Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 27582 times)

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #150 on: October 04, 2017, 08:56:35 AM »
The US is way too far gone for gun control to help.    The only way the US is going to get gun violence under control is to confiscate and destroy all firearms in civilian hands.     Once they're all gone (a multi-year project if I ever heard of one), then you can start with modern gun regulation.

We all know this isn't ever going to happen.

I'm not sure it should, either.   The American ethos of the lone warrior defending his family/ranch/unit/comrades is actually very powerful.   As long as the US is willing to put up with the gun violence, I think it can be a net force for good in the world.    We can't have the government protecting us from everything.   Just look at child rearing expectations today.  A nanny government is a dismal future if I ever heard of one.

You would be better to focus on things that will make a difference.    Dealing with ghettos and urban poverty.   Better mental health care (along with better health care in general.)   Eliminating racism.
I kind of agree with this, but I'm hesitant to see it as this black and white. I still think it's a discussion worth having but I fear that many of the gun restrictive ideas in this thread would be less effective than we might hope.

-And the overarching idea that marketing and our consumerist lifestyle leads to life dissatisfaction, which leads to increased levels of depression in the population. Huh, I guess we're already working on a solution :) But seriously, a number of these indiscriminate killers have cited the shallowness and consumerism of American as their reason for killing.

Concerning gang violence I think the single biggest step we can take is drug legalization. Gangs exist primarily to sell drugs.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 08:59:48 AM by Dabnasty »

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #151 on: October 04, 2017, 09:00:50 AM »
If people don't like the trade-off, they can always try to pass a Constitutional amendment. Or they can try to insert it in the Article V convention that we're probably going to have this century at the rate we're going (assuming we don't just choose to dissolve the Republic entirely).
This isn't a debate about what our lawmakers are going to do, it's about what they should do. We want your opinion and your defense of that position.
My opinion is that the media should stop glamorizing these events with wall-to-wall coverage, as it inspires copy-cat attacks in a fashion similar to suicides.

Additional gun control that might be needed are magazine limits on a state-by-state basis and registration on a state-by-state basis, with gun purchasing limits on a state-by-state basis. Gaps in NICS like in the VA tech massacre should be closed, with appeals handled promptly. Firearms should have to pass through authorized dealers, so the so-called gun show loophole should be closed. Straw purchaser provisions should be vigorously enforced rather than the tepid enforcement in many districts that we have today.

That's my overall position, but that wouldn't stop mass shootings. Ft Hood was carried out with a single semi-automatic pistol. It'll just keep happening.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #152 on: October 04, 2017, 09:25:16 AM »

This shooter is different they say. He was wealthy, older, had no real reason to commit this crime, people are confused about it. No mental health issues, not politically motivated, etc. I'm not terribly surprised to be honest, because it confirms what I've long thought, nothing is black or white, everything including ourselves is full of the gray. No one person is all good or all bad. Can we recognize the darkness inside ourselves or do we deny it? People can change and they might not even notice it happening.


randomness and lack of warning are the attributes of human violence we fear most, but you now know that human violence is rarely random and rarely without warning - Gavin De Becker, Gift of Fear

One of the best books to read to understand why the brother saying it's like an asteroid  out of the sky and all the other news bits as rarely accurate. 

ETA: When we accept that violence is committed by people who look and act like people, we silence the voice of denial, the voice that whispers, “This guy doesn’t look like a killer.”

We want to believe that with all the possible combinations of human beings and human feelings, predicting violence is as difficult as picking the winning lottery ticket, yet it usually isn’t difficult at all. We want to believe that human violence is somehow beyond our understanding, because as long as it remains a mystery, we have no duty to avoid it, explore it, or anticipate it. We need feel no responsibility for failing to read signals if there are none to read. We can tell ourselves that violence just happens without warning, and usually to others, but in service of these comfortable myths, victims suffer and criminals prosper.
-- Gavin de Becker
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 09:35:59 AM by caracarn »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #153 on: October 04, 2017, 09:27:55 AM »
People who like owning guns do not trust gun control advocates. The reason they do not want a searchable database or national registry is because they believe it will be used to confiscate guns.

Given that the median position among gun control advocates in this very thread is that we need smart guns, GPS chips in all guns, and a full ban of semi-autos, which is not effective without seizing a large portion of the 300 million guns already in the air, that's not at all unreasonable.

I'm not really a gun guy at all, but I'm definitely on the side of not restricting fundamental American rights because of an elevated homicide rate.

That's a terribly callous statement. I personally do not think people's (apparently unrestricted) right to bear arms overrides individual citizens' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The 2nd amendment needs to be revised because the types of arms people can now purchase, are far far different and more deadlier than the original framers invisioned. And also it was written before we had a standing army for the country, which overrides the need for a locally raised "militia." It is an outdated amendment that is doing more harm than good for our country.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 09:32:10 AM by partgypsy »

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #154 on: October 04, 2017, 09:58:17 AM »
If people don't like the trade-off, they can always try to pass a Constitutional amendment. Or they can try to insert it in the Article V convention that we're probably going to have this century at the rate we're going (assuming we don't just choose to dissolve the Republic entirely).
This isn't a debate about what our lawmakers are going to do, it's about what they should do. We want your opinion and your defense of that position.
My opinion is that the media should stop glamorizing these events with wall-to-wall coverage, as it inspires copy-cat attacks in a fashion similar to suicides.

Additional gun control that might be needed are magazine limits on a state-by-state basis and registration on a state-by-state basis, with gun purchasing limits on a state-by-state basis. Gaps in NICS like in the VA tech massacre should be closed, with appeals handled promptly. Firearms should have to pass through authorized dealers, so the so-called gun show loophole should be closed. Straw purchaser provisions should be vigorously enforced rather than the tepid enforcement in many districts that we have today.

That's my overall position, but that wouldn't stop mass shootings. Ft Hood was carried out with a single semi-automatic pistol. It'll just keep happening.

Understanding how the television news works and what it does to you is directly relevant to your safety and well-being. First, the fear of crime is itself a form of victimization. But there is a much more practical issue involved: Being exposed to constant alarm and urgency shell-shocks us to the point that it becomes impossible to separate the survival signal from the sound bite. Because it’s sensationalism and not informationalism, we get a distorted view of what actually poses a hazard to us. -- Gavin De Becker, The Gift of Fear

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #155 on: October 04, 2017, 09:59:43 AM »
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

-Anders Behring got around many many gun control laws.
-In USA, the areas with the most gun control laws have by far the highest gun violence.
-In USA, gun homicides ex gangs are about 2,000 per year, of which about 1,000 are by cops, the vast majority of which are justified. This leaves about 1,000 homicides per year, 3 per day, by non-gang civilians.
-Homicide is already illegal!


