2 police officers among 5 dead in Las Vegas shooting

@cracaphat -"The beauty of the right to bear arms". Its not that simple. The US has had that for over 200 years. Instances like these are commonplace today. 30, 40, 50 years ago were they? Guns were plentiful then.

Their is more to it than a gun. Take away the gun, something will replace it. Find the root cause and resolve that.

Something is different: the mass absorbsion of assault weapons among the civilian population (which was not the case 40 years ago) and dawn of concealed carry allowing any old bubba to go packin just because (this state of affairs also did not exist 40 years ago).

Add it all up and you have a collective insanity coupled with the means for mass slaughter. When a bunch of yahoos can openly brandish AR-15s in a family restraunt to make a point of gun owner's rights, something has gone desperately off the rails.

FYI: I am a gun owner (not in Japan of course) as is every member of my family and we ALL think the present state of affairs is akin to insanity.

Will Mr. La Piere make his "good guy with a gun" arguement with two armed police officers in the morgue? He might need a new analogy....

Two policemen and a packer? So much for the "If only the victims were armed!" argument.

Graham- The assault type guns are readily available but they were also 30 years ago. 40 years...maybe not. Concealed carry or open carry whats the difference. Concealed carry varies state to state but often requires a background check. Presumably more thorough than pistol purchase.

Again, these slaughters did not happen years ago and a gun does not act on its own. What drives these people? Overmedication? Certainly 30+ years ago many mental institutions closed there doors. Is that it? Is it overly graphic Hollywood violence? Is it the video games? Is it a combination of all of the above?

@ Laguna - Were the police actively engaged? Was the concealed carry victim engaged in self defense with his weapon? Were they each taken by surprise? If so, so much for your point.

The Second Amendment has scored again this week. Let us hear it for the right bear arms and the NRA. Good point above. Twofold the dead were good guys with guns. You do not automatically win a shoot out if you are a good guy. It is who gets the drop on who. In tine other recent case the guy with the pepper spray won the day.

Please do not tell me about improving mental health. You just do not know who will become a mass murderer. The authorities have missed out every time.

Japan has very strict gun control laws, as do practically all advanced democracies.

It will be interesting to know who these crazies were who did this awful thing.

3 more innocent victims to an archaic 18th century law which should have no place in a modern society.

Were the police actively engaged? Was the concealed carry victim engaged in self defense with his weapon?

Ah - so the "self defense" argument for gun ownership hinges upon an assailant announcing his intentions and allowing time for preparation? That sounds more like a duel, and, as this case makes clear, is not the way gun violence works. In fact, it is fortunate that bystanders were not hit in any exchange of gunfire between the perpetrator and victims.

Laguna- Not announcing intentions! Simply having a chance to defend!! Not shot point blank! Silly reasoning you attempt to post. Goes to show the lack of understanding some people have.

Again I will say, take away the gun and massacres and deaths will continue. They will transform method. This is the society we live in. It cannot compare to Japan with gun laws. Japan does not have the mixed cultures like USA.

Again I will say, take away the gun and massacres and deaths will continue. They will transform method. This is the society we live in. It cannot compare to Japan with gun laws. Japan does not have the mixed cultures like USA.

Sorry if I'm a bit slow today but in the above quote, do you mean that massacres and deaths are the results of the USA's mixed culture?

No gun problem here. Carry on.

Peace Warrior - A contributing factor. The Japanese culture of honor is not present in USA. Many in US will lie, cheat, and steal proudly. The gangs in US are well known and prone to violence.

AT LEAST THE LICENSED CITIZEN TRIED! WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE, THROWN YOUR MOBILE PHONE AT THEM?

Kabukilover:

Please do not tell me about improving mental health. You just do not know who will become a mass murderer. The authorities have missed out every time.

Actually, the treating doctors have known and even alerted authorities in several cases. But as the laws are currently written, the police cannot do anything until after the crazy person has hurt someone. It's time to change that, don't you agree?

Japan has very strict gun control laws

How many times do I have to remind you that Japan is an island before it finally registers?

MarkG:

Concealed carry varies state to state but often requires a background check. Presumably more thorough than pistol purchase.

Always a background check, and quite a bit more. Training classes that cover the legal ramifications, in addition to close-quarters target practice.

I wonder what this "revolution" was they were shouting about.

