Mass shooting at Las Vegas music fest....50 dead and 200 injured(update-400)

@bmanva: you contradicted yourself there. Should parents that inadvertantly endanger their kids have them removed, or is it only criminal intent that matters?

Having a gun wouldn't change that.

It's not fantasies to me, as a police officer, when I have first hand experiences dealing with this on a routine basis. Speaking of odds. For example, there are some officers (vast majority actually) who go through their entire career without ever firing their weapon while on duty. Does that mean officers do not need to carry weapons? Or how about how the vast vast majority of officers are never shot at or are shot, should they wear bullet-proof vests then? The odds will always be there, no matter how big or small, yet the logic underlying the demonizing of someone who wants to protect their family -- simply because you're afraid/dislike (of) an inanimate object --that's just bizarre.

@Stevo_the_gamer: again it obviously has nothing to do with protecting your family. Stop with the lies.

How many children died in traffic, falling and drowning accidents? Do you own a car or ladder or take your kids to large bodies of water?

If someone has a collection of motorcycle helmets, do you automatically assume they have fantasies of crashing their bikes and the only thing preventing their faces from splattering over the pavement is their awesome helmet wearing skills?

Ah, circular arguing, and with that, I'm out. Good day.

@Stevo_the_gamer: and yet more hypocrisy.

You refuse to listen and posted the same crap, so I gave the same response. Why don't you stop talking about your fantasies and back your claims up with facts. How does having a gun make your family safer?

Yeah you're reading it how you want to read it.........

@bmanva: you need a licence to drive a car and there are tons of regulations on how you can use them which are getting stricter every year. yet guns are considered a right.

There's also the argument that cars are very useful while guns are a hindrance.

You seem to miss his point again and again. Having a gun/guns in his home means that if something DID happen , he can protect his family. IE the family is safer. Not meaning that something HAVE happened ,

It´s like having a lock on the door and windows, most don't do that because something have happened but because something could happen.

@Jacanuk: now provide evidence that the odds of this "something" happening which can be prevented by owning a gun outweigh the odds of the actual things already mentioned.

Having a gun increases your chances of being killed, so if you want to avoid being killed the obvious choice is to not have a gun.

Where's the contradiction? Those are two separate unrelated contexts, hence the paragraph separation.

If parents exhibit a pattern of endangerment then that's criminal neglect. That's irrelevant to the topic of guns. There's not even a correlation between guns and neglect much less a causation. But when it comes to the reason why, the risks are understood. Not sure why you believe gun ownership and neglect go hand in hand when in fact you and your children are statistically more likely to died from many other things. Because guns are almost universally recognized as dangerous, people are more likely to take caution with them than other potentially as harmful items.

So you believe that particular passage of the RI constitution only extends the freedom of speech to institutionalized press?

@bmanva: where have I mentioned neglect?

You seem to be trying to make a straw man and failing even at that.

You're not hearing him. You were presenting your case in terms of likelihood, and he's saying it when the unlikely does happen, it's better to be prepared than not. Who cares how many kids are killed in home invasion? Do you think criminals care that their intention to harm your children is a statistical outlier?

lol holy crap. Nightingale is rolling over in her grave somewhere. Correlation does not imply causation. It's just as likely that possibility of you being killed increased your chances of having a gun.

But that is not the point. To prevent a break in/home invasion you put up cameras, hire a security firm , put stronger locks on the doors, buy guarddogs or move to a more secure neighbourhood

The idea of having a gun is not to prevent it, since how would a criminal know that you have a gun? ,The gun is to make you able to protect yourself in case it does happen.

So no the chances of being killed does not increase with having a gun, well not if you are not stupid and think simply having it without training is enough. In fact it decreases the chances of you or your family being killed. Since at least you have the chance of protecting yourself.

If you can't derive neglect from "inadvertantly endanger(ment)" then I can't help you.

I myself really prefer to use condoms as an analogy in arguments like this. Sure, you have a higher chance of not catching STD's or getting some girl pregnant if you don't have sex but even if I have no intention of using it, I'd rather have a condom on me at all times as a precaution than to regret it later because you never know when it might come in handy...

Not in the US you don't. In fact, if guns are regulated like cars then it would result in more lax gun laws since it means anyone can buy, sell, trade any type of firearms without any background checks (there's no registration or license or minimum age for vehicle purchase intended for non public road going vehicles). You can also freely operate your guns on your private property; you can even carry guns openly and concealed in public (you can tow unlicensed and unregistered vehicles on public road ways).