I just wanted to address the above.  This is not a true statement.  It's a statement that is pleasing to people who want no change in gun control policy.  But it is not a true statement. 

http://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2016/nov/03/donald-trump/trump-no-marksman-when-aiming-chicago-gun-laws/

New York City has stricter gun laws than Chicago:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

New York City also has record-low homicide rates.  A great deal of research ties the number of available guns to the homicide rate.  When people wave their hands and yell CHICAGO!!! but not NEW YORK!!!  there's a reason.  Team Trump isn't competent at much of anything, but they are really, really good at stoking racial resentment.  And pushing the racial resentment button for conservatives is very effective at getting them to line up with policies that they see as being on their team.  That's how you get people to vote for politicians who support no universal background checks, even though that policy has wide public support among conservatives.  It's how you get people to forget that even suburban white 6 year olds can be the victims of horrific gun violence perpetrated by a white male, by replacing that picture with a mental picture of a "thug" with a gun.  Suddenly, gun violence isn't your problem anymore, it's by the "other", and you won't be a victim because you don't go to godless places like Chicago.  And you need your gun to protect you from those thugs, anyway.  Wait-violence at a country music concert in a place you go on vacation?  Quick, send out many messages of CHICAGO to soothe the part of your brain that says that maybe you should be worried and that things could be different, better.  It doesn't matter that it's not supported by facts.  Just keep saying Chicago and you'll feel better soon.
 

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1360
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #156 on: October 04, 2017, 10:04:35 AM »
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #157 on: October 04, 2017, 10:14:57 AM »
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.
Perhaps the Dems would like fewer people to die painful and untimely deaths, or have lifelong disabilities?

Perhaps the Dems think that laws, even constitutional amendments, are not given by God and carved in stone but are made by man and can be changed by man.

Perhaps they recognise the pernicious propaganda spewed by the gun industry and swallowed whole by too many people for what it is.

Perhaps they have not yet given up on making the USA that shining city on the hill.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #158 on: October 04, 2017, 10:15:46 AM »
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the constitution required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.  It was settled law too.  Slavery was protected and a personal right.  Getting rid of slavery was not popular.  There were hundreds of thousands of slaves out there.  It took an awful long time for the changes to make a real impact.

None of these arguments are reasons not to try to make the country better.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #159 on: October 04, 2017, 11:53:11 AM »
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 of the constitution required escaped slaves to be returned to their owners.  It was settled law too.  Slavery was protected and a personal right.  Getting rid of slavery was not popular.  There were hundreds of thousands of slaves out there.  It took an awful long time for the changes to make a real impact.

None of these arguments are reasons not to try to make the country better.

Worth mentioning it required a bloody civil war and approving that amendment was the price of re-admission to Congress for the South.  One would hope we can make those kinds of changes again without the strife.

The "Dems" are skating uphill due to the restrictions the 2nd Amendment places on their efforts, which is unfortunate because some of the laws that get passed in individual states make literal cosmetic changes to guns and gun laws leading to ridicule of their overall efforts.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #160 on: October 04, 2017, 12:09:22 PM »
Gun control is a very small part of this overall puzzle, and mass shootings like this one are so rare they're almost not worth talking about in the scope of the homicide rate in our country (yet will be the only thing that IS talked about). 41 people every day die due to homicide in the US, this event was 1/3 of 1% of this year's homicides. Homicides have also been on the decline since the 90's, at roughly the same rate as Australia whose gun control laws people love to point to as the solution to our problems. To clarify, Australia implemented strict gun control in 1996, we didn't, and our homicide rate still declined at roughly the same rate.  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014

We share a border with a country that has more than 3x our homicide rate, and another border with a country with 1/3 of ours (hence putting us in the middle). We have a privatized prison system that rewards prisons for repeat offenders. People frequently go bankrupt to get medicine they need to survive. We have a culture where minorities are afraid to trust police (yet are supposed to give up their own right to bear arms, to rely on said police for protection). Our population is 10x that of Australia, or half of the entire continent of Europe. News outlets make everyone involved in these grandiose shootings a celebrity to boost ratings, and we all eat it up. Putting a ban on certain types of guns, or doing a multi decade long confiscation program is not going to fix our problem. I'd actually be surprised if it had any effect.  What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

Here's a snopes article talking about how wrong Trump was in stating we have some sort of murder epidemic. It's also applicable in this case.
http://www.snopes.com/murder-rate-highest-in-47-years/

It also doesn't help that so many pro gun control people have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to the actual mechanics of guns. That's where we get ludicrous regulations that make us pro-gun folks skeptical of giving them an inch, especially registration. Registration of people/things people want to get rid of rarely works out well. Here is a graphic about only some of the current regulations supposedly meant to reduce gun violence. In case you can't tell, these are more about making guns a pain in the ass to get than actually preventing anyone from getting hurt, yet they were still enacted.

As I've said in past threads, if we start talking about actual compromise, like adding a new restriction WHILE getting rid of an old ridiculous one, I'm down to listen. What I'm not interested in is the whole "we have to compromise" when one side doesn't want to give anything. One other pet peeve is people using these tragedies as a way to try and introduce regulations that wouldn't have prevented these tragedies.  It doesn't mean their regulation wouldn't work, but it's just annoying. "We need a 30 day waiting period!" "This guy had his guns for 10 years." "Yeah but still." That sort of strategy usually lets me know the person is more interested in making legal gun ownership a pain in the ass than actually addressing the problem.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 12:19:59 PM by ooeei »

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #161 on: October 04, 2017, 12:29:54 PM »
You need a license and training to drive. That license is searchable by police and corresponds to a registered vehicle. They can also see how many vehicles are registered to you.

Do the same thing for guns! License. Training. And they can see how many you have an how frequently you purchase more. Too many in too short of time? Red flag. Visit from a firearm control officer.

The word "regulated" is in the second amendment! Let's f**king regulate already.

And before the NRA donors jump at me, I have multiple guns and love target shooting. But it should not be easier for me to get any number of guns that I want than it is for a woman to get birth control, or a me to get a cellphone plan.

And the first response to this is "well that isn't guaranteed to solve every shooting ever that could maybe ever happen". Yeah, I know. But it will help stop the many people who go buy a gun or several guns in a month or a week to kill their ex/neighborhood children/country music fans. And if someone is competent (or crazy) enough to plan for decades to acquire enough guns to meet this guy's arsenal, hopefully a different red flag would occur to prevent the tragedy or they would lose motivation. Mass shooters are usually not great long term planners.

The next argument is "now they know where I live, so they'll come take my guns". Except, there is still that amendment there that lets you have them...

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #162 on: October 04, 2017, 12:32:03 PM »

It also doesn't help that so many pro gun control people have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to the actual mechanics of guns. That's where we get ludicrous regulations that make us pro-gun folks skeptical of giving them an inch, especially registration.

I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #163 on: October 04, 2017, 12:53:59 PM »

It also doesn't help that so many pro gun control people have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to the actual mechanics of guns. That's where we get ludicrous regulations that make us pro-gun folks skeptical of giving them an inch, especially registration.