MarkG, my reasoning is silly because any attempt to find order in insanity requires a silly answer. Current gun laws in the US mandated by an insane interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are thus insane. The present trend among gun nuts is to blame external factors such as media violence or the pathetic state of mental healthcare prevalent in the US - two extremely vague (and quite possibly unrelated to the carnage) conditions that at any rate are conveniently impossible to remedy. The "silly" (or insane) conclusion is thus to shrug one's shoulders and accept the status quo.

Japan does not have the mixed cultures like USA.

The above story has no information regarding the races of either the perpetrators or the victims. Thus, you must be suggesting that weapons are necessary because some people are different. Very, very sad: Another situation impossible to remedy. More martyrs for the current insane interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; nothing can be done.

How many days since the last gun rampage? Wasn't it just Saturday some guy went nuts with a shotgun and was subdued WITHOUT guns? These police had guns and sadly could not stop the murderers, so so much for the illogic of those who think that if everyone were armed society would be safer. But let me guess, there are those who will say this could have been done with a lampshade so long as the criminals had the intent. RIP to the officers and the civilian.

Old Hawk:

Always a background check, and quite a bit more.

Correction: Sometimes a background check, never anything more. (Google "states which require gun training" for a big 0.) As this link notes: http://www.businessinsider.com/mayors-against-illegal-guns-attacks-armslist-2013-12#ixzz3479qH7Uf

People who sell guns on Armslist classify themselves as "private sellers," meaning they're not subject to the same regulations as gun dealers because they only make "occasional" gun sales. Private sellers aren't required to have a license or conduct criminal background checks on their customers.

I agree with you that "as the laws are currently written, the police cannot do anything until after the crazy person has hurt someone" - but I know as a fact that the NRA and its ilk will vehemently (and, possibly, violently) oppose any such law. CNN noted recently: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/26/politics/gun-policy-recap/

The White House is also pushing to fund gun violence prevention studies for the first time in roughly 20 years, an effort resisted by Republican critics who accuse the Obama administration of playing politics with taxpayer funds.

"Politics with taxpayer's funds" - that's rich. Guns kill more people under 21 than cancer; should pediatric cancer research be termed partisan? OldHawk, some people don't even want to know about what we're facing, much less talk about it.

'Guns don't kill people...People kill people...' and people with guns take the prize for having the ability to kill the most people, in the shortest amount of time with considerably less effort than most other forms of murder.

The US is welcome to its Second Ammendment...what happened in Vegas....should stay in the U.S. and not be exported to other countries as a societal norm. The whole purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to have the ability to rise up against a repressive government...that dynamic doesn't exist in this day and age-and is unlikely to in the future. Where were all the armed milita when George Bush illegally moved into the White house? It seems clear that the 2nd Ammendment is now in place so you can shoot your neighbor first before he has a chance to shoot you...and also to provide revenue for gun manufacturers.

If I heard gun shots I would move away as quickly as possible...I would not throw my mobile phone... Neither would I seek a solution born from a constant diet of Steven Segal/ Bruce Willis mental midgetry that people with guns in America are often obsessed with.

the police cannot do anything until after the crazy person has hurt someone. It's time to change that, don't you agree?

Actually, you cannot know for sure whether or not someone will do something, until they have done it. It's all fine and dandy to say 'we need to stop them before they can get us', but the problem with that is that innocent people will get caught up in that net for their thoughts, without having actually done anything wrong. Basically, it means that having certain thoughts would become illegal, and reason for detention.

It would be a lot better if these people couldn't get guns in the first place. Stop the problem at the source.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Ammendment was to have the ability to rise up against a repressive government...that dynamic doesn't exist in this day and age-and is unlikely to in the future.

When you consider that the American military is powerful enough to overthrow any country in the world if it wanted to, the idea that a few rednecks with guns could resist them is laughable.

Oldhawk: "Always a background check, and quite a bit more. Training classes that cover the legal ramifications, in addition to close-quarters target practice."

Yeah, tell that to the 8-year-old who shot himself by accident at a gun show after, and only an American would find it normal, being given an uzi to play with. These shows are so lax, and the NRA so utterly demanding they continue it as such, that people end up dead so often it's a mere shrug in the US until it's your own kids -- in some cases that you gunned down yourself.

