Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 14454 times)

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« on: October 02, 2017, 04:41:35 PM »
"Americans Prove They Can Still Come Together"

No, we can't come together. I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism, and that this couldn't possibly have been prevented. But yeah, it could have.

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

How many more mass shooting do we have to go through?

When will you or someone you know be next?


Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2488
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2017, 04:43:37 PM »
Well, the NRA and people who own stock in gun companies have a vested interest in keeping the mass shootings going, so...

https://boingboing.net/2017/10/02/gun-company-stocks-soar-after.html
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6784
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2017, 05:42:25 PM »
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/meetups-and-social-events/ontario's-own-camp-mustache-2017/ - MEET US THERE!

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2017, 06:26:05 PM »
I'm pretty numb to it at this point.  I think the last time I really had a breakdown over one was...whew...Virginia Tech.  Boy that was a lot of shootings ago, amirite?  And the last time I got really rageful was Sandy Hook. I think I've cauterized the part of my brain that reacts in self defense.  I mean, what's the point of caring?  I figure if mass shooting of a bunch of little kids didn't overcome the NRA/guns rights objections, nothing is EVER going to.

My gallows humor take is that eventually, a group of shooters will manage to mass-kill a number close to that killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11...and on that day, when some 'overly emotional libtard' mentions that we went to war against the terrorist group that killed that many of our citizens, and the least we could do is ban some weaponry, there will inevitably be a Fox News  led chorus of right wingers saying how, "A tragedy is not the time to be discussing politics or policy about gun rights".

Cause that is apparently how Murica rolls. Greatest nation on earth HOO YEAH.

Sorry, the Puerto Rico situation has been driving me nuts with anxiety...so today's events have me in a very nihilistic head-space.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 08:24:47 AM by wenchsenior »

ahoy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2017, 06:37:04 PM »
How many more innocent people have to die????  This is very sad, frustrating and unnecessary.

So many funds and portfolios are filled with these manufactures. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against those hunting. 

I don't know much about this website, but looks interesting.

https://goodbyegunstocks.com/



nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2017, 06:49:37 PM »
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

ixtap

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2017, 06:55:26 PM »
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

The second amendment allows for "a well regulated militia". Many of us do not understand how that means unlimited guns for all whenever they please.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2017, 07:18:26 PM »
Gun manufacturers' stocks are going up, so that's all right.  Right?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2017, 08:15:02 PM »
Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will

I'm from the United States and it doesn't make any sense to me.

Crickets from the NRA...again. Fuck those guys.

lhamo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5829
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2017, 08:25:55 PM »
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

The second amendment allows for "a well regulated militia". Many of us do not understand how that means unlimited guns for all whenever they please.

EXACTLY!   One angry messed up dude with an arsenal =/= a well regulated militia....
Wherever you go, there you are

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2017, 09:23:47 PM »
Is it time to talk about gun control yet?
Every time there's a mass shooting, there's a knee-jerk reaction to ask this question.  And there's always a knee-jerk reaction of "hands off muh guns!"

But once you get beyond the initial reactions of shock, horror, grief, etc, if you're in favor of more gun control, you have to get down to brass tacks and make specific policy proposals.  And then you must explain how exactly those specific proposals would prevented the tragedy.



It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

With respect to "silencers," while they reduce the intensity of the sound coming from a rifle, the noise is still pretty loud, just less "bang"y.  It's still very clear where the sound is coming from.  Silencers aren't really a significant contributor to crime in the base case, because 1) they're expensive, 2) you can still hear the gun, and 3) they make the gun longer and heavier.  Also, it's not actually difficult to make your own suppressor--an oil filter ($5) and a thread adapter ($7) are all you need to make a rudimentary (and illegal) suppressor.  If suppressors were going to help someone get away with a crime, you'd see all the gangs in Chicago running around with 'em.  In fact, in many places in Europe (certainly no bastion of gun rights), you can buy a suppressor over the counter with no paperwork whatsoever, and they don't seem to have a problem with criminals using them.

On the "shield people transporting guns across state lines" issue, the problem is this:  per federal law, you can transport a gun you lawfully own across states lines without local/state authorities messing with you, including through areas that have stricter gun laws.  To be clear, this is a situation where the gun is unloaded and locked in a case in the trunk of your car.  Some states (especially NY and NJ) have decided that they don't like that law, and they will use any excuse to try to throw you in jail.  Stop for gas?  Ooh, suddenly you're not just passing through, and they think you're fair game.  They always lose, but the innocent gun owner gets detained and often brought all the way through trial and ends up having to pay lots of lawyer's fees, even though the law is clearly on their side.  The proposed law would add some teeth to the federal law by making the arresting state or local government pay for the defendant's legal fees in these cases.