I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.

Well as I've learned when talking with our lawyers from corporate, legal definitions of terms spiral out of control really quickly. Doubly so when the content was written hundreds of years ago.

I'm not trying to say the average gun defender is any more reasonable than the average regulator.

You need a license and training to drive. That license is searchable by police and corresponds to a registered vehicle. They can also see how many vehicles are registered to you.

Do the same thing for guns! License. Training. And they can see how many you have an how frequently you purchase more. Too many in too short of time? Red flag. Visit from a firearm control officer.

The word "regulated" is in the second amendment! Let's f**king regulate already.

And before the NRA donors jump at me, I have multiple guns and love target shooting. But it should not be easier for me to get any number of guns that I want than it is for a woman to get birth control, or a me to get a cellphone plan.

And the first response to this is "well that isn't guaranteed to solve every shooting ever that could maybe ever happen". Yeah, I know. But it will help stop the many people who go buy a gun or several guns in a month or a week to kill their ex/neighborhood children/country music fans. And if someone is competent (or crazy) enough to plan for decades to acquire enough guns to meet this guy's arsenal, hopefully a different red flag would occur to prevent the tragedy or they would lose motivation. Mass shooters are usually not great long term planners.

The next argument is "now they know where I live, so they'll come take my guns". Except, there is still that amendment there that lets you have them...

You actually don't need a license to drive on private property, or to buy/own a car. You need one to drive it on public property.

This post is a good example of one of those ideas that wouldn't have helped this situation at all.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 12:56:20 PM by ooeei »

omachi

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #164 on: October 04, 2017, 12:59:11 PM »
What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

Did somebody downplaying gun deaths just state that having guns present or not has no effect on the homicide rate? Isn't this one of the big talking points for gun ownership - that having a gun means the difference between life and death for the gun owner? How are we to reconcile the two assertions?

And I can't see how there'd be no effect. Reduction of gun violence would mean things like innocent bystanders not being killed by errant bullets and would make mass killings much more difficult. Unless you think people are going to be killed by a stray knife at similar rates.

What about secondary effects? If gun violence by citizens was reduced to the point of an oddity, the police could also de-escalate and not decide to reach for lethal force at the drop of a hat. They certainly wouldn't have as much excuse for it. The "I feared for my life" thing when shooting into a car would be pretty unbelievable if gun violence was rare.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #165 on: October 04, 2017, 01:18:08 PM »

You actually don't need a license to drive on private property, or to buy/own a car. You need one to drive it on public property.

This post is a good example of one of those ideas that wouldn't have helped this situation at all.
You're kidding me right? He bought a lot of guns over the span of a few months. That should be a red flag to me (as I literally just stated). And (again, as I just stated) if it took years to acquire those weapons, he might've lost motivation or been caught during some other step of the planning process.

And, those rules would help the thousands of people who get killed by an angry ex, etc who run out and buy a gun when they are mad.

Finally, drop the semantics about licensing. It's an analogy. There can be differences. Guns don't have steering wheels either, does that make my point invalid? Come on.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #166 on: October 04, 2017, 01:19:50 PM »
What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

Did somebody downplaying gun deaths just state that having guns present or not has no effect on the homicide rate? Isn't this one of the big talking points for gun ownership - that having a gun means the difference between life and death for the gun owner? How are we to reconcile the two assertions?

In the interest of playing along, let's consider 3 situations.

1: A burglar breaks in and kills somebody because they don't have a gun. 1 homicide.

2: A burglar breaks in and is killed by someone because they do have a gun. 1 homicide.

3: A burglar breaks in and beats the shit out of someone or just robs them blind, and leaves. 0 homicides.

Only one of these situations has the homeowner defending themselves and the burglar getting negative consequences. In the homicide statistics it shows up the same as if the burglar killed the homeowner, and shows up worse than if the burglar just beat up or robbed the homeowner.

Quote
And I can't see how there'd be no effect. Reduction of gun violence would mean things like innocent bystanders not being killed by errant bullets and would make mass killings much more difficult. Unless you think people are going to be killed by a stray knife at similar rates.

What about secondary effects? If gun violence by citizens was reduced to the point of an oddity, the police could also de-escalate and not decide to reach for lethal force at the drop of a hat. They certainly wouldn't have as much excuse for it. The "I feared for my life" thing when shooting into a car would be pretty unbelievable if gun violence was rare.


Well, we have the data from Australia showing their homicide rate continuing to decrease at the same rate before and after their regulations in the 90's. I seem to recall a similar outcome for the UK. The United States has seen a decrease at the same rate over the same time period without increasing regulations. As I said, mass killings are such a small part of the overall statistics they're almost not worth talking about, "errant bullets during mass shootings" even less so.  50 people sounds like a lot, but to put it in perspective over 1600 people die per day from heart disease. 50 is a drop in the bucket of homicides per year, and a drop in the swimming pool of overall deaths. We're a country of 300,000,000 people.

The available evidence points toward some factor other than regulation being the driving force of the homicide reduction. Reconcile it however you like, I'm not going to theorize what the other mechanism is because it's very likely a complex answer.



You actually don't need a license to drive on private property, or to buy/own a car. You need one to drive it on public property.

This post is a good example of one of those ideas that wouldn't have helped this situation at all.
You're kidding me right? He bought a lot of guns over the span of a few months. That should be a red flag to me (as I literally just stated). And (again, as I just stated) if it took years to acquire those weapons, he might've lost motivation or been caught during some other step of the planning process.

And, those rules would help the thousands of people who get killed by an angry ex, etc who run out and buy a gun when they are mad.

Finally, drop the semantics about licensing. It's an analogy. There can be differences. Guns don't have steering wheels either, does that make my point invalid? Come on.

And if there was a rule that buying multiple guns raised a red flag, maybe he would've taken a bit longer to avoid it. Do you really think that would've had a significant impact? The dude already planned it out for months, and he didn't need nearly as many guns as he had. And as far as I know there actually is a red flag right now when you hit a certain number of background checks in a given time frame, because the ATF wants to make sure you're not running an unofficial resale business without a license. edit: Can't find a source for that, maybe I imagined it.

I think the semantics about licensing are pretty relevant. The fact is you DONT have to have a license to buy a car or to use it on private property, only to use it on public property. We currently have concealed carry license requirements in the vast majority of states where you do have a test to take to carry your gun/use it in public. They're more similar than you think. There also aren't limits on the number of cars you can buy or how often you have to wait between them.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 01:27:52 PM by ooeei »

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #167 on: October 04, 2017, 01:29:14 PM »
You need a license and training to drive. That license is searchable by police and corresponds to a registered vehicle. They can also see how many vehicles are registered to you.

Do the same thing for guns! License. Training. And they can see how many you have an how frequently you purchase more. Too many in too short of time? Red flag. Visit from a firearm control officer.

