Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The point is not to make it easy for a bad guy to commit these kinds of tragedies. 58 people dead and over 500 injured in a matter of minutes is insane. No matter what side of the gun argument you are on the casualty and injury count in such a short span of time is unimaginable.
No, the point is that using a gun doesn't "make it easy for a bad guy to commit these kinds of tragedies." Using a firearm is no more or less effective that simply running people over, or blowing them up. That's the point. Restricting one tool doesn't mean less murder (or less mass murders), it just means a different tool is used.
The point is, once you're dead, it doesn't matter what tool was used to do it.
there is more than enough correlation at this point to be absolutely certain that removing guns lowers the murder rate. we have a number of nations that did it and many many more where we can see gun ownership and murder rates correlating. yeah yeah we all understand the limits of correlations , but the weight of proof is on my side, your side has NOTHING.
Never mind Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the nation, and has one of the (if not the) highest crime rates in the nation involving guns.
And never mind that our Constitution says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means, ALL gun control laws are unconstitutional. The Constitution does not say that we have a right to keep and bear arms. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means the right is pre-existent, apart from the Constitution. The Second Amendment simply affirms that right, and it does not say "the right to keep and bear only certain types of arms," either.
I think you'd better start studying the Constitution. Next thing we know you people will be suggesting that certain speech can be restricted (hint: it's already been suggested by some, including Loretta Lynch).
The point is not to make it easy for a bad guy to commit these kinds of tragedies. 58 people dead and over 500 injured in a matter of minutes is insane. No matter what side of the gun argument you are on the casualty and injury count in such a short span of time is unimaginable.
More people died faster in Nice under a truck.
We won't get to how many were killed by planes. BTW, did you know this guy was a pilot? I'm guessing a Piper Cherokee into a high school football stadium would have a really high casualty count.
And I won't answer such a ridiculous question. Somehow you've twisted my words about more laws won't help to we should have any at all. Sorry , that kind of idiocracy doesn't warrant an answer.
I haven't twisted anything. I asked a simple yes or no question. Two posts now and you still haven't answered it.
Which can still be done with a broken arm on a bolt action rifle and really isn't great justification for needing 30 round capacity
For that same token, same in that mass shooting. If I can shoot one round a second with a bolt gun there's still going to be a pile of bodies. Plus, most new bolt guns or pump guns come with a box mag or are easily converted to one. Which, I'd kind of expect a criminal to exploit even if semi's were banned.
There are many Utube videos comparing magazine capacity and rate of fire.
No matter WHAT made him snap - the fact is he was able to get his hands on a bunch of guns that allowed him to shoot from afar - kill 58 people and wound hundreds more.
I couldn't care LESS who he supported for President - be it Trump, Hillary, or the tooth fairy.
No, there are laws in place that restrict the ownership of fully automatic weapons, who knows how he was able to obtain them, but the fact is one mass shooter does not speak for the rest of us decent gun owners.
Again, let's wait and see what circumstances led up to this horrific act and possibly find ways to prevent them, creating restrictions on gun ownership is not the solution.
It's hilarious how people think this man has mental health issues or snapped. Why because he's an older white guy? No evidence has come out that he was mentally ill but everyone assumes that's the case. Do people all Islamic terrorist mentally ill?
People are asking whether or not it might be possible. Not that it was the reason.
Quote:
No way a man who paid for a hotel room during a yearly concert, found a way to bring up 13 guns, shot over 50 people. Somehow snapped, this was premeditated just like any other terror attack
It's hilarious how people think this man has mental health issues or snapped. Why because he's an older white guy? No evidence has come out that he was mentally ill but everyone assumes that's the case. Do people all Islamic terrorist mentally ill?
No way a man who paid for a hotel room during a yearly concert, found a way to bring up 13 guns, shot over 50 people. Somehow snapped, this was premeditated just like any other terror attack
Terror involves those who wish to see the violent shakeup or overturning of a government, or who have political motives behind their violence.
We don't know what the motive was for this guy yet, but to label him a terrorist at this point is not based in any fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