Regarding concealed carry reciprocity, the issue is similar--otherwise law-abiding people (who pose no threat to anyone) are getting caught up in a patchwork of laws, to nobody's benefit.  It's worth pointing out that people who go through the process to get a concealed carry permit are, by definition, law-abiding people.  In fact, they have about the lowest crime rate of any group of people in the US.  Or put another way, you simply don't hear stories about CC permit holders committing crimes.

Gun rights on public lands - a good chunk of the law is about expanding hunting access to public land.  I'm not sure what the objection here is.

"surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have" Here's where the rub is.  The devil, as they say, is in the details.  There's a very understandable urge to "do something," but we must be sure that 1) the "something" will actually prevent future tragedies, and 2) the "something" won't cause more problems than it solves.

There is no "gun control" debate.  At all.  Those wanting unfettered access to firearms have won.  A complete, total victory.
reductio ad absurdum much?  Gun laws in the US on a federal level haven't changed much in the last few decades.  There's the machine gun ban of 1986, and the now-defunct assault weapons ban in 1994, but not much else.  On a state level is where you've seen changes.  Illinois now has concealed carry, Connecticut and New York (and a few other states) have passed some laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, and a few states have widened concealed and open carry laws, but by and large the landscape hasn't changed dramatically.


nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2017, 09:32:59 PM »
Is it time to talk about gun control yet?
Every time there's a mass shooting, there's a knee-jerk reaction to ask this question.  And there's always a knee-jerk reaction of "hands off muh guns!"

But once you get beyond the initial reactions of shock, horror, grief, etc, if you're in favor of more gun control, you have to get down to brass tacks and make specific policy proposals.  And then you must explain how exactly those specific proposals would prevented the tragedy.


I would say policies similar to what Australia put in place might help, we havent had a mass shooting since  April 1996

When gun control makes a difference

Quote
To clamp down on guns, the federal government worked with Australiaís states to ban semiautomatic rifles and pump action shotguns, establish a uniform gun registry and buy the now-banned guns from people who had purchased them before owning them became illegal. The country also stopped recognizing self-defense as an acceptable reason for gun ownership and outlawed mail-order gun sales.

There have been no mass murders since the Port Arthur massacre and the subsequent clampdown on guns, Chapman observes. In contrast, there were 13 of those tragic incidents over the previous 18 years Ė in which a total of 104 victims died. Other gun deaths have also declined.


lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2017, 09:47:32 PM »
High-profile mass murder crimes like this one distract from the actual problem of gun violence that mostly occurs one or two deaths at a time. It's fun to imagine the 2nd Amendment away, but it exists, as well as the Heller SCOTUS case. Gun control at the level where most gun violence is substantially precluded is problematic for a few reasons:

1) the Heller decision would need to be substantially overturned and/or the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed
2) Congress would need to pass laws banning almost all firearms and begin programs that draw down the enormous stock of guns in circulation in the country
3) the culture of hunting and shooting sports popular throughout much of the (flyover) US would either need to be accommodated somehow (without leaking guns to potential criminals) or else denied its primary tool of choice

The politically complicated path-dependency of these changes is such that I don't see a realistic approach towards the meaningful elimination of firearms from the US in the foreseeable future.

Finally, this case is a little odd since the shooter is so old (64).

ysette9

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1712
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2017, 09:59:14 PM »
In my mind there is no question that logistically we could come up with a solution and reduce or eliminate mass shootings and deaths overall. Politically though we seem to have zero will collectively to do anything. I think that is what a previous poster meant by the NRA winning entirely. They have completely dominated the debate to the point that the mass murder of innocent children isnít enough to limit even the most extreme and absurd weapons. If we canít summon the will to ban weapons designed solely for killing as many people as quickly as possible, we are hopeless.
"It'll be great!"

Taran Wanderer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 474
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2017, 10:27:29 PM »

ahoy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 145
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2017, 10:35:00 PM »
 Las Vegas is number 273 mass shooting for this year.  We are 275 days into the current year.  And yet, some people still don't think there is a problem.  So, tomorrow there will be another mass shooting, yet most people won't hear about it.   

DeanHedlund

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64

Radagast

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 637
  • Location: West of the Mountains, East of the Sea
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2017, 11:01:02 PM »
A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2017, 11:20:24 PM »
I like data. Here is some interesting data:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
This is, awesome. Love Vox.
This has some useful criticism of that voxplaination; regarding chart #5:

As the old saying goes, guns donít kill people; guns controlled for robbery rate, alcoholism, income, a dummy variable for Southernness, and a combined measure of social deprivation kill people.