The word "regulated" is in the second amendment! Let's f**king regulate already.

And before the NRA donors jump at me, I have multiple guns and love target shooting. But it should not be easier for me to get any number of guns that I want than it is for a woman to get birth control, or a me to get a cellphone plan.

And the first response to this is "well that isn't guaranteed to solve every shooting ever that could maybe ever happen". Yeah, I know. But it will help stop the many people who go buy a gun or several guns in a month or a week to kill their ex/neighborhood children/country music fans. And if someone is competent (or crazy) enough to plan for decades to acquire enough guns to meet this guy's arsenal, hopefully a different red flag would occur to prevent the tragedy or they would lose motivation. Mass shooters are usually not great long term planners.

None of which the Constitution specifically mentions, and there's where regulation and other related systems hit their snags.

Quote
The next argument is "now they know where I live, so they'll come take my guns". Except, there is still that amendment there that lets you have them...

And anything that looks like a bureaucrat can sign away that right willy nilly gets fought (quite successfully) in court.


It also doesn't help that so many pro gun control people have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to the actual mechanics of guns. That's where we get ludicrous regulations that make us pro-gun folks skeptical of giving them an inch, especially registration.

I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.

It's much less important what the NRA thinks than what the Supreme Court has already said on the matter.  The writers of the Constitution did a great job with that document; however, their choice of sentence structure on that one statement has caused a lot of grief over the last century.  Reading that statement for the first time, one would think it was authorization for government-sponsored militia members to maintain their firearms at home.  Over the last 200 years though, the various iterations of the Supreme Court have felt differently and seem to latch onto "shall not be infringed" as the more important clause.  A new amendment would be required that clearly separates private ownership from ownership for "official" purposes with something about the weapon's capabilities.  It would also require language that restricts or requires state-level compliance since if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, the states get to make their own rules.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

mre

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #168 on: October 04, 2017, 01:32:42 PM »
I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.

"well regulated" is not in the operative clause of the 2nd amendment and has no  bearing on the operative clause, which provides for the right to keep and bear arms.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #169 on: October 04, 2017, 01:56:07 PM »
The available evidence points toward some factor other than regulation being the driving force of the homicide reduction. Reconcile it however you like, I'm not going to theorize what the other mechanism is because it's very likely a complex answer.

If this is something of interest to you, I've been reading the book The Better Angels of Our Nature, by Steven Pinker, which attempts to address that question using extensive statistical analysis of trends, socio-political forces, psychology, etc.  It's very dense, and slightly out of date (2011), but a lot of good information so far.  I highly recommend it.

Out of curiosity, where does gun control rank in the book?

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #170 on: October 04, 2017, 02:05:46 PM »
The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

I used to be anti-gun. Ban 'em all, no reason to have them, etc.

WORSE, (this is embarrassing) I looked to Government for answers to problems. Then I started thinking rationally, and discovered concepts like freedom with responsibility, etc. I'm now about as libertarian as it gets. You don't mess with my life, liberty, property, I won't mess with yours. I want to be a good neighbor to you and I assume you want the same. Government is a very unfortunate parasitical necessity and the smaller the better.

Try this analysis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.aafa76fae251

Gun owners in US have hundreds of millions of guns and TRILLIONS of rounds of ammo. They are not the problem; if they were, the map would be a different color.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #171 on: October 04, 2017, 02:07:11 PM »
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/us-gun-deaths-versus-other-countries-2016/

the gap between the US and other countries on gun deaths is getting bigger. We have orders of magnitude higher gun deaths than other civilized countries. 

Compare the US apples to apples regarding functional governments without ongoing civil strife. I'd prefer not to compare the US with countries like Columbia. The homicide map does not include presumably gun related suicides and accidental gun deaths?

If you sort by total gun-related deaths (Wikipedia) the US is 11th, with the following countries above us in gun-related deaths:
Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Columbia, Brazil, Panama, Uruguay, (then US).

We can do better.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 02:16:31 PM by partgypsy »

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #172 on: October 04, 2017, 02:07:54 PM »
I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.

"well regulated" is not in the operative clause of the 2nd amendment and has no  bearing on the operative clause, which provides for the right to keep and bear arms.


This is the prevailing interpretation, unfortunately.   Dead six year olds didn't change anything.   If only the words "well-regulated" meant anything. There is no comfort for parents with Christmas presents bought and wrapped that were never opened.    It was a crazy woman's right to buy an arsenal and teach her mentally unstable son how to shoot.  Dead children are tributes to her freedom.

One man puts a dud bomb in his shoe, and we will always have to go barefoot through the airport.  600 people are shot, but it's rare.  Why do anything?






lifeanon269

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #173 on: October 04, 2017, 02:14:08 PM »
A common argument from gun-rights proponents when gun control is talked about is whether or not any particular control would have made any specific impact on the latest tragic incident.

This is such a common argument because it is impossible to defend against. It is often a completely valid statement that "such and such control" wouldn't have made any impact on whatever the latest tragedy is at the time. The problem with that argument is that no single element of control will completely prevent any given tragedy. But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that at some point, there will be a tragedy that it will have prevented. Even if a particular control measure saves a handful of lives, then in my opinion its worth it. Whatever administrative overhead, whatever human hours spent, whatever inconveniences endured, if it saves a life then it is worth it. You can't directly determine whether or not a particular control measure would've prevented any specific tragedy in hindsight.

I work in Information Security, so I make the comparison to the numerous cyber-security controls we put in place to prevent a data breach. No single control measure will prevent every type of compromise or attack. But, if we put together a layered approach to our controls, then we'll be in a much more secure position than we would have been.

In short, discrediting gun control measures based on whether or not they would've prevented any given single instance of crime is a poor method for determining whether new gun controls should be adopted. If statistically speaking, putting in more gun controls will reduce access to guns, then at some point you have to admit that there will come a day where a tragedy will be prevent and it will make those controls worth it in the lives it saved. If I'm a law abiding gun owner, then please, inconvenience me all you'd like. If I can save a life by being inconvenienced, then I'll spend days/weeks/months being inconvenienced.

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #174 on: October 04, 2017, 02:23:50 PM »
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.

The control of firearms in Canada is predominantly governed by the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code, and their subordinate regulations.  The Criminal Code defines the main categories of firearms, which include restricted, prohibited, and non-restricted firearms.  The Firearms Act regulates the possession, transport, and storage of firearms.

Applicants are required to pass safety tests before they can be eligible for a firearms license.  Applicants are also subject to background checks, which take into account criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records.

