Las Vegas massacre: Now is not the time for gun control debate, White House says

The White House is absolutely right, this is not the time for a gun control debate. This is the time for a mental health debate.

a reply to: gernblan

Perhaps/ perhaps not but gun should enter into the equation, crazy ppl shouldn't have guns, and you can't have one city or state selling weapons of small destruction, while the next town have restrictions, defeats the purpose.

originally posted by: Painterz
a reply to: Xcathdra


The UK gun crime rate is tiny.

And where gun crime does occur in the UK it's almost exclusively gang-on-gang crime.

Gun control was incredibly successful in the UK.

Have you ever actually been to the UK? I didn't think so.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: mikell
I guess Liberal's really love us Trump supporters so much they don't want to risk us getting hurt. In Chicago 50-60 people a month get killed and they say nothing. Yup They really do love us and I would bet they are closet trump fans.

As I predicted some one was bound to pull Chicago out deh ass..u guys never disappoint, lemme guess Blk on Blk crime next?? Wht on wht crime exist not.??

And why wouldn't they? The mass slaughter in Chicago deserves mention everywhere.

By the way, do you really think you're cool with that completely broken English, terrible grammar and complete lack of coherent punctuation? Do you think that somehow makes you look intelligent? Well, it doesn't.

originally posted by: alldaylong
In the last 500 YEARS there have been THREE mass shootings in The U.K.

Now tell me again that Gun Control doesn't work.

It doesn't work when you already have a few hundred million legal firearms floating around in civilian possession and public that's generally hostile to your gun control efforts.

The US is not the UK.

a reply to: gernblan

Fit ma mood just about now!!.

Gun control debate . . .bad man had weapon. Bad man used weapon and the bad man was killed by police. Bad man and his friends are being investigated.
America is picking up the pieces and comforting those injured and the families of the loss.
Millions of Americans own weapons of this type. Millions of Americans use them in a responsible manner. Millions of America love the sport of shooting and do it responsibly.
Part of our national security is that these millions of Americans own weapons and love the sport of responsible shooting.
Bab men and bad women are sad but they are few compared to the vast population of our land. Mass shootings are sad that we have this type of individuals living among us. We should try and solve the problem by helping bad people become good people.
Answer . . . .Encourage religions who promote peaceful cohabitation of all races and peoples.. Recreate the American dream by encouraging industry to nurturer prosperity. Teach only required skills in schools and leave out political slanted personnel opinions; Leave that for life to learn. Let movies, writings, public expressions be of community success and love. Not flower power love but of reasonable interaction of every individual to each individual . . . .and if you cannot define any of the proper interactions and attitude or you are afraid someone will impose their own definitions, then Look to Christ for an example. I can't think of anything about him which was self serving, violent or inappropriate.
Do this and their will be less bad men . . . .add prayer to our daily lives and I'm sure there will be less..

a reply to: ADSE255

a reply to: UKTruth

Wow, did the thought enter your head the place is surrounded by guns..obviously not. How hard would it be to bring guns in from surrounding areas?..are there border checkpoints? Like there is some magical forcefield that does not allow some of the hundreds of millions of them get there.
Dumb question IMO

As for gun control..too late at this point.

As mentioned earlier mentioning cities like Chicago or states like California's strict gun laws and comparing gun crimes within those boundaries isn't really fair because of how easy it is to buy guns in a majority of America and transport those across state lines. You can go to Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, etc. and literally buy an armory from your local Walmart or even scarier out of some guys trunk (with literally no BG checks, etc.). Why is it so scary to implement some restrictions when buying guns or ammunition? I don't understand the big fear of the oogie boogie man. This guy bought 30+ rifles in less than a year... would you agree that's a bit much? On top of that all of these modifications that technically not technically make them illegal. That should have raised some red flags some where you would think. Similar to depositing/transferring money, after a certain amount it gets flagged. I don't think the gun "control" debate should either be full fledged ownership or the gub'ment coming and knocking on your door to take your guns away. There should be some restrictions to make it more difficult for these people who commit mass shootings... will they stop because "a criminal will break the law anyway...," no probably not but they may make these shootings less frequent and less deadly. Maybe this guy could have only bought 10 guns within the year, or x number of ammunition. In the end it might have made the difference between 50+ killed and only 10... At this point we have to take the bad over worse with guns in this country. I really don't understand arguing AGAINST some sort of guns rules & regulations just like when you get a drivers license and drive your car.