Getting to the tentative conclusion:

How much would gun control actually cut US gun ownership? That obviously depends on the gun control, but a lot of people talk about Australiaís gun buyback program as a model to be emulated. These people say it decreased gun ownership from 7% of people to 5% of people (why is this number so much lower than Canada and Germany? I think because itís people rather than households Ė if a gun owner is married to a non-gun-owner, they count as one gun-owner and one non-owner, as opposed to a single gun-owning household. The Australian household number seems to be 19% or so). So the gun buyback program in Australia decreased gun ownership by (relative) 30% or so. If a similar program decreased gun ownership in America by (relative) 30%, it would decrease it by (absolute) 10% and decrease the homicide rate by (absolute) 22%. Since there are about 13000 homicides in the US per year, that would save about 3000 lives Ė or avert about one 9/11 worth of deaths per year.

(note that our murder rate would still be 3.0, compared to Germanyís 0.8 and Canadaís 1.4. Seriously, Iím telling you, the murder rate difference is not primarily driven by guns!)

marty998

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4811
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2017, 12:59:20 AM »
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2017, 01:09:52 AM »
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?
IIRC most police officers in the US believe concealed carry and armed law-abiding citizens decrease crime, and thus decrease the chances of their colleagues getting mowed down.

ETA:
I have to say that the whole gun debate looks pretty ridiculous to most outside the US. But as with healthcare, the prevailing opinion seems to be that the US is special, or Americans are a different breed, and what works elsewhere could not possibly work in America.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 01:13:18 AM by farfromfire »

Debonair

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Taiwan
    • DebonairDylan
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2017, 01:47:03 AM »
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?

From my experience as an EMT, lots of first responders are working class guys that grew up around guns and hunting.  Many also hunt or own guns themselves so the lack of "non extreme" gun control preposals turn them off.

Also their has been a shift in gun owner ship in the USA. It's a lot less hunters now and a lot more people that are worried about personal safety. That has in turn changed the types of people you see at the range. I remember as a kid I almost never saw any women at the range. When I went this summer on my trip home their was a lot.
I write a travel blog, it has nothing to do with finance except I prefer traveling over "real work": http://debonairdylan.com

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2017, 03:40:01 AM »
No, we can't come together. I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism, and that this couldn't possibly have been prevented. But yeah, it could have.

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

It seems like yet another knee-jerk "do something" plea that won't have any effect on criminals.

I'm a gun owner.  I've been using guns since I was about 12 years old.  I was on my college rifle team.  I'm ex-military.  I don't consider myself an expert on guns, but I'm a bit more knowledgeable than the average bear.

I've never shot a living thing in my life.  Not a bird, not a squirrel, and definitively not a person.

Paper targets need to fear me, people don't (unless they are invading my home at 3 AM- those SOBs had better hope their life insurance is paid up).

I'm an engineer, a mustachian, a self-made multimillionaire, a philanthropist, a pillar of my community.   Other than 3 speeding tickets (last one, 2003 or thereabouts), I've had no run ins with the law in 54 years. I'm not saying that to be a blow hard, but rather to illustrate that most gun owners, like me, are good, law abiding citizens, and no threat to anyone.

How will restricting my access, or that of millions of other similar law abiding citizens, stop a psycho who doesn't give a damn about the law?

I'm NOT an uncaring "gun nut."  These sort of events are tragic.  I wish I could think of a way to prevent them that didn't involve turning this nation into a police state.  Punishing decent, law abiding citizens for the bad acts of psychos won't solve the problem.

FWIW, I've donated $500 (a $250 donation, then another $250 donation after my wife called me a "cheap bastard" :) to https://www.gofundme.com/dr2ks2-las-vegas-victims-fund .  I understand that with all the pleas for donations lately (the hurricanes, etc), some may be a little "compassion" fatigued.  But if any of y'all want to help, this seems like a good way to do it.  Or by donating blood, especially if you are somewhere close to Las Vegas.

And I agree with the OP, I'm tired of this too...


former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2017, 04:00:53 AM »

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2017, 04:02:00 AM »
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?

From my experience as an EMT, lots of first responders are working class guys that grew up around guns and hunting.  Many also hunt or own guns themselves so the lack of "non extreme" gun control preposals turn them off.

Also their has been a shift in gun owner ship in the USA. It's a lot less hunters now and a lot more people that are worried about personal safety. That has in turn changed the types of people you see at the range. I remember as a kid I almost never saw any women at the range. When I went this summer on my trip home their was a lot.

Yup.  I've been familiar with guns as long as I can remember.

My wife, an immigrant from Hong Kong, had never even though about using a weapon prior to coming to the USA.

I wanted her to learn to shoot for her own protection.  The first time I took her to a range, she was, to say the least, apprehensive.  She thought I was nuts to take her there.

