PG Music Home Forums General Discussion Off-Topic Country music and guns

Hello all.
As a long time country music fan I really like the ideas expressed in this article.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11929191

Also thoughts and Prayers are not helping
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11929094

Will certainly keep these ideas in mind with any future songwriting efforts.
Cheers - Richard.

I'm with you on this one rich

As soon as somebody comes up with a way to legislate human behavior, I'm all ears. Guns do not kill. I have 3. None of my guns killed anybody Sunday. Or Saturday. Or ever. Most people who talk about "tougher" gun laws say so out of frustration, never offering any suggestions as to what needs to be tougher. They also generally have never gone through the gun purchase process to know what it entails. I know those gun laws intimately, and I have done those background checks 4 times with no issue. You simply cannot legislate human behavior and the choices people make.

I now expect to hear "If he didn't have the gun he couldn't have shot." True, but acknowledge that a human made the decision to do this. By the same logic, if people didn't have cars they could never choose to drive them while drunk and kill other drivers. Shall we ban cars because they can kill?

The public attention would be better shifted to the terrorist group who is planning to wage war with first responders being the first targets. However, the media in this country is controlled by the faction who is in favor of overthrow of the current government. America is not the same world as New Zealand and South Africa. I don't know your political climate, but at this moment we are a very divided country.

I make this offer to every anti gun person I meet. I will meet you at a mall of your choice. We will sit in the food court from 11:30 to 1, the lunch rush. We will each have a pad and a pen. In that 90 minutes, you write down a description of every person you can absolutely say will snap 3 years from now and shoot up that very mall. At the end of the 90 minutes we will exchange pads. Mine will be empty. Yours should be too. People who whine about "tougher" gun law and "mental health" are asking for legislation that predicts the future. Gun law works fine for the people who do things legally, like I do. The thugs who steal guns or buy guns with the serial numbers ground off on the street are the issue. How are you going to stop that? Cops can't be everywhere. Those people don't obey the law NOW. Do you think they will suddenly start if there are more laws? Remember, law is reactive. It punishes. It does not prevent. We HAVE laws against killing. It happens anyway. If the killers are caught, they face justice. Law is reactive, not proactive.

I get the frustration when a nutbar like this guy opens fire. However, more info is being reported that may indicate an affiliation to a terrorist group, which would mean that he was on a deliberate, calculated mission. The guns he used were elite guns that call for very expensive sales tariffs and hard to obtain permissions. The guy is a multi millionaire, and the firepower he had in that room was worth approaching $250,000. Just the kind of guy that a group like that would want to recruit.

So let's agree that this was an ugly thing and move forward. With our music.

Edit to add: For our friends not in the USA, let me add this. In the USA, if you are under 21, if you have a felony on your record, if you ever had a DUI, if you have ever been convicted of a domestic violence issue, if you are on active parole or probation (which works hand in hand with the felony qualifier), or if you have ever had inpatient mental health care, you are automatically disqualified from gun purchase. Doesn't that cover it pretty well? In your opinion, who else should be disqualified? Automatic rifles, other than those very rare cases, are not available to average Joe. They have been banned since 1986. We just had the losing presidential candidate come out crowing about her bill that "silencers" be illegal. She actually thinks silencers make a gun silent. They are correctly called "suppressors", and they cut the sound by 2 to 3 decibels to protect the shooter's ears. They do not silence. THAT is the kind of misinformation we have spread by people who do not know the subject matter.

It is truly ugly here in the USA right now as we sit on the verge of an all out civil war.

Eddie. This guy seems to have been an average Joe who would in all likelihood not have struggled to get his hands on the 23 guns found in his hotel room.

Why do you want or need three guns Eddie?

Musiclover

I'm with Eddie on this one and I know this is a very highly debated issue.

We have guns in our house and I have a pistol permit for New York State. Hopefully I will soon have one for many other states. Why? Because the wife and I take walks and I want to be able to protect her from some of the nuts that are out there.

I do not believe everyone should be able to purchase a gun and I do believe that a country wide mandatory background check should be done prior to getting a permit. Our state has one of the most stringent background checks.

What we need are severe penalties for those illegally getting and/or using guns. We also need to eliminate gun free zones. Most of the mass murders are done in gun free zones. Why? Because the criminal knows that no one there will have a gun.

To those whom believe that banning guns will eliminate the problem you should be very happy that there are no illegal drugs in our country. After all illegal drugs have been banned for decades.

I approve this message - MarioD

The same reason I once had 8 keyboards and 6 guitars. It's my hobby. The 3 inch barrel handgun is my personal protection gun. It is never out of reach. And I mean literally never. Until someone can predict the exact moment a thug is going to kick in my back door and try to kill me so he can rob me with no witnesses, I will relax my posture. I then have a 5 inch barrel handgun for shooting competitions, of which I have entered 5 and never placed better than 5th. And I have an AR-15 with a scope, used for the 100 yard target range.

Ireland was war torn for many years, but not on the scale of the street violence in most bigger cities in the USA. Young punk kids here play a game called "Knockout", where they walk down a crowded street and pick a random person and punch him, the goal being a one punch knockout. And the rest of the punk kids shoot video with their cell phone. On the rare occasion that I am walking he streets, my gun is loaded and in my inside the waistband holster, ready to fire. If someone approaches me with any sort of mayhem on their mind, I will not hesitate to use it. I didn't live through 18 months of the Vietnam war to die on the street in Ohio.

We also have something here called The Constitution. That is the document that lays out the rights of our citizens. I spent those 3 years in the military defending that Constitution. The 2nd Amendment to that Constitution gives the right to the people to bear arms. My guns are legal, purchased though proper channels, each with a background check performed. Unless they start disqualifying people for speeding tickets, I am in the clear. I also went through a far more stringent background check to get a permit to carry it concealed. (My state has open carry. You can walk down the street carrying guns in the open, if you don't mind being stopped by police every 45 seconds when nervous citizens call in.)

