I’ve been for the 2nd Amendment my whole life. Until last night.

Breaking News: Coward wants to surrender civil rights for the illusion of security after traumatic event. Film at 11.

 

There is no gun control legislation that would be legal that would have prevented this massacre. Even if you expanded that into illegal gun control legislation, it might only change his method of attack to one that would be more deadly, like flying one of his planes into the crowd.

I know you just want to use this to push for something that you wanted before this incident, I just ask that you don't lie about thinking that it would have made a difference in this instance.

 

I believe the guns he had and used were already illegal to have and own.

Don't really see how gun control could have avoided this, as long as Mexico is our neighbor.

Much like how gun control laws in Chicago don't work.

 

If they were fully automatic, it meant that he either purchased them illegally or he went through extensive background checks and waiting periods. Given his clean background, he'd have passed it and he had the money and time to go through the hassle.

It's just a fluke case of someone with the time, resources, and clean background it takes to do something like this. Usually people who have a squeaky clean record at his age and that are retired comfortably aren't the types to want to kill mass amounts of people, especially when it doesn't seem like it was terrorism, rather a random act of violence.

 

I ask this question - why on earth does a civilian need to have a weapon that not even the police are walking around with?

Just completely ban a weapon capable of killing more than 10 people in a few seconds. That's a weapon of mass destruction.

 

Or.....he'd have just used his airplane to kill thousands instead of the guns to kill 50 something. Also, right now we don't know if he purchased them legally or not.

 

What guns did he own?

 

I don't think it is about total prevention but reduction in impact. If crazy people decide they want to kill they will find a way: airplanes, trucks in crowds, knives, pressure cooker bomb, etc. But if it's illegal to have more than 8 rounds in a clip (for example), illegal to have automatic weapon, assault rife, etc. maybe only 15 people die before the cops show up instead of 59. Will it totally prevent the incident? no. Will it reduce casualties? yes.

Also the 2nd amendment refers to a well regulated militia. The supreme court has ruled that rights are not unlimited (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, etc.). The idea that any reasonable regulation violates the 2nd amendment is just false.

 

you can't legislate crazy. 9/11, okc, fort hood, boston marathon, la guardia, all still happen with strict gun laws. and no one can begin to estimate the # of lives saved by armed civilians.

i'm not a gun not, don't own a single one actually. but i'm not generally for any law that takes away rights as opposed to laws that protect rights. that said, perhaps a law that allows legal ownership but not storage is a compromise. you know a check out check in storage facility that's regulated by authorities. could be a compromise there and would create a billion dollar gun storage facilities market in the process too.

 

I'm not intentionally singling you out so please don't take it this way - but I don't honestly believe people who have this theory truly believe it.

No one was checking this persons' bags and said "Oh that's a legally purchased assault rifle, please continue up to level 32, have a nice stay"

People for the most part do not get caught buying an illegal firearm. It's after a crime is committed that the truth comes out that it was illegal.

Absolutely nothing would have stopped what happened in Las Vegas if certain firearms were illegal.

Whilst we're in the thread - I have always been a big advocate of the Second Amendment. Being in the Infantry I have dealt with high powered weapons before and I know they on their own are not dangerous. Mixed with a psychopath then you have real dangers.

That being said, I absolutely do not believe there is a single reason why a civilian should be able to purchase a light machine gun that has the capability of being belt fed or have a 200 round magazine inserted. If this is in fact legal, then to me that doesn't make sense and needs to change.

Although I'm not naive enough to actually think that would stop some people from getting their hands on one.

 

It mentions a militia but I'm sure you know that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right (as the SCOUS ruled btw) and that a militia is just an example of why the right is so important.

Also, as to your other comment, I didn't say that "any reasonable gun control violates the 2nd amendment", I said that no gun control measure that was legal would have made any difference at all in this instance. You know, because it wouldn't have.

 

I addressed the difference regulation would make in casualty reduction. Also it will be interesting to see if he has mental illness when all facts come out and how he purchased his weapons.

Yes they ruled it an individual right, but they also ruled that a guns without a law abiding purpose are not protected by the 2nd amendment. They also noted that criminals and mentally ill could be denied firearms.

 

"Because you want one" or "for personal protection" are both law abiding purposes that literally any person that can legally own firearms could claim at any point....so the line about needing a law abiding purpose is kind of pointless.

Also, if he obtained the weapons legally, he already passed background checks....what else would you propose?

I know that the anti-civil liberties crowd will be salivating over this, but that crowd always needs to be fought.

 

We should definitely abide by the rules set up hundreds of years ago!!

I don't know if stricter and even strict gun laws will help.

I do know they won't hurt. Why not give it a try? Like I tell my kids about problem solving. Sometimes you just got to try a solution.

I'm not sure how arguing about will get you an answer.

 

Saying that not having tons of cheap, deadly, barely-regulated firearms around "would [not] have stopped it" is not really the point.

If you bought a Prius 10 years ago would you have stopped Hurricanes Irma, Harvey and Jose? Really hard to say - climate change doesn't work like that. Neither do complex things like this. You're playing a game of probabilities when you assign reasons for things.

Of course, whether or not better regulation would have worked or changed the probabilities is beside the point, because, as you know: We. Don't. Even. ****ing. Try. Even when the bodies pile up.

 

I want a sawed off shot gun "because I want one" doesn't make it a law abiding purpose.

Has it been confirmed he obtained all of the weapons legally including background checks? I haven't seen that can you send a link?

I believe people should have a right to own and use revolvers, pistols, shotguns, and rifles for hunting and personal protection. I don't see any reason for high capacity magazines, assault rifles, etc. that have a law abiding purpose that can't be served by one of those items.

 

Absolutely it does. Now there are restrictions as to just how "sawed off" the shotgun can be, but you merely wanting something is a lawful reason to have it.

No it has not, but either way it would be a case where more laws wouldn't change anything. Either he already got them illegally, or he went through an extensive process to get them legally.

That's fine, you can believe whatever you want, I'm sure there's people who think that lots of people shouldn't have the right to vote....doesn't mean we should strip them of their rights.