An hour later, after running through a 100 rounds or so on the pistol range, I couldn't drag her away.  She just loves shooting.  Maybe because she's got way better eyes than I do at this point, despite my vast advantage in experience, she can generally out shoot me at the range. 

I'll probably have to turn in my "man card" for admitting that. :)

10-years later, she won't leave me alone.  I want to stay home on the weekend and watch football, and she insists on dragging me to the range.  I've created a monster.

Oh, I should also say that she is also not a "threat" to anyone who isn't a paper target.  Most of the time, she's a quiet, respectful, Chinese-American scientist.  Ridiculously meek and mild mannered.  She only becomes "Rambo" at the range. 

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1180
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2017, 04:26:24 AM »

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.

Unless you go back to restricting gun ownership to only antique guns made before WWI or so, you aren't going to stop semi-autos.  I still love to shoot an old fashioned bolt action on occasion.  I first learned to shoot using bolt action.  But thinking that we are going to go back to 1915 probably isn't realistic.

Even simple hunting rifles are semi-auto.  Millions of semi-auto hunting rifles, that have the same ability, but not the same "style" as "assault style rifles" are sold here every year.  In the USA, there is an obsession among the leftist gun banners about "military style assault rifles.  These folks generally know about as much about guns as I know about high fashion, which is to say, next to nothing.

To say nothing of the probably tens of millions of semi-auto handguns sold every year.

"Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?"

Yes, there is a good reason.  A semi-auto gives the individual a chance to overcome a group of people with bad intentions.

If I was 21, I could probably fire a bolt action fast enough to overcome a group of 3-4 criminals invading my home.  I was young. I was fit.  I had no health problems.  I had great vision.  I probably could have held my own.

In my mid-50s, I'd be hard pressed to do so.  I'm getting old.  I can't chamber that round quickly like I could when I was young.  I can't fire as accurately as when I was young and my vision was 20/20.

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

I would also suggest that, in addition to the TENS OF MILLIONS (maybe hundreds of millions) of semi-autos already out there, that technology has advanced to the point that backyard weapon smiths could create a semi-auto fairly easily.

In the end, the only folks you would "restrict" would be law abiding citizens.  The criminals, those who really wanted to do evil, would find a way to get that semi-auto (or full auto).

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2532
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2017, 05:20:27 AM »
[...]

Hunting: learn to shoot before you hunt, then a single shot will be fine (works in the Scottish Highlands, right?).

The chances of you or your father being the subject of a home invasion seem pretty small to me, and the chances of either of you being in a position to resist using guns seem pretty small too - you are probably better off with the instincts to call 911 and hide until the cops arrive. 

Also, the chances of either of you or your family members dying in a gun accident or using a gun to commit suicide are probably much higher than the home invasion fantasy.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 06:15:35 AM by former player »
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

alsoknownasDean

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1602
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2017, 05:53:05 AM »
Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

How many more mass shooting do we have to go through?

When will you or someone you know be next?

Won't happen. The current ultra laissez-faire approach to guns is too culturally ingrained. Sad, but true.

Even without taking into account the second amendment, would the concept of a gun licence really be accepted? Or the argument that 'some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns'.

Food for thought, if an armed thug breaks into your house with the intention of stealing your possessions, which of your possessions are worth risking your life over? If they really want to steal my TV or even my car, I'd rather survive and have them take it than risk dying defending it.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 05:55:36 AM by alsoknownasDean »

Freedom2016

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 480
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2017, 07:14:14 AM »

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #30 on: October 03, 2017, 07:25:54 AM »

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.

Your statistical chance of being a victim of a mass shooter are similarly low.  Automatic weapons are illegal and this guy purchased the weapons in several states (including CA) who had background checks.

With 300M+ guns in the US, what gun laws would work short of confiscation?  I'm disgusted by this killing, I have yet to hear a reasonable idea for preventing it.

conpewter

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 36
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Illinois
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #31 on: October 03, 2017, 07:29:15 AM »
The main thing I think of when I see these tragedies is the lack of mental health care in this country.

This asshole had two planes, if he wanted to kill a lot of folks he could have flown one of those into the crowd, or he could have easily built an explosive to do the same.  He had enough money to buy any amount of illegally created weapons.  We need to treat the problem, not the symptom.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9118
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #32 on: October 03, 2017, 07:29:26 AM »
There is no "gun control" debate.  At all.  Those wanting unfettered access to firearms have won.  A complete, total victory.

Now we all reap what has been sown.

A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).

Pretty much this.


