Latest Breaking News

Mr.Bill

(24,906 posts)

16. It didn't sound practical to search everyone

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 06:12 PM

Oct 2017

at every airport, either, but they are doing it and people accept it. It's an ugly situation, for sure, but something has to be done. How many outdoor venues like sports arenas are overlooked by tall buildings that the public has access to?

I don't pretend to know the solution to the problem, just throwing ideas out there.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

166 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No law could have prevented Vegas shooting, Feinstein says [View all] DonViejo Oct 2017 OP

Shes right. Snackshack Oct 2017 #1

Alas, she did not make that distinction. trof Oct 2017 #2

Yes she did. lapucelle Oct 2017 #50

Yes, 'CURRENT' is the key word here Perseus Oct 2017 #7

And most of his 49 guns were purchased in the last 12 months TexasBushwhacker Oct 2017 #10

True. And many believe it REALLY says a "militia" (Nat'l Guard) has that right, not FailureToCommunicate Oct 2017 #30

If they are going to use the Constitution to justify guns Crash2Parties Oct 2017 #94

Actually..... BruceWane Oct 2017 #156

And exactly what law would have prevented it? former9thward Oct 2017 #15

There several answers Snackshack Oct 2017 #28

None of them would have prevented it. former9thward Oct 2017 #32

The old Assault Weapon Ban, tweaked just a bit, might well have impeded him. Hoyt Oct 2017 #77

I stand by all of them. Snackshack Oct 2017 #121

So fucking misleading. No laws in place now. JI7 Oct 2017 #3

Go to a gun store and demand to get a gun right now. former9thward Oct 2017 #14

Laws have done a pretty good job Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #4

Do you think we should start searching luggage prior to entry? EL34x4 Oct 2017 #9

It didn't sound practical to search everyone Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #16

I'm not criticizing it. No doubt many are suggesting exactly this. EL34x4 Oct 2017 #18

That is a consideration, but mass shootings Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #23

What about using walking dogs through the hallways? LisaM Oct 2017 #126

Kids in many schools have to walk thru metal detectors ever single day. Certainly a FailureToCommunicate Oct 2017 #33

They'd be searching every bag. Atman Oct 2017 #101

Exactly. This isn't a minor inconvenience that adds five minutes to the check-in process. EL34x4 Oct 2017 #131

What about a law limiting the amount of ammo transported or stored? KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2017 #75

Good idea. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #88

It's a myth that ammo is highly explosive or dangerous at distances NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #106

I think you misunderstand. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #115

If someone is willing to commit mass murder hack89 Oct 2017 #92

Absolutely. KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2017 #100

I buy ammo in lots of tens of thousands hack89 Oct 2017 #105

You are being responsible if you store it properly. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #116

Anybody willing to commit mass murder won't let a few ammo storage/transport regs get in the way EX500rider Oct 2017 #128

My law could have saved most of the victims. Garion_55 Oct 2017 #5

Aree, but Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #26

Buy 'em zipplewrath Oct 2017 #129

That will get rid of some, Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #136

You might be surprised zipplewrath Oct 2017 #146

Many people's collections aren't for sale. Man_Bear_Pig Oct 2017 #148

Yet zipplewrath Oct 2017 #158

What was the compliance rate for the 1996 buy-back? Marengo Oct 2017 #154

It's not about compliance zipplewrath Oct 2017 #159

That only comes into play with the assumption that additional amnesties and buy-backs will be Marengo Oct 2017 #160

Buy back is a marginal issue zipplewrath Oct 2017 #161

That depends on what type of arms would be targeted (no pun intended haha). I've been Marengo Oct 2017 #162

The weapons of this subthread zipplewrath Oct 2017 #163

So the person asleep at night ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #43

So what are you saying, that the person should have a weapon with a multiple shot magazine? brush Oct 2017 #49

I am absolutely saying ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #64

On the last two issues: If you need insurance to operate a car, why not to own a weapon that can... brush Oct 2017 #73

Following up ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #78

If a law were passed requiring gun owners to have insurance ... spin Oct 2017 #141

Bingo. I don't know why the NRA is against it. They could be like AARP is for those over 50. brush Oct 2017 #144

Oh, BS, more delusional white win gunner fear. Hoyt Oct 2017 #79

Very persuasive reasoning ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #81

