Las Vegas: Active shooter reported near Mandalay Bay

[Suppressed]

No carrying in that situation would have been of no benefit   There will always be those situations where there is nothing you can do.  But all in all I like my chances better when I am armed than when I am not.

The problem is that too many people knee-jerk to the idea that it's some panacea, not willing to admit to themselves that there are times when firearms are only a bad thing in the situation. 

It makes the pro-gun side look like they won't admit reality.

[txradioguy]

Armed people in a room down the hall likely would have reduced the number people shot, if they were willing to confront the situation.

And that's a big if these days. 

[Suppressed]

  It only raises the cost, keeping more poor from being able to protect themselves.

@thackney

Similar could be said for car insurance requirement, but we still have it.

That being said, I'm against the proposal.

[DCPatriot]

Yeah you can already see the left's attempt to connect the two.  It hasn't gained much traction...but it will unless something big and something definitive is done to put a stop to it.  It's gonna take come courage from some politicians on our side of the aisle that I don't think many of them have to squash that emerging narrative.

IMHO, that's the ONLY reason they aren't divulging any ISIS connection, because it would set back 2nd Amendment repeal efforts for at least a generation.

[edpc]

A somewhat related to the subject thread......

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,284926.0.html

[driftdiver]

@thackney

Similar could be said for car insurance requirement, but we still have it.

That being said, I'm against the proposal.

@Suppressed


Did this guy really worry about the potential long term  financial implications as he set about to commit mass murder? 

How would insurance stop this type of action?

[goatprairie]

I wonder what measures are being taken now to forestall the kind of attack that happened.
Are there outdoor festivals now being held surrounded by big buildings which could conceal a sniper? I haven't read anything about what the people who hold those outdoor events are doing viz. high rise buildings facing the concerts.
Have hotels stepped up security as far as luggage carried in by guests?
Those are a few things hotels could do, but again, like 9/11, the killers might just change tactics and do something different. Before these things happen, few people wonder if something like that could happen.  I doubt any of the people at the concert thought of the possibility of a sniper in a highrise shooting down on them. 
I've been to music festivals in big cities with skyscrapers not quite as close as the Mandalay but close enough.  Never thought of the possibility of a sniper. I was always worried more about walking back to my car in the parking lot late at night after watching the music.
Only real one thing you can be sure of....some nut will try it again somewhere. 

[txradioguy]

IMHO, that's the ONLY reason they aren't divulging any ISIS connection, because it would set back 2nd Amendment repeal efforts for at least a generation.

Yup you're right.

You would think that the terrorist attacks over the last couple of years would have silenced the attempts to repeal the 2A.  Especially the one in San Bernardino.

But the left tends to just ignore them like they never happened.

[Sanguine]

@Suppressed


Did this guy really worry about the potential long term  financial implications as he set about to commit mass murder? 

How would insurance stop this type of action?

That's sort of what I was thinking too.  How many accidental fatalities or homicides are caused by legal car owners vs. accidental fatalities or homicides caused by legal gun owners? 

[thackney]

@thackney

Similar could be said for car insurance requirement, but we still have it.

That being said, I'm against the proposal.

Driving a private vehicle isn't a constitutional right, and subsidized public transportation is provided.

[edpc]

Driving a private vehicle isn't a constitutional right, and subsidized public transportation is provided.

Exactly, because there was no right to horse ownership in the Bill of Rights.

[Sanguine]

Exactly, because there was no right to horse ownership in the Bill of Rights.

Yeah, really.  Can you imagine Jefferson, Madison, Washington agreeing that the government has a right to prohibit horse ownership based on ability to insure it or operate it safely?

[ABX]

Exactly, because there was no right to horse ownership in the Bill of Rights.

There are listed no 'rights to ownership' to most items in the bill of rights. It was just assumed by the founders that one would, of course, have a right to own their transportation like they would a fork to eat their food or a chamberpot.

The Bill of Rights didn't grant rights, it protected very specific rights from government interference. I doubt the founders would have ever thought of a day when other items like basic transport, would be up for government regulation, otherwise we would have a Bill of Rights protecting those things as large as Jefferson's library.

What the Bill of Rights protected were specific rights they saw being stripped by powers for the specific reason of suppressing the individual and liberty. The British, and other repressive regimes, didn't come into homes regulating chamberpots or what fork you used, but they did strip people of the right to defend themselves and mandated beliefs. They quartered their soldiers in people's homes and imprisoned people without any due process.

The importance of the very specific items called out in the Bill of Rights all have a common theme- the citizen is sovereign.

[edpc]

Yeah, really.  Can you imagine Jefferson, Madison, Washington agreeing that the government has a right to prohibit horse ownership based on ability to insure it or operate it safely?

Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses

The DUI checkpoints could apply to man or beast.

[thackney]

There are listed no 'rights to ownership' to most items in the bill of rights. It was just assumed by the founders that one would, of course, have a right to own their transportation like they would a fork to eat their food or a chamberpot.

The Bill of Rights didn't grant rights, it protected very specific rights from government interference. I doubt the founders would have ever thought of a day when other items like basic transport, would be up for government regulation, otherwise we would have a Bill of Rights protecting those things as large as Jefferson's library.

What the Bill of Rights protected were specific rights they saw being stripped by powers for the specific reason of suppressing the individual and liberty. The British, and other repressive regimes, didn't come into homes regulating chamberpots or what fork you used, but they did strip people of the right to defend themselves and mandated beliefs. They quartered their soldiers in people's homes and imprisoned people without any due process.