But hey, you can defend the second amendment in tomorrow's gun massacre... if it even makes the news.

There were some red flags regarding this insane couple. They had been to the Bundy encampment, and at least one of their neighbors said they were planning to kill police. They made the political gesture of draping the unofficial TEA Party flag, Don't Tread on Me, over the deceased officers. Source: Las Vegas Review Journal

The attackers then ran across the parking lot to a nearby Walmart store, and the Review-Journal said they exchanged gunfire with and ultimately killed a civilian who was carrying a concealed weapon.

Yaa-ha, it's the wild west folks (ptooey... ting!)

Seriously, an armed civilian getting into a gunfight with a couple of outlaws? Remind me what century we're living in? This could have been a scene from Dodge in the 19th century. RIP to those who died in yet another senseless act of lethal lawlessness in the US. Giving ordinary people the right to carry guns is clearly giving them a sense of bravado that they could do without. Better to run away and call the police than get yourself killed.

On a visit back to the States 30 years ago, our five year old son walked out of his uncle's bedroom with a gun in his hand. It was my brother's gun that he had in a holster at the side of his bed. We were all shocked and glad that bad happened. Living in Japan has been wonderful because we just very seldom have gun incidents. What happened to the days where a gun was used for just hunting?

Oh look! Another mass murder in the US with guns... Oh wait, this isn't new and certainly isn't shocking. Gee Obama, yes we can??

Tmarie, that blame Obama mentality is the same thing these white supremecist/ Bundy ranch squatters had in their pea brains.

@tmarie, how and why is the president responsible? Does he make anti-cop music videos in his free time that would have influenced these dimwits? Place some blame where it belongs, not on a positive election message from years past.

Because he is the one who has the power and authority to get the ball rolling on changing things - remember "yes we can"? No? That platform that he went on and on about but hasn't really come to much? Nah. I'll also place blame on the idiots to oppose such changes but let's be honest, Obama hasn't done anything about this issue at all.

Nah, he doesn't "make" anti-cop music. He just hangs out with those who glorify the thug life - Jay Z, looking at you.

Playing the race card in such matters is disgusting. So is refusing to accept that Obama isn't doing enough to end these kinds of events that are happening fair too often in the US. Feel free to defend him though - the longer he does nothing to make some changes, the more blood on his hands. But he's seem to be okay with blood on his hands based on what he does while in office.

Readers, the "race card" is not relevant to this discussion.

Obviously, Obama, as a Democrat, would like to reign in the availability of guns in the US, but there is such a thing called "political capital" and it can't be all spent on things that have no chance of realization.

But really, tmarie - please express what you feel Obama could do, unilaterally as would be necessary, to help the situation?

What could he do? How about put in some motions to change the availability of guns? How about introducing a database that links gun purchases to owners and shops? A huge national database on who bought guns and when are where? How about banning those with a history of mental illness and police records from owning a gun? How about getting the discussion going rather than the usual speech of "This is a tragic event…" and then not doing anything about it? Sitting and pretending the president of the US is doing something about this issue is a joke. Sitting here and suggesting that he can’t do anything is a joke. If anyone has the power to take a stand and make a difference, it is him.

There were some red flags regarding this insane couple.

I don't believe they would have been classified as clinically insane at any time prior to the shooting. As such, the gun culture crowd would have staunchly defended their "right" to obtain as much firepower as they could.

The reports appear to be accurate that they covered the two police officers with a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. The police officers may have represented the dreaded "Big Government" to these two. They were known to have expressed white supremacist views, as well as talking about "killing police officers."

While that may not cross the line as being insane, such views should disqualify people from being able to purchase firearms. The reports about the couple's radical views come from neighbors.

How about put in some motions to change the availability of guns? How about introducing a database that links gun purchases to owners and shops? A huge national database on who bought guns and when are where?

I would love to have seen that, but there is such a thing called "separation of power" in America. Look how he's being attacked simply for executing an action that had been previously discussed with members of Congress, had its received general support, and was at any rate within his role as commander-in-chief - the disposition of prisoners of war - to imagine what kind of opposition he would have encountered had he encroached on what is clearly Congress's turf.

Direct your frustration towards where it is due.

And congress won't ever deal with it if it's not brought to the table and discussed which I think is his job.

