Gun laws would not have prevented Vegas
Rob Monk --For everyone who doesn't know, the shooter in Vegas had a squeaky-clean criminal history- Background checks would not have prevented his access to guns.
He planned the shooting 10 months in advance- Waiting periods, gun/ammo restrictions would not have prevented this.
He had at least ten weapons and all the time in the world to change magazines- Magazine capacity restrictions would not have prevented this.
Firearms are prevented on Mandalay Bay property- Gun free zones would not have prevented this.
No proposed legislation would have prevented this tragedy. Renewed gun control hysteria is purely emotionally reactionary. It does not solve the problem. It only affects those who follow the law and would not commit crimes with weapons.
Preventing people from owning multiple assault rifles, designed for the sole purpose of military units engaging in war, would have helped prevent this. Australia experienced a mass shooting in 1996 and within weeks enacted laws to ban fire arms. They have not had a mass shooting since:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
Whereas the USA has had more than one per day since the start of the year.
However nothing will change as there are too many vested interests, lobbying groups and NRA funded politicians.
Interestingly, shares in gun manufacturers go up after mass shootings as people buy more guns in case of future restrictions!
https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/australia-apos-second-national-gun-160631452.html?utm_content=buffered7e8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer Ha ha ok so guns are illegal, this is the second gun amnesty event, they estimate 26- 28000 turned in but they also estimate 260,000 illegal guns in the country. 10%? But Wait.............Drumroll please......apparently gun control isnt working.Ha ha ha Idiots
I tried to resist....."Assault rifle" is a media coined catch phrase....meant to make you feel scared. Any rifle is an assault rifle if you use it to assault. The second amendment provides the legality to own the "designed for the sole purpose of military units engaging in war" weapons that you speak of. The problem is not guns, guns are tools, inanimate objects they have no allegiance, they harbor no ill will. The blame lies solely on the operator. Just as the cars and truck used to run over pedestrians are not to blame, blame the driver. You cant blame the tools or we would have to ban planes, box cutters, automobiles, knives, hammers etc. People are the problem....people have ALWAYS been the problem. There is too much information and yet ignorance is rampant. There is no respect anymore, no compassion. just my rant. Ha ha Peace
Under that logic nuclear weapons are not the problem, it’s the people that own them. Whilst I agree guns are a tool, they make the act of killing people a whole lot easier. In the UK where there are strong guns laws, there are killings but killers use knives or cars as you described and the death toll is 2-3 not 50-60.
If guns are a tool, then they should be restricted to those who need them (ie hunting rifles for hunters, automatic weapons for soldiers etc).
I have been around guns all my life and I am extremely thankful that they are sensibly restricted where I live, so mass shootings are a thing of the past.
It is scary that America has lost more people to gun related crime since 1968 than it has in every war Ever.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/27/nicholas-kristof/more-americans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/
Isn’t that just an amazing statistic? (I know you will disputed it now).
I have said my piece and will leave it there but I can’t believe that vested interests and lobbying groups have such control over the political process that sadly means nothing will change and tomorrow another mass shooting will occur which sadly won’t make the news unless it happens to have 50+ casualties.