Vegas shooting - Taxi Cab View

[country_hick]

Your country claims to be a democracy, so if the people actually want to end the mass killings then they could do so.

Actually, the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy. It is a republic.

In a democracy mob rule is all you get for protection. A 51% vote can remove your right to life, property, and safety. Democracy always tends to end in anarchy when minorities realize their rights do not really exist and they rebel.

In a republic minority rights including but not limited to gun rights can not be removed by a simple majority vote. A republic is much better as every one (theoretically) has their rights protected even when 99.98% of the population wants those rights removed.

 

[Dashmellow]

Our government does appear to work for special interests of all types. The NRA is supported by millions of ordinary people who only want their rights to remain with them. Most special interests only want to gain control or make bigger profits.

I tend to wear earplugs when shooting .22's. The decibels created by gunfire is a legitimate health hazard. Many have lost some of their hearing ability because of the noise coming from gunfire.

People who don't use proper hearing protection with firearms are idiots just like people who don't use hearing protection when running a chain saw. Suggesting that loud reports from firearms for recreational shooters is a "health issue" is BS. As a result of this pending legislation many people have come forward to say that the sound of gunfire at mass shootings like Virginia Tech has saved their lived because they heard the gun shots and could flee. Allowing suppressors on firearms is a recipe for disaster.

And the millions of ordinary people who support the NRA only wanting their rights to remain with them don't realize they are being manipulated by big business interests whose interests are not with the "people". I was an NRA member for many years but I finally bailed as a result of their heavy handed tactics as have many fellow gun owners I know.

And if you believe that having an assault rifle is going to enable you to go up against the firepower of our government in an armed insurrection you are a total fool.

 

[country_hick]

You can't even shoot straight with a bump stock from what I have recently learned about them.

That sounds right. A rifle in full automatic mode lifts up making aiming almost impossible. Ammunition runs out in a few seconds. That is why the M-16 was redesigned with a 3 round burst instead of full automatic.

Some people would enjoy using a bump stock at the range. It could be useful during a revolution. I see no reason I would ever buy or use one except to see just once how fast a 10-22 with a 100 round clip could empty. The $ per second price would be to high for a repeat performance.

 

[country_hick]

If you can't risk your life saving innocent people from criminals, don't become a cop.

The cops at the concert did great job of saving lives but the cops who went to hotel didn't do anything about the shooter or to prevent further shooting.

https://www.policeone.com/police-jo...cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
The so-called public duty doctrine provides that “absent a special relationship between the governmental entity and the injured individual, the governmental entity will not be liable for injury to an individual... the governmental entity owes a duty to the public in general. The doctrine has been commonly described by the oxymoron, ‘duty to all, duty to none’.”

The concept of “duty” establishes a great moral obligation in those who have taken an oath to serve and to protect the public. Officers are instilled with the principles of honor, integrity, and selflessness. As a result of these basic principles, officers often feel required to take action in certain situations when taking no action may actually be the best course of action. Often, officers believe that they have a legal obligation to act above and beyond what is actually required of them.

Law enforcement professionals’ lack of understanding of the legal principles of the public duty doctrine often leads to inappropriate actions on the part of the officer.

As a general rule, an individual has no duty to come to the aid of another.
By becoming a police officer, an individual does not give up his right to the protection of these general principles. A police officer does not “assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.”

That's what we expect (those who swore to protect to protect us by taking risks) but looks like they are instructed/trained only to protect people against criminals who have smaller guns than what they carry or only when they have no risk of injury or death.

Why risk our lives?

There is no reason for police to actually risk their lives. Look at the links above and below. Police only have the duty to pick up the bodies and investigate.

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd/just-dial-911.htm
No Duty to Protect

It’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”

When these women later sued the city and its police for negligently failing to protect them or even to answer their second call, the court held that government had no duty to respond to their call or to protect them. Case dismissed.

 

[country_hick]

While I don't want to see cops die, the bottom line is that they chose a dangerous job and the people have every right to expect them to take personal risks to protect the innocent.

Phil

The people have every right to EXPECT the police to protect them.

The problem is the police have NO LEGAL DUTY to protect anyone without a special relationship such as being in custody.

 

[country_hick]

If you believe that having an assault rifle is going to enable you to go up against the firepower of our government in an armed insurrection you are a total fool.

That approach worked fairly well in places like Afghanistan.
A bunch of poorly armed rebels pushed Russia out of their country.

 

[Dashmellow]

That sounds right. A rifle in full automatic mode lifts up making aiming almost impossible. Ammunition runs out in a few seconds. That is why the M-16 was redesigned with a 3 round burst instead of full automatic.

Some people would enjoy using a bump stock at the range. It could be useful during a revolution. I see no reason I would ever buy or use one except to see just once how fast a 10-22 with a 100 round clip could empty. The $ per second price would be to high for a repeat performance.

No, it's not the recoil, it's that you've got a loose receiver only partially connected to a moving stock.

Good luck with your "revolution". You guys with your right wing "Patriot" fantasy are a real hoot. And your constant flooding of this forum with the kind of rhetoric is out of hand and inappropriate.

 

[country_hick]

Cops are trained/ordered to maintain law and order without risking their lives so fighting was out of the scope.

They are trained to be sure they go home at night. That training teaches cops not to care if the cops are the only ones who go home at night. That is one reason we see this type of disaster last for so long.

If the military had the same thinking as police wars would be over very quickly as everyone would hide instead of fighting.

