Mass shooting in Las Vegas. 50+ dead

[pocaracas]

Meh, fuck war. I don't see that as anything but human narcissism defaulting to violence before diplomacy.

War is easy, diplomacy is hard.

Indeed!

[c172]

[Rev. Rye]

Well, let's hope that line of crosses ends up being temporary. I can only imagine my disappointment if I actually had to see a serpentine line of crosses when I went to the Vegas sign.



And, yes, wearing my leather jacket in the Las Vegas heat was uncomfortable. I suspect if I wasn't heading for the airport to fly back to the freezing climes of Chicago in a few hours, and we hadn't just checked out of our hotel room, I wouldn't have bothered.

[brewer]

Apparently everybody is christian in Vegas. I would have never guessed.

[Brian37]

And that awesome sky hero sat with folded arms for the past year being all knowing watching that sicko plot and did nothing.

I think when a Star Wars fan dies we need to put statues of Luke Skywalker up.

Of course I am not happy one bit that shit like this happens, but damned, 50 to 60 million times on average per year WORLDWIDE humans die at all ages from everything. If there were a sky hero claiming he could be our cosmic security guard, he sucks at his job.

Again, the real cure isn't these hollow memorials. If we want to see less of this shit, maybe firearms should not be so easy to obtain.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Owning firearms is a Constitutional right so why shouldn't they be easy to obtain?

From the wiki:
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."[10][11]


What the constitution says is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




Of course, this means that people are allowed to have "Arms" and the constitution says that the government cannot infringe upon that right.
But the government can regulate on what types of Arms are available to the public.
Clearly, nuclear missiles are out. So, it is good to find an optimum point between "the right to keep and bear Arms" and "I want all guns".

Legislation can be passed that only allows the public to have access to a maximum of 8mm caliber fire arms. This does not infringe on "the right to keep and bear arms".
Would this prevent mass shootings? No, but it would keep most automatic weapons out of the public's hands.
I believe that some even more restrictive legislation could even be found that would prevent any automatic fire arm from being legally sold.

I don't know what the rules are in Europe, but they're restrictive enough that the grand majority of people don't even consider the possibility of purchasing a fire arm. As a result, you never even think that someone else may have such a weapon.
I was in Madison, Wisconsin in 2016 and what shocked me the most was the need to have University buildings post signs saying that guns were not allowed inside. It's like everything seems normal and decent.... but remember that almost everyone has a weapon.

The Nevada Constitution gives people the right to own guns.  It does not mention the silly ass militia.  It does not impose the requirement for people to have mental certification to buy guns.  

"Section 11

Text of Section 11:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Civil Power Supreme

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_1,_Nevada_Constitution

The shooter was in complete compliance with the Nevada Constitution until he started shooting.

[pocaracas]

From the wiki:
In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."[10][11]


What the constitution says is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.




Of course, this means that people are allowed to have "Arms" and the constitution says that the government cannot infringe upon that right.
But the government can regulate on what types of Arms are available to the public.
Clearly, nuclear missiles are out. So, it is good to find an optimum point between "the right to keep and bear Arms" and "I want all guns".

Legislation can be passed that only allows the public to have access to a maximum of 8mm caliber fire arms. This does not infringe on "the right to keep and bear arms".
Would this prevent mass shootings? No, but it would keep most automatic weapons out of the public's hands.
I believe that some even more restrictive legislation could even be found that would prevent any automatic fire arm from being legally sold.

I don't know what the rules are in Europe, but they're restrictive enough that the grand majority of people don't even consider the possibility of purchasing a fire arm. As a result, you never even think that someone else may have such a weapon.
I was in Madison, Wisconsin in 2016 and what shocked me the most was the need to have University buildings post signs saying that guns were not allowed inside. It's like everything seems normal and decent.... but remember that almost everyone has a weapon.

The Nevada Constitution gives people the right to own guns.  It does not mention the silly ass militia.  It does not impose the requirement for people to have mental certification to buy guns.  

"Section 11

Text of Section 11:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Civil Power Supreme

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_1,_Nevada_Constitution

The shooter was in complete compliance with the Nevada Constitution until he started shooting.

Which just tells you that the Nevada Constitution is too lax on the subject.

Remember, just because it is lawful to do something, doesn't mean that it is right... The law can be wrong.

For ages, humanity has had laws regulating slavery. Need I say more?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

The Nevada Constitution gives people the right to own guns.  It does not mention the silly ass militia.  It does not impose the requirement for people to have mental certification to buy guns.  

"Section 11

Text of Section 11:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Civil Power Supreme

1. Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_1,_Nevada_Constitution

The shooter was in complete compliance with the Nevada Constitution until he started shooting.

---

Which just tells you that the Nevada Constitution is too lax on the subject.

Remember, just because it is lawful to do something, doesn't mean that it is right... The law can be wrong.

For ages, humanity has had laws regulating slavery. Need I say more?

One observation that is common in all of the mass shootings that involves white victims is that the critics want to deprive everyone of their freedoms in a silly ass attempt to make them feel safe.  In addition to renouncing the right to own guns they also want to renounce the right for people to express any opinion that runs counter to their own.  

Years ago I said that America would become a totalitarian country more repressive than any in history and that places like Russia would become a lot freer in comparison.  Events have validated my original comments.  

As H.L. Mencken said, people don't want to be free, they want to be safe.  So they will gladly give up all of their freedoms for the illusion of being safe.  There is no safety on this planet.  We will all experience pain and suffering and death.  

Maybe we need an incident like the one in the Bible where Samson killed 1,000 men with a donkey's jawbone.  Then the talking heads can bleat 24-7 about banning donkey jawbones.  

BTW, slavery is still legal in America and there are millions of slaves.  But no one is talking about abolishing it forever.  So much for being the land of the free.

[Tiberius]

Years ago I said that America would become a totalitarian country more repressive than any in history and that places like Russia would become a lot freer in comparison.  Events have validated my original comments.

Russia is far from free.

As H.L. Mencken said, people don't want to be free, they want to be safe.  So they will gladly give up all of their freedoms for the illusion of being safe.  There is no safety on this planet.  We will all experience pain and suffering and death.  

There's no "illusion" about it when you have countries that enact decent gun laws and see gun crime plummet and mass shootings vanish. Turns out making guns harder for people to get / abuse actually does make people safer.

Maybe we need an incident like the one in the Bible where Samson killed 1,000 men with a donkey's jawbone.  Then the talking heads can bleat 24-7 about banning donkey jawbones.

Except that Samson was a strong warrior which probably helped. Anyone can fire a gun. Hardly anyone could kill 1,000 men with a donkey's jawbone before they got stopped. Guns are fast and portable.

BTW, slavery is still legal in America and there are millions of slaves.  But no one is talking about abolishing it forever.  So much for being the land of the free.

That's slightly disingenuous. The only acceptable use of the slavery in the Constitution is "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted". In other words, the government can lock you up for committing a crime.

[pocaracas]

One observation that is common in all of the mass shootings that involves white victims is that the critics want to deprive everyone of their freedoms in a silly ass attempt to make them feel safe.  In addition to renouncing the right to own guns they also want to renounce the right for people to express any opinion that runs counter to their own.  

One man's freedom ends where another man's begins.

My freedom to live outweighs your freedom to wield a device that can easily kill me.
Any form of government that puts your right to use a weapon above my right to live is not one I wish to be a part of. A country with such a government is not one I would gladly call home.
Luckily, I was born and raised in Europe... and still live there!


(The rest of your post was adequately addressed by tibs.)