Where's the statistics that cars are more useful? There are no evidence since again defensive gun uses are not tracked.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

I have to agree. I keep thinking of many different scenarios, and they all result in the innocent getting killed. Like what if you were just taking out the trash, and you happened to have a gun on you at the time, someone could just jump out of a hiding place, and gun you down, and you have no time to react. Or you just got into your car, and someone runs up to your window, and pulls out a gun, how much time would you need to reach for the glovebox, or your holster in order to react in time? Probably less than a second before you are dead. It would make more sense to try and start the car and floor it out of there. Or if you got mugged, and the mugger had a gun in your face, even if you had your own gun on you, what are the odds of you getting shot before you are able to take it out of its holster? Hell, I remember seeing a program a while back that showed people who attack with a knife have a better chance of killing you before you are able to unholster your gun.

Pretty much in a nut shell though I will be frank and say that I don't own a firearm...

Anyone can say they are a police officer on the internet. From your WILD and GRANDUOUS examples, I feel a lot of your perceptions come from a false misrepresentation of reality.

To be fair, we all get bombarded with news with very specific narratives and without the benefit of exposure to guns military and LE personnel has, I can understand their fear. When my liberal friends see a gun IRL there's a very surreal moment they are visibly shaken by the mere sight the firearm. But for someone who carried one on a regular basis and worked around the clock with people who are also armed, you learn to see it as another piece of tool. A potentially dangerous one to be sure, but a tool none the less and the safety protocols are so drilled into your head that they've become muscle memories at this point.

The pro-gun crowd still haven’t proven why guns are effective for “home defence”. I’m more afraid of you pro-gun crazies than any terrorist or home invader.

If you want to own guns because you think they’re cool, then just be honest. I don’t understand why one needs to lie and make up fantastic situations like home defence to own a gun.

I'll be the first to admit that guns are extremely fun to shoot. Going to the range is a blast. And yet I've also gone into great detail in this thread about why I think they are an extremely bad idea for civilians to keep for defense.

I think most people buy them as toys to take to the range, then do some mental gymnastics to justify why they bought their new boomstick, imagining far fetched Charles Bronson Death Wish scenarios where they blow away punks who beat up old ladies. None of it is grounded in reality though. According to FBI records, when guns are actually used, it's overwhelmingly for suicide and murder, especially spousal murder.

As much as I enjoy shooting guns, I wouldn't be opposed to just completely banning them as other countries have done. I'd happily give up something that's fun to make everyone much more safe. At the very least we need way tighter gun control. It's ridiculously, stupidly easy to buy semi-automatic weapons with huge magazines that can be used to rapidly kill large numbers of people.

lol at your liberals over-generalization. My family is from Vermont. They are as liberal as it gets and most have gun collections that would make conservative rednecks blush.

This is actually part of the problem too. Not all of the opposition to gun control comes from the right.

Expert self defense trainers (guns or no guns) teaches prevention first and foremost. Awareness of your surrounding is paramount. In studies of hundreds of thousands of LEO encounters in the past, sudden and unexpected ambushes are extremely rare; there are always signs and indicators only if you're paying attention. In the classes I've attended and ones I've taught, they always tell you to go with your gut feelings and taking the initiative to address the situation early on instead of waiting to see how it pans out. Don't like how that alley looks find another way; you suspect someone of following you, turn around and confront them. If they turned out to be nothing, worst thing is you've walked some extra distance or you've embarrassed yourself in front of a stranger. And if something bad does happen, there's no absolute guide or rules to follow that would guarantee your survival or well being. You're consistently assessing the situation, analyzing the risks. Just because you are armed with a gun doesn't mean you HAVE to use it regardless of what situation you find yourself in, it's simply another option that might increase your chance of making it out alive.

Also the whole knife vs gun thing, I think you're deriving a lot from what you watched. If you're in a scenario where some assailant is attacking with a knife within several feet, and your weapons are still holstered you're fvcked regardless of whether you had a knife or gun. And while lethality is largely determined by caliber, a general rule of thumb, a GSW is deadlier than stab or cut wound. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/05/knives-00000/ So for defensive use, where the main purpose to incapacitate, guns are better suited than knives in more scenario. I carry both again, more tools in my tool kit for different situations. But to be completely honest, I train with my EDC gun a lot more than my EDC blade.

I can see why would someone own a shotgun or pistol, but not something like a semi-automatic like the attacker used. You can own your shotguns, hunting rifles, or pistols if you need it to defend your family and I wouldn't have a problem with that. But something like a semi-automatic that can destruction on a mass scale is not a gun I would call the needs for self-defense or one's family. I even believe that semi-automatics should not be available to the public at all and only the law enforcement and the military should have them.

And anti-gun crowd still haven't proven that guns are NOT effective for self/home defense. What's your point?

Again the reason why someone wants to own guns is a moot point. They need neither to convince nor justify the reason to you.

Yes, it's a generalization. I didn't mean to paint ALL liberals as gun grabbers, but most of the ones that react that way are almost exclusively liberal in their political leanings.

Don't see the problem. The whole gun/right to self defense issue extends beyond partisan politics. Honestly I see a lot of similarity between gay marriages and gun right. Both are about one group advocating for right to choose with opposing group arguing for restriction of that right for everyone's sake. LGBT for gun right is a real thing.