Like NRA gun promoting BS is persuasive. Hoyt Oct 2017 #83

Which part of my post ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #86

It's clever to request a specific when our narrative is much lower hanging fruit. LanternWaste Oct 2017 #123

Certainly not trying to be "clever: ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #124

what if my aunt has to manually load balls? maxsolomon Oct 2017 #119

That's a bit of a problem. Igel Oct 2017 #71

Banning semi-auto weapons worked well in Australia.n/t Scruffy1 Oct 2017 #91

"...shall not be infringed." MichMary Oct 2017 #103

hints are what we make laws off now? maxsolomon Oct 2017 #120

She gave the NRA and gun humpers just the quote they need. Maybe it's time for her to go. brush Oct 2017 #6

+1000 This! I'll be calling her office to tell her that diva77 Oct 2017 #25

Australia had very few mass shootings before Port Arthur ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #44

I think it will take a combination of actions, including what Australia did to address this problem diva77 Oct 2017 #51

The 2d Amendment isnt the problem ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #66

No, white wing gun-humpers don't support such laws. Hoyt Oct 2017 #80

Instead of straw man arguments ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #84

Even Scalia said there can be restrictions. Gun-strokers don't interpret gun laws very well. Hoyt Oct 2017 #98

It sounds to me ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #113

Agreed. She's doing favors for the other side, now. Paladin Oct 2017 #31

She's not doing favors for the other side. lapucelle Oct 2017 #54

NO. They've been saying that for years. It's one of their mantras. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #41

Repeat. She gave them a quote they can use over and over and over. brush Oct 2017 #46

Many people have thought Feinstein is not too smart. She triumphed over them all. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #52

You think that was a smart statement? brush Oct 2017 #53

I think it was a realistic statement. But not stated (excerpt didn't say) is the follow-on: Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #55

Do you even know if she said your alleged follow on? brush Oct 2017 #56

Read my post #55 you are replying to. It answers your exact question you just asked me in #56. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #58

So she didn't say it. brush Oct 2017 #60

That's not what I wrote. My post was CLEAR. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #61

What part of "excerpt did not say" do you not understand? It is in the post title. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #62

For clarity, just say if she said it or not. brush Oct 2017 #70

For clarity, read my post. It states that I do not know. :eyes: Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #76

Forget it. Not worth it. brush Oct 2017 #85

And perhaps no single law but crim son Oct 2017 #8

I know this is probably naive but why can't we change the 2nd BigmanPigman Oct 2017 #11

good idea. 70% of Americans don't even own a gun. Sunlei Oct 2017 #17

Everytime the gun owner statistic is used on the internet former9thward Oct 2017 #19

3% of Americans own something like ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #67

Removing the 2nd Amendment is only the first step. EL34x4 Oct 2017 #24

We can ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #45

Because the constitution is partly Motownman78 Oct 2017 #96

There is a problem with that in that... altidiots Oct 2017 #118

There is nothing in the 2nd amendment saying anyone has the right to purchase or sell a gun. nt fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #151

That's a hard and unnecessary approach. fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #149

Excuse me, but a law COULD have prevented the massacre Loyd Oct 2017 #12

What exactly? What specific law? former9thward Oct 2017 #20

That's the point: Because of cowardice, there IS no such law Loyd Oct 2017 #22

No, the actual point is no law would have prevented it. former9thward Oct 2017 #27

LOL! Plucketeer Oct 2017 #34

No, no law. former9thward Oct 2017 #36

LOL @ Chicago. bettyellen Oct 2017 #39

Change has to start somewhere Plucketeer Oct 2017 #93

We could make it uncomfortable to keep them though. fleabiscuit Oct 2017 #153

How would that have prevented the Vegas shooting? ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #47

Laws would have reduced the death toll. That's important when lives count & injuries last a LIFETIME Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #40

Don't change the goalposts. former9thward Oct 2017 #42

"changing goalposts" charge is distraction. Binary thinking is the end of thinking. Further ... Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #57

I guess hotel owners & their insurance should cover all injuries from snipers in their rooms? Sunlei Oct 2017 #13

You will be sleeping in your car... former9thward Oct 2017 #21

(required )event insurance just got a whole lot more expensive ;) Sunlei Oct 2017 #29

