You are here: Home | Forum | Las Vegas: Mass shooting in Mandalay Bay
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
I'm left wondering how many of the injured are covered by health insurance and if the NRA would like to step up to the plate to cover their costs if they are not?
__________________ Hell is empty and all the devils are here. Shakespeare..
I'm left wondering how many of the injured are covered by health insurance and if the NRA would like to step up to the plate to cover their costs if they are not?
Of course we rarely have to worry about that here do we. We just assume that if we're hurt in an accident, attack or whatever the NHS will look after us and there'll be support (albeit not as much as we'd like). Clearly the Americans don't want an NHS but surely their govt. provides for those who aren't insured in such circumstances or don't they? There's not only the injuries etc. to think of but all the care, rehabilitation etc. which many will require not to mention financial support for those who'll never be able to support themselves or their families again. Who takes care of that for the uninsured in America?
Police are now saying that after searches of his properties he had 47 firearms. Why anyone would need that amount of firepower for "enjoyment" is beyond comprehension.
Also his semi-automatic rifles were allegedly converted to full automatic with this legal $99 kit.
i only have guns six guns myself no point in going over the top .
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
i only have guns six guns myself no point in going over the top .
Any of them auto or semi-auto fire?
---------- Post added at 10:02 ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone
Absolutely staggering how one person can amass that amount of firearms.
3% of Americans own 50% of all guns in the USA (150 million out of 300 million) - an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns.
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
---------- Post added at 10:02 ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 ----------
3% of Americans own 50% of all guns in the USA (150 million out of 300 million) - an estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns.
no that's a bit over the top for rabbits and pigeons
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
no that's a bit over the top for rabbits and pigeons
__________________ There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it. If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Is it weapons like that the Founding Fathers were referring to I wonder? Where does the right to bear arms stop? I find it bizarre that anyone would want to own weapons like that and what use are lesser weapons if you're faced with something like that? It just becomes a race for more firepower and more weapons doesn't it?
People talk about carrying weapons so they can fight back if attacked but in the event of a mass shooting incident how are the police going to know who's who? They're not going to have time to ask are they and what about the danger from crossfire etc. from those who may own guns but have no experience of using them in such situations?
If you're going to bring "Is that what the Founding Fathers thought" into it , where does it all end? What about all the other Amendments. Or is it yet another in the long list of the principles that only apply when the Left/Democrats(in the US) say it does. Eg Free speech/Freedom of Expression.
Chances are as a multimillionaire he would have found other ways to carry out attacks.
Of course we rarely have to worry about that here do we. We just assume that if we're hurt in an accident, attack or whatever the NHS will look after us and there'll be support (albeit not as much as we'd like). Clearly the Americans don't want an NHS but surely their govt. provides for those who aren't insured in such circumstances or don't they? There's not only the injuries etc. to think of but all the care, rehabilitation etc. which many will require not to mention financial support for those who'll never be able to support themselves or their families again. Who takes care of that for the uninsured in America?
I wonder if anyone has thought of suing the NRA for damages?
__________________ Hell is empty and all the devils are here. Shakespeare..
If you're going to bring "Is that what the Founding Fathers thought" into it , where does it all end? What about all the other Amendments. Or is it yet another in the long list of the principles that only apply when the Left/Democrats(in the US) say it does. Eg Free speech/Freedom of Expression.
Chances are as a multimillionaire he would have found other ways to carry out attacks.
I agree but that is the argument the gun supporters are using to justify owning whatever weapons they feel they need. I think they should all be banned but I'm not an American.
In this case it does seem he planned this very carefully for reasons still unknown but most gun incidents in the US are the result of unplanned arguments, disputes etc. which get out of hand and if the weapon at hand happens to be an automatic rifle as opposed to a handgun obviously there's likely to be many more casualties than if it isn't.
Of course none of that precludes anyone, who's either suddenly gone berserk or planned a big attack, from killing lots of people by other, readily available, means which is exactly what the ISIS murderers have done in various European countries including ours. The absence of guns won't stop people killing others but it's really not right that ordinary people can get hold of all manner of high powered weapons so easily. I can't see it ever being changed though.
---------- Post added at 12:47 ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
I wonder if anyone has thought of suing the NRA for damages?
Given the hold the NRA seems to have over so many politicians, I'd imagine they'd need deep pockets and powerful friends to do that.
Maybe legal action of some sort is what will eventually change all this but I'd have thought, in a nation of highly paid lawyers prepared to sue anyone for just about anything, they'd have tried it before now.
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a 2005 law passed with the support of gun companies and the National Rifle Association, shields the industry from lawsuits when third parties “criminally or unlawfully misuse” their guns.
In this case it does seem he planned this very carefully for reasons still unknown but most gun incidents in the US are the result of unplanned arguments, disputes etc. which get out of hand and if the weapon at hand happens to be an automatic rifle as opposed to a handgun obviously there's likely to be many more casualties than if it isn't.
This is exactly it iMO.
Adding guns to everyday life is just dangerous and allows this to escalate quickly. As you said everyday arguments can get out of control, there are many cases of children 'playing' with these weapons and shooting others, people thinking there is an intruder in the house and shooting their relatives. Adding a gun to high stress situations is a recipe for disaster. As we've also seen routine police stops are fraught with risk in the states because the cop, race issues aside, doesn't know if the person in the car has a gun.
And even the criminal element is helped by having high availability of guns. It's not impossible that, had there been tighter control, Stephen Paddock would still acquired this weaponry but had it been harder it might have helped and increased the chances someone would spot something amiss.
There is no risk or hindrance to those with criminal intent from being armed in the states. Most of the time they've only broken the law once they follow though with whatever it is they plan to do. It may not be impossible in Europe to acquire weapons but it's a lot harder and they commit a crime by attempting to get them, increasing the risk they get exposed before they do anything.
Join CF
You are here: 