The Criminal Code identifies “the various firearms, weapons and devices regulated by the Firearms Act.”[4]  The Code classifies firearms into three categories: restricted,[5] prohibited,[6] and non-restricted.[7] Non-restricted firearms “include ordinary shotguns and rifles, such as those commonly used for hunting.  But some military type rifles and shotguns are prohibited.”[8]  Restricted firearms include “certain handguns and some semi-automatic long guns (not all semi-automatic long guns are restricted or prohibited).  Rifles that can be fired when telescoped or folded to shorter than 660 millimeters, or 26 inches, are also restricted.”[9]  Prohibited firearms “include most 32 and 25 caliber handguns and handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or shorter.  Fully automatic firearms, converted automatics, firearms with a sawed-off barrel, and some military rifles like the AK 47 are also prohibited.”[10]

Note also that “antique firearms are not considered firearms for licensing and registration purposes.”[11]

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #175 on: October 04, 2017, 02:27:42 PM »
The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

I used to be anti-gun. Ban 'em all, no reason to have them, etc.

WORSE, (this is embarrassing) I looked to Government for answers to problems. Then I started thinking rationally, and discovered concepts like freedom with responsibility, etc. I'm now about as libertarian as it gets. You don't mess with my life, liberty, property, I won't mess with yours. I want to be a good neighbor to you and I assume you want the same. Government is a very unfortunate parasitical necessity and the smaller the better.

Try this analysis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.aafa76fae251

Gun owners in US have hundreds of millions of guns and TRILLIONS of rounds of ammo. They are not the problem; if they were, the map would be a different color.

"Honey, look at this map that was posted here! We're moving to China, no guns and no homicides!"

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #176 on: October 04, 2017, 02:28:29 PM »
A common argument from gun-rights proponents when gun control is talked about is whether or not any particular control would have made any specific impact on the latest tragic incident.

This is such a common argument because it is impossible to defend against. It is often a completely valid statement that "such and such control" wouldn't have made any impact on whatever the latest tragedy is at the time. The problem with that argument is that no single element of control will completely prevent any given tragedy. But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that at some point, there will be a tragedy that it will have prevented. Even if a particular control measure saves a handful of lives, then in my opinion its worth it. Whatever administrative overhead, whatever human hours spent, whatever inconveniences endured, if it saves a life then it is worth it. You can't directly determine whether or not a particular control measure would've prevented any specific tragedy in hindsight.

I work in Information Security, so I make the comparison to the numerous cyber-security controls we put in place to prevent a data breach. No single control measure will prevent every type of compromise or attack. But, if we put together a layered approach to our controls, then we'll be in a much more secure position than we would have been.

In short, discrediting gun control measures based on whether or not they would've prevented any given single instance of crime is a poor method for determining whether new gun controls should be adopted. If statistically speaking, putting in more gun controls will reduce access to guns, then at some point you have to admit that there will come a day where a tragedy will be prevent and it will make those controls worth it in the lives it saved. If I'm a law abiding gun owner, then please, inconvenience me all you'd like. If I can save a life by being inconvenienced, then I'll spend days/weeks/months being inconvenienced.

So we should just do regulations that significantly restrict the rights of people, but they don't actually have to be shown to do anything, because just in case someday they might work for some situation? The problem is, if your solutions don't work, we'll just have to keep adding more because tragedies will continue to happen, and before you know it we're drowning in all sorts of stupid shit like the current barrel length limits or the government telling you whether your stock is allowed to fold or not. 

Probability also has to play in here. We could force all sorts of safety requirements on cars that would save some people each year. The cost of those safety requirements is not trivial, and like it or not there is a certain point where lives have to be given a $ value. If you required each car to be a tank and drive 20mph in order to avoid traffic accidents, you'd save lives. Is it worth it? How about if the entire country spends an extra $100 billion each year to save 7 lives? Is that worth it?

I'm not saying we're at the optimal point in the cost/benefit analysis here, but it's important to recognize that there comes a point where freedom outweighs safety. Where that point is for you will determine what direction you think we should go.

The reason you do that in IT is because for the most part the "regulations" have very little in the way of consequences. If you don't have guns or plan to, the consequences of your proposed "inconveniences" won't affect you, so it makes sense you wouldn't care about them.

It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.

The control of firearms in Canada is predominantly governed by the Firearms Act, the Criminal Code, and their subordinate regulations.  The Criminal Code defines the main categories of firearms, which include restricted, prohibited, and non-restricted firearms.  The Firearms Act regulates the possession, transport, and storage of firearms.

Applicants are required to pass safety tests before they can be eligible for a firearms license.  Applicants are also subject to background checks, which take into account criminal, mental health, addiction, and domestic violence records.

The Criminal Code identifies “the various firearms, weapons and devices regulated by the Firearms Act.”[4]  The Code classifies firearms into three categories: restricted,[5] prohibited,[6] and non-restricted.[7] Non-restricted firearms “include ordinary shotguns and rifles, such as those commonly used for hunting.  But some military type rifles and shotguns are prohibited.”[8]  Restricted firearms include “certain handguns and some semi-automatic long guns (not all semi-automatic long guns are restricted or prohibited).  Rifles that can be fired when telescoped or folded to shorter than 660 millimeters, or 26 inches, are also restricted.”[9]  Prohibited firearms “include most 32 and 25 caliber handguns and handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or shorter.  Fully automatic firearms, converted automatics, firearms with a sawed-off barrel, and some military rifles like the AK 47 are also prohibited.”[10]

Note also that “antique firearms are not considered firearms for licensing and registration purposes.”[11]


You have no idea if gun control is the reason for Canada's lower violence rates, we are different countries in a huge number of ways. As I mentioned upthread, we can directly compare Australia's homicide rate before and after their gun control was enacted (much stricter than Canada's), and we see no change in the reduction rate. I'd be very interested to see what might happen if Canada overnight adopted gun laws similar to the US. Would their homicide numbers triple and be at the same value as ours? I sincerely doubt it.

Canadians also watch more Hockey than Americans. Maybe that's the secret to their lack of gun violence?  The whole "well less guns and more regulation sure can't mean less killing, huh?" with a wink works really well in short clips on the Daily Show or an SNL skit, but the reality is it's a much more complicated situation than that.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 02:31:36 PM by ooeei »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #177 on: October 04, 2017, 02:30:57 PM »
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


Have you considered mexico which has very strong gun laws a very high murder rate?

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #178 on: October 04, 2017, 02:31:33 PM »
So-the map grouped all countries with 5 homicides/100,000 people into one color.  That masks the fact that the homicide rate in the U.S. is approximately 6x that of Canada.  But they are both the same lovely green so it looks like we are all one country just having some Tim Horton's coffee while not shooting each other.  Neat!

https://www.vox.com/a/mass-shootings-sandy-hook


GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #179 on: October 04, 2017, 02:39:43 PM »
The writers of the Constitution did a great job with that document

[[citation needed]]


They did a good job for the time it was written.  What they came up with is pretty piss poor from a modern stand point.  There's nothing in the US constitution that grants women equal rights.  The US constitution as written specifically condones slavery.  Interestingly enough, the original constitution doesn't say anywhere that public officials need to be democratically elected (until the 17th amendment - followed immediately by banning the sale of alcohol with the 18th amendment).