I live in the ghetto. Crime is high here. Our street has a tightly knit group of people, all armed, who watch out for each other. We have not had a major crime in the 13 years I have lived on the street. Most of us have security cameras that start recording when there is motion. I have 2 that will set off an alarm if there is motion. I have had cats go past that camera and it beeped my phone, at which point I got out of bed, grabbed my rifle, and investigated. When I saw it was nothing, I went back to bed. I have set up 4 houses on the block with a similar system.

And that is why I have 3 guns.

He was a very rich man, multi millionaire real estate investor. He had the money to buy exotic weapons that require all kinds of background checks and special permissions. Only the very rich have those guns LEGALLY. Kids in the hood have them too but they are stolen guns that they buy in dark alleys with the money they make selling drugs. There is no limit to the amount of firearms you can buy in many of our states, Nevada being one of them. Once again, back to the original post, he did everything legally. There is NO WAY TO KNOW who is going to use those guns for mass mayhem. There is now mounting evidence that he sold his services to a terrorist group and that this was a contrived, organized shooting funded by a group who is bent on causing mayhem in an effort to overthrow our sitting government. They call themselves Antifa, named for the 1933 German group Antifaschistische Aktion who were out to take Hitler down. Here they want to take Trump down. Many of these news breaking events here are staged in an effort to gather the sympathy of the people. That part I won't get into, but there is overwhelming evidence that some of the highly publicized shootings and such were staged events, often shot several times so the news would present the best looking take. Things like "mass shootings" but nobody has any blood on them. Video evidence cannot lie, and it is everywhere.

Spot on, Mario.

Cars do not drive themselves into crowds. People who choose to do that kill.
Bad food does not make you fat. You choosing to eat it makes you fat.
Pencils do not misspell words. People using pencils misspell words.
Guns themselves do not kill. People choosing to kill with them kill.

Here we are at just after noon on Tuesday, and none of my guns have killed anybody. Ever. They can't load themselves. They can't pull their own trigger. I would have to do that. I would have to make a conscious choice to do that.

Banning guns would only take guns from people who obtain them legally. Do you really believe that banning legal gun sales would make the criminals suddenly say "Well, they don't have a gun anymore. I guess it's time to fight fair and have a fistfight and if I win I can rob them." England has banned guns. Watch any video of the English police trying to disarm a guy with a knife. They run away. THE POLICE RUN AWAY! Police are supposed to take charge, not cover. But hey, if you take guns away from everybody, it follows that you would take them from the police too. Then the Neanderthal "survival of the fittest" comes back into play and society will have regressed millions of years to whoever wields the biggest club rules.

Well as someone who never lived in the US or visited it so far, though I would love to, it is interesting to learn how people who live there do think about this issue.

Though to be honest it does seem a little early after such a tragedy to be discussing this, out of respect for the poor innocent victims.

Personally it would totally horrify me to have a gun around the house, I don't think anyone could convince me that I would need one for any sort of protection. I couldn't even sleep peacefully in my bed at night knowing that a gun was around, even though it was in some sort of safe, locked away. I think most of the ordinary people here think the same way, though they are some who do possess weapons for other reasons.

But then again because guns are not so prevalent around here and owned by the average person, that brings a sort of security in itself, I don't expect anyone to break into my house brandishing a gun (though break in's do occur)

And God forbid that the day will ever come that I feel that I have to carry a gun when out for a walk as Mario has stated.

Musiclover

I know this conversation is going nowhere and really shouldn't even be taking place here per the rules but since it is in progress I just wanna say to my friends in South Africa and New Zealand and Ireland and everywhere else in the world that there are plenty of Americans who agree with you and believe our country has gone completely batshit crazy when it comes to guns!

There are so many examples around the world where modern countries have fixed this problem by severely restricting or outright banning certain guns. And in every single case it has worked to dramatically reduce gun violence!

And the whole idea that having guns in your home or on your person makes you safer is just false propaganda spread by the NRA and their supporters. Far more innocents are killed every year by accidents or in acts of passion than bad guys breaking into your house. We Americans watched way too many westerns and failed to understand they were movies and not reality.

And this argument that banning guns means only bad guys will have them is totally wrong! We have laws for lots of things and we don't eliminate the law because a few people break it. Yes, indeed, if assault rifles were banned then a handful of criminals would still have them but that still makes the country a whole lot safer since vast numbers of those guns become unavailable to the vast majority of nutballs and well-meaning people who should never have access to them!

The false argument that somehow these mass shootings were staged is particularly disgusting and has absolutely no basis in fact. I guess if you believe bigfoot was abducted by aliens and your toaster is talking to you I can understand how you might buy into this nonsense but reasonable people reject such outrageous lies unless and until some actual proof is presented. This is just a way for gun nuts to be OK with the fact that 20 young children were slaughtered at Sandy Hook and 59 killed in Las Vegas. Did you know the children murdered at Sandy Hook were in some cases so badly damaged that coroners had to wrap them like mummies just so their parents could hold them one last time?

And I get so tired of hearing how people can kill with cars or knives. Over and over again we see that those attempts at murder NEVER result in 59 dead and 527 injured! And when we realize that terrorists can take an airplane and kill thousands we immediately take action to prevent that happening again. I guess we should have just threw up our hands and said terrorists are still allowed to take box cutters on planes so we can't change the laws??

And background checks? What a joke! I can walk into a gun show in any major American city on pretty much any weekend and, without a background check, waltz right out with an arsenal of weapons built for a single purpose...to kill people. I can be a violent felon and still buy my gun at a gun show. Hell, I can even buy it online, with NO BACKGROUND CHECK AT ALL!