@OldHawk

How many times do I have to remind you that Japan is an island before it finally registers?

What has that got to do with it? Only island nations control guns?

@MarkG

Japan does not have the mixed cultures like USA.

What has that got to do with it? Mixed cultures require guns?

I think the gun lobby has some kind of collective mental illness.

The Japanese culture of honor is not present in USA. Many in US will lie, cheat, and steal proudly. The gangs in US are well known and prone to violence.

Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, etc...also has about the same minuscule level of gun violence as Japan.

The US has had that for over 200 years. Instances like these are commonplace today. 30, 40, 50 years ago were they? Guns were plentiful then.

Yes, they were. In 1968 the Black Panther Party staged an ambush of Oakland Police.

In 1968 the Black Panther Party staged an ambush of Oakland Police.

Yes, and they showed up at the state capitol building in Sacramento carrying weapons. The conservatives of the time, led by Governor Ronald Reagan, couldn't pass gun control laws fast enough.

Wasn't it just Saturday some guy went nuts with a shotgun and was subdued WITHOUT guns?

The shooter in that case had fired over 40 shotgun slugs and was subdued when he was reloading his weapon, the hall monitor was armed with a chemical weapon commonly known as pepper spray or mace he used that on the shooter and then tackled him.

These police had guns and sadly could not stop the murderers, so so much for the illogic of those who think that if everyone were armed society would be safer.

Not a surprise why, they were sitting down and eating when the two shooters, a man and woman, with concealed firearms walked up behind and at point blank range brandished a gun and shot them.

However a police officer(s) in Georgia did just that on an attack on a court house just a few days ago.

It is not really illogical, for example about two weeks ago a 22 year old in California defended his siblings against four attackers in a home invasion, killing one of the intruders, severely wounding another and sending two more on the run. He himself was shot several times in the torso by the invaders and is expected survive.

There are daily news stories at the local and state level of people using firearms to defend themselves. If you take the time to search for them you can find them.

I would say the biggest issue with the gun laws in the USA is that the background check isn't thorough enough to determine if the person is dangerous.

How about introducing a database that links gun purchases to owners and shops? A huge national database on who bought guns and when are where?

There kind of already is, basically how it works is that when a gun serial number is known law enforcement will send a request to the gun maker to tell them who they sold the gun too, almost always a retailer like cabela's, gander mountain, etc. From there law enforcement goes to the retailer and asks them for the form 4473, this basically contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. So you can trace all firearms that still have their serial number on them, defacing the serial number is a felony offense, to at the very least the very first buyer.

The biggest problem with registries is that they don't work and if they do work the impact is so small that they are not cost effective. For example the sex offender registry has basically been proven not to work and as such states such as California and Ohio want to get rid of the sex offender registry because it just costs so much money for little to absolutely no return. The car registry has been proven not to reduce car accidents, speeding, hit and runs, theft of cars, use of cars in crimes such as bank robberies or drive by shootings, or preventing unlicensed drivers from driving on the road. The only real benefit to the car registry is that it is used a tax system to pay for infrastructure maintenance. Seeing as a sex offender registry and a car registry have all but been proven ineffective at having any real deterrence effect it is extremely unlikely a gun registry would.

Also you should be aware that President Obama has pretty much done over 20 executive orders on gun control, so it is not like he hasn't tried. President Obama can push congress but chances are it won't do him any good. Senator Harry Reid won't bring up the topic without having enough votes and you can bet that the speaker of the house won't bring up the topic or legislation for a vote in the house either.

There kind of already is,

This isn'T a "kind of" thing. Clearly there is not which is why you are getting people with mental health issues buying guns from different sellers. No one figures it out until AFTER they've killed a bunch of people.

Laguna:

Correction: Sometimes a background check, never anything more. (Google "states which require gun training" for a big 0.)

Wrong. My state of Tennessee requires an 8-hour training class in order to obtain a carry permit. Perhaps you confused carry permits with gun purchases?

And you really should be careful getting your news from Bloomberg's gun-confiscation group. It's like getting your news from Mother Jones, Jon Stewart, or MSNBC: More agenda-driven bias than reality.

Strangerland:

It would be a lot better if these people couldn't get guns in the first place.