There is some good stuff in there . . . but a lot of the constitution is simply ignored in real life with little to no public outcry.
- Remember Article 1, Section 8?  It's the part about congress declaring war.  When was the last time that happened?  (Hint - WWII)  How many wars has the US been in since then?
- Remember the 6th amendment?  Yeah, the part about fair trials has been regularly violated with US run torture facilities like Guantanamo Bay.
- How about the 4th amendment?  Unreasonable search and seizure . . . meet boundless, warrant-less NSA surveillance.

It's weird that the 2nd amendment is the only part that gets people riled up.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #180 on: October 04, 2017, 02:42:15 PM »
Here's a map from Huffington Post of all places that shows homicide rates around the world. Notice how most countries tend to be pretty much an average of their neighbors, it's rare/nonexistent for a country to be 3+ shades away from its neighbor. England, Australia, Sweden, Norway, etc etc all tend to have pretty friendly border countries. I'm not saying this is the whole story, because it's not, but this is another one of those things that indicates gun regulations are not the whole story. Then again, maybe it's just a coincidence.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1730562/original.jpg

edit: Changed to link because huge picture.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 02:55:07 PM by ooeei »

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #181 on: October 04, 2017, 02:43:54 PM »
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


Have you considered mexico which has very strong gun laws a very high murder rate?

What exactly do you mean by "strong" gun laws? Do you mean strict laws, or laws that are consistently and fairly regulated and enforced? Do you know anything about living in Mexico? I have a friend there, and the thing that most bothers her is that laws are not enforced, little help from the gov such as when a crime is committed. In certain areas, the cartels have as much money and power as the government. Do you think the government is taking their illegal guns away? Answer no.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 02:49:04 PM by partgypsy »


2Birds1Stone

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3212
  • Age: 30
  • Location: New York
  • Peter Gibbons
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #183 on: October 04, 2017, 02:55:55 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?

Looking like an inside job now....
"A small house can hold as much happiness as a big one." - Fortune Cookie

29 Months till FI - Stop by, or stay a while.....
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/fire-by-thirty-five-chronicles-36-months-till-sabbatical!/

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #184 on: October 04, 2017, 03:06:32 PM »
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


Have you considered mexico which has very strong gun laws a very high murder rate?

What exactly do you mean by "strong" gun laws? Do you mean strict laws, or laws that are consistently and fairly regulated and enforced? Do you know anything about living in Mexico? I have a friend there, and the thing that most bothers her is that laws are not enforced, little help from the gov such as when a crime is committed. In certain areas, the cartels have as much money and power as the government. Do you think the government is taking their illegal guns away? Answer no.

I think it's more complicated than gun laws on both sides of the border and inside the US.  You're post insinuates that US violence would decrease dramatically if only we would follow Canada's lead.  I don't believe that to be accurate and pointed out Mexico as an example of a country with strong gun laws and a much worse homicide problem.

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #185 on: October 04, 2017, 03:11:30 PM »
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


Have you considered mexico which has very strong gun laws a very high murder rate?

What exactly do you mean by "strong" gun laws? Do you mean strict laws, or laws that are consistently and fairly regulated and enforced? Do you know anything about living in Mexico? I have a friend there, and the thing that most bothers her is that laws are not enforced, little help from the gov such as when a crime is committed. In certain areas, the cartels have as much money and power as the government. Do you think the government is taking their illegal guns away? Answer no.

I think it's more complicated than gun laws on both sides of the border and inside the US.  You're post insinuates that US violence would decrease dramatically if only we would follow Canada's lead.  I don't believe that to be accurate and pointed out Mexico as an example of a country with strong gun laws and a much worse homicide problem.

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.

Mexico doesn't have particularly strong gun laws though.  You can legally own all sorts of hand guns, rifles, and shotguns.  Canada doesn't have particularly strong gun laws either.  Yeah, it's more than the free-for all that happens in the US . . .

What exactly do you consider strong gun laws?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #186 on: October 04, 2017, 03:16:22 PM »
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


Have you considered mexico which has very strong gun laws a very high murder rate?

What exactly do you mean by "strong" gun laws? Do you mean strict laws, or laws that are consistently and fairly regulated and enforced? Do you know anything about living in Mexico? I have a friend there, and the thing that most bothers her is that laws are not enforced, little help from the gov such as when a crime is committed. In certain areas, the cartels have as much money and power as the government. Do you think the government is taking their illegal guns away? Answer no.

I think it's more complicated than gun laws on both sides of the border and inside the US.  You're post insinuates that US violence would decrease dramatically if only we would follow Canada's lead.  I don't believe that to be accurate and pointed out Mexico as an example of a country with strong gun laws and a much worse homicide problem.

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.

Mexico doesn't have particularly strong gun laws though.  You can legally own all sorts of hand guns, rifles, and shotguns.  Canada doesn't have particularly strong gun laws either.  Yeah, it's more than the free-for all that happens in the US . . .

What exactly do you consider strong gun laws?

I think Canada and Mexico both have fairly strong laws on the books.  Are they draconian like Great Britain and/or Australia?  No. 

Poundwise

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #187 on: October 04, 2017, 03:17:05 PM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
I saw that article today also.  I find a number of logic faults in the two articles of hers that  I have read. Don't have time today to go into every one, but for instance, from this article: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/
Quote
Reuter and Mouzos only had a few years of post-ban data to judge, but last month, a more recent study of Australia’s gun buyback program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association still found only muted results. After the ban, firearm deaths (which were already declining) fell faster than they had before the ban. However, non-firearm suicides and homicides also fell, and even more sharply, in the aftermath of the ban than firearm deaths did, making it hard to tell if the trend in firearm deaths was the result of the ban or if all suicides and homicides were falling for a different reason. Because non-firearm suicides and homicides fell after the ban, the researchers found it unlikely that Australians who tended toward suicide or homicide simply switched methods after the ban. If they had, the number of deaths by suicide and homicide without guns should have risen.
(bolding mine)

I find that particular assumption, that non-firearm suicides and homicides should remain constant or rise when firearms were decreased, to be a leap.  Why shouldn't non-firearm suicides and homicides fall overall once access to guns was decreased? Perhaps, in the absence of a gun, some suicides and homicides simply did not happen. Also, why shouldn't a decrease in firearm violence cause a decrease in other kinds of violence? Fewer stresses on society. Every violent death leaves a jagged hole; fewer holes means less sorrow and less anger.
 
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 03:20:06 PM by Poundwise »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #188 on: October 04, 2017, 03:23:52 PM »

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.
Fine. But why not work on the whole problem of homicides not just part of it?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #189 on: October 04, 2017, 03:32:02 PM »

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.
Fine. But why not work on the whole problem of homicides not just part of it?

Which part would you like to work on?  I believe you could confiscate every gun in the US and a substantial portion of those murders would still happen.

