Here's an interesting tidbit. Practice run maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/0...iller-likely-had-some-help-at-some-point.html Lombardo is now casting doubt on Paddock as a lone wolf. Says he had to have help at some point. FBI lead agent said they are following clues that lead them all over the U.S. and the World. Paddock shot bullet holes in airport gas storage tanks that were over 500 yards from his shooting perch, probably trying to get them to explode. Not one car out on the Strip was hit. He was a good shot and was focused on a particular group of people he wanted to punish.
I know this is getting onto thin ice, but to look at it from a different perspective, Serbia has the 2nd highest incidence of gun ownership per population in the world yet among the lowest homicide rates. Guns are banned in Brazil yet they have ~64,000 a year murdered by gun How do you explain this? At a minimum, the facts refute the gun-controllers' argument that gun ownership is behind mass homicide And Serbia is not a complete statistical outlier either. The same holds for Finland, Sweden and Switzerland who have "lenient" gun laws. France, in the other hand, has extremely stringent gun laws.
Isn't there middle ground between what we have now with the gun show loophole, or the fact that Deez can meet me in Durant and sell me whatever weapon he has that I want to buy and there's no duty/liability on him if I'm a nutjob Okie trying to shoot up an eastern Oklahoma meth hampsterdam and "banning guns". Hell, just address .50 cal rifles and take some steps that will have an effect in 10 years or so. As it stands now, capitalism is seeing gun manufacturers and the NRA fan the flames that "they're coming after your guns" or they're going to get them off the market so you better buy them now. The gun dealer who sold the gun that was part of the Virginia Tech shooting a while back said his business went up tenfold AFTER the shooting. Jade Helm!!!!
Your "gun show loophole" is not real. Whatever gun laws there are apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold.
Gun maker stocks usually go up after each one of these. Which means the opportunity is always there to profit off these tragedies, if you know what you are doing and dont have a moral issue with it.
Excuse me, I should say "universal background checks". Same thing. http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/gun-shows/
All licensed gun sellers perform the same required background checks at a gun show as they do at any other time or place. There is no gun show loophole
Did you read the link? As many as 50% of vendors at these shows are "private sellers". 63% of the private sellers sold guns to under cover folks after being told "I probably couldn't pass a background check". 94% of licensed dealers did so. "A February 2011 poll found that over 82% of poll respondents, including more than 77% of gun owners, in the bellwether states of Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Virginia and Ohio support laws requiring all sellers at gun shows to run background checks."
That is high but nonetheless there is no legal loophole for gun shows. The same laws apply whether gun show or anywhere else.
OU the problem is not there is no law, it's already there. The problem is enforcement and penalty. I think everyone who supports law enforcement agrees that we need enforcement of existing laws already on the books,,,,,,,ummmm just like immigration.
And this is probably true. The last idea I saw put forward is a ban on the latest new phrase progressives have just learned -- "bump stock." But, if this were allowed, they would quickly move to an all-out ban on the weapon itself. Nevermind that the weapon can be modified in other ways and a bump stock ironically offers a lower firing rate. If you ever tried one, you know this already. Same is true with Hillary's misguided mission to ban 'silencers." The existence of 3D printers shows you that these people are not really serious. But, can we please be honest about just this one thing -- their real goal is to take away the Second Amendment in its entirety. We know from leaked emails, this was one of Hillary's litmus test items for the vetting of Fed Ct nominees. Lastly, as a reminder, this is what happens when the Federal Govt comes for your guns
That is exactly why heels are dug in so deeply against change. We all know the core left wants the 2nd ammendment gone. It has to start somewhere and eventually leads to everything so the opposition says nothing at all.
Has there any been legislation which included a provision that further legislation and/or repeal of said legislation would have to meet a higher vote count? for example, if we voted now to say that every sale, no matter the transaction source and consumer would have to have a background check. Could the legislation also include a provision that said there could be no other infringement on gun sales without a 70% approval in both houses? I don't think it's possible to curtail the voting power of future assemblies but thought maybe someone else would know for sure.
Again, not weighing in definitively on one versus two, but most of the larger rooms tend to have both a microwave and a small refrigerator. If he was truly limiting contact, even if it WAS two meals, the fridge and microwave add to plausibility of ordering for one... I've never stayed at Mandalay Bay and base my room equipment experiences on other Strip properties...
Jeez, hadn't thought about Nancy Sinatra in 30 years or more. Watch out NRA, her boots were made for walkin'!
I find myself constantly using that "loophole" in New York City parking laws where I get to park on the sidewalk where there aren't any signs saying I can't.
I, for one, am shocked and uphauled that the pro-gun control folks have not swayed the anti-gun control folks over to their camp in this thread and vice versa.
Here is a chart that blows up some of the talking points you see out there. The source is credible, the AEI, using CDC and Congressional Research Service (CRS) stats. I havent seen anyone go through the stats like they have. Nor have I seen these disputed by anyone credible. The best I could find are only through 2013 Here the CDC says there were 7 firearm-related homicides for every 100,000 Americans in 1993 (light blue line). But the gun homicide rate had fallen by nearly 50% to only 3.6 homicides per 100,000 population by 2013 (dark line). This was while gun ownership was increasing, suggesting a positive link to increased gun ownership not a negative one. While even significant correlation doesn’t imply causation with certainty, it’s logical to conclude that the two trends are related.
That would be more humane than death by boot heel. Cause we all know that one of these day Nancy's boots are gonna walk all over you.
This one confirms what I posted above about Serbia applies globally for the most part -- there is no strong correlation between gun homicides and forearm ownership.
Yep. In the hands of responsible gun owners, guns are no threat. I just wonder why the NRA works so hard to protect retailers who make hundreds of wink wink deals with straw buyers and rapid fire weapons with vast magazines.