Oh, you say you want an AR-15 for target practice? I say the lives of other citizens far outweigh your "right" to own a weapon of mass destruction. I don't care how good you think you are. Maybe my hobby is small nuclear devices or I just like to dabble in a little amateur chemistry producing toxic nerve agents. Well, guess what? The good of society outweighs my desire for my hobby!

All of the lame arguments are so easy to take apart but lemme just finish with a simple summary. The gun issue in the USA is NOT about 2nd amendment (it is for militia anyway and not personal ownership). And it is not about freedom from tyranny (your silly AR-15 will be no match for soldiers with more modern weaponry anyway). Not about personal protection (long guns and especially assault rifles are not what you use to defend yourself against a break-in).

Nope. It is about MONEY. Nothing else. MONEY.

Oh, I get it is not about money to Eddie and others who love guns. They actually believe a lot of what they have been told. They listen to conspiracy theorists who make big money peddling this crap! I think they actually believe that when Mr. Robber breaks in at 3am they will somehow magically awaken and grab their lucky gun and dispatch him without killing Jr. or grandma in the process. Just like Bruce Willis in all those movies!

The NRA promotes these lies and their gun-running manufacturer members profit obscenely. And then they purchase politicians from both sides of the aisle to kill any meaningful gun regulations. Fun Fact: In the USA our Centers for Disease Control are, by law, not allowed to do any research on gun violence and how it affects our people. Gee, I wonder who came up with that law???

And to be clear, I have no illusions that this will change any time soon. The power of MONEY in the USA is everything! And we have a large percentage of our population who routinely vote against their own interests in these matters because they believe ridiculous things!

So, 20 dead kids in Newtown? No problem! 59 dead and 527 injured in Las Vegas? That is just the price we are willing to pay for our freedom to own dangerous toys. Sick.

RichMac,

Thank you for sharing links to the articles. I appreciate you providing the means for me to read thoughts concerning the American experience from outside the US.

Going to respond to you in a PM rather than continue this non music topic in public forums.

I'm with Eddie and MarioD has it right. And while I feel for ALL of those victims of that evil SOB, more laws written on paper and put away in various law and code books on shelves in various cities, counties, states and maintained by the ATF in their regulations, will NOT, repeat, will not stop law breakers and evil doers. More laws on paper will not stop evil doers no matter how warm, and fuzzy, and safe those laws make you "feel."

I have a CCW (concealed carry, and yes, I DO carry, everywhere) and I OWN a LOT more than Eddie’s 3 guns, I actually own more than this latest SOB in LV had in his room and house combined. And no Eddie, I'm not rich (I have no kids so I get to spend all my money Uncle Sam doesn't confiscate on ME and wife)

Before anyone repeats the obvious, and specious, rhetorical I will stop it right here, there is no valid "why do you 'need' that many " question because it truly is a specious argument. It's like asking why do you "need" more than one guitar, more than one pick, one keyboard, one harmonica, one DAW, one car (I have multiple of all of those as well, and around 500 slide rules plus collections of other things). Please note that only one of things is specifically mentioned and Constitutionally (aka federally) protected in the USA since 1791. While in the USA you have NO legal RIGHT to own a guitar or a car, I and Eddie, and many MILLIONS of others DO have a legal, and protected right, to own firearm(s), sorry!


You want a LAW that prevents folks from having firearms then simply get Congress to pass an amendment revoking the 2nd amendment and get it ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States) and stop biting your fingernails and fretting and sitting around going “oh my, oh may what shall we do.” I’ll be long turned to ash before that happens. But if it does come to pass it will be a very sad day for honest people and a GREAT day for evildoers!


I target shoot for FUN and precision (bench rest precision) at LEAST once a week. I reload for every caliber I shoot, except obviously 22 LR. I have lots of ammunition. I must be evil because I have over a a thousand rounds. Actually, I have almost that many for EACH of multiple different calibers, handguns in particular, I go through a lot of ammunition. I also have lots of components to reload lots of ammunition (various smokeless powders, primers, bullets, cases as well as dies and presses) so I can and do manufacture even more ammunition, most is fine-tuned to each rifle but a lot is “slapped together” for pistols (hand guns are not as picky as rifles).

Why do I shoot so much – well for rifle shooting my goal is to put 5 rounds into one hole at one hundred yards, I've never achieved it, but have come mighty close with multiple calibers and also trying to put 5 rounds onto a 36" target at 1K yards.

Precision shooing like that is like trying to bowl that 300 game, or shooting 18 holes of golf in 18 strokes (or at least under par)! It's a “personal best” thing - has nothing to do with "need,” it only has to do with “want.” It takes patience, discipline, and concentration and frankly on a good day it's more relaxing than playing a guitar .

As for handguns, I shoot them to stay proficient as well as for fun. Since I do have a CCW, being accurate with a pistol is a responsibility that comes with having that CCW , and that takes practice – it is a VERY perishable skill.

I also shoot black powder (BP) firearms and have multiple BP rifles and pistols: they are also a hoot to shoot.

Did I mention I also collect slide rules – I have many hundreds of those as well so go ahead and ask “why do you need more than one?”

BTW if you think BP and go “how quant” it’s no problem, beware: just my Ruger Old Army six shooter black powder pistols in .44 are just as lethal and just as ACCURATE, out to 50 yards, as any modern .38, .357 magnum, 9mm, or .40, 44, 44 mag. 45 ACP, or 45 LC. Yes it’s limited to six shots before I have to grab another firearm or change cylinders - but six .44’s are enough.

Let me amplify my evilness in the minds of the fluffy bunny vegan world out there, I also have a Federal C&R Firearms License. Curio and Relic (C&R) firearms are essentially any non-automatic firearms older than 50 years.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/curios-relics

(PS to those who didn't know a C&R FFL is $30 and good for three years)


I am retired military but the funny thing is while I was in the USAF (and I was in a war zone off and on over five years) I slowly became totally anti-gun. By the time I retired I was vehemently opposed to “guns”. But over last 30 years I, obliviously, became a “born again” pro gunner. Got eyes re-opened with objective (aka unbiased) facts, statistics, and education followed up with hands-on experience.

