Jetty Jumper

Feinstein: No law would have stopped Las Vegas gunman

Rate this topic

24 posts in this topic

No law could have prevented the shooting,but,let us, get something done,another step in the forward march to an Australian solution....until we can get them all.

 

By Mallory Shelbourne
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in an interview broadcast Sunday that no law could have stopped the suspected shooter, Stephen Paddock, who was behind last week's mass shooting in Las Vegas.
Feinstein spoke on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” about gun legislation in the wake of the attack launched from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel targeting a country music concert.
“Could there have been any law passed that would've stopped him?” Host John Dickerson asked the senator.
“No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,” Feinstein replied.
Feinstein’s remark comes as Republicans have started to express interest in a conversation about regulations for bump stock devices, which were found in the hotel room of the suspected gunman. The devices increase the possible rate of gun fire on semi-automatic weapons.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) following last week’s mass shooting said devices like bump stocks “should be subject to additional regulations,” though it did not call for new gun legislation.
Feinstein, who is pushing legislation to ban bump stocks, said there is “Republican interest” in the bill.
“We have Republican interest. I have nobody lined up, we have 38 cosponsors, they're all Democratic. We've had individuals that have indicated an interest and particularly for a hearing,” she said.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2010 found that bump stock devices were a part, rather than a firearm, concluding that they were not subject to regulation like a weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without question there are laws that could have stopped that shooting.  No so sure they're a good idea, but there are laws.

 

How about all luggage going into a hotel needs to pass through a metal detector or TSA type scanner?

 

Again, not saying I'm recommending that law, but to say there is "no law" that could have stopped the shooter is a lack of vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JoeyZac said:

Without question there are laws that could have stopped that shooting.  No so sure they're a good idea, but there are laws.

 

How about all luggage going into a hotel needs to pass through a metal detector or TSA type scanner?

 

Again, not saying I'm recommending that law, but to say there is "no law" that could have stopped the shooter is a lack of vision.

 

When there is a will, there is a way. No law can stop anything if an individual has the will to get it done. 

Completely naive to think people can be regulated into behaving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes a hotel version of the TSA search, absolutely, capital idea.

 

Don't forget the shoes, toothpaste and fluid limits.

 

And for the love of everything holy, no ******** penknives either 

 

Love it.

 

:dismay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J said:

When there is a will, there is a way. No law can stop anything if an individual has the will to get it done. 

Completely naive to think people can be regulated into behaving. 

 

Agree.  No way to legislate out "crazy," and in a free society, some things just cannot be stopped.

 

I really don't want to make light of the horror of people dying in an event like Vegas, Oklahoma City, or even 9/11, but we lose far more people to accidents on our roads every year than we do to terrorist/crazy type attacks.

 

We'd keep far more of our people alive if we had Draconian driving laws than if we had similar gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wigeon said:

Yes a hotel version of the TSA search, absolutely, capital idea.

Don't forget the shoes, toothpaste and fluid limits.

And for the love of everything holy, no ******** penknives either 

Love it.

:dismay:

 

Are you equally against metal detectors in schools?  Stadiums?  Concerts?

 

Your genius abounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wigeon said:

Yes a hotel version of the TSA search, absolutely, capital idea.

 

Don't forget the shoes, toothpaste and fluid limits.

 

And for the love of everything holy, no ******** penknives either 

 

Love it.

 

:dismay:

I believe that just requiring guests use bellhops would go further.  Bellhops would have to be trained and screened.  Turn them into private security.  Private security would be more efficient than government screeners and the marketplace would decide which casinos were doing the best job.

Edited by DontTreadOnAnyone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DontTreadOnAnyone said:

I believe that just requiring guests use bellhops would go further.  Bellhops would have to be trained and screened.  Turn them into private security.  Private security would be more efficient than government screeners and the marketplace would decide which casinos were doing the best job.

It's bad enough that we have submitted to allowing faceless TSA hacks/thieves to randomly physically search luggage that has been already checked.

 

No way I'm giving some $10.00/hour bellhop the same access to my property.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wigeon said:

It's bad enough that we have submitted to allowing faceless TSA hacks/thieves to randomly physically search luggage that has been already checked.

 

No way I'm giving some $10.00/hour bellhop the same access to my property.

 

 

Correct, you would not be giving some $10.00/hour bellhop access to your property.  You would be paying a $30/hour bellhop to access your property.  If they did it in a manner that made you feel disrespected you would take your business elsewhere.  If the casino down the street could do it cheaper they would.  You get what you pay for and freedom ain't free.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, hamlet said:

It's just wack-a-mole

but we will keep trying to end evil with laws

It is wack-a-mole but not playing is not an option.

We have to whack this mole because if we don't, and another mole comes up the same hole, then we are somewhat culpable.  Fool me once  shame on you .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DontTreadOnAnyone said:

Correct, you would not be giving some $10.00/hour bellhop access to your property.  You would be paying a $30/hour bellhop to access your property.  If they did it in a manner that made you feel disrespected you would take your business elsewhere.  If the casino down the street could do it cheaper they would.  You get what you pay for and freedom ain't free.  

Freedom, yes. That is my preference.

 

I assume you are talking about

legislation requiring the hotel industry to invest in such measures, privately managed or not. 

 

To me such legislation in the wake of this single incident is a hysterical overreaction.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.