No event insurance would cover the LV event so its cost will remain the same. former9thward Oct 2017 #35

the event location leaser & the hotel will have the shit sued out of them until state government Sunlei Oct 2017 #48

The lack of any cogent, intellectual argument to counter unregulated and procon Oct 2017 #37

Yeah, but LAWS would have REDUCED the DEATH toll. That's important. Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2017 #38

Movment for the Reasonable Regulation of Firearms,,,,,, Cryptoad Oct 2017 #59

City ordinance banning guns with gun sniffer dogs/machines could have prevented this domestic terro Sunlei Oct 2017 #63

Las Vegas cant ban guns outright ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #69

why not? cities use ordinances banning all kinds of things from n'hoods/cities. places ban guns. Sunlei Oct 2017 #72

Unconstitutional ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #74

I'd bet my ass, LV could have outlawed Paddock carrying 19 guns and converting them to Hoyt Oct 2017 #82

Which part of any post of mine ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #87

Converting to auto is already a federal crime. Didn't need Vegas to do that. AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #127

Not with a bump stock, Geezer. Gunners and manufacturers go out of their way to skirt the Hoyt Oct 2017 #134

"134. Not with a bump stock,.."....then what? AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #137

Those rifles were essentially modified to emulate an automatic. Don't be obtuse Hoyt Oct 2017 #138

President Obama's ATF disagrees with you AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #140

How would laws have slowed him down if he is willing to break them? EX500rider Oct 2017 #132

If the AWB had been extended to semi-auto rifles capable of being converted with a $99 accessory Hoyt Oct 2017 #135

"...he would not have been able to buy the guns he used." AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #139

Can you read? Do you know what "extended to" means? Hoyt Oct 2017 #142

I can read .....CTA...I can read AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #143

A visitor from the Discussionist. LMAO. Hoyt Oct 2017 #150

You were a member of DI."LMAO"... AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #164

Obviously you still are. Tell all the white wingers to go screw themselves. Hoyt Oct 2017 #165

As a person of color....Why would I do that? AncientGeezer Oct 2017 #166

"if guns were not allowed on the street, it would be easy to detect some gun-humper with a... EX500rider Oct 2017 #145

Not until decided by the Supreme Court. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #110

Another soundbite for the opposition BeyondGeography Oct 2017 #65

No Way To Prevent This, Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens --- The Onion Liberal Veteran Oct 2017 #68

This thread is full of ideas. Mr.Bill Oct 2017 #89

Law needed: People on psych meds can't buy guns -- especially more than 1. Liberty Belle Oct 2017 #90

That just continues a myth that mental illness is a factor in mass shootings. NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #108

Not mental illness; the DRUGS and their side effects. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #111

I don't see evidence that the drugs make people commit mass murder. NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #112

See addendum in my post above. Your Jesuitical requirement of "mass" murder ideation is silly. WinkyDink Oct 2017 #114

How do you enforce that without violating medical privacy? NutmegYankee Oct 2017 #117

We don't need laws, we need a change in culture DBoon Oct 2017 #95

She's right madville Oct 2017 #97

Continuance and refinement of the AWB would have greatly lessened the death and injury count. roamer65 Oct 2017 #99

Assault weapons and hi capacity magazines were legal to buy and own during the AWB Kaleva Oct 2017 #107

No law could have prevented 911 either treestar Oct 2017 #102

Maybe we could MichMary Oct 2017 #104

Uh, WHAT?! I can think of PLENTY! Outright gun-ownership ban. Ban on killer's TYPE of gun. Huge tax WinkyDink Oct 2017 #109

... just sayin' Dart_Thrower Oct 2017 #122

Maybe we should just make a law against killing people. MindPilot Oct 2017 #125

lol...no kidding...the guy had enough money to get a semi-auto rifle no matter what laws we had. EX500rider Oct 2017 #133

Might have some barrel heating issues..... Red Mountain Oct 2017 #147

What we do not regulate Turbineguy Oct 2017 #130

So true. democratisphere Oct 2017 #152

She needs to retire. She's old school. nt Laffy Kat Oct 2017 #155

I think she meant no **current** law on the books would have stopped him, which is true. Tatiana Oct 2017 #157