Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 14221 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #200 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: 715
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #201 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.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #202 on: October 04, 2017, 06:57:16 PM »
59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

By the way, to all the folks complaining about the power of the NRA, nothing is stopping you from donating or volunteering for an opposing organization.  If you really cared about this, you would.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #203 on: October 04, 2017, 07:31:27 PM »
59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

By the way, to all the folks complaining about the power of the NRA, nothing is stopping you from donating or volunteering for an opposing organization.  If you