Gotta love the onion

While gun control laws could have done something chances are they would have only delayed the attack.

The guns he had were illegal to purchase. We make laws that make drugs illegal and guess what? People still smoke meth. We make laws that say breaking into a house and stealing ppls shit is illegal, but you know what? It still happens like everyday. Just because you make it illegal doesn't mean ppl won't find a way around it, like this guy did.

To poketgebear's point: The guns that he used were already illegal! Would you like to make them more illegal somehow? Stiffer penalties? Laws dont stop crimes if they are ignored.

@jojofan or at least make it so he doesn't have as many war suited guns. Crazy people would still do crazy things, and people would probably still get shot but atvleast less quantity. It would still be sad, but I rather save lives than do nothing.

He had customised his gun into an illegal one.

Ok. So we do nothing?

You could outlaw bump-stocks, but that wouldn't do much. There's nothing that can be done, short of turning into an uber-fascist police state.

Oh ok. Great! We are not doomed at all

Buy your own gun, learn to use it.
Won't help in cases like this, but most others can be stopped by one good person with a gun.

Yup. I want one. But everyone having a gun? Yes, that would make things road rage more fun probably.

Hey, if everyone has a gun then everyone's afraid of getting shot.

Like the old West.
Most people won't start shit when everyone has a peacemaker on their hip, and most of the rest can be dealt with soon enough.

Wow. Sad.

@itsamemaria At least around 46k people are getting shot a year here VS. hundreds of thousands of people in your country with no food.

Oh ok thanks that makes me feel better. Wtf?

Your inflated number includes suicides, that’s disingenuous at best.

What's wrong with including suicides? Guns are too easy to kill with.

So are hammers, rope, and vehicles. People will find ways to kill themselves and others.

They choose to die, that's the problem. Not guns.

Yeah? That's true? But suicide by gun is still a gun death because... You died by gun!

But it has nothing to do with violent crime, which is the actual issue at hand.

If you kill yourself with a gun that's your own problem, but when you start killing others with it then it's everyone's problem

Correct me if I'm wrong:
Japan doesn't have many guns, but they have an unusually high suicide rate.
Suicide isn't a gun issue. It's a depression issue.

If your kid kills himself with your gun, then there's a problem

Yeah, the kid didn't get get help he needed before he acted AND he had access somehow to the gun. Even when locked up, they can still find the keys. Anyhow, if you wanna commit suicide you'll find a way.

Japan has those too, well I doubt any sort of gun control law would help America though since we've fucked things up beyond repair at this point. Too many guns already in circulation to be able to do anything about it

Nevermind the 2nd amendment.

See? The right to bear arms is worth a cost of, what, tens of thousands of deaths each year. A constitution can be changed, but you guys can't even foster a sensible public discussion to determine why this keeps happening, let alone muster the political will to follow through. It's almost as embarrassing as it is horrifying.

More than 2/3rds of which are suicides.
You're right, a constitution can be changed. So how should it be changed? We already have restrictions on gun rights: background checks, hunting licenses, license to carry. None of which required amending the Constitution. So, what solution are you proposing that is so great it requires a Constitutional Amendment?

You're right, the suicides are the great unspoken tragedy here, but they don't sell nearly as many papers as The Biggest Mass Murder Of Modern Times.
Thats the thing though - constitutional change might not even be necessary, but the moment something like this happens, the left starts going "only gun control can stop this," the right starts going "you can't take my guns," and nothing changes. It becomes a constitutional law issue, easily politicised and personalised - and the focus comes off the real problems that contribute to this insanity. I don't pretend to have the solution, but the balls to put one's political position aside and address the evidence as it stands would be a great starting place.

That's a first: everyone pretends to have the perfect solution whether or not it solves a damn thing. Props to you on that at least.
I'd suggest holding bump-fire stocks and trigger-cranks(? I think that's what they're called) to the same standards as fully-auto guns. I don't think you should own a fully-auto gun on a technicality.
I don't think we should ban semi-autos in any form though.
Or stocks that don't change the fire-rate of the gun.
Or having picatinny/weaver rails on the forend.
Or having pistol grips.
Or slings.
Or detachable magazines.
Or barrel shrouds.
Or "bullet buttons."
All of which have been used as criteria to get guns banned (except maybe slings).
Or by reinstating the 94 Assault Weapons Ban that banned certain guns by name. Doesn't take a genius to figure out how manufacturers got out of that one.

