Mass Shooting in Vegas

What would you have us study?

The future??

NOW is the time to be looking at this problem in great detail, dissecting what has happened and working toward solutions.

Any other response is just plain stupid.

 

Among high-income countries, where firearms are more available, more women are homicide victims. Women in the United States are at higher risk of homicide victimization than are women in any other high-income country.

 

The steps you seek, whatever they are, are not sensible, as it is impossible to prevent someone who can legally buy a gun from doing so.

 

Yet another post hoc argument.
Keep them fallacies coming!

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt..._show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html

 

Europeans, Brits and Australians don't have mass shootings among the populace, nor do most Arab countries unless they are terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram.

Do you think Trump is afraid to talk about guns in America?

Has he expressed any position on gun registration or assault weapons?

 

Europeans, Brits and Australians don't have mass shootings among the populace, nor do most Arab countries unless they are terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram.

Do you think Trump is afraid to talk about guns in America?

Has he expressed any position on gun registration or assault weapons?

 

If a repeatedly-convicted violent felon were to whine that denying him forming a bazooka collection violates his constitutional rights because it is "prior restraint", I seriously doubt his chances of pulling that one off.

No, the law does not license everyone to acquire whatever weaponry his heart desires.

 

Europeans, Brits and Australians don't have mass shootings among the populace, nor do most Arab countries unless they are terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram.

Do you think Trump is afraid to talk about guns in America?

Has he expressed any position on gun registration or assault weapons?

 

the right to keep and bear arms revolves around the idea that, sometime,s people need to kill other people.
Seems natural then that firearms best able to do so are those best protected by the constitution.
Why do you disagree?

Because the state cannot show a compelling reason to have on file the owner of each of the 356,000,000 firearms in the US.

The exercise of my right is not subject to your perception of need.

 

Europeans, Brits and Australians don't have mass shootings among the populace, nor do most Arab countries unless they are terrorists like ISIS and Boko Haram.

Do you think Trump is afraid to talk about guns in America?

Has he expressed any position on gun registration or assault weapons?

 

This is not proof of the claim. Feel free to try again.

 

If you equate mass murder with happiness that is your predilection. I know of no one who shares your response to it.

 

President Trump was anti-assault weapons dating back decades. As recently as 2012 he publicly supported a ban on assault weapons. That was a day or two before he decided he was a Republican.

 

Heh. As I thought - you did not understand my question.

 

If you need to plead impotence in the matter of homicidal psychopaths amassing their arsenals for killing, you can, of course, but most Americans are not as eager to surender as are you.

 

Oh I'm sorry. My mistake.

America is safer than Irak, Mexico, Afghanistan and Somalia.

Happy now ?

 

you seem to have no idea what a post hoc fallacy means

 

I'd be happier with a truthful post, but your trolling is noted

 

Remember the good ole days of gang fights, say 50's / 60's. Gang fights would wield knives, chains, and brass knuckles?

 

Trump put Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, and I think that speaks adequately to where he is on 'gun control', not to mention the ringing endorsement of Trump for president by the NRA.

Empowering teachers and school staff to have weapons may not be perfect... but what is? When only outlaws have guns, will children (or anyone else) be safe?

Right now we need to focus on Paddock's girl friend, who was most curiously OUT of the United States when all of this happened. She's already no longer considered to be a "person of interest" by the investigators... maybe they're just trying to get her to talk, so they're removing the specter of arresting her or something of that nature.

I honestly think that the ISIS claim for 'responsibility' is bullshit. So, unless somebody pops out of 'Door #3' with facts, nobody can tell us more than 'the girlfriend' -- assuming, of course, that Paddock wasn't actually some kind of "Manchurian Candidate", fresh out of an unlikely conspiracy theory....

 

No kidding? Then he is simply a fat coward.

 

Correct. So what point do you think you make by including it in the conversation?

 

Suh-prise.

 

In spades.