Four dipshits murdered a girl

[Stavros]

What does this have to do with the topic?

A response to Post #2 above.

[BatMasterson]

People can kiss my ass where the taking away of guns is concerned. Criminals will always get their hands on a gun and it's the criminals who do these things. If you've given up yours in your country, wherever you are, good for you. Stop suggesting what the US should do and mind your own yard, I say. Make criminals accountable for their crimes, don't punish everyone else in society for them.

String these bastards up for what they did.

[trish]

I'm from the good ol' U.S.of A. so I can say it: THE U.S. SHOULD STRICTLY REGULATE GUN OWNERSHIP. AT THE VERY LEAST REINSTATE THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. (If kissing BatMasterson's ass is all it will take get it done, I'd do it.)

Back to the issue: On the face of it this looks like a hate crime and it grieves and angers me. I want to see due process done. I want it to be determined in a court of law whether these suspects are guilty and if they are I want to see them duly punished. Right now I want to know why the murdered isn't being regarded as a hate crime.

[Aticus100]

People can kiss my ass where the taking away of guns is concerned. Criminals will always get their hands on a gun and it's the criminals who do these things. If you've given up yours in your country, wherever you are, good for you. Stop suggesting what the US should do and mind your own yard, I say. Make criminals accountable for their crimes, don't punish everyone else in society for them.

String these bastards up for what they did.

Cos after all, your need to feel like Rambo is far more important than someone else’s right to live.

“Crimanls Will always get there hands on guns” is an incredibly lame argument.
Yes, there is that potential but if you restrict the supply of guns then, eventualy, you restrict the availability. And if there are less guns available to people, you will have less mass shootings. This stuff is not rocket science.

[tacocorpv2]

Cos after all, your need to feel like Rambo is far more important than someone else’s right to live.

“Crimanls Will always get there hands on guns” is an incredibly lame argument.
Yes, there is that potential but if you restrict the supply of guns then, eventualy, you restrict the availability. And if there are less guns available to people, you will have less mass shootings. This stuff is not rocket science.

Just look at what's been happening in Europe, the terrorists use trucks and just ram them in heavily crowded areas. The one in Nice even had a comparable death/injury count with LV. Should they also ban trucks? I mean.. a crazy piece of shit such as this Paddock will find a way to cause serious harm regardless.

[Jericho]

a crazy piece of shit such as this Paddock will find a way to cause serious harm regardless.

So lets sit on our arses and do nothing...Again.

[broncofan]

Just look at what's been happening in Europe, the terrorists use trucks and just ram them in heavily crowded areas. .

Cars can run people over in tight spaces, but they actually have a purpose that an AR-15 doesn't. The kind of weapons the guy used only have the capability of killing lots of people very efficiently. Additionally we regulate who has the privilege to drive, what qualifications they need to drive, we make people re-register their cars every time they cross a state line and our government revokes the privilege when people are reckless even if they haven't harmed anyone. Gun ownership is not regulated anywhere near as stringently.

Finally, it's not a fair argument to attack every legislative attempt to remedy a problem by pointing to individual cases it would not prevent. Can you imagine if someone argued that banning certain contaminants in food is inadvisable because it would not prevent all cases of food poisoning; or that lead in toys should not be prohibited because kids can still injure themselves by misusing the toys? The purpose of gun control legislation is to make guns harder to get for people who are at risk to use them in impulse killings. This has a broad effect in percentage terms, but it would not prevent every violent act...

[Aticus100]

Just look at what's been happening in Europe, the terrorists use trucks and just ram them in heavily crowded areas. The one in Nice even had a comparable death/injury count with LV. Should they also ban trucks? I mean.. a crazy piece of shit such as this Paddock will find a way to cause serious harm regardless.

Without wishing to sound confrontational or disrespectful, that argument is nonsense.
“Someone used a truck as a weapon, why aren’t we banning trucks”
Well, cos we need trucks to move stuff.
“Someone used a housebrick to kill someone, why aren’t we banning all housbricks?”
Well, cos we need housbricks to build houses.
“Someone used an assault rifle to murder 59 party goers, why aren’t we banning assault rifles”?
Well, cos we use assault rifles to.........oh yeah, kill people.
An assault rifle an every day object put to miss use, it’s an item being put very effectively to it’s only intended purpose.
I like guns. I used to own some. I’d love a big fucking gun. But I dont need one. And nor does any other regular citizen.

[Dudedude12345]

Completely off topic again

[Aticus100]

Completely off topic again

It’s a conversation fella, that’s how they work.