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

No it's gun culture. The US has a gun culture which is nonexistent elsewhere.

Why?

Everyone? lol nice lie.

And your arguments fail because they have no basis in reality. You have no evidence to back up your claims.

Good talk everybody. See ya'll again in 2-3 years.

@Bullet_Sponge said:

Good talk everybody. See ya'll again in 2-3 years.

2-3 weeks, or 2-3 months seems more likely. Probably for an even worse mass shooting.

It took Australia just one mass shooting to fix things. Americans are idiots who never learn.

I am not quite sure what gun culture means. How is it different from culture that does not respect life.

I'd rather not get into that discussion. However the prevailing view of those that favor abortion do so on the grounds they don't believe life has started......you cannot say an individual shooting people is doing so with that thought process. Also just an FYI the Republicans who taught sanctity of life are also for the death penalty in large numbers which makes them hypocrites. Aren't you a proponent of the death penalty?

Which arguments specifically...? I and others have provided evidence all throughout the thread lol. Can you be more specific and tell me what exactly is wrong?

@uninspiredcup said:

At face value it certainly does sound alarming.

It becomes a lot less alarming when you factor in how these people got murdered. That would very much imply that what causes these deaths would happen, with or without strict gun laws.

Euro quote was an exaggeration. 4500 deaths per year with over 300 million people and almost 200 million guns is super low and not even a top 50 death concern

What does this even mean? Please elaborate on what you meant by the bolded.

You have no provided credible evidence, what you have done is take a few morons and use those as a guideline.

Fact is that if you are not a moron and learn how to use and keep a gun, it will provide safety exactly like a fire alarm or extra locks on the door does.

Most murders in the US are due to drug related violence. As far as gang wars and drug violence is concerned. Guns will be used, regardless of the legality of them.

No. Once you wave a gun around someone will be killed. And if you weren't armed it's highly possible no one would be killed. Guns do increase that chance.

Well, to be fair, if people follow proper procedures in storing firearms away in their homes (Like @Stevo_the_gamer properly stores his weapons away in a safe only accessible by his thumb print) instead of having them laying around for easy access (Such as storing a weapon under their pillow, under the mattress, on top/inside a night stand, inside a dresser drawer, inside a purse/handbag, etc.), many accidents can also be prevented. Its normally due to a gun owners carelessness that any accident happens at all. That's no fault of a gun much like its no fault of a guard dog if he gets loose and attacks someone due to the owner not putting a leash on him.

As far as suicide goes, people are known to find ways to take out themselves and their entire family by different means other than a gun such as knives or using other house hold supplies. So that's sorta a moot point too...

Have what problem? Home invasion?

Gun violence.

Don't forget storing it with the safety off.

And that is the problem, some a few, does not store their guns properly and that is the real problem.

Not having a gun in the first place if it´s stored the correct way.

That is some pathetic reasoning. By that logic, why have anything be illegal? I mean, things like murder and rape will still happen regardless of the "legality", right? May as well not even bother. /s

Gun violence is in no way "less alarming" if the victims of it are gang members and drug dealers. Furthermore, treating gang members and victims of the drug war as second-class citizens is disgusting. Do you also support Rodrigo Duterte's kill squads against drug dealers? All your previous post did was not in any way prove that it's "less alarming" for these people to die (assuming the bolded is even true, which you have provided no evidence for) but that the drug war is not only an economic disaster but also a moral one as well.

It is true that "carelessness" is the reason why any accident happens, but an accident involving a gun can become a colossal disaster like the death of a child. Stevo may be meticulous in his safety provisions but can you in good faith believe that most people are like that? I for one can't, and the statistics bare that out. Your comparison here is flawed though. If a guard dog gets loose and attacks someone, the proper authorities will almost always put down the dog. Access to guns also increases the risk of suicide.

Exactly. If used the proper way, many gun accidents would drop dramatically if not disappear completely. The current laws for preventing psychopaths from acquiring weapons are pretty effective as is too. Out of 300 million people in the US, there will always be a chance that a perfectly sane persons psych would just suddenly flip upside down if it receives the proper trigger like Stephen Paddock. There's no rhythm to it, no way to predict it. Its a miracle to me that mass shootings don't happen more often. That's not to say that I think our gun laws are perfect. I mean, I do agree that gun laws can be tweaked further from what they are now. Suggestions that come to mind would be:

1. Limit the amount of guns a person can purchase/own. Close any loopholes that may exist for being able to purchase more guns from different states.