This S.O.B. in LV was truly EVIL , whatever his motivation (but so were the folks in Paris and London that used CARS and TRUCKS to mow down all those folks). Yes all of it is despicable and horrible. But lets use this case as an object lesson of news performing subtle "brain washing." All the reporting of “number of firearms” in his room, and especially at his house (he wasn't at his house) and how and much ammunition he had at his home (again he wasn't shooting from there) is pointless – this info is provided only as an emotional “red flag” for news consumers.

The amount of fire he put down could have, almost as easily, been done with just ONE fully automatic rifle, whether legally obtained (in his case, unlikely) or ILLEGALLY modify to full auto and multiple magazines. BTW we all know that “illegal” means "against the law,” therefore violating laws already on the books, right?

Not to be cold and inhuman on this but before the next specious argument comes up" "well it just proves that 'large capacity magazines' need banned.” Given how much time he had to shoot, and the fact he had a hard to locate and access firing position, that much devastation could almost have been performed with just the nice "warm and fuzzy" 10 round magazines that seem to be the magic (emotional) limit for folks. It would only take determination (which he obviously had) and some practice drills in changing those 10 round magazines to be that proficient under stress. Maybe only half as many wounded but probably just as many dead - still a very large number.

Before folks get confused by reporting on this and lumped in with all previous shootings, other than the 1997 North Hollywood shoot out (bank robbery gone bad) where the LAWBREAKERS actually did use FULLY automatic firearms (and for the record those firearms were NOT LEGALLY obtained) this evil SOB in LV was the first, since that tragic event in Hollywood, to USE a FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARM.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm

PS the ones listed above that say “firearm unknown” were all semi-automatics, revolvers, lever actions, pump action, or bolt actions – not fully automatic.

Yes, you can LEGALLY buy and own a fully automatic rifle, there are no automatic pistols, at least outside military, and none that can be purchased by civilians legally. To buy an automatic rifle – you first find one for sale (ATF knows where every single legal one is located and who owns it) and they are scarce, you then pay for it, then it sits out of buyers reach or control (locked up in a safe or vault –on hold) until the buyer pays the $300 federal tax stamp fee for automatic firearms, and then waits almost a year to get that “stamp” (it’s not a waiting period, per se, it’s just the ATF being spiteful). And before you can take possession of said automatic you need to document with the ATF (and usually city, county, and state) where and how you plan to keep it stored, it is NOT like buying any other firearm – but it can be done legally - doesn't make you a mass killer or evil.

Legal automatic rifles are truly scarce to purchase since only automatic firearms manufactured before 1986 can be bought and sold and those that have them tend to hold on to them - and those that are for sale are usually in very bad condition. They are NOT “banned” as title of this disingenuous headline states, or a “loophole” (it’s allowed and specifically prescribed in Federal law) as alluded to later in the article (more colorful words to conjure up mental image of "wrongness" - drip, drip, drip):

https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-automatic-rifle/



PLEASE, PRAY for all those affected by this horrible and tragic incident - and go donate blood

Larry

//Not a rant, just a suggestion//

I'm just a guy who loves music and nobody needs to listen to me or do as I request, but I would suggest this debate be brought to a close (at least on this forum).

We've been down the road on this topic multiple times before, and every time it has ended in name calling and loss of "virtual" friendships, as well as folks removing themselves from the forum (thereby depriving us of their musical knowledge). I believe in honest debate about important topics, but this one has always previously gotten ugly with a lot of hurt feelings.

My $0.02 worth and losing value every day. But just sayin', the end result has historically not been pretty.

//Suggestion over; carry on//

I will agree with and support your last statement about giving blood. That really does have a direct impact.

Thank you JohnJohnJohn for your honest thoughtful words on this awful topic.
It's really nice to know there are some (lots of) Americans with the same logic as we have here in the UK in that guns should only be in the hands of the police when needed.

Regards

I concur CLOSE IT

Larry

I read a few early posts....

OK, this is a hack job hit piece from the anti-gun folks/ Plain and simple. There's no connection to reality in this at all.

If you live in a country that bans guns and you're OK with that, more power to you.

Why would anyone want a gun or multiple guns or guns that can shoot full-frontal-auto? Because this is America and we can. Same reason I have several guitars. One just doesn't satisfy.

With freedom comes the possibility that nut cases and purely evil folks will do bad things. I will take that risk every day rather than cower in fear hoping a cop is nearby. I carry every day.

Did country music make this guy do this? Absolutely not. Just as there are a lot of Republican and right leaning folks in country music, there are also some liberal left leaning folks.... Dixie Chicks, Tim McGraw, Garth Brooks to name just 3.

What makes a seemingly "normal" guy do this? Lets wait to see what the investigation turns up before we go blaming country music and the NRA for something that they had nothing to do with.

Sorry folks.... the same old anti-gun lies time after time tend to tick me off. It isn't the guns as Eddie pointed out. It's the person behind the gun and statistically speaking, that's more likely to be a mentally deranged person or a democrat, not a conservative gun loving, flag waving, law abiding, American.

John, John, John,




Please explain Chicago to us. The most restrictive gun laws in the country along with NYC and DC, and the highest gun violence anywhere. Worse than Afghanistan in a war zone.

And the whole idea that having guns in your home or on your person makes you safer is just false propaganda spread by the NRA and their supporters. Far more innocents are killed every year by accidents or in acts of passion than bad guys breaking into your house.



If guns are illegal..... then yes, only bad guys will have them.



I get so tired of people telling me that I should give up my guns because they don't like guns. It goes both ways.