You'll get all the standard gun advocacy arguments in this thread:
- The only reason the evil gubmint hasn't killed and enslaved every last American is guns
- Licences for owning a firearm won't work (see above)
- Gun controls won't work in the US because it's different than every other country where gun controls have ever been implemented
- Hand guns kill more people than any other gun type, and we don't want to regulate hand guns therefore no other type of gun should be controlled
- Hand guns can't be regulated because they're essential to self defense
- Criminals don't always follow gun laws, therefore no gun laws should exist
- We already have gun laws and they don't work (but I've conveniently forgotten the many ways we hamstring our current gun laws)
- I need guns to protect my house from ninja assassins
- The problem isn't guns, it's crazy people
- Without guns the king of England would just take over the country
- Swimming pools kill more children then guns, therefore we shouldn't worry about guns
- There are other ways to kill people and therefore we shouldn't worry about guns


But the real reason that gun control won't be implemented in the US is that a sizable chunk of the population have decided that the right to own firearms supersedes (and should always supersede) being safe from them.  The very idea of doing something that might inconvenience yourself for the common good is blasphemy in the land of hyper-individualism.

So yeah.  Another big mass shooting.  A completely foreseeable and expected tragedy that will happen again soon.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 07:32:32 AM by GuitarStv »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #33 on: October 03, 2017, 07:33:48 AM »
Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?
Summing up this debate: yes.

If you bring a semi-automatic weapons ban to the Supreme Court, I am almost 100% certain it will be struck down.

There is no conceivable way to prevent a "mass shooting" that does not involve banning magazines and semi-automatic weapons. If you bring ANY semi-automatic weapon to a crowded area with the intent to do harm, you will likely do harm to a LOT of people.

Most gun owners I know are not on board with most gun control efforts because of this. "Slippery slope." For them, the Rubicon was the Assault Weapons Ban. They do not take anyone who says "military-grade" or "military-style" assault weapon seriously.

Here's an image summing up their basic position:


Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but they won't listen when they hear people talking about mandatory gun buy-backs and have lived through cities trying to ban entire classes of weapons.

Quote
Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.
So this is what the US govt has to say about it:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
Quote
An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year
on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization

7% of 3.7 million is 260,000 home invasions that result in violent crime.
The number of gun homicides in the US in 2005 was 10,000 per quick Wiki("Gun deaths" includes suicides).

So there are about 26 times the number of people injured during home invasions, then there are people killed by guns. It's not a totally fair comparison, injuries to deaths, but people are fretting about getting killed by guns, which is extremely rare. The chances of you getting killed in a mass shooting even like this are practically non-existent.

I don't much worry about suffering a home invasion, particularly in my suburb, but I do not worry at all about getting shot. It is VASTLY more likely that I will be killed by my unhealthy bacon habit or some idiot motorist speeding through a stop sign (which almost happened once this year!)

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 521
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2017, 07:40:59 AM »

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.

Unless you go back to restricting gun ownership to only antique guns made before WWI or so, you aren't going to stop semi-autos.  I still love to shoot an old fashioned bolt action on occasion.  I first learned to shoot using bolt action.  But thinking that we are going to go back to 1915 probably isn't realistic.

Even simple hunting rifles are semi-auto.  Millions of semi-auto hunting rifles, that have the same ability, but not the same "style" as "assault style rifles" are sold here every year.  In the USA, there is an obsession among the leftist gun banners about "military style assault rifles.  These folks generally know about as much about guns as I know about high fashion, which is to say, next to nothing.

To say nothing of the probably tens of millions of semi-auto handguns sold every year.

"Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?"

Yes, there is a good reason.  A semi-auto gives the individual a chance to overcome a group of people with bad intentions.

If I was 21, I could probably fire a bolt action fast enough to overcome a group of 3-4 criminals invading my home.  I was young. I was fit.  I had no health problems.  I had great vision.  I probably could have held my own.

In my mid-50s, I'd be hard pressed to do so.  I'm getting old.  I can't chamber that round quickly like I could when I was young.  I can't fire as accurately as when I was young and my vision was 20/20.

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

I would also suggest that, in addition to the TENS OF MILLIONS (maybe hundreds of millions) of semi-autos already out there, that technology has advanced to the point that backyard weapon smiths could create a semi-auto fairly easily.

In the end, the only folks you would "restrict" would be law abiding citizens.  The criminals, those who really wanted to do evil, would find a way to get that semi-auto (or full auto).

Am I correctly summarizing your position:  "But.... my vision is failing, and my ability to react is slower. Oh yeah, and my body can no longer do what my mind wants it to do. This is why I need semi-automatic weapons."



zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2017, 07:50:18 AM »
Even without taking into account the second amendment, would the concept of a gun licence really be accepted? Or the argument that 'some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns'.

