Who is Lott?
Nevermind. I see. You completely avoided reading the statistics to show that the vast majority of the U.S. is murder free and went searching for someone's name that you didn't agree with everything they stood for just so you could try to say that the article wasn't legit. Sorry, but just because you think he's a meanie doesn't negate the facts in the article.
Read the statistics, and the article, they mean very little. Certainly not the conclusion you would like to get to. We could find stat sites all day long that support one side or another. Save it, and your smug my OPINION is right and yours is wrong attitude. My time will be better spent cleaning my AR rather than nibbling on troll bait.
puttnfool That's like saying that since people have died in car crashes even though they were wearing their seatbelts that we should take the seatbelts out of all the vehicles on the road. That's ridiculous. Seatbelts are worn (and guns are carried) not because they make us invincible, but because they give us a chance.
What????
If I'm not mistaken, seatbelts are a law in every state; you HAVE to use them. Whether useful or not.
Concealed carry is an option in every state(open carry in a few, iirc). If all 258 of those were voluntarily/2nd amendment rightfully/patriotically carrying that night, it did them no fucking good!! How many times would it? Even if they had them strapped to their legs, ala Johnny Ringo, and had copies of the Constitution in their pockets, it still would have done them no good.
Pull up your pants..........your colors are showing!!
Dang, just read your other post and now I see why all the deaths/injuries. Statistics prove there may not have been anyone at all carrying that night as Las Vegas is urban. Had it happened in a suburb, all would have enjoyed a great time. Surely!
The festival was a gun free zone, so if the concert goers wanted to shoot back they couldn’t.......
JeffTilley see, that's what the liberals don't understand... the concert was a gun-free zone. Law abiding citizens went in unarmed. Many died. The hotel was likely a gun-free zone, too. The criminal didn't worry that he was breaking rules/laws... why, because he was a criminal. Laws don't help.
Par4QC First of all, concealed carry is not truly an option in many states.
Second, my colors are red, white, and blue and I have no problem with showing them off. In fact, I'm proud of them.
Some more idle thoughts on this subject. I play golf with a few Brits and Canadians. Two things they agree on are they wouldn't change their health care system for ours, nor their gun laws for ours.
Also, regarding suicides. You have to wonder how many wouldn't go thru with it except for the fact they had a gun in their house.
Here's how crazy the gun laws have become. Here in Florida a doctor cannot ask a patient if they have a gun in their home.
The gun lobby has a strangle hold on this country and we're the worst off for it. It's all about selling more guns. As if one for every 300 plus million of us isn't enough.
Australia had a gun massacre 21 years ago and changed their gun laws after and have seen a dramatic drop in gun deaths.
Bottom line again, nothing will change. We're steeped in gun culture. Not Presidents being assassinated, not the high number of gun deaths each year (suicide, accident, and murders) and not these all to common gun massacres.
I did hear where one of the musicians at the concert changed his mind regarding guns. He and his band mates were all pro gun and had guns on the tour bus. He now realizes they'd have no chance against the arsenal of weaponry the shooter had. You never hear of someone changing their mind in the gun debate, but he did.
Even if we finally woke up one day as country and said enough is a enough, there's too many guns out there. Don't know how we'd ever get them off the streets.
As evidenced by all the posts in this thread with all the parsing, number jumbling and justifying etc., we're pretty far away from any meaningful change.
And with the billionaire Archie Bunker in the Whitehouse and a Congress owned by the gun lobby we'll stay on the course we're on. And we can all meet here again when the next massacre happens and engage in another fruitless debate on what can be done to change things for the better.
I can tell you that if guns were inaccessible suicide numbers would definitely go down, and likely very dramatically. Yes, suicidal people have other options, but very few of them are successful as frequently as a gun is.
PFellas, there are ways to change amendments, so no need to argue this point any further. Division is caused by folks continuously arguing on boards like this everywhere. Get involved, get organized, and get your ass off the couch. But get ready to hit a wall. Pro gun folks like me won’t just lay down our arms. You better have a better argument than what you’ve put forth here. Canadiens need not apply, eh......
That's a simple matter of common sense .
Those using the constitution as their defence really miss the point. Likewise is using the argument that if those in the crowd had a gun this tragedy would have been prevented. It's highly unlikely more guns , even if everyone in he crowd had one would have prevented this, it might have made matters worse in the ensuing panic. This fellow had dozens of high powered , semi and automatic weapons capable of discharging rapid fire and was in a concealed vantage point some distance away and under the cover of night. Not sure a pistol toting country fan was going to stop anything from a wide open space 400 plus feet away in the dark.
So the justifications of more guns would have helped is dubious at best.
its not about removing ones right to arms at all, the other commonly cited justification or defence. It's about common sense and considering the value and impact of changes that would limit a person such as this shooter from gaining access to 47 weapons with the capabilities to massacre dozens of people in seconds. It doesn't seem like a big compromise.
Again, the Heller decision said the Second Amendment is not limitless. Restrictions can be made. We as a country choose not to do it because of the gun lobby.
What pro gun safety advocates need to do is become like many of the pro gun right people do. Become a one issue voter. But we'll be onto the next story shortly if we haven't moved on already and all of this carnage will be forgotten.
Pro gun rights advocates adhere to the Archie Bunker theory. Archie was asked how to combat hijacking airplanes (back in the day when they didn't blow them up or crash them into buildings).
He said it was an easy fix. You simply arm all the passengers when they get on the plane and collect all the guns when they get off the plane. 
Gun rights people think arming everyone will solve the problem, when all it will do is cause more gun fights at the OK Corral type scenarios. People not trained shooting at each other. A first responders nightmare.
Oh my... Glad I've been busy...
And, btw regarding FGI and P&R: As a result of said sub-forum I now to this day maintain in contact and claim to have several real friends beyond the prudent and charitable Lefty9155. I'd 'laugh out loud' except this discussion is clearly seriously disturbing and disturbingly serious.
We can debate this all day long, but nothing will come of it without going thru the proper channels. Constitution outdated? Change it. But don't expect to EO folks into giving up their guns, ain't gonna happen. And try looking at it from another perspective for once..........
Sneakylong arming everyone will solve the problem, when all it will do is cause more gun fights at the OK Corral type scenarios.
You say that like that scenario has ever played out. Please, name one instance when an "OK Corral" type confrontation has played out in modern history. I'll get my 
and await your answer.
Amending the constitution is a very difficult thing to do. My starting position would be pretty strict, but I'm willing to compromise which many gun rights people are not willing to do.
I had a golf buddy who when Obama got elected went out and bought a magnum 357. He was sure Obama was going to take away everyone's guns. 
He was very confused as to how hard it is to change the constitution.
The gun lobby uses irrational fear to scare gun owners. The slippery slope argument isn't valid because of the Second Amendment.
And besides the Heller (Supreme Court) Case ruled that you can own a gun, but limits can be legislated. Polls show a majority of gun owners are for reasonable things like expanded background checks.
Until the gun safety side can match the NRA with money then nothing will change. Irrational fear will continue to rule the day.
Sneakylong owning a gun doesn't help if you are legislated out of the right to use it to defend yourself, your love ones, and other innocent bystanders in public or even in your own home.