That is absolutely NOT TRUE. Not a single gun in a gun show (except antiques) are sold without an IBGC. The dealer could go to jail and lose his license for selling guns in that manner. I don't think you have ever been to a gun show. That one paragraph exhibits an astounding degree of ignorance of the facts.



NOPE, not even close. Wrong again. Your feelings do NOT trump my 2nd amendment constitutional right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.



And..... yep... wrong again. On every point. If you think you don't use an AR-15 for self defense, or that it's not a good match-up against other weapons, you really need to get informed. It's one of the most popular rifles ever made and for a really good reason. It happens to be a very easy and reliable rifle to use for hunting, target shooting, and yes, in close quarter self defense situations. And..... it's accurate as heck.

Example..... shortly after NC relaxed it's gun laws to favor the law-abiding citizen over the criminal, three hood-rats decided to do a home invasion. It turned out that there was a 17 year old girl and a 15 year old boy at home. When he heard his sister yell, he grabbed the family AR-15 and charged the bolt. ( That means he loaded a bullet into the chamber making it ready to fire ) He confronted the 3 hood-rats and when they came at him he opened fire hitting several of them. One collapsed and died in the front yard of the house. The other was taken by his remaining hood-rat buddy to the local hospital for a gunshot wound. Both were arrested. The sheriff declined to press charges against the boy, instead praising him for his quick action with the rifle. He would probably been killed and his sister raped because the hood-rats had a list of prior felonies as long as their arms. They were bad dudes. But that Ar-15 personal defense rifle more than leveled the playing field. So don't even try to say the AR-15 isn't a good SD rifle. This story was national news due to NC just changing it's laws regarding self defense.

I had 6-7 of my ex co-workers there and 2 were hit directly. They are in law enforcement and helped save a large group of people to find hard cover, while the bullets were raining down on the metal awning overhead. Those 2 are in stable condition.

Injured and bleeding, their training kicked in and they were able to direct a large crowd of people to cover.

Several of them went back into the line of fire to gather more people who were also injured and helped them get out of the line of fire.

It takes someone special, with a head on their shoulders to do just that. Fight or flight is the natural response, but luckily they were at the concert and their years of training kicked in and saved several strangers from being killed.

I am proud to call them family.

The Hotel Security/LVMPD did an outstanding job identifying the threat quickly and putting an end to the tragedy.

Until the day comes when we can read people's minds, these type of crimes will continue, unfortunately.

And there you have it. Tell me to day who will kill 100 people in 2021, and I will say "Take his gun in late 2019 so he can't do that in 2020.

People have now been taught to conflate rights and privileges.
Owning a gun is a right. Driving a car is a privilege.

In 2016, just under 40,000 people were killed in or by cars.
In 2016, just over 15,000 people were killed by guns, 383 in mass shootings.

In both cases, that is far too many. However, I have yet to hear anybody want to ban cars.

Data and statistics cannot lie. Only emotional arguments are open to interpretation.

Those who cry "We need gun control" don't understand that we HAVE gun control. We need PEOPLE control. When you figure out how to legislate a conscience into people, let us know.

And now in the spirit of letting this die, I will no longer reply.

I don't have time to properly address all your misinformation so I'll just cover two and leave you to soak in the rest of it.

Explaining Chicago is the simplest one of all but I'll do it for you in case you are truly unable to figure it out. From Chicago you can drive a half hour in any direction except east and buy guns. Then you just turn the car around and drive back to Chicago! Not all that complicated.

And regarding gun shows you absolutely do not require a background check to buy from anyone there who is not a registered dealer. It is called the gun show loophole; maybe you've heard of it? Likewise, you can buy online and there are gun nut websites that work a lot like Craigslist where thousands of such transactions occur, all with no background checks!

Brian, there are a lot of us here who would love to see our country join the civilized world when it comes to guns. But we also still have a lot of people who practically worship these dangerous toys. And of course it all comes down to money. Sad but maybe we will catch up some day. Cheers!

The Chicago thing is an Illinois and other state's issue.

Regarding your gun show information that is dependent on the state laws. Here we have to register our hand guns. If you sell it to another pistol permit owner you must notify the state that you sold it and they must register that gun. If you are missing a gun you must report it immediately otherwise you could be in deep doggie dodo if it is used in a crime.

I will end my involvement in this thread by stating this: this gun issue as well as many other issues there are only two sides, the far right and the far left. Both sides say it is my way or the highway. Compromise is out of the question. Where is the middle ground?

For instance as you know I am a gun owner however myself and other gun owners that I know do not always side with the NRA. For example we do not need or want silencers to be available to the public.

Also I feel that I can respectfully disagree with the fine people on this side without making enemies and I hope that those who disagree with me feel the same.

Over and out - MarioD

Gun laws are state specific. That Illinois thug who tries to buy a gun in Indiana still has to meet the criteria of Illinois when he fills out his forms and meet Illinois criteria. This does NOT resolve straw man sales, where people from Indiana buy guns for those thugs from Chicago for a fee and then hand the gun over. Those sales are already illegal. Similar in concept to Mario coming to visit me and buying a gun in Ohio through me, he would legally have to register than gun when he got back to NY to be law abiding in his state. Once again the issue is trying to legislate human behavior. It would be Mario's choice to follow the law of his state or not. That is already covered in current gun law. Nobody said you can't obtain guns illegally. If you choose to disobey the law, have at it. I prefer not to. I follow proper procedure. I don't know about other state, but her in Ohio you fill out forms when you buy at a gun show. Possibly in liberal California, where I believe even water pistols are illegal, it is different.

All I can control is me, and I am 100% legal in my gun ownership. If other choose to break the law, nobody can legislate against that. Law punishes. It dos not prevent. Current gun law, when followed, is just fine as it is. Continue to bash current gun law if it doesn't fit your anti-Trump agenda. These are the exact same gun laws that were in place when Obama was president, and his own city is the previously mentioned cesspool in Illinois.

