Biggest mass shooting in History in Las Vegas, USA

[KhorTose]

https://www.theguardian.com/us

[vinapu]

I found this in the website above, it seems sometimes it's too late to smarten up:

 

The lead guitarist of a country music band playing Route 91 Harvest festival, where a gunman murdered 58 people on Sunday night, has said the horrific experience of the attack has changed his views on gun laws in America.

“I’ve been a proponent of the [second] amendment my entire life,” Caleb Keeter postedon Twitter. “Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was.”

.................

The feeling, he wrote, “was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand.”

“We need gun control RIGHT. NOW,” he added. “My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it.

[reader]

Amen.

[vinapu]

At least Mr. Keeter had guts to admit he was wrong all along but there are thousands if not millions who will continue to be stubbornly blind until at some time somebody will be moved  down in their vicinity. 

 

Good luck USA with gun control but is not gonna happen, not under this administration for sure. Only God knows how I wish to be proved wrong.

[steveboy]

 

“We need gun control RIGHT. NOW,” he added. “My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it.

 

Maybe the guy was too busy with his guitar. But this one was not the first mass shooting in the US.  Did it had to threaten his "brothers on the road" and himself to realize that reality?

[steveboy]

At least Mr. Keeter had guts to admit he was wrong all along but there are thousands if not millions who will continue to be stubbornly blind until at some time somebody will be moved  down in their vicinity. 

 

The same happens with the Affordable Care Act.  Millions will continue to support repealing Obamacare... until they face bankruptcy over their medical bills. 

[reader]

Gun control is the most divisive issue on Capitol Hill, surpassing tax policy and immigration by wide margins.  Keeter was not the first to experience a change of heart in the wake of an incident and won't, I think, be the last. Gabby Gifford, the former member of the House of Representatives from Arizona, had a pro-gun reputation before she was gunned down in 2011. Ever since her recovery, she has been an activist for gun control.  Former speaker of the house Tip O'Neill's famous quip, "all politics is local," comes to mind.

 

I personally applaud Keeter and Gifford for summoning the courage to oppose the NRA and risk alienating their fans and voters. They could have remained in "the silent majority" but choose the road less traveled.  And that takes guts.

 

This incident, of course, begs the question: will congress enact any restrictions at all in its wake. Despite the gravity of the killings and the sheer weight of numbers of those affected, there's little assurance it will.  The NRA's grip on congress is overwhelming in its reach: its ability to finance the defeat of most politicians along with the ability to influence its 5 million plus members' votes tends to mute opposition.

 

It's interesting to reflect on the history of the Brady Bill, named for Ronald Reagan's press secretary who was permanently disabled in John Hinckley's assassination attempt in 1981. It was Chuck Schumer (then a congressman) who introduced the legislation (for the second time) in '93 and it was signed into law by Bill Clinton that same year. Its key provision required the FBI time to do a background check on prospective gun buyers.

 

The bill that was enacted, however, had many exemptions and none more infamous that what has become to be known as the "gun show" loophole that allowed sellers and purchasers an escape route.  You can walk away from a gun show on any given weekend with a fully operational AK-47 if you so wish.

 

But the NRA still wasn't satisfied.  It financed state objections that eventually came before the Supreme Court in '98. The court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds, saying that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. Most did. In 1998, background checks for firearm purchases became mostly a federally run activity when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) came online.

 

Returning to the question of whether the Las Vegas catastrophe will make things different this time, I would very much like to believe it will.  But, like vinapu, I fear that any gun control measures are doomed under this--or possibly any--administration.

 

What I am confident of is this: gun sales and NRA membership will increase significantly for the next month as more Americans buy into the the NRA boilerplate: "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

[santosh108]

So depressing! This is also one reason I love to travel to Thailand ans SE Asia. I know there are awful problems in every country, but I do not know the language so I am not so aware of what is going on (plus of course all the fantastic other benefits of each country in that area)  It is so hard to avoid the news in the US,  Even Jimmy Kimmel, a delightful and funny late night comedian, gave a very sober dialogue last night and even was crying as he was talking,

 

Only 4 more months until my next visit to LOS,  Between our president and all the bad news stories, hope I can hold out that long.....

[KhorTose]

Gun control is the most divisive issue on Capitol Hill,

It is not just Capital Hill, it is in all America.  It is a very hard issue to explain, even to an American.  For one thing, personal protection is actually only a small part of the issue. 

[vinapu]

Gun control is the most divisive issue on Capitol Hill, surpassing tax policy and immigration by wide margins. .......

 

 

.... like vinapu, I fear that any gun control measures are doomed under this--or possibly any--administration.

 

What I am confident of is this: gun sales and NRA membership will increase significantly for the next month as more Americans buy into the the NRA boilerplate: "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

issue is divisive because nation is divided itself on the issue,

 

among my friends I count tenured university professor and a medical doctor, both avid supporters of gun rights so what one can expect from people with a bit narrower view of the world?

 

only thing which would really create some movement on the issue is mass shooting on NRA convention repeated day later on some gun show. Than it would come to light that even if there's one good guy with the gun and stops bad guy , it is always few if not more lives too late.

 

In meantime we people of other nations  can only wonder what measures supposedly  most advanced country in the world took to control it's population growth - letting it's kids kill each other.

[vinapu]

It is not just Capital Hill, it is in all America.  It is a very hard issue to explain, even to an American.  For one thing, personal protection is actually only a small part of the issue. 

it looks we had the same thought at the same moment, I was typing my piece when you commented

[reader]

...we people of other nations  can only wonder what measures supposedly  most advanced country in the world took to control it's population growth - letting it's kids kill each other.

 

... and in this case an old man. 

 

But don't give us Americans too much credit; we're quite backwards on many issues and you're spot on with this one.