Why don't other countries have this problem? Perhaps it's the gun culture to start with that creates that problem.

A lot of people share that opinion including me. The problem is that people tend to just dismiss everyone who wants any kind of gun control as completely anti gun when that is not the case at all. Most of us just want a ban on the guns that are literally designed to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is no practical use for them in civilian hands anymore.

On the other hand maybe its not all about gun laws and instead is the culture around them that lead to this countries problem. It is key to remember that this doesn't happen nearly as often in other countries even when accounting for population differences so something has to give. Every time it just gets ignored and swept under the rug until it happens again and we do it all over again.

I should have been more specific,

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Dec. 16-20: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 89 percent. Oppose: 9 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

CBS/New York Times poll, conducted Oct. 21-25: "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 92 percent. Oppose: 7 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 7-11: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database across all 50 states?" Favor: 86 percent. Oppose: 12 percent. Unsure: 2 percent.

Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Sept. 17-21: "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 93 percent. Oppose: 6 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.

Pew Research Center poll, conducted July 14-20: Do you favor or oppose "making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"? Favor: 85 percent. Oppose: 13 percent. Unsure/Refused: 2 percent.

@LJS9502_basic:

Maybe, maybe not. In my case, I knew what was going right after it happened (parents are law enforcement), so I would have been on the lookout for him.

Nope, he's a legit police officer, I know Stevo personally was facebook friends with him.

Seriously, what makes anyone think this will change anything?

It's the same cycle over and over again.

Tragedy, thoughts and prayers, inaction and meaningless speeches from our leaders, post some memes, change your Facebook picture, more thoughts and prayers, argue with others, for a few days, then just let it fade away until the next tragedy.

Let's be honest with ourselves.

Money means more than lives.

Political power means more than lives.

This is what America has become, and the generation of Americans in charge at this moment are more willing to count dollar bills than make America great again.

*strokes chin* hmmmm I dont know, anyone can say they were friends with stevo on facebook; online.

I've got Stevo on Facebook too, tbh. Yeah he's a legit police officer but IMO that just proves he's biased and nothing more.

How the heck is everyoe friends on FB lol

Gun confiscation/epidemic is one of the biggest myths i've ever seen.

Go do yourself a favor and check out all the "gun deaths" stats over at the FBI's website.

There are 4,500 gun related deaths that are non gang/drug related (9,000 are gang/drug related).

For a country of 320,000,000 people, with 180,000,000 firearms in circulation, that's 1.3 in 1,000,000 people. That's a gun violence epidemic? No, that means unless you are a criminal or involve yourself around or within criminal activity, you have less of a chance by killed by a firearm than some Euro 1st world countries........

@mastershake575: can you give an example of one of these euro 1st world countries with equal to or greater than the level of gun related deaths as America?

I'm pretty sure if the murder rate in the UK increased by five times it would be considered a serious issue.

The only reason you fail to see the "proof" is because you won´t see the valid argument.

One could say that you have also not proven your side, that not having a gun is more safe than having one.

Infact let me ask you a question

Do you have a fire alarm and a fire extinguisher in your home? if you do, does that prevent fires from ever starting? no, of course not , but it does increase your chances of being able to escape or extinguish the fire.

Same principal with a gun.

Not at all, I'll gladly see a valid argument. Only the pro-gun psychopaths haven't provided a valid argument meanwhile there are plenty of arguments in this thread why using a gun for "home defense" is pure nonsense. In fact, it's been proven several times that not having a gun is safer since you're more likely to accidentally shoot a family member or be involved in a suicide with a gun around. The fact that you accuse others of failing to "see the proof" is hilariously ironic.

LOL comparing a fire extinguisher and fire alarm to a gun?

I can't recall hearing about kids accidentally killing themselves with fire alarms or extinguishers, spouses killing each other with them, or people committing suicide with them. All of those things are many times more likely to happen with a gun than for it to be used for protection.

Speaking of suicide, that's actually two-thirds of gun related deaths in the US. Guns make it trivially easy to blow your brains out in a moment of sadness and weakness.

You are statistically much safer not having a gun in the home. Just having it around makes it way more likely that you or someone in your home will get shot with it.

It is not gun culture, but culture. Chicago has more gun deaths per month that just occurred in Las Vegas.

Clearly you don´t want to hear valid argument and also your arguments are fallacies which show you lack knowledge and understanding of the topic.

Almost forgot for a min that you are not out to debate but to troll. So thanks for making that clear.

@Jacanuk: What are the fallacies in my arguments?

Accusing others of being a troll is rich, considering everyone on this forum has pointed out how bad your posts are lol. I’m fine with debating it’s just hopeless debating with you and it’s like talking to a child. You can barely string together proper sentences.