The point is Chicago does not have a gun problem because they outlawed guns, rather, they have a gun problem because the bad guys who live there can easily hop in their cars, drive a few minutes and purchase guns. I know the gun crowd loves to point to Chicago as if somehow it proves gun laws don't work but all it proves is guns can still be obtained easily just minutes away. On the other hand, countries that have banned certain types of guns have seen dramatic decrease in the gun violence.


I know plenty of gun owners who share your reasonable view on silencers. They also support mandatory background checks on ALL gun purchases or transfers. So I think there is definitely middle ground that all could agree on but the NRA opposes all of it.

I know that pointing out facts to the anti-gun folks won't change their minds because they tend to operate on emotions rather than facts.

The point about Chicago is that they do in fact, have the strictest gun laws in the country. Right up there with DC and NYC as well as a few other cities. Illinois is not a gun friendly state either. Neither is NY, CA, MD, and a few others. Having those super strict laws does NOTHING to stop the gun violence. In states where citizens have been returned their right to carry a firearm for personal protection, the crime rates tend to drop across the board. In NC, a perp can be shot by the homeowner when they are in the act of breaking in. The presumption by law is that the perp intended to harm the residents and they can act in self defense. No charges are to be filed when it's ruled to be a self defense situation and better yet, no one can file a lawsuit for wrongful death against the homeowners.

Blaming the surrounding states is a cop out. None, of the thugs from the hoods in their respective cities are going to legally buy guns in other states. Since 99% of them have a criminal history, the background check stops the sale in a legal gun shop. Anyone selling or transferring a pistol or other firearm without the proper paperwork is already violating the law.

The guns on the streets in the hands of thugs and criminals are illegal and have been stolen, with very few exceptions. The thugs are violating law just having the gun if they are felons, which most are. It's illegal to have and use a gun in a crime. It's illegal to rob, rape, do drive-bys, and murder.

So what additional law(s) do you think would actually solve this issue?

You should read some of the John Lott guns studies that show no correlation between the number of guns and violent crime with guns.

Another interesting statistic..... America is near the top when it comes to violent gun crime in the world. Fact. But, if you simply remove 4 cities from that statistic, NYC, Washington DC, New Orleans, and yep... Chicago, America falls to very near the bottom on that same list. Interesting.

this is a waste of time trying to convince you of the facts. I'm going to work.... with my 9mm in my holster.

well, you have yet to point out any facts! I get that you love your guns and you are fearful so you feel you need your gun for protection. but here's a fun fact for you: only 0.04% of all gun murders in the US happen during home invasions; read that again...not 4%...not 0.4%...but 0.04%! and over a third of those are killed by their own gun that the criminal has either stolen or taken from them.

and you are in the minority! 77% of all Americans do NOT own a gun! so let that sink in...over 3/4s of us do not feel compelled to shoot things nor do we believe bad guys are coming to get us nor do we have a cowboy complex that drives us to walk around with a firearm.

the simple facts are shown in absolute clarity by all other modern countries where gun laws are much more stringent and the result is crystal clear...fewer guns means less gun violence. so obvious as to be common sense.

Finally, I am quite familiar with Lott's work and it has been rejected by plenty of reputable sources including,

- Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel stated that "Lott's massive data set was simply unsuitable for his task", and that he "compar[ed] trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City" without proper statistical controls. He points out that econometric methods (such as the Lott & Mustard RTC study or the Levitt & Donohue abortion study) are susceptible to misuse and can even become junk science.

- Hemenway, David (2006). Private guns, public health. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472023820.

- Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue III, Stanford Law School, "Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis," Stanford Law Review, 2003.[27] This study found a temporary increase in aggravated assaults.

- Webster et al., "Flawed gun policy research could endanger public safety", American Journal of Public Health, 1997.

- Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University, "Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data", International Review of Law and Economics, 1998.

- Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies, (January 1998).

- Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin, "Lives Saved or Lives Lost? The Effects of Concealed-Handgun Laws on Crime," The American Economic Review, 1998.

- Mark Duggan, University of Chicago, "More Guns, More Crime," National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000, later published in Journal of Political Economy.

- David E. Olson and Michael D. Maltz, "Right‐to‐Carry Concealed Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim‐Offender Relationships," The Journal of Law & Economics, 2001. This study found mixed results as to whether right-to-carry laws were associated with similar effects as reported by Lott and Mustard or not.

- Grant Duwe, Tomislav Kovandzic, and Carlisle E. Moody, "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearm Laws on Mass Public Shootings" Homicide Studies 4 (2002).

- Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Thomas B. Marvell, "Right-to-Carry Concealed Firearms and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?" Criminology and Public Policy 2, (2003).

- John J. Donahue III, Stanford Law School, 'The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis', Criminology and Public Policy, 2003.

- Tomislav V. Kovandzic, Thomas B. Marvell and Lynne M. Vieraitis, "The Impact of “Shall-Issue” Concealed Handgun Laws on Violent Crime Rates: Evidence From Panel Data for Large Urban Cities" Homicide Studies (2005): 292-323.

- Michael D. Maltz and Joseph Targonski, "Measurement and Other Errors in County-Level UCR Data: A Reply to Lott and Whitley," Journal of Quantitative Criminology June 2003: 199-206.

- Lisa Hepburn, Matthew Miller, Deborah Azrael, and David Hemenway "The effect of nondiscretionary concealed weapon carrying laws on homicide", Journal of Trauma March 2004: 676-81.

- Robert A. Martin Jr. and Richard L. Legault, "Systematic Measurement Error with State-Level Crime Data: Evidence from the “More Guns, Less Crime” Debate," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency May 2005: 187-210.