Food for thought, if an armed thug breaks into your house with the intention of stealing your possessions, which of your possessions are worth risking your life over? If they really want to steal my TV or even my car, I'd rather survive and have them take it than risk dying defending it.
There already exist laws for preclude certain individuals from purchasing/owning firearms in the US.  Convicted felons, the mentally unstable, etc.  The NICS database exists for that exact reason.

If the armed thug enters your home, are you sure he's just there for the TV, and that he'll calmly and coolly leave you alone?  I'm sure you've heard of a mugging/robbery "gone bad," i.e. the mugger ends up shooting the victim. If you're uncomfortable with the idea of having a weapon in your home to defend yourself, that's absolutely fine!  I have no problems with that, and nobody is trying to take away your ability to follow that course.  Just please don't  attempt to impose those same values on people who would prefer to defend themselves.

One thing I find interesting about this tragedy is that everyone is focused on the "how" rather than the "why."  Within hours of the shooting, there was rampant speculation about the types of weapons this moron used, but I have yet to see much interest in what drove him to commit such a terrible act.

Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.
Actually, there are about 250,000 home invasions per year (burglaries where a violent crime occurred), although death is indeed very uncommon.  True, if you're in a single-family home out in a middle-class suburb, it's far less likely to happen.  Mass shootings of this type, on the other hand, are exceptionally rare, about 1 per year.  You are literally just as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as in a shooting spree.

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2423
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #36 on: October 03, 2017, 07:53:00 AM »
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

In response to the bolded, there *are* all kinds of restrictions. To have a real discussion about restricted weaponry,  one gets into the weeds of detailed technical issues. I am not especially knowledgeable about them but I have read through several such discussions and my eyes glaze over, it is very technical.

Suffice to say, your portrayal of gun ownership as being without restrictions on arms is simplistic to the point of absurdity. i dont intend to be rude here, just want to correct your basic premise.

« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 08:01:38 AM by iris lily »

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Age: 23
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #37 on: October 03, 2017, 07:54:06 AM »
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

Yes, to protect Americans from a tyrannic upheaval from the government.  With DJT at the helm, we're not too far from this.

J Boogie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 482
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #38 on: October 03, 2017, 08:14:21 AM »
I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism


This wasn't terrorism.

Quick copy and paste from dictionary.com:

ter∑ror∑ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

9/11, Dylan Roof, Unabomber, McVeigh, Tsarnaev brothers, etc - Terrorists.  Their violence was in pursuit of political aims.

San Bernadino & Pulse nightclub are a little foggier as these appeared to be very tenuous connections/allegiances to ISIS.  I'm not sure I would consider them terrorists. 

This shooter had no apparent goal beyond causing immense harm.  If he did, he probably would have made it more well known - that's the point.


I get that people think the selective use of the word terrorist is racist - and I would agree if it's being selectively used only to describe brown killers but not white ones.  But race is irrelevant to what makes a mass murderer a terrorist or not.  It's the political motive.  So let's not rush to call every white mass murderer a terrorist as part of a misguided racial equity strategy.




Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1908
  • Age: 23
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2017, 08:18:22 AM »
I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism


This wasn't terrorism.

Quick copy and paste from dictionary.com:

ter∑ror∑ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

9/11, Dylan Roof, Unabomber, McVeigh, Tsarnaev brothers, etc - Terrorists.  Their violence was in pursuit of political aims.

San Bernadino & Pulse nightclub are a little foggier as these appeared to be very tenuous connections/allegiances to ISIS.  I'm not sure I would consider them terrorists. 

This shooter had no apparent goal beyond causing immense harm.  If he did, he probably would have made it more well known - that's the point.


I get that people think the selective use of the word terrorist is racist - and I would agree if it's being selectively used only to describe brown killers but not white ones.  But race is irrelevant to what makes a mass murderer a terrorist or not.  It's the political motive.  So let's not rush to call every white mass murderer a terrorist as part of a misguided racial equity strategy.

Great post.  On this subject, do you think civil war constitutes terrorism?

J Boogie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 482
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2017, 08:34:18 AM »
I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism


This wasn't terrorism.

Quick copy and paste from dictionary.com:

ter∑ror∑ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

9/11, Dylan Roof, Unabomber, McVeigh, Tsarnaev brothers, etc - Terrorists.  Their violence was in pursuit of political aims.

San Bernadino & Pulse nightclub are a little foggier as these appeared to be very tenuous connections/allegiances to ISIS.  I'm not sure I would consider them terrorists. 

This shooter had no apparent goal beyond causing immense harm.  If he did, he probably would have made it more well known - that's the point.


