The Tragedy in Las Vegas

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. 

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies? 

Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.

Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.

[odeon]

Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. 

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies? 

Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.

Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.

Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.

[odeon]

What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

People die because of morons like you.

Prove it or STFU!

When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?

Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?

Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.

You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.

You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.

Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.

Millions of deer tags are issued and filled out every year in the US.

I'm one of those going deer hunting this season.

At this point I have to say you are being willfully ignorant.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.

The bill of rights was designed to protect us from fascist dickheads like you.

[Gopher Gary]

Guns are also used for recreation and competitive sport, and some are just collected for no apparent reason other than to have them. Cars too. 

Why do you suppose those competitive sports happened in the first place?

Because people like trophies? 

Because someone thought it was a good idea to practise aiming at something without actually killing was a good idea.

I think practice is a good idea if someone is going to be a gun owner.    Anyway, I thought you were asking about both competitive marksmanship and racing. I think I'll stick with my trophy theory. 

[Al Swearegen]

58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?

I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.

The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.

So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?

Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.

So what is your suggestion? Just curious.

First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.

Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.

Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?

I could go on.

These are all things that could be argued and you are making reasonable arguments towards them but ALL of these are a long way from

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Which is what I was responding to.

I was not asking whether legally blind should have guns nor whether guns capable of firing a lot of rounds ought to be restricted or anything of teh sort. You expressly said (and in simple terms) that because of guns were designed to kill people they should be possible to be removed from society.

I have made a case that in America, this would be impossible. You have now pivoted to the legally blind owning guns and how some guns fore to many rounds.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

^^^ odeurn isn't making much sense at this point.

I think he just want's to lash out at people because he doesn't have any real answers.

Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate 300,000,000 guns would just spark a civil war.

[odeon]

People die because of morons like you.

Prove it or STFU!

When will you man up, when will you accept that you have a responsibility?

Oh, I do have a responsibility. I'm responsible to use my guns in a safe and responsible manner, which I do. See how easy that was?

Or will you simply continue hiding behind your moronic constitutional excuse? You mistrust the state, yet you hide behind an excuse close to 250 years old.

You're talking about the supreme law of the land in the United States which was established because the founding fathers read these things called history books, and THEY didn't trust governments.

You're a special kind of stupid to think that I would have any power to change it, even Trump can't do that.

Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Columbine... How much proof do you need? Though I'm sure there will be more.

I'm talking about a piece of bs by people long since dead, and about people alive now but in denial when they should be able to connect the dots and do something. It's not rocket science. How many people must die first?

And you can change it. Not alone, but then, that is how democracy works. Or should work.

[odeon]

Uum, you know, there's this think called hunting??

Many people here put meat on the table that way.

Yes. That is why you have guns. Your're an idiot, but then we had already established that.

Millions of deer tags are issued and filled out every year in the US.

I'm one of those going deer hunting this season.

At this point I have to say you are being willfully ignorant.

Are you being deliberately dense?

[odeon]

What you want us to believe is that you haven't evolved since the 18th century.

The bill of rights was designed to protect us from fascist dickheads like you.

How's that working out for you so far?

[odeon]

^^^ odeurn isn't making much sense at this point.

I think he just want's to lash out at people because he doesn't have any real answers.

Trying to repeal the 2nd amendment and confiscate 300,000,000 guns would just spark a civil war.

Ah, yes, that is what I proposed. Your stupidity knows no boundaries.

And you keep deflecting. Anything but your precious guns. Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.

[odeon]

58 dead, 500 hurt. The rest of the world has connected the dots, when will the US?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jul/14/nice-bastille-day-france-attack-promenade-des-anglais-vehicle

Didn't this legal vehicle kill 84? Should ban vehicles.

Remind me. Are guns used to transport people and goods? No, wait, that's not it, is it?

No as far as I am aware, guns are properly used in US as a means to resist a tyrannical government, hunting and self defence.

Guns used improperly is perching on a 32nd Level apartment and firibg down on music goers.

Cars usrd properly is to transport people from A to B .

Used improperly is driving it into a crowd of people.

What of what I said is incorrect?

I think you've misread the amendment in question, as QV already pointed out.

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Sure, how do you suppose you "remove" them. YOu are open to that possibility.

The American culture of hands off my gun and the fact that hundreds of millions there think that it is a right and most of them a necessity and most of them would consider measures to take guns off them as a way of a tyrannical government trying to disarm lawful citizens with the bad so that people cannot defend themselves. SO they will NOT allow that....AT ALL.

So that being the case, what was the possibility you were mentioning?

Sure in OTHER cultures it worked. Sure people who are anti-gun and pro-gun control WILL likely agree BUT they are hardly the people with guns.

So what is your suggestion? Just curious.

First of all, I would challenge that delusion about a well-equipped militia. Your government has nukes, people. No semi-automatic penis extender will help, you will lose. And besides, ffs, it's centuries ago. We've debunked a lot of stuff since then. And besides, you're not even a real democracy. The guy who won lost the popular vote by something the size of Albania.

Second, I'd challenge the sensibility of allowing anything firing hundreds of rounds per minute. I mean, what the fuck, what's the fucking point? It won't help against nukes but it will kill the daughter that is sneaking into the house at night a hell of a lot faster.

Third, there are states that think allowing a legally blind person to own a gun is a good idea. Why are we even talking about this when people die because of your immense stupidity?

I could go on.

These are all things that could be argued and you are making reasonable arguments towards them but ALL of these are a long way from

But let me talk this thorough with you in simple terms. Guns were designed to kill people. Vehicles were designed to transport people and goods. Now, maybe it's just me (and a few dozen dead in Las Vegas), but it seems to me as if it should be possible to remove the former without ill effects to society.

Which is what I was responding to.

I was not asking whether legally blind should have guns nor whether guns capable of firing a lot of rounds ought to be restricted or anything of teh sort. You expressly said (and in simple terms) that because of guns were designed to kill people they should be possible to be removed from society.

I have made a case that in America, this would be impossible. You have now pivoted to the legally blind owning guns and how some guns fore to many rounds.

I've picked examples showing the magnitude of the problem. The plain fact is that unless something is done, people will continue to die. Why is that so hard to understand? Why is it that so many people will deflect and compare guns to vehicles or refer to dated legislation when they should be outraged?

[Jack]

Anything but changing a dated piece of 18th century stupidity.

Federal gun laws are in fact different now than they were back then, and those differences serve as a prime example to show the constitution doesn't have to be rewritten or even infringed upon in order to enact and enforce new regulations. Though the government isn't exactly doing a decent job of enforcing state participation in the most recent federal gun regulations. 80% of the general public is supportive of stricter gun control laws. The people don't directly vote for gun legislation; they vote for the people who draft and vote on gun legislations, and is isn't done regardless of public support. That's how democracy works.