The suicides shouldn’t count against us legal firearms owners, the firearm is just a tool used to accomplish a task, those people will find another method. Why do non US citizens argue so hard for the disarmament of Americans?

If you think I'm arguing for disarmament, you're not reading my posts. I think a fair answer to your question, though, is that when the immediate response to a mass shooting contains so much pro-gun propaganda, America comes off as bratty, selfish and quite possibly insane - which affects us all, given your economic, military and cultural reach.
Counterquestion: why does my nationality mean I don't get an opinion on human tragedy?

You can have all the opinions you want, I just find it odd that many of the “disarm US citizens” crowd are not even US citizens. You failed to answer my first question on this post which was name one new law that would have prevented this without causing further bloodshed. The problem is not the tools, the problem is craftsmen. Some are zealots “fighting for a cause” some are looking for their time in the spotlight, done feel slighted by society and want only to lash out via any method possible, some have tumors or mental illness. More people are killed with hammers and clubs than rifles in the US, should I give up all my hammers and shovel handles?

No one said you can't get an opinion on human tragedy because of your nationality.
But we very much don't appreciate it when someone foreign starts telling us what rights we should and shouldn't value, or insinuates that we don't value the lives of others.
We're just as horrified as you are. We're not numb to the tragedy.
I also fail to see how 59 people killed in Las Vegas affects you more than the 57 killed in Chicago last month, or the 535 killed this year there, other than their deaths didn't make the news.

You do need a license to drive. On public roads. You don't need one to buy a car, nor are you subject to a background check.
As to why you need a license to drive and not to shoot: The same reason there is no "license to vote," "license to speak," "license to be religious," or "license to live." The Bill of Rights.

@buttscarelton you're very misinformed. Screening before purchase is mandatory. You can't just walk up to the counter and be like " ayy lemme get an AR " and walk out. Doesn't work that way.

Unless of course, you are at a gunshow, where you don't require any background checks. But as has been mentioned multiple time, he would have passed any and all background checks anyway. He had no crimal history and was a wealthy ipstanding citizen.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/the-gun-show-loophole-myth/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/338735/40-percent-myth-john-lott
I believe you mean "buying from an private individual." So tell me, how do we close that loophole?

And there are a lot of private sells through gunshows. But yes, that's actually what I was thinking of.

I'd be flabbergasted if they made up even 10% of gun show sales. And even then, a good portion are going to be more historical or rare pieces you CAN shoot, but would more likely display.
But, how do you propose we close private transactions?

Maybe there could be some sort of check that one still owned the gun, to be sure someone without a license couldn't sell it.

Even posessing (borrowing) a class 3 wepon is illegal if the registered owner is not present. The serial #s are registered and as such, class 3 wepons cannot be legally sold to another person without government approval. The private sale "loophole" doesn't work for class 3 wepons.

Bingo. In fact, that's the only way to enforce such a law. To do so would require a National Gun Registry; one that we do not currently have.
That also happens to be exactly what the NRA has been "scaremongering," about, and what people on the left have denied ever trying to achieve.
Because once the government knows who has the guns, it takes only one act for the government to confiscate the guns. Exactly like what happened in Australia, which Hillary Clinton has said we should consider.

Of course, you'd hope that that wouldn't happen. I'd take that chance if it meant keeping guns in the hands of people who know how to handle them.

I'm not willing to put that much faith in the government. We don't know what could happen in the next centuries, and there is an established history of governments becoming tyrannical/dictatorships. Nazi Germany, China, Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea and others. Even Ancient Rome. With perhaps the exception of Rome, private arms were confiscated at one point or another by the government. Unfortunately none of those governments are well known for their humanitarian works after the people were disarmed and unable to fight back.
That is the purpose of the Second Amendment. Essentially "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

I see what you mean. We don't want to pull a Toyotomi Hideyoshi, but then again in that case the people started making swords again.

I have sold guns at Dicks Sporting Goods and at Wal-Mart before you just need an ID to buy a rifle or shotgun at Dicks and at Walmart you just had to be 18. You can also buy automatic weapons at gun shows ith no screening process

If that's all you did: Congratulations, you're a criminal because you're required to run a background check.
If that's what people are doing at gun shows: Congratulations, they're a criminal, because private sales of automatic weapons is illegal, unless they're registered before 1986 in which case they are fucking expensive.
I've got two links in a separate comment about the "gun show loophole," myth. Maybe read them.