2. Limit the amount of clips a person can buy to maybe 2-3 (Probably make exceptions for professional licensed hunters). Start putting bar codes/serial numbers on clips to better track them.

3. Make it a mandatory requirement for any new gun owner to purchase a safe/lockbox when buying a new firearm.

4. Mandatory new gun owners to take classes for shooting, proper handling, and storing procedures.

Might not be the greatest suggestions, but its a start IMO. But it needs to be kept in mind that it only makes it harder for LAW ABIDING citizen to acquire weapons. It won't stop a thug from going underground acquiring weapons illegally...

Way to put words in my mouth.

What I obviously was trying to imply is that correlation does not mean causation. Gun violence is prevelant because of drug and gang wars. And there have been methods that have been proven to be effective in reducing this kind of violence, and banning or making it harder to obtain guns is NOT that solution.

Gun violence existed before gangs and drug wars though.

Plenty of accidental children death from falling, drowning, choking or poison, many times more likely than gun deaths in fact. Again because defensive use of guns are not recorded with any sort of consistency and reliability, you in fact DON'T know that accidental gun death or domestic gun violence occur more often than defensive gun uses.

Regarding suicide, Japan and Korea has considerably higher suicide rate than that of US but yet as the lowest guns in circulation and very strict access to guns so gun law is irrelevant in that particular discussion.

You're confusing correlation with causation.

Yeah, of course you're gonna have colossal disasters. But that still doesn't negate the fact that those accidents were due out of carelessness and were preventable. You can't expect humans to be perfect much like you can't expect a condom to do its job at preventing pregnancy/STD's 100% of the time. You are always gonna get a statistic of something going wrong because that's just reality. That's unavoidable. So no, I don't have faith or believe everyone can all be as meticulous as Stevo. Regardless though, I still can't find myself wholeheartedly blaming guns for every accident that happens...

As for my guard dog comparison, I'm afraid you miss my point. I'm aware that the guard dog would most likely get put down by law enforcement (Unless the owner comes to the rescue). My point was that I can't find myself blaming the guard dog for its actions due to the carelessness of its owner. The owner knows what type of dog they have but instead of taking measures to insure that the dog doesn't run loose to attack someone, they play real lax with the dogs leash and it ends up getting free. So if the dog goes and mauls someone, I can't say I'd put the blame all on the dogs shoulders...

Again, for suicide, it's not something exclusive to guns. People will still find ways to successfully off themselves if they truly want to either by jumping off building structures, overdosing on drugs, hanging, drowning, and so forth. So that's still sort of irrelevant here...

You are also statistically much safer not driving, not eating , not drinking and forget about staying in your home since falls are the nr.1 statistically cause of death in the home. accidental poisoning is the 2nd and fires are the 3rd.

Not forgetting the chance of an accident happening outside

Again the problem with guns are not the gun being in the house, but the adult who brought in the gun without proper care and attention. Take the most recent example,. a kid reaches for candy on a counter, get´s a hold of a gun instead and shoots herself. If the grandmother had shown common sense , she would never have left a loaded gun with no safety on the counter where she normally kept the candy.

Please prove this, otherwise stop repeating tired right-wing talking points.

Ad hominem, correlation proves causation, circular reasoning, divine fallacy and argument to the people.

Sorry m8, only people who commit those fallacies are you gun nuts who fail to see reality and instead stick to your hero fantasies and internet tough guy routines.

Protip: Name-calling =/= ad hominem. Such an easy litmus test to see who is an idiot when they think simple name-calling is an ad hominem argument.

What evidence? I see a lot of speculatives and hypotheticals. Also what's your point? All I'm getting so far is something in the vague direction of "guns are bad m'kay".

You're delusional and fail to see reality, and thus beyond help. No real point in discussing with someone who is so far gone and intellectually dishonest on the internet.

*facepalm*

(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

You should read your own link, lmao. Especially this:

Logical Form:
Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.