If we look at Vegas, this asshole could have killed that many or more with a bomb.  We need to figure out why these acts are happening and quit the hysterics about the gun, the number of guns, etc.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #190 on: October 04, 2017, 04:06:11 PM »
The writers of the Constitution did a great job with that document

[[citation needed]]


They did a good job for the time it was written.  What they came up with is pretty piss poor from a modern stand point.  There's nothing in the US constitution that grants women equal rights.  The US constitution as written specifically condones slavery.  Interestingly enough, the original constitution doesn't say anywhere that public officials need to be democratically elected (until the 17th amendment - followed immediately by banning the sale of alcohol with the 18th amendment).


There is some good stuff in there . . . but a lot of the constitution is simply ignored in real life with little to no public outcry.
- Remember Article 1, Section 8?  It's the part about congress declaring war.  When was the last time that happened?  (Hint - WWII)  How many wars has the US been in since then?
- Remember the 6th amendment?  Yeah, the part about fair trials has been regularly violated with US run torture facilities like Guantanamo Bay.
- How about the 4th amendment?  Unreasonable search and seizure . . . meet boundless, warrant-less NSA surveillance.

It's weird that the 2nd amendment is the only part that gets people riled up.

Fair enough. My measurement of success is "built a framework of government which allowed for economic prosperity on a global scale, high quality of life, and very stable and regular transitions of power." Compared to most countries at the macro level, we've done pretty well working within the freedoms and limitations of that document.  Peeling the onion back, not everybody got the best deal on the first draft.  The 17th Amendment is for the direct election of senators. In the original Constitution, the states chose them.  The Constitution was written to give states the power to speak for the people which is why only the House of Representatives have always been directly elected.  Your opinion if you think that was a flaw.  The Constitution also specifically says if it's not written here, the states get to decide what to do.  It was a compromise between centralized authority that the country needed, and retaining the rights and privileges of the colonies that we started out with.

Regarding your specific exceptions, what was left unwritten (and the cause of your examples) was what to do when Congress as an institution decides it doesn't want to do its job.  I imagine the alternative is to give the executive more power which is a really bad idea since that office has increasingly picked up where Congress leaves off if it can get away with it anyways.

The 2nd Amendment gets folks riled up more than others I expect for a few reasons.
-Our foundation as a country with wide open frontiers and the need for personal protection and the traditions/nostalgia that come with that.
-It's the only part of the Constitution that specifically states "you can own this thing."
-In the balance of liberty and security, we have enough liberty that people don't think the government can protect them without a stopgap.
-It's a source of power and independence. 
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #191 on: October 04, 2017, 04:21:09 PM »
A common argument from gun-rights proponents when gun control is talked about is whether or not any particular control would have made any specific impact on the latest tragic incident.

This is such a common argument because it is impossible to defend against. It is often a completely valid statement that "such and such control" wouldn't have made any impact on whatever the latest tragedy is at the time. The problem with that argument is that no single element of control will completely prevent any given tragedy. But, that doesn't matter. What matters is that at some point, there will be a tragedy that it will have prevented. Even if a particular control measure saves a handful of lives, then in my opinion its worth it. Whatever administrative overhead, whatever human hours spent, whatever inconveniences endured, if it saves a life then it is worth it. You can't directly determine whether or not a particular control measure would've prevented any specific tragedy in hindsight.

I work in Information Security, so I make the comparison to the numerous cyber-security controls we put in place to prevent a data breach. No single control measure will prevent every type of compromise or attack. But, if we put together a layered approach to our controls, then we'll be in a much more secure position than we would have been.

In short, discrediting gun control measures based on whether or not they would've prevented any given single instance of crime is a poor method for determining whether new gun controls should be adopted. If statistically speaking, putting in more gun controls will reduce access to guns, then at some point you have to admit that there will come a day where a tragedy will be prevent and it will make those controls worth it in the lives it saved. If I'm a law abiding gun owner, then please, inconvenience me all you'd like. If I can save a life by being inconvenienced, then I'll spend days/weeks/months being inconvenienced.

I think the two can't be disassociated when brought up at the same time.  Tragedy happens - more gun control.  The logic follows that you're doing the latter because of the former.  If the laws you want to create will do something about the 99% of other gun deaths then sell it like that, but be prepared to say why it won't affect the thing that spurred the conversation in the first place.  I'll concede that on any other Tuesday the 99% legislation won't get far because there's nothing shocking to get the larger share of the populace behind it.  The best way to get around this is to lay those facts out.  It took the kind of killing we normally see on a battlefield to remind us we have significant flaws in our system.  Some of the ideas we've tossed around on here might not prevent this event, but they could definitely work on countless others.  Starting the conversation with "This happened and we want change, but the changes we want have little to do with the event that got the conversation started" is fair to point out, but that doesn't have to be the end of the debate if you word it right.

Funny that you bring up IT security.  I do it for the Army. There is a cost/benefit analysis done on adding regulations, procedures, and hardware/software systems to increase security.  The best secured network is one that is not plugged in and has no users.  One extreme end of the gun control scale is not letting anyone out of the house.  The other extreme is the stereotypical Wild West.  Obviously neither is a good idea, but someone has to measure where personal freedom, operating costs, manpower, and death rates meet on the scale.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

omachi

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #192 on: October 04, 2017, 04:27:30 PM »
What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

Did somebody downplaying gun deaths just state that having guns present or not has no effect on the homicide rate? Isn't this one of the big talking points for gun ownership - that having a gun means the difference between life and death for the gun owner? How are we to reconcile the two assertions?

In the interest of playing along, let's consider 3 situations.

1: A burglar breaks in and kills somebody because they don't have a gun. 1 homicide.

2: A burglar breaks in and is killed by someone because they do have a gun. 1 homicide.

3: A burglar breaks in and beats the shit out of someone or just robs them blind, and leaves. 0 homicides.

Only one of these situations has the homeowner defending themselves and the burglar getting negative consequences. In the homicide statistics it shows up the same as if the burglar killed the homeowner, and shows up worse than if the burglar just beat up or robbed the homeowner.

Quote
And I can't see how there'd be no effect. Reduction of gun violence would mean things like innocent bystanders not being killed by errant bullets and would make mass killings much more difficult. Unless you think people are going to be killed by a stray knife at similar rates.

What about secondary effects? If gun violence by citizens was reduced to the point of an oddity, the police could also de-escalate and not decide to reach for lethal force at the drop of a hat. They certainly wouldn't have as much excuse for it. The "I feared for my life" thing when shooting into a car would be pretty unbelievable if gun violence was rare.


Well, we have the data from Australia showing their homicide rate continuing to decrease at the same rate before and after their regulations in the 90's. I seem to recall a similar outcome for the UK. The United States has seen a decrease at the same rate over the same time period without increasing regulations. As I said, mass killings are such a small part of the overall statistics they're almost not worth talking about, "errant bullets during mass shootings" even less so.  50 people sounds like a lot, but to put it in perspective over 1600 people die per day from heart disease. 50 is a drop in the bucket of homicides per year, and a drop in the swimming pool of overall deaths. We're a country of 300,000,000 people.