I get that people think the selective use of the word terrorist is racist - and I would agree if it's being selectively used only to describe brown killers but not white ones.  But race is irrelevant to what makes a mass murderer a terrorist or not.  It's the political motive.  So let's not rush to call every white mass murderer a terrorist as part of a misguided racial equity strategy.

Great post.  On this subject, do you think civil war constitutes terrorism?

It does if it involves the killing of civilians.  I don't think it does if it involves violence against military forces/bases though.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 416
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2017, 08:37:55 AM »

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.

Unless you go back to restricting gun ownership to only antique guns made before WWI or so, you aren't going to stop semi-autos.  I still love to shoot an old fashioned bolt action on occasion.  I first learned to shoot using bolt action.  But thinking that we are going to go back to 1915 probably isn't realistic.

Even simple hunting rifles are semi-auto.  Millions of semi-auto hunting rifles, that have the same ability, but not the same "style" as "assault style rifles" are sold here every year.  In the USA, there is an obsession among the leftist gun banners about "military style assault rifles.  These folks generally know about as much about guns as I know about high fashion, which is to say, next to nothing.

To say nothing of the probably tens of millions of semi-auto handguns sold every year.

"Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?"

Yes, there is a good reason.  A semi-auto gives the individual a chance to overcome a group of people with bad intentions.

If I was 21, I could probably fire a bolt action fast enough to overcome a group of 3-4 criminals invading my home.  I was young. I was fit.  I had no health problems.  I had great vision.  I probably could have held my own.

In my mid-50s, I'd be hard pressed to do so.  I'm getting old.  I can't chamber that round quickly like I could when I was young.  I can't fire as accurately as when I was young and my vision was 20/20.

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

I would also suggest that, in addition to the TENS OF MILLIONS (maybe hundreds of millions) of semi-autos already out there, that technology has advanced to the point that backyard weapon smiths could create a semi-auto fairly easily.

In the end, the only folks you would "restrict" would be law abiding citizens.  The criminals, those who really wanted to do evil, would find a way to get that semi-auto (or full auto).

Am I correctly summarizing your position:  "But.... my vision is failing, and my ability to react is slower. Oh yeah, and my body can no longer do what my mind wants it to do. This is why I need semi-automatic weapons."

No, you're playfully misconstruing it, but you know that :P

Semi-autos are more useful than bolt-action. They are not more useful for INTIMIDATION: someone spooked by a gun is going to be spooked by a gun regardless of it being an 18th century musket or a SAW.

If you have to actually USE it in a life-or-death situation, though, semi-autos are the only reasonable option. Guns are not magic wands and probably will not stop a determined assailant in a single round. You need to fire multiple times, and that means semi-auto weapons.

This will become less of a problem when drones become cheap enough that I can have one permanently flying around my house that gives nasty shocks to anyone who breaks into my house.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9118
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2017, 08:38:09 AM »
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

Yes, to protect Americans from a tyrannic upheaval from the government.  With DJT at the helm, we're not too far from this.

This type of comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how tyrannical governments tend to come to power.

Usually they start out as tremendously popular forces.  The revolution in Russia leading to communism was also a populist movement, as was the Khmer Rouge when they came to power.  (Actually, if you study history, a well armed militia tends to create tyrants - not remove them.)   Hitler (for example) was well loved in Germany when he came to power.  He was the leader of a militia.  Guns in the hands of the populace would have been turned against the 'Jewish menace', not the Nazis.  Fun fact - most of the gun control in pre WWII Germany was implemented by the Weimar republic in an attempt to prevent people like Hitler from seizing control . . . and when the Nazis came to power Hitler loosened gun control restrictions.

Overlooking the truly terrible outcomes of well armed militias (Fidel Castro, the Khmer Rouge, Lenin, the Taliban, etc.), guns in the hands of the people are useless when the people are wrong.  Sure, after you've put a tyrant into power they may well come for your guns.  At that point it's too late to fight back though.  They'll be powerful and popular enough that they'll be able to pick off the armed trouble makers quickly and efficiently through informants and overwhelming might.  The idea of fighting off a tyrannical government with small arms is pure myth.  Look at Saudi Arabia or Yemen if you want to see how a well armed populace really responds to a tyrannical government in the real world, not imaginary fantasy land.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 08:41:30 AM by GuitarStv »

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1067
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2017, 08:39:44 AM »
There is no "gun control" debate.  At all.  Those wanting unfettered access to firearms have won.  A complete, total victory.

Now we all reap what has been sown.

A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).

Pretty much this.