You or Jacanuk claimed Y, and I rebutted with X, then I added that you're a moron. I didn't say what you said was wrong because you're a moron, I said you're a moron after I explained why you're wrong. Me calling you a moron wasn't my argument.

Subtle difference but an important one.

@perfect_blue: You can't argue with gun nuts. They aren't ever going to see the problem with guns. The NRA has brainwashed them successfully and they don't give a damn about the problems guns cause.

I will be intellectually honest when you start presenting your arguments intelligently.

It annoys me to have people lying and making up fantastic situations to justify owning guns as "home defense" or claiming to own guns so they can protect against a tyrannical government. If the pro-gun crowd was honest and said they want to own guns because they're cool and don't care if people die, while morally reprehensible, it is at least honest.

So you admit to being purposely intellectually dishonest?

Thank you, that is all I wanted to hear.

I may also be a french model...

I work for one of the largest departments in California. My examples are neither wild nor granduous. Wild is seeing a refrigerator with severed heads in it courtesy of the cartel. Granduous is a damn shootout with a suspect armed with an AK-47 and a handgun, shooting three officers, and then leading officers on a high-speed chase.

Welcome to the People's Republic of California.

Only thing I'm biased towards is America's Hat. ;)

Except you didn't explain nor did you make a logical argument. You simply ignored or dismissed my points entirely. Case in point:

You're delusional and fail to see reality, and thus beyond help. No real point in discussing with someone who is so far gone and intellectually dishonest on the internet.

And in the context of a debate, everything you state is inherently part of your point, so there's no purpose for name calling other than to compensate for lack of better argument.

I did in this thread earlier and before in other threads related to guns. I'm sorry but I'm at a point where I can't take you people seriously. It's like banging my head against a wall repeatedly.

Im going to cali this year, is it bad your examples made me even more excited to go lol

I admit there's nothing intellectual to a discussion with you.

California is an amazing state to visit due to all of its offerings and scenic areas - you simply can't find a state in the rest of the United States that can match what California offers with its weather, attractions, and landmarks.

But it's a terrible state to live in due to the politics. It's unfortunate, but the southern politics control the entire state - so the southern agenda defines the northern agenda. We're an anti-gun state, yet the democratic politicians decriminalize gun related charges so being in possession of a stolen firearm is a misdemeanor now instead of a felony (for example, so long as the gun is worth less than $950). But, he also removed the serial number! Yep, a criminal in possession of a stolen firearm (misd.) also defaced the serial number (still a misd).

Thanks, California.

I knew it. You're only here fishing for attention. I got my eyes on you

No shit , so am i .

So let me know which area so i can make sure to avoid that area, but let me guess you are going to San Fran to apply for a job with Gamespot ;)

Ya , California is a bad place when it comes to politics. But with that said i also have to say they have done some good things. Very few good things.

Yes earthquakes, mudslides, and fires. Not to mention the expense. Awesome.

@LJS9502_basic: Has nothing to do with anyone getting brainwashed. Its has to do with the fact that every time something happens people just want SOMETHING to happen. Whether it is logical or not. There are many many many guns in the United States, they aren't going anywhere. On top of that it is part of the second amendment of the constitution, I don't want to argue the differences between 1787 and the present and get into semantics, its in there and interpreted as what we currently have in place. With that being said instead of always having a knee jerk reaction just so we feel better at night for the sake of doing something, we are all missing the point. This guy went into a hotel room and had everything planned out from how he was going to do it and how he was prepared to accomplish it. Someone with this mindset who went through all this effort and risk was going to kill people whether he had guns or not. For me to think he went to this extent with guns, my thinking is if he didn't have access to them he would have planned accordingly. At this time their is no motive, that I know of, and looking at the situation there were some issues here but they went unnoticed. Whether you ban guns or not you will not prevent someone who is fucking crazy and wants to kill people. This idea that, "Oh if we banned guns he would have probably only kid 10 instead of 50." Like 10 people is acceptable and we would just be smiling and patting ourselves on the back because only 10 people died. Banning a type of gun doesn't help what happened in Vegas and anyone thinking it does is being completely illogical.

@xscrapzx: so if you can't reduce something to zero then there's no point in doing anything?