If you can't prove they're enough of a danger to put them in a secure facility, then how can you prove they're enough of a danger to keep them from getting guns? Of course, that's a rhetorical question, because you don't have an answer to that question. Your answer (to everything) is to ban and confiscate all guns from everybody. Which I already explained to you is impossible, and a very bad idea for those who have a genuine need for such self-protection.

smithinjapan:

Wasn't it just Saturday some guy went nuts with a shotgun and was subdued WITHOUT guns?

Yes, the guy who subdued him is an NRA member. Chew on that.

Yeah, tell that to the 8-year-old who shot himself by accident at a gun show after, and only an American would find it normal, being given an uzi to play with.

Show me where any pro-gun or pro-2nd-Amendment group - including the NRA - is in favor of putting uzis in the hands of 8-year-olds. Like Laguna, you're clearly confusing carry permits (what I was discussing) to general gun purchases.

TorafusuTorasan:

They had been to the Bundy encampment

And the Bundys kicked them out.

Thunderbird2:

Better to run away and call the police than get yourself killed.

That wouldn't have worked for me. The guy who attacked me snuck up behind me and put a strap around my neck. If I hadn't been armed, I wouldn't be here today.

taiko666:

What has that got to do with it? Only island nations control guns?

As I've explained several times before on other threads, Japan's gun control laws would be impossible to enforce in America as it is today. For one thing, Japan doesn't have a porous border with a third-world country that is essentially run by drug cartels. We do, and that's how the Democrats (including the president) want it. So the Democrats are more to blame for the inability to enact the gun control laws they want than the NRA.

Noliving:

Also you should be aware that President Obama has pretty much done over 20 executive orders on gun control, so it is not like he hasn't tried.

In addition to using back door methods, such as going after gun stores with banking regulations (Operation: Chokepoint).

OldHawk - For open carry, yes, Tennessee does have at present some training requirements - but perhaps not for long. http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/08/tennessee-senate-votes-allow-open-guns/7473297/

Tennessee already allows gun ownership without a permit if the weapon is kept in the home.The Open Carry Firearms Freedom Act, Senate Bill 2424, goes a step beyond and would let someone carry in public without a permit.

Cool. No permit needed in the home; soon, no permit needed anywhere. Go, Tennessee.

OldHawk, agree.

They were at Bundy Ranch where many outsiders came to protest federal government that prohibited Bundy to use the federal ;land for cattles. Following I copied and paste. I pasted on another JT board related to this one,

Ammon Bundy, one of Cliven Bundy's sons, said by telephone that the Millers were at his father's ranch for a few days this spring before they were asked to leave by militia members for unspecified "conduct" problems. He called the couple "very radical" and said they "did not align themselves" with the beliefs of other protesters, who thwarted a roundup of Cliven Bundy's cattle by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, which wants to collect more than $1 million in grazing fees and penalties.

While thousands of people have been to the site over the last couple of months, "Not very many people were asked to leave. I think they may have been the only ones," Ammon Bundy said.

Laguna:

For open carry, yes, Tennessee does have at present some training requirements - but perhaps not for long.

Currently, Tennessee does not differentiate between open and concealed carry. They issue a Handgun Carry Permit, not a "concealed carry permit". The legislation you brought up is supported by some in the TFA (Tennessee Firearms Association), but there is a split even in that group. Concerns brought up by TFA critics of the legislation are (among others):

1) Convicted felons, while not legally able to buy guns, will be able to open carry without the police being able to stop them and question their legality. (Unless, of course, that officer is familiar with that convicted felon, which does happen, as they tend to patrol the same neighborhoods for years.)

2) Exposed handguns on civilians spark hoplophobes to call the police. In some instances in other states, the police have cited the legal gun owner with "causing a disturbance", and not the paranoid hoplophobe who called the police. Even though open carry is legal for those with a permit, very few people actually practice it, even during the hot and humid summers. Partly because people see the gun, while the permit is hidden away in the wallet. And partly because it makes you the first target for bad people when the excrement meets the rotary air distributor.

On that note, you may have recently seen that the NRA spoke out against open-carry supporters (legally) walking into coffee shops and restaurants with rifles slung over their shoulders. Then again, maybe not, depending on your news sources. Anyway, the NRA said that these individuals are giving the gun-rights groups a bad name. And it's true. Causing disturbances and panicking the public are not a positive way to promote gun rights.