Other State A ‘Moral Dilemma’ After Las Vegas Massacre: Sell the Gunman’s Weapons, or Destroy Them

[Joe Link]

A 'Moral Dilemma' After Las Vegas Massacre: Sell the Gunman's Weapons, or Destroy Them

Read More

 

[Joe13]

Cuz destroying them does some sort of good?

 

[gunnails]

I don't believe in destroying guns.

 

[hatchj]

I'll take them to ease this apparent moral dilemma. That way they don't offend anyone.

 

[CountryGent]

Considering they are inanimate objects with no will of their own, I'm not seeing much of a moral dilemma here. Sell them off at auction and give the funds to the bereaved and/or those injured by the evil SOB who formerly owned them.

 

[Goosebrown]

Do what the law in Las Vegas says. The guns were tools. Nothing more

 

[DB is Here]

What about shovels:
US military has a long history of killing foes with entrenching tools

 

[RicInOR]

Well, how about after we get a definitive answer as to what has happened. Before that, these may be evidence. How can we know?

 

[DB is Here]

I can conpletely understand destroying them when taking a moment to consider the feelings of the family of those that were murdered. Though some in their stone cold logic may not agree, the symbolism of the act is not lost on most. And for anyone who would argue differently that cold logic can be applied to just about anything. Why bury the body or have a funeral? It's just dead flesh.

Though a firearm is a tool, these tools were used in a massacre and it's best for those most effected to destroy them, any opinions of those that didn't have family members murdered are essentially moot.

A fair point indeed.

 

[Kruel J]

I can conpletely understand destroying them when taking a moment to consider the feelings of the family of those that were murdered. Though some in their stone cold logic may not agree, the symbolism of the act is not lost on most. And for anyone who would argue differently that cold logic can be applied to just about anything. Why bury the body or have a funeral? It's just dead flesh.

Though a firearm is a tool, these tools were used in a massacre and it's best for those most effected to destroy them, any opinions of those that didn't have family members murdered are essentially moot.

I agree.

 

[albin25]

Sure, why not. it's not like anyone normal is gonna want to buy 'em.
While I feel it may also be PR effective to also bulldoze this guy's home as well (at this point it's all about symbolism). I can see how some sort of symbolic closure could be achieved by destroying the weapons, after allowing an appropriate length of time to retain everything required for evidence.

Turning the suite into a permanent memorial could also be an option, but I'm sure the hotel would rather not lose the revenue or it's admit any of it's own culpability.

 

[B5Ben]

Instead of destroying or selling, I think they should be donated to an Appleseed type charity for teaching furthering the understanding of those that fear what they don't know. I think it's a far better use of the evil mans former property. I understand the sentiment for destruction, but to me that's a waste that could benefit others and teach more people about guns and how to safely use and enjoy them.

Edit to add that they should be donated anonymously to prevent any knowledge of what they are and who they previously belonged to.

Just a thought.

 

[11Charlie]

Tough one! While I don't believe in destroying guns I can totally understand how the process might make some of the grieving families feel better or how they would want to see them destroyed.

The problem with destroying them is then it sets a precedents that this sort of act is OK.

 

[NoLimePlease]

Unfortunately I wasn't able to read the article, but the title says enough.
Destroy them.
Keep them as evidence, if need be, but selling them is a horrific idea. It seems twisted that there would be a market for that which destroyed so many lives in such a cruel manner.

 

[po18guy]

A 'Moral Dilemma' After Las Vegas Massacre: Sell the Gunman's Weapons, or Destroy Them

Ted Bundy's Volkswagen was sold and is in private hands.

 

[CountryGent]

Certainly could melt down or cut up those used in the crime if it helps bring some healing to those impacted. From the article, it appears the majority of the arms in question were not used in the event, and were located in homes he owned. The article cites $62,340 worth of firearms and accessories in his estate. They are dismantling said and providing the funds to the victims. Unless his name is engraved on them, I don't know how there would be any indication who the former owner was when sold off.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

I see nothing wrong with either outcome.

 

[11Charlie]

Just for clarity do you mean it sets precedent that it's ok to shoot people up, or to destroy guns? And if the latter why isn't it ok to destroy guns?

You really need to ask that question?

 

[slimmer13]

I hear that execution drugs are scarce these days? I say use them on murderers.

 

[slimmer13]

Well, I ask because I found it strange you would have an issue with people destroying guns. Especially if they are personal property, or in this case confiscated by federal government due to a serious crime. Would you rather I assume then ask for clarity?

And I've read a few, uh, I guess I'd put them as outlandish opinions on how one thing causes another on these threads so just wanted clarity.

The point he was trying to make was that some people want to destroy guns because they don't like guns and that's a bad precedent to set.