a reply to: racerzeke
The argument about state lines just emphasises the fact that this is not a gun issue, it is a social issue.
Tackle the reason why it seems so common for one person to murder another. Then you'll be getting somewhere.

a reply to: vonclod

Which just emphasises the point, that the issue is not guns, but the willingness to murder other human beings.
The root causes are quite obvious and it has nothing to do with inanimate objects.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: gernblan

Perhaps/ perhaps not but gun should enter into the equation, crazy ppl shouldn't have guns, and you can't have one city or state selling weapons of small destruction, while the next town have restrictions, defeats the purpose.

If people want to kill its almost impossible to stop. In the UK for example a guy used a car and a knife. Pople can use fertilizer and get mass casualties. How its done is irrelevant the biggest problem is we know longer treat mental illness. As a country we closed psychiatric hospitals and released these people to live under bridges. As for people that could afford treatment many dont realize they are sick.Im sure this paddock guy thought he was sane. Obviously he was wrong but even if someone had said something there is nothing that cojld have been done. You cannot send someone for evaluation without thier consent.

So as long as we continue to ignore mental illness these things will continue to happen. I also throw islamic terrorists into this as well notice the people they recruit.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

The UK is not the US.

Correct.

The U.K. has gun control.

Another stupid argument.
Gun control does not stop murder or even mass murder. We know that in the UK for certain.
When you get beyond Pierce Morgan logic, have another go.

With your logic, I could just as easily say that Mexico DOES have strict gun laws...

Mexico’s gun laws are similar to those in countries like the United Kingdom that do not tolerate possession of certain lethal firearms. This is in stark contrast to the laws of the United States, whose constitution allows citizens to generally own and carry firearms on their person. Foreigners visiting Mexico must be particularly careful with this, as Mexican laws on importation and possession of firearms and/or ammunition are strictly enforced at border crossings and on spot-checks, for example, at vehicle checkpoints on major highway routes through the country. The Mexican constitution allows for legal possession of one small-caliber firearm with several important caveats: the owner must be a Mexican citizen, or a foreigner with legal residency status; the firearm must be of small caliber as specifically cited by the regulations; it must be registered with the army and; critically, the firearm is not to be carried in the street. The purpose of the law is to provide for self-defense within the confine of one’s own home.

..yet Mexico's homicide rate is 5 times higher than the US. So by your logic, strict gun laws increase the murder rate.

Of course, that would be stupid, like your argument. In reality, each country faces different issues, that are far more to do with society than gun laws or ownership.

a reply to: UKTruth

I wouldn't argue much with that..I still think the free flow of weapons are part of the equation, this guy wouldn't of caused over 600 casualties with a knife per se.
As I said though..it's far too late anyway, not that I would argue for a gun grab.

a reply to: ShawnTBear

USUALLY because there isn't a logical answer, that can't be politicized.
HAVING the ability to defend requires a high powered rifle with multiple magazines, if you know what you're doing.
WHAT do you say to these people ?
give them and get over it?
So and so mental illnesses are NOW criminalizing so rights will be taken?
WAY to make sickness REALLY hide then,not that we aren't surrounded by them because the hospitals are few and far between...
WHAT then IS a sanity line legally?
Don't KNOW huh?
WE ALREADY know THERE IS an issue,just no answers yet.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: UKTruth

I wouldn't argue much with that..I still think the free flow of weapons are part of the equation, this guy wouldn't of caused over 600 casualties with a knife per se.
As I said though..it's far too late anyway, not that I would argue for a gun grab.