- Rosengart et al., "An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates," Injury Prevention 2005: 77-83.

- Patricia Grambsch, "Regression to the Mean, Murder Rates, and Shall-Issue Laws," The American Statistician (2008).

- Benjamin French and Patrick J. Heagerty, "Analysis of Longitudinal Data to Evaluate a Policy Change", Statistics in Medicine October 30, 2008: 5005-5025. This study concluded that "enacting a shall-issue law is associated with a weak but non-significant increase in firearm-related homicide rates."

- John Donohue and Ian Ayres. "More Guns, Less Crime Fails Again: The Latest Evidence from 1977–2006" Econ Journal Watch (2009): 218–238.

- Hoskin, Anthony (March 2011). "Household gun prevalence and rates of violent crime: a test of competing gun theories". Criminal Justice Studies. 24 (1): 125–136. doi:10.1080/1478601X.2011.544445.

- Aneja, A.; Donohue, J. J.; Zhang, A. (29 October 2011). "The Impact of Right-to-Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy" (PDF). American Law and Economics Review. 13 (2): 565–631. doi:10.1093/aler/ahr009.

- Wolfgang Stroebe, "Firearm possession and violent death: A critical review," Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2013.

- Sripal Bangalore and Franz Messerli, "Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths," The American Journal of Medicine, 2013.

- Kesteren, John van; Dijk, Jan van; Mayhew, Pat (January 2014). "The International Crime Victims Surveys". International Review of Victimology. SAGE Publications. 20 (1): 49–69. doi:10.1177/0269758013511742.

- Donald J. Lacombe and Amanda Ross, "Revisiting the Question 'More Guns, Less Crime?' New Estimates Using Spatial Econometric Techniques," Social Science Research Network, 2014.

- Manski & Pepper, "How Do Right-to-Carry Laws Affect Crime Rates? Coping with Ambiguity Using Bounded-Variation Assumptions", Review of Economics and Statistics, 2015.

- Steven N. Durlauf, Salvador Navarro, David A. Rivers, "Model uncertainty and the effect of shall-issue right-to-carry laws on crime," European Economic Review, 2016.

With respect to Americans your Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms needs to come of age.
Written over two hundred years ago the right to own and use a gun has no place in this millennium.
Times change, society changes and human values change, it's no longer 1791, it's no longer the Wild West it's 2017.

You seem to forget one simple thing. That pesky second amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Perhaps the most important 27 words ever written by man.

The second amendment is an individual right. It wouldn't matter if 99.99% of Americans were against gun ownership, that amendment, second only to your right to speak freely without fear against the government, is there to protect the rights of the few against the many. And please try not to compartmentalize me into what you think I am. You obviously don't have a clue who I am, what I fear or don't fear, or even why I choose to carry a pistol with me daily.

Yes Brian, the constitution was written over 200 years ago. You must remember that back then, citizens were allowed to own military style weapons and even cannon that were state of the art. That's no longer the case. Yes, society has changed but one thing has not, and that's human nature. And until all humans are kind and gentle souls who help lost kittens find their way home, we are faced with the reality, as Las Vegas has just shown, that evil, deranged people walk among us seeking victims to do harm to.

The folks who later wrote the constitution, went to war with the British King George, when the king and his minions attempted to disarm them. April 19, 1775. We won, and as a result, we choose to keep our guns as free men should and not surrender them to the state and live as serfs at the whim of the lords of the land and government officials.

Lets drop this because it's not getting anyone anywhere.... and go make some music.

That very same constitution originally deemed black people and women to be less than equal to white men but we were smart enough to fix that. And we will some day be smart enough to fix this too! With 77% of Americans not choosing to own guns and a new generation that is not steeped in a wild west mentality I suspect we will in fact repeal the 2nd amendment and replace it with something adults can agree on to improve our society. Sometimes you just have to move forward!

Here is an interesting article about guns:

http://thepoliticalinsider.com/gun-contr...tm_medium=email

PS - for those outside the USA please stay out of this.

Mario,

Regarding your comment about people outside the US staying out of this...

I'm not meaning to be irritating or pointing out the obvious, but these PG Music forums are 'outside the US' and world involvement in them is encouraged by PG Music.

I support John's view from earlier in the thread.


Regards,
Noel

JJJ

Have you actually READ ALL of those papers and studies?

I picked 3 at random and scanned the rest for DATES (I’m not doing any more homework – my consultant rate is probably a little too steep).

1. - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1198/000313008X362446

This first one only gives an abstract but even in those few words it tells me in they did the statistics BACKWARDS (a typical manipulation trick) essentially trying to prove a negative:

H0: (i.e., the Null hypotheses they have is essentially): Murder rates of Shall Issues laws increased after Shall Issue Policy changes were implemented (note this should not include suicides but were, more later on that)

H1: (i.e., the ALTERNATIVE hypothesis would then be) murder rates of Shall Issues laws decreased or stayed the same after Shall Issues

The POWER (i.e., 1-beta) of any statistical test lies in the REJECTION of the null (i.e., H0). When you FAIL TO REJECT H0 that’s ALL you can say – “you failed to reject.” You can NOT say you ACCEPT the null you can only say there is no evidence AGAINST it. You can never say the H0 is statistically true.

Even just the few studies I looked at, no I didn't read them all, show or discuss weak statistical correlations. One paper (one of those below) had even listed some Rho’s of .5, .6 or worse NONE (which tells me that those referenced studies themselves didn’t use NUMBERS, they were Qualitative studies, i.e., subjective studies, not Quantitative i.e., objective studies). Those small correlations are no better than coin flips of moon cycles causation.

Truth in advertising: when I say I looked at a handful of those studies I mean I skimmed them. i.e., I read intro, assumptions, conclusions and skimmed the tables and data and results. NO I did not do a line by line verification of numbers, methods, statements, etc. like I would if I were peer reviewing them.

2. Next do a search on

“Benjamin French and Patrick J. Heagerty, "Analysis of Longitudinal Data to Evaluate a Policy Change", Statistics in Medicine October 30, 2008: 5005-5025. This study concluded that "enacting a shall-issue law is associated with a weak but non-significant increase in firearm-related homicide rates."
And you get their PDF (which includes suicides lumped in later as general homicides)

Or try below to get PDF

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiI1aS00dfWAhVJ0oMKHR3dBXQQFggoMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.668.8730%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&usg=AOvVaw0R6ZRGJT-sWkkDKdZLdxGu



3. This one also includes suicides as a spate study which is good work but once you read it you realize it’s not a Shall Issue study before and after – it’s simply firearm OWNERSHIP and the suicides and homicides caused thereby.

Get the PDF here

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwil6qmJ0tfWAhVp5oMKHfqxBCMQFggrMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crema-research.ch%2Fpapers%2F2014-07.pdf&usg=AOvVaw23svo-h5BGGxYxcUzQTWDa



===================

The list you provided, I suspect is a bibliography from one such study or a google list? You didn’t critically read and digest all those did you? Are you a statistician (or mathematician or even a STEM researcher)? I think I used and referenced fewer articles/studies/papers in my Master’s thesis in Ops Research and I know I didn't critically digest and read them over night.

Studies with own data (i.e., originally researched DOJ, FBI, and State crime statistics) tend to only have data up to mid 2000’s (admittedly by quick visual scan of pub. Dates listed). Not all states are Shall Issue (I’ll call it CCW for short) at that point in time or is too early have effect one way or the other for the newer adopters.

Like the other “the science is final argument” most of those studies (all you have to do is just read intro in most of them to get the flavor) are done by those who want to show no improvement or negative impact of CCW on “murders” - and so they all seem to included category SUICIDE!

Yes suicide by gun is a gun death – but someone that determined would run a hose from exhaust into car, or drives at high speed into to something solid, or hang themselves, or cut their wrists, or over dose on something, or… the firearm is not the cause it is simply a means.

And worse for your and their argument: suicides by firearms is unrelated to CCW's laws, since the suicide (i.e., "murderer") could have previously OWNED the firearm. I note that TIME of ownership of a firearm was NOT included in these studies (when and how long was firearm owned – prior to and after CCW laws) and SHOULD have been a factor (i.e., a regression variable)!


Besides states that finally had a policy change (i.e., instituted a CCW law) ALL already had laws to allow purchase of firearms and handguns. In other words the MAJORITY of folks that went out and obtained CCW (concealed carry) ALREADY OWNED firearms and handguns in particular, they just didn’t CARRY them in public. At least they didn’t carry them concealed

Like in Here New Mexico a state that has been run by Democrats since 1912, when we became a State – allowed the CARRY (open carry) of firearms (AND YES tested multiple times in the NM Supreme Court) or carried concealed but unloaded, you can research the NM gun laws yourself . The below was BEFORE the NM Legislature passed its recent Conceal Carry law (and there other states that allowed open carry prior to Policy Change’s to allow Shall Issue):

“Article II, § 6 of the Constitution of New Mexico provides:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
“

Bottom line passing a SHALL ISSUE (CCW) didn’t cause or force people who hated guns to go buy them and those that didn’t hate guns, for the most part, already HAD THEM.


Larry


PS Brian from Jersey Channel Islands, this is not a smirk, smack, flame, critique, finger pointing, nasty attack please imagine I'm talking calmly with a happy lilt in my voice:

I don't think you truly understand WHY, I mean the actual true purpose, we in the U.S. have a 2nd Amendment. Please, take a pleasant boat ride across the channel and ask Parliament and the Royals in Great Britain if they can think of a reason why we might have 2nd Amendment. The reason is no less valid today than in 1791. Maybe more so, but and I'll leave it at that.



PPS TO the OTHER JOHN: Sorry I still concur and I still think this thread SHOULD BE closed, I will put down the keyboard and step away from the computer now.

No good will ever come of this thread. I've deliberately stayed out of it because the most contentious discussions we've ever had on here were about guns.

I was always right in the thick of it before and looking at who is participating now, it's the same players making exactly the same arguments. If I were to join the fray, I'd have the same position I had before too.

No one is changing anyone else's mind. Since we know the outcome of the previous gun debates on here, why don't we take a lesson from an old quote:

"If we always do what we always did then we'll always get what we've always gotten."

Hard feelings and strained relationships are the only thing we'll reap by continuing a gun debate on a music forum.

Sorry I started this and hope everyone has had enough of it.
If we put our strongly held points of view in our songs perhaps we may even help a tiny bit.
Cheers. (over and out)

Read and memorized them!

Doesn't matter. Plenty of examples in the world that do not involve opinion where countries have outright banned certain types of guns and had an immediate and lasting reduction in gun violence. Would some folks still kill with handguns and hunting rifles? Of course. But they wouldn't kill 58 and injure over 500! Would suicides continue? Of course. But there is no doubt having a quick and easy lethal means makes it far more likely someone will go through with it.

You see, most of us on the side of advocating sensible gun laws don't expect to eliminate all violence or deaths. But if we save one class full of children or even a handful of people or even one person by not allowing the general public to possess military style weapons then that is worth it! The "rights" of people to play with deadly toys should not supersede the rights of their fellow citizens to live!

This is from Caleb Keeter, a member of the 'Josh Abbott Band' (from Texas)... one of the acts at the Las Vegas festival.



Here is a link to the article from which the above was obtained.

https://www.spin.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-josh-abbott-band-caleb-keeter-we-need-gun-control-right-now/


I hope PG Music lock this thread so that it can pass into posterity. That will keep everyone's views intact and will, most likely, save on-line friendships. (My 2¢'s worth.)