You'll get all the standard gun advocacy arguments in this thread:
- The only reason the evil gubmint hasn't killed and enslaved every last American is guns
- Licences for owning a firearm won't work (see above)
- Gun controls won't work in the US because it's different than every other country where gun controls have ever been implemented
- Hand guns kill more people than any other gun type, and we don't want to regulate hand guns therefore no other type of gun should be controlled
- Hand guns can't be regulated because they're essential to self defense
- Criminals don't always follow gun laws, therefore no gun laws should exist
- We already have gun laws and they don't work (but I've conveniently forgotten the many ways we hamstring our current gun laws)
- I need guns to protect my house from ninja assassins
- The problem isn't guns, it's crazy people
- Without guns the king of England would just take over the country
- Swimming pools kill more children then guns, therefore we shouldn't worry about guns
- There are other ways to kill people and therefore we shouldn't worry about guns


But the real reason that gun control won't be implemented in the US is that a sizable chunk of the population have decided that the right to own firearms supersedes (and should always supersede) being safe from them. The very idea of doing something that might inconvenience yourself for the common good is blasphemy in the land of hyper-individualism.

So yeah.  Another big mass shooting.  A completely foreseeable and expected tragedy that will happen again soon.

+1,000

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2017, 08:40:15 AM »
It seems like yet another knee-jerk "do something" plea that won't have any effect on criminals.
Is it a knee jerk reaction to think the same thing every time another mass shooting happens in this country since others have pointed out that this is about every single day?
I'm an engineer, a mustachian, a self-made multimillionaire, a philanthropist, a pillar of my community.   Other than 3 speeding tickets (last one, 2003 or thereabouts), I've had no run ins with the law in 54 years. I'm not saying that to be a blow hard, but rather to illustrate that most gun owners, like me, are good, law abiding citizens, and no threat to anyone.
From all accounts he was also a law abiding citizen. According to his brother he was also a multimillionaire from real estate and had no political or religious affiliations. See the problem with the argument?
How will restricting my access, or that of millions of other similar law abiding citizens, stop a psycho who doesn't give a damn about the law?

I'm NOT an uncaring "gun nut."  These sort of events are tragic.  I wish I could think of a way to prevent them that didn't involve turning this nation into a police state.  Punishing decent, law abiding citizens for the bad acts of psychos won't solve the problem.

And I agree with the OP, I'm tired of this too...

I'm ok with "punishing" everyone who owns guns by getting rid of all of them (including the police) if that means that someday either myself or people I know wont be killed by them randomly sometime. Kinda like the opioid crisis: those against gun control will have to be personally involved in such tragedy before something is done. Many more will die before they change their mind. Just hope it's not me or mine.

Again: we can't come together on this. We will continue to have mass shooting that gun people will feel so sorry for, but too bad there is no solution "shrugs shoulders."
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 08:42:26 AM by accolay »

Barbaebigode

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2017, 08:41:40 AM »
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

Yes, to protect Americans from a tyrannic upheaval from the government.  With DJT at the helm, we're not too far from this.

Coming from a country that had a dictatorship less than 30 years ago, I always think that citizens armed fighting a "tyrannic goverment" is nothing but a fantasy. Dictatorships more often than not are popular or at least enjoy support from a large portion of the population. It's not a hollywoodian good vs evil situation. People will just give up their liberties if they are scared enough and think that the alternative is worse. And even now after almost 30 years we still have lots of dictatorship apologists and nostalgic people that miss the old days when there were no bad news on the news.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2017, 08:42:04 AM »
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

Why can't I go fly an airplane without a license and X amount of hours training? That's just not fair. Because its dangerous to yourself and others.

If you are a fully competent person who passes a more strict background check and mental health evaluation, and can prove after X amount of hours of practice that you can accurately fire a weapon, then by all means, have your guns. But "well regulated militia" literally has the word REGULATED in it. That means rules for the right to bear arms. We do not have enough rules for gun ownership. I can get a concealed carry permit valid in 35 states by sitting on my couch and watching an hour and a half of youtube videos. That is not ok. And yes, I did get my concealed carry doing exactly that, and I am not exaggerating.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2017, 08:48:25 AM »
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

Why can't I go fly an airplane without a license and X amount of hours training? That's just not fair. Because its dangerous to yourself and others.

If you are a fully competent person who passes a more strict background check and mental health evaluation, and can prove after X amount of hours of practice that you can accurately fire a weapon, then by all means, have your guns. But "well regulated militia" literally has the word REGULATED in it. That means rules for the right to bear arms. We do not have enough rules for gun ownership. I can get a concealed carry permit valid in 35 states by sitting on my couch and watching an hour and a half of youtube videos. That is not ok. And yes, I did get my concealed carry doing exactly that, and I am not exaggerating.
Can you help me understand how such training requirements would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?  The guy was clearly willing and able to jump through any regulatory hoops.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2017, 08:57:02 AM »
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2017, 09:01:21 AM »
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?

I feel like it still kills people and is off topic.