He (or she) might with a bomb though. If a terrorist or mass murderer wanted to kill people, would a gun ban stop them? I don't think so. It wouldn't even hinder them.. in fact, it might make it worse. More people have been killed in single incidents with bombs or even the recent vehicle murders than any mass murder with guns in US history, including Las Vegas.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: UKTruth

The UK is not the US.

Correct.

The U.K. has gun control.

Another stupid argument.
Gun control does not stop murder or even mass murder. We know that in the UK for certain.
When you get beyond Pierce Morgan logic, have another go.

With your logic, I could just as easily say that Mexico DOES have strict gun laws...

Mexico’s gun laws are similar to those in countries like the United Kingdom that do not tolerate possession of certain lethal firearms. This is in stark contrast to the laws of the United States, whose constitution allows citizens to generally own and carry firearms on their person. Foreigners visiting Mexico must be particularly careful with this, as Mexican laws on importation and possession of firearms and/or ammunition are strictly enforced at border crossings and on spot-checks, for example, at vehicle checkpoints on major highway routes through the country. The Mexican constitution allows for legal possession of one small-caliber firearm with several important caveats: the owner must be a Mexican citizen, or a foreigner with legal residency status; the firearm must be of small caliber as specifically cited by the regulations; it must be registered with the army and; critically, the firearm is not to be carried in the street. The purpose of the law is to provide for self-defense within the confine of one’s own home.

..yet Mexico's homicide rate is 5 times higher than the US. So by your logic, strict gun laws increase the murder rate.

Of course, that would be stupid, like your argument. In reality, each country faces different issues, that are far more to do with society than gun laws or ownership.

This is what is known as shutting someone's faulty logic down completely. Nice job!

originally posted by: gernblan
The White House is absolutely right, this is not the time for a gun control debate. This is the time for a mental health debate.

And speaking of mental health, take some Pepto Bismol and Tune In tonight to see crazy Nancy Pelosi in a CNN town hall argue for banning all guns.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Nothing today has made me smile as much as seeing a cop post this.

Well done, sir.

Making something illegal creates a black market, which guarantees its perserverence. We aren't the "old world" where we can institute death penalties for minor infractions. If we were, we could make things illegal and all but remove it from the population.

originally posted by: racerzeke
As mentioned earlier mentioning cities like Chicago or states like California's strict gun laws and comparing gun crimes within those boundaries isn't really fair because of how easy it is to buy guns in a majority of America and transport those across state lines. You can go to Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, etc. and literally buy an armory from your local Walmart or even scarier out of some guys trunk (with literally no BG checks, etc.). Why is it so scary to implement some restrictions when buying guns or ammunition? I don't understand the big fear of the oogie boogie man. This guy bought 30+ rifles in less than a year... would you agree that's a bit much? On top of that all of these modifications that technically not technically make them illegal. That should have raised some red flags some where you would think. Similar to depositing/transferring money, after a certain amount it gets flagged. I don't think the gun "control" debate should either be full fledged ownership or the gub'ment coming and knocking on your door to take your guns away. There should be some restrictions to make it more difficult for these people who commit mass shootings... will they stop because "a criminal will break the law anyway...," no probably not but they may make these shootings less frequent and less deadly. Maybe this guy could have only bought 10 guns within the year, or x number of ammunition. In the end it might have made the difference between 50+ killed and only 10... At this point we have to take the bad over worse with guns in this country. I really don't understand arguing AGAINST some sort of guns rules & regulations just like when you get a drivers license and drive your car.

Guns kill 34k Americans a year. 2/3 of those are suicides (of which 2/3 are vets). The mass shootings would have to come out of the remaining 8k once you remove the suicides and death by cop.

Meanwhile, health issues arising from sugar clog our healthcare system, drive up costs, and kill more people than all other causes of death combined. Heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc....all directly attributable to sugar. Can we first get some common sense sugar control laws in place?