The available evidence points toward some factor other than regulation being the driving force of the homicide reduction. Reconcile it however you like, I'm not going to theorize what the other mechanism is because it's very likely a complex answer.

Glad you're playing along, but I'm not really seeing your point. You assert 58 deaths in one event is a drop in the bucket, but you want to trot out burglary related homicides which were around 430 per year in 2003-2007 according to the FBI. You state that this is regardless of who dies in the burglary. So this one mass shooting you're so fast to dismiss killed about 13.5% as many people as die in 2.1M burglaries annually, including any non-gun deaths and the criminals' own deaths that you mention presumably because you don't think they should add to the count. I can agree that neither is all that many, with both mass shootings on this scale and burglary related homicides accounting for less than 1% of the total.

As for the we need guns for defense aspect, this seems even worse. Given that only about a third of US households have a gun and not all of those would be easily accessed in a burglary, and that even if the gun is accessible it's not a given that the homeowner will be the one that comes out alive, let's be generous and say half of that third would win. So in 1/6 of the burglary related homicides, we expect the homeowner killing the burglar rather than the other way around. That's 72. How did you phrase it? "Not a drop in the swimming pool." That's just above the annual 65 people that died from stray bullets in 2008-2009 according to UC Davis.

So again, where is gun ownership actually saving lives? It certainly isn't when people break into homes.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #193 on: October 04, 2017, 04:43:07 PM »

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.
Fine. But why not work on the whole problem of homicides not just part of it?

Which part would you like to work on?  I believe you could confiscate every gun in the US and a substantial portion of those murders would still happen.

If we look at Vegas, this asshole could have killed that many or more with a bomb.  We need to figure out why these acts are happening and quit the hysterics about the gun, the number of guns, etc.
Thing is, humans can be fallible, angry, violent, out of control creatures.  It's in our natures.  We know, generally, why humans hurt other humans, and we also know that with the best will in the world, with perfect upbringings and living circumstances some human beings will at some point want to hurt other humans.  We currently have no way to stop that want.

But if the human has no easily accessible means of hurting that human, those wants are less likely to be acted upon and less likely to result in serious harm when they are.  Which is why the USA, with more guns in civilian hands than there are civilians, has such a high rate of deaths and serious injuries (lets not forget the 500 plus injured in Las Vegas as well as the 59 killed).  Controlling the availability of guns is easier than controlling for the vagaries of human nature.   We currently have the means (through the application of laws, including the changing of laws) to control that availability.   Nothing hysterical about that: it is stone cold logic.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #194 on: October 04, 2017, 04:56:42 PM »

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.
Fine. But why not work on the whole problem of homicides not just part of it?

Which part would you like to work on?  I believe you could confiscate every gun in the US and a substantial portion of those murders would still happen.

If we look at Vegas, this asshole could have killed that many or more with a bomb.  We need to figure out why these acts are happening and quit the hysterics about the gun, the number of guns, etc.
Thing is, humans can be fallible, angry, violent, out of control creatures.  It's in our natures.  We know, generally, why humans hurt other humans, and we also know that with the best will in the world, with perfect upbringings and living circumstances some human beings will at some point want to hurt other humans.  We currently have no way to stop that want.

But if the human has no easily accessible means of hurting that human, those wants are less likely to be acted upon and less likely to result in serious harm when they are.  Which is why the USA, with more guns in civilian hands than there are civilians, has such a high rate of deaths and serious injuries (lets not forget the 500 plus injured in Las Vegas as well as the 59 killed).  Controlling the availability of guns is easier than controlling for the vagaries of human nature.   We currently have the means (through the application of laws, including the changing of laws) to control that availability.   Nothing hysterical about that: it is stone cold logic.

Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.

SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 443
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #195 on: October 04, 2017, 05:20:36 PM »
Can someone explain the sequence of events in the following situation.

Trump goes to ban all firearms.


How many steps to a utopian society with no gun murders is needed in your story?
Just here to feel guilty about my purchases which are often irrational, wants, and in an atypical budget.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #196 on: October 04, 2017, 05:30:35 PM »
Can someone explain the sequence of events in the following situation.

Trump goes to ban all firearms.


How many steps to a utopian society with no gun murders is needed in your story?

An imaginary perfect unattainable place with conditions that nobody on this forum has suggested.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

Unlike some other tech companies or skilled-labor industries, we're always hiring.

www.goarmy.com

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #197 on: October 04, 2017, 05:47:03 PM »
Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.
Fists, knives, bats and even cars are in no way equal in quantity of destruction to the guns used at Las Vegas.  To even mention them shows a disregard for logical argument.  Nor in fact are bombs, absent some extraordinary circumstances (eg on a plane).  A bomb at Las Vegas would have been more difficult to plant, with a higher likelihood of detection and probably a significantly lower death and injury count (see eg the bomb at the Ariana Grande concert for comparison).

So although guns are not the only means for harm, they are in these circumstances by many orders the most destructive.  And they are the ones which are the current topic.  I appreciate the attempted diversion, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #198 on: October 04, 2017, 06:29:30 PM »
Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.
Fists, knives, bats and even cars are in no way equal in quantity of destruction to the guns used at Las Vegas.  To even mention them shows a disregard for logical argument.  Nor in fact are bombs, absent some extraordinary circumstances (eg on a plane).  A bomb at Las Vegas would have been more difficult to plant, with a higher likelihood of detection and probably a significantly lower death and injury count (see eg the bomb at the Ariana Grande concert for comparison).

So although guns are not the only means for harm, they are in these cirbcumstances by many orders the most destructive.  And they are the ones which are the current topic.  I appreciate the attempted diversion, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people.  cannot fathom the death toll on the vegas strip. 

All the methods of violence u dismiss would be quite effective in the majority of murders in this country since mass shootings make up a small portion of the problem.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2017, 06:32:20 PM by Midwest »

WhiteTrashCash

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #199 on: October 04, 2017, 06:32:08 PM »
I will tell you exactly why our gun laws are not going to change. My people -- the white trash -- have a disproportionate voice on Capitol Hill due to the Electoral College. White trash people don't want to do away with high-powered firearms with high rate of fire, because deep down inside we hope that someday we'll get the chance to use the weapons on people. Yeah, we'll say lots of things about "self-defense" and "I hope it's never necessary", but that's just a smokescreen to mask the fact that we are really bloodthirsty and we hope every day that this will be the day we'll have an excuse to gun down a whole lot of folks.

We feel this way because shooting things is a lot of fun. And we live our lives with a high level of cortisol in our bodies from trauma that heightens our fight or flight response to the point where we just want to kill everybody who pisses us off. The United States doesn't have the will to make this change, so instead we'll have lots more mass shootings for the foreseeable future.