 

[Dashmellow]

That approach worked fairly well in places like Afghanistan.
A bunch of poorly armed rebels pushed Russia out of their country.

They had the USA providing FIM-92 Stinger missiles and other weaponry. Who are you kidding other than yourself?

 

[country_hick]

You guys with your right wing "Patriot" fantasy are a real hoot. And your constant flooding of this forum with the kind of rhetoric is out of hand and inappropriate.

The right to engage in revolution against the USA government is well recognized within its constitution.
The desire to engage in revolution against the USA among almost all American men is very weak.

I want liberty not revolution or tyranny.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

 

[Dashmellow]

The right to engage in revolution against the USA government is well recognized within its constitution.
The desire to engage in revolution against the USA among almost all American men is very weak.

I want liberty not revolution or tyranny.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

Hah! With canned, hackneyed small minded rhetoric like that lifted whole cloth from actual patriots you don't need an assault rifle, you need a flintlock.

It's so unfortunate that you feel you need to hijack this thread by flooding it with this crap.

 

[jokiin]

Good luck with your "revolution". You guys with your right wing "Patriot" fantasy are a real hoot. And your constant flooding of this forum with the kind of rhetoric is out of hand and inappropriate.

Barely any of that here, get on Facebook and see how much of it is going on, every gun nut seems to have an account there

 

[Dashmellow]

Barely any of that here, get on Facebook and see how much of it is going on, every gun nut seems to have an account there

It's not the guns nuts exactly, it's the Fox News and "Patriot" zombies with the second amendment political propaganda thrown in on top who are girding themselves for imagined revolutionary class warfare.

 

[SawMaster]

The people have every right to EXPECT the police to protect them.

The problem is the police have NO LEGAL DUTY to protect anyone without a special relationship such as being in custody.

It wouldn't be too hard to show that the Police failed to protect the whole (not any given individual) here, and they do have a legal duty to do that. And until something like that happens things will not get any better for anybody.

We have the means to change our Government in it's every facet without bloodshed- that principle was foremost in the minds of the designers of our Constitution. No other Government had ever been designed that way before which is what set the US apart from every other nation It is our own fault that we have not wielded that power very well

Phil

 

[jokiin]

It's not the guns nuts exactly, it's the Fox News and "Patriot" zombies with the second amendment political propaganda thrown in on top who are girding themselves for imagined revolutionary class warfare.

however you label them you know the type I was referring to, every second post is a rant on Facebook at the moment

 

[Sabe]

Mass murder with guns - ban all guns.
Mass murder with trucks - ban all trucks.
Mass murder with passenger car - ban all passenger cars.
Mass murder with pressure cooker - ban all pressure cookers.
Mass murder with acid tank explosion - ban all acid tanks.
Mass murder with an axe - ban all axes.
Mass murder with a knife - ban all knives.
Mass murder with a rock - ban all rocks.
Now after everything is banned should we deal with the real problem?

 

[Nigel]

Actually, the U.S.A. is NOT a democracy. It is a republic.

In a democracy mob rule is all you get for protection. A 51% vote can remove your right to life, property, and safety. Democracy always tends to end in anarchy when minorities realize their rights do not really exist and they rebel.

In a republic minority rights including but not limited to gun rights can not be removed by a simple majority vote. A republic is much better as every one (theoretically) has their rights protected even when 99.98% of the population wants those rights removed.

I think the normal definition of a republic is, from Wikipedia, a "representative democracy with an elected head of state". Thus USA is both a republic and a democracy of a specific type. Ultimately the country is ruled by the people, and there is no requirement that a republic requires a 100% vote by 100% of people before a law can be changed.

Whatever the details of your governing system, it is up to the people to decide if they value their guns more than the lives of the half million USA people killed by guns this century. Currently it appears that they do value their guns more, and if they want to keep their guns that is fine, but obviously they have to accept the inevitable consequences - the USA is on course for 2.5 million gun deaths this century.

When the government goes to far and armed insurrection is the only solution every country will recognize the need for the populace to have arms that can have an impact on the out of control government.

There is no point blaming the police for not protecting you when you choose to make it impossible for them to do so because one day you may want to defend yourself as an individual against the police/government and be able to win!

 

[Nigel]

If all that the Cops are going to do with their guns is point them at people who forgot to use their turn signal and to shoot unarmed people who are deaf then they should not have guns because they are not using them correctly.

That is the solution to the problem - take away the cops guns, then the people wont have the excuse that they need weapons of mass slaughter to defend themselves against the state, so all automatic weapons can be removed from circulation. It is easy enough for the people to arm themselves sufficiently for a decent sized crowd to defeat the cops batons if necessary. Also the criminals will have no reason to shoot at cops since they will know that the cops wont shoot back so the criminals can put away their guns too

 

[Dashmellow]

That is the solution to the problem - take away the cops guns, then the people wont have the excuse that they need weapons of mass slaughter to defend themselves against the state, so all automatic weapons can be removed from circulation. It is easy enough for the people to arm themselves sufficiently for a decent sized crowd to defeat the cops batons if necessary. Also the criminals will have no reason to shoot at cops since they will know that the cops wont shoot back so the criminals can put away their guns too

The notion that criminals will somehow decide to put away their guns because the cops don't carry them anymore is laughably naive.

(2007) Britain is 'worst in the world' for armed robbery says security boss

 

[DT MI]

...The decibels created by gunfire is a legitimate health hazard....

And easily countered by wearing the proper ear protection - not unlike wearing proper equipment to protect against STD's.