The importance of the very specific items called out in the Bill of Rights all have a common theme- the citizen is sovereign.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness....

[edpc]

The British, and other repressive regimes, didn't come into homes regulating chamberpots or what fork you used....

Not quite true.  They regulated the type of paper used, which was the basis of the Stamp Act.  Modern oppressive regimes, like North Korea, Iran, and China restrict things like types of TVs, radios, cell phones, and internet access you can have.

[driftdiver]

So now this conservative forum has descended into why some gun control may be legal and why further restrictions of firearms may be needed.

No.  Just no.  None of these ideas would have stopped this terrible tragedy.   Evil people do evil stuff.  The only thing that might have prevented this is stopping him before he did it.  Not making it more difficult to use his weapon of choice. Certainly not making it harder for law abiding people and not giving govt more power.

No more compromise.  No more gun control.  No more.

[txradioguy]

So now this conservative forum has descended into why some gun control may be legal and why further restrictions of firearms may be needed.

No.  Just no.  None of these ideas would have stopped this terrible tragedy.   Evil people do evil stuff.  The only thing that might have prevented this is stopping him before he did it.  Not making it more difficult to use his weapon of choice. Certainly not making it harder for law abiding people and not giving govt more power.

No more compromise.  No more gun control.  No more.

[ABX]

So now this conservative forum has descended into why some gun control may be legal and why further restrictions of firearms may be needed.

No.  Just no.  None of these ideas would have stopped this terrible tragedy.   Evil people do evil stuff.  The only thing that might have prevented this is stopping him before he did it.  Not making it more difficult to use his weapon of choice. Certainly not making it harder for law abiding people and not giving govt more power.

No more compromise.  No more gun control.  No more.

QFT

[Sanguine]

So now this conservative forum has descended into why some gun control may be legal and why further restrictions of firearms may be needed.

No.  Just no.  None of these ideas would have stopped this terrible tragedy.   Evil people do evil stuff.  The only thing that might have prevented this is stopping him before he did it.  Not making it more difficult to use his weapon of choice. Certainly not making it harder for law abiding people and not giving govt more power.

No more compromise.  No more gun control.  No more.

No, "this conservative forum" has not descended into anti-conservatism.  A few posters have.  They obviously don't understand what they need to understand. 

[Mom MD]

The problem is that too many people knee-jerk to the idea that it's some panacea, not willing to admit to themselves that there are times when firearms are only a bad thing in the situation. 

It makes the pro-gun side look like they won't admit reality.

Hang on a minute.  I said having a firearm at the concert would not have protected one from the sniper.  I never said having one there was a bad thing.  Had there been follow on ground attacks it would have been a very good thing.  I am always safer armed and ready to provide for my family’s defense.  I cannot think of one situation I would not want to be armed in.  Period.

[Applewood]

@Applewood

Trump wasn't my first or 15th choice in the primaries.

Once the general election came it was him or Hillary.  So please educate us on what the other choices were.

There were other choices.  Third party candidates, write-in candidates (where permitted) and just staying home.  Maybe they weren't the best choices, but they were still choices.

You, like so many others, are stuck on the 2 party system. You feel you have to elect the Republican because the Democrat would be worse.  Maybe that was true at one time, but it's not now.  We cannot rely on Republicans (including Trump) to keep the promises they made to the voters. What makes you think they would continue to uphold the Second Amendment? 

It's amusing to me that whenever I or anyone else says anything even remotely negative about Trump, we get the old Hillary argument. The election is over and Trump is president now. Time to stop bringing up Hillary and start focusing on what Trump is doing and is going to do.    He is willing to collude with the Democrats on Obamacare. What makes you think he won't sell you down the river on every other issue, including gun control?

Trust in Trump is the issue now, not Hillary.

[driftdiver]

Hang on a minute.  I said having a firearm at the concert would not have protected one from the sniper.  I never said having one there was a bad thing.  Had there been follow on ground attacks it would have been a very good thing.  I am always safer armed and ready to provide for my family’s defense.  I cannot think of one situation I would not want to be armed in.  Period.

Amen

[driftdiver]

There were other choices.  Third party candidates, write-in candidates (where permitted) and just staying home.  Maybe they weren't the best choices, but they were still choices.

You, like so many others, are stuck on the 2 party system. You feel you have to elect the Republican because the Democrat would be worse.  Maybe that was true at one time, but it's not now.  We cannot rely on Republicans (including Trump) to keep the promises they made to the voters. What makes you think they would continue to uphold the Second Amendment? 

It's amusing to me that whenever I or anyone else says anything even remotely negative about Trump, we get the old Hillary argument. The election is over and Trump is president now. Time to stop bringing up Hillary and start focusing on what Trump is doing and is going to do.    He is willing to collude with the Democrats on Obamacare. What makes you think he won't sell you down the river on every other issue, including gun control?

Trust in Trump is the issue now, not Hillary.

Earth to @Applewood
None of those other candidates had a chance of winning.

Trumps far more open to conservative ideas than anyone else who had a chance of winning.  Yes he has supported gun control.  At least with him he listens to more than just his big donars.

[roamer_1]

There are a lot of crazy people capable of inflicting mass casualties by a number of methods other than guns. And nobody will be able to stop a crazy, committed person from getting a gun if they want one. 
The only protection is to try and identify these people before they strike (a very difficult proposition), be aware of your situation,  and for individuals to be  possibly armed themselves.

Not a difficult proposition - an impossible one.
The only protection is to be in a position to react to aggression.
In this case, it is a fault of the venue and the LEOs that this guy was allowed to continue - Because they were not in a position to react.