to eat and you want to saddle them with a confiscatory insurance?

BULLSHIT. As is the idea of national registry, which will only be used later for confiscation.

WHAT PART OF 'SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? 

If you can insure your pick-up truck, you can insure your gun. 

[bigheadfred]

Thee most important point. Never give up your guns. NEVER.

I don't own any guns. I have a dull knife and a sharp knife.

[Smokin Joe]

Yup.  But I'd like to stop/deter the copycats.   Banning bump stocks sounds like a small step in that direction.  Let's not forget that bump stocks were declared legal by Obama's ATF.   

Because Obama was looking for a way to arm his minions, too. Don't think all that ACORN money went for phones, or that all those firearms were bought by Conservatives. Don't ignore Operation "Gangwalker".
And don't ignore the obvious pep rallies for violence among the Liberals, either. BLM ("BIE": Black Identity Extremists, as the DOJ is referring to them) and AntiFa, and even OWS, not to mention a host of "street" gangs which are actually reaching the status of transnational criminal organizations, and we haven't even brought up radical Islamists that are being imported without vetting.

All of these amount to groups with set hierarchies, command and control, communications, organization, and in the case of some of the gangs, people who have no compunction about breaking laws and killing people, up close and personal.
 
Taking the means to reply in kind from people who are law abiding only tilts the playing field toward criminal elements, not away from crime.

The genie is out of the bottle. People know it can be done with a rubber band or bootlace, and they will try, discover, practice, make other devices to make that fire not only rapid, but more accurate.

But you want to lock up the corral after the horses have escaped.

I think I'll go to the range and see how many mags it takes to be able to pop off a three round burst, without so much as a rubber band. Once you understand the principle behind it, you should be able to duplicate it even without the stock or any extra hardware at all. 

[txradioguy]

Not even.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Well look at the cities in the U.S. that have the draconian...totalitarian restrictions on gun ownership that Jazzy lusts for on a nationwide level...

[driftdiver]

If you can insure your pick-up truck, you can insure your gun.

Why?  How is this anything but an attempt to make gun ownership more difficult and economically constrained.   

What wood it accomplish?   How would it stop a copycat?


Same ole crap from antigunners.  Not a single new idea.  Not a single idea that would reduce crime or save lives.

[txradioguy]

If you can insure your pick-up truck, you can insure your gun.

My guns are insured...as part of my renters insurance as valuable items.

What you're advocating isn't "insuring" or "insurance" it's totalitarian gun registration like you'd find in every third world dictatorship and most of Socialist Europe.

[txradioguy]

Why?  How is this anything but an attempt to make gun ownership more difficult and economically constrained.   

What wood it accomplish?   How would it stop a copycat?


Same ole crap from antigunners.  Not a single new idea.  Not a single idea that would reduce crime or save lives.

Pretty soon he'll tell us that his idea is Conservative way to handle crime.

[roamer_1]

If you can insure your pick-up truck, you can insure your gun.

Bullshit.

I can easier do without a truck than without guns.

[jpsb]

ROTFLAMO!
You can bumpstock a gun with a pencil and a rubberband! 

I guess we are going to have to ban this guy.

http://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM?t=37

[txradioguy]

Insuring a vehicle hasn't stopped people from ramming a car or truck they are driving into crowds of people and killing dozens.

[roamer_1]

Well look at the cities in the U.S. that have the draconian...totalitarian restrictions on gun ownership that Jazzy lusts for on a nationwide level...

EXACTLY.

[Cyber Liberty]

Correct.  That's why don't support restrictions on the frequency of gun purchases, or the size of a gun collection.   I want every gun owner to carry insurance in the same way a driver must.  If you can afford to insure a colossal gun collection, then have at it.   If not, stick to one or two.

Why?  I submit the gun collector has already met the test of affordability by merely purchasing the weapon.  Those things are expensive already.  Why do you want additional burdens placed?

I submit the reason you really want the extra burdens placed is for the purpose of registering them, in the name of "insurance" because you know you can get away with that.  You want to know who has them and where they are, so if you and your friends in the government decide to start rounding them up, you know where to look for them.

You have dropped your mask, I look forward to your attempts to put it back on.

[Cyber Liberty]

Pretty soon he'll tell us that his idea is Conservative way to handle crime.

I'm awaiting that too.  Any time now.

[roamer_1]

I guess we are going to have to ban this guy.

http://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM?t=37

Yeah... Bob Munden would have to be set adrift on an iceberg or something...

[bigheadfred]

Well look at the cities in the U.S. that have the draconian...totalitarian restrictions on gun ownership that Jazzy lusts for on a nationwide level...

That is really unfair, isn't it? (major sarc)

[DB]

If you can insure your pick-up truck, you can insure your gun.

Why not just cut to the chase and demand each person carry insurance for what they might do to someone or something? You can then charge them based on how many guns, knives, baseball bats, vehicles, airplanes, etc. they own... And like Bernie Sanders we'll have government decide what we need or don't need. Anything we don't need we be deemed illegal for the greater good...

You essentially already have that with healthcare.

Just another petty tyrant.

[Cyber Liberty]

Why?  How is this anything but an attempt to make gun ownership more difficult and economically constrained.   

Any port in a storm.  He wants guns gone, by any means necessary.  He screwed up, he let us see what he wants.  Now, it's a matter of how he can muster the talking points to bear.  He can't get around the Second Amendment, so now he's looking for a way to prevent people from having it by the  back door.