@buttscarleton Bullshit.

Super bullshit. It’s assholes like that fearmongering that cause a lot of our problems.

He bought a legal one and customised it into an illegal one.

Thank you. It's not that I don't believe you, but do you have a source?

It's been on multiple news outlets, and was stated in one of the briefings yesterday. He has semiautomatic (legal) weapons which he had modified to full auto (not legal). He also had explosives at his home, and possibly with him in the hotel room, those reports are varied.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/03/what-gun-used-las-vegas-shooting/726743001/

I havent heard where he got the guns. But full auto wepons require a class 3 permit and license as well as a federal ATF stamp on the serial # of your wepon. I highly doubt the shooter had those wepons legally and we just havent heard yet.

I just edited my previous comment

Really? Because I just googled it and I'm getting "bump-fire stock," as the conversion method used. Which is legal.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/10/03/what-gun-used-las-vegas-shooting/726743001/#
So, do you have a source that it was an illegal modification instead? It'd have to be illegal at the state level, because federally it's legal.
That's funny. Same source, two different conclusions.

You literally used the exact link I did. No, I am not going to go back through all the newscasts briefings I watched yestetday to find where it said the term illegal. The fact if the matter is, niether semiautomatic or automatic weapons should be available for civilian use. They are not self defense weapons, they are offense. But the problem still stands that even if we outlaw them, people who want to commit mass murder aren't concerned with legality. They will find another way. Such as the bombs he had stockpiled.

Nevermind the fact that the point of the second amendment is for people to be able to stand up to the government

Likely half of the firearms in circulation are semiautomatic, about half of mine are. @celticrose how do you assume that semiautos are not for defense? I carry a semiauto for defense every day. Why do you think you get so decide what is appropriate for my defense? The sole reason for the existence of the second amendment is so that The People can have the same protections afforded the ruling elites.

Yes, that's why I edited my comment to point out the humor.
The reason I asked was because everything I had seen saying it was illegal was nothing more than speculation.
I suggest reading your sources more carefully next time, rather than assuming they support your position and this won't happen again.

Semiautomatic weapons are a ridiculous choice for personal protection, unless you routinely have to defend against entire gangs. Its obvious overkill. As for defending ourselves against our government, good luck with that, the government controls the military, an actual army. Even if it came to it, a civilian militia would have no chance. This isn't the 1700's where they were more or less equally matched.

Perfect timing, I just answered that exact statement. See reply to guest.

Have you ever even fired a pistol? Have you ever hunted wild pigs? Getting real tired of citiots that think they know everything dictating how I live my life.

And “the government” doesn’t entirely control an all volunteer military.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world bangs it's head against walls at the stupidity shown when dealing with gun control in the US.
How many more tragedies before they act?

Fine, remove the foreginers part. I just would have thought it was more up your alley. The point still is that per captia, the US has over 8 times as much gun violence as my country. Guess what? In my country, it's quite difficult to get a gun. I am working on getting a permit next year, so I don't think they should be prohibited entirely, but to me it seems the system we have seems to work pretty well

Try being a cultural melting pot constantly invaded by the cartels.

Cultural melting pot has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of more multicultural countries without problems like this.

Yeah, Europe is a big melting pot. Don't hear much about mass gun shootings. Trucks plowing into people is another thing.

The difference is that trucks don't plow into people every 2 weeks.

What?
Two weeks?

Oh that must be people getting stabbed while waiting for a train every two weeks. My bad.

Don't forget the acid attacks

Most sources say there's a mass shooting in America every day

See for yourself. A mass shooting is defined as 4+ people being shot at once. Look at the statistics.

I could argue the point, but why do that when I'm tuckered out, and there's a video that explains it basically as well as I could?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvAbophptmM
I would like to add that according to the FBI, you are correct, and I'm glad you clarified as to the definition. Lots a folks don't clarify and prefer to use the shock and awe of the number of mass shootings without revealing that no one has to die for it to be a mass shooting. I'm fairly certain the layman's definition of mass shooting is radically different from the FBI's since national news only ever covers big events like what we've seen happen in Las Vegas.
So thank you for not being misleading, deliberately or on accident, and actually being factual @silvermyth.

Most people picture 20+ people being shot and killed with lots of injuries.