 

Class divides us as much in the same way it does India, the UK and Thailand to name a few. The difference, of course, is that the UK and Thailand make it a hell of a lot more difficult to acquire a gun and--outside of terrorist incidents--they're rarely used to murder.  But Americans can be crazy blind when it comes to who gets to own a gun. It seems hard-wired into the psyche of many.

 

Last Thursday Steve Scalise, the house majority whip who was gravely injured when shot by a 66-year-old sniper during baseball practice, returned to his job on the Hill.  He came very close to death and was welcomed back by a standing ovation from both sides of the aisle.

 

It will be more than just interesting to see how he and his colleagues react going forward on the gun issue.

[vinapu]

 

 

It will be more than just interesting to see how he and his colleagues react going forward on the gun issue.

they will be singing odes to a beauty of 2nd amendment, just watch

[Jasper]

The difference, of course, is that the UK and Thailand make it a hell of a lot more difficult to acquire a gun and--outside of terrorist incidents--they're rarely used to murder.

.

UK yes.

But in Thailand? Not so sure.

I see a lot of news about a jealous husband killing his wife with gun in Thailand. I hear news about college student fighting each other with guns.

 

Last month, I went to see a popular Thai horror movie called “ The Promise”. The story was two high school girls promised to commit suicide together with the gun stolen from her parent.

Also later in the film the ordinary non criminal mother pulled a gun from safe in her house when threatened with a intruder.

Availability of guns to the ordinary Thai citizens portrayed in this film was shocking rather than its ghost in the film.

[sglad]

...It is a very hard issue to explain, even to an American.  For one thing, personal protection is actually only a small part of the issue. 

 

Difficult to explain from whose perspective - proponents of gun ownership?  "Personal protection is only a small part of the issue" for whom?

[Alexx]

Tiny little handguns (cheers to Nancy Reagan) for personal protection could still be allowed, I think, but banning the sale and possession of assault rifles really should be a no-brainer.

[vinapu]

Tiny little handguns (cheers to Nancy Reagan) for personal protection could still be allowed, I think, but banning the sale and possession of assault rifles really should be a no-brainer.

I'd not like to be killed my tiny little gun holding neighbor thinking that party I'm throwing is too loud or my dog barks too often. 

 

It's better to create an environment where one can walk safe without thinking of need to buy a gun , no matter how small.

[reader]

Judging by the morning news, the gun lobby and the GOP have settled on a way forward. It's centered on labeling the shooter as mentally deranged and buttress their argument with the old NRA canard "the only thing that stop a bad guy....".  And when they peel back the onion, there at the base of their logic is the lobby's core position "guns don't kill people, people do."

 

Personally, I don' buy it and believe he was completely in command of his senses as he plotted and executed a plan capable of producing the nation's biggest mass murder attack. This was not the work of a mad man.  Sure, it's evil but evil acts are performed daily around the globe by perfectly sane, committed individuals with an agenda in mind. Stephen Paddock was one of them.

 

 

 

 

[steveboy]

Difficult to explain from whose perspective - proponents of gun ownership?  "Personal protection is only a small part of the issue" for whom?

 

Maybe this "personal protection" excuse hides their desire for power and self justice with a gun in their hand?  

Personal protection should lead to outlawing guns... to be protected... from the guns of others.

In Las Vegas no one could have protected himself by pulling out a gun and shooting at the hotel window, high up, hundreds of yards away, and difficult to identify.

 

Yesterday on a forum I had a discussion with some staunch republicans.  At a loss with the tragedy, they still had this argument: if the shooter had no guns, he still would have found other ways to kill people, with knives, bombs, cars. And they got this argument in response:  Why should we cure cancer?  We still have heart failure, other organ failures, diabetes, sepsis infections to die from.

[reader]

I think we're seeing just how well prepared the gun lobby was for this event before it even occurred. They knew, sooner or later, something on this scale was inevitable. Instead of launching a robust confrontational response, they opted for a more philosophical and reflective approach: the shooter was a deranged and evil man and such men will always exist because of the nature of evil; we should wait to see what the investigation turns up before discussing any legislative solution. 

 

This was the mantra rolled out over the past 48 hours.  Don't sound angry. Regularly mention the mental health angle (because that's where NRA wants to steer the discussion) and sound like you want to be part of the solution.  This response has been consistent from Trump to politicians and differs from the usual bombastic retort we're accustomed to seeing from the gun lobby. The NRA is content to leave the messaging to others while still orchestrating strategy.  Sadly, it will probably succeed.

 

What's often overlooked in second amendment debates is what's at the heart of the right to own a gun among so many.  There have been two wars that left their imprint in the minds of Americans: the Revolutionary War and the Civil War.  When the former broke out, it was a rag tag group of men, formed loosely into local militias, that provided the initial opposition using their own, personal firearms. In the Civil War, many men from both sides reported for duty with their own rifles and handguns. And although the north eventually provided arms, the Confederates mostly continued to rely on their own firearms for the duration.

 

This resulted a well-defined doctrine in the minds of most Americans: you have not just a right but an obligation to keep a gun to defend yourself, your family, and your community.  Some, of course have taken it a step further and foresee a need to protect themselves from the power of the state itself.

 

This is why I believe any meaningful legislation remains unlikely even in the face of such tragedies.

 

[steveboy]

It's interesting what the National Rifle Association (NRA) said about the "bump stops":

 

"The NRA believes that devices intended to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations," 

 

 

Subjected to "additional regulations"?  What is this?  The buyer's grandmother's name on the application form? Anything less than total ban ??  What a deception! If they had one ounce of good intentions they would at least impose the same regulations as the purchase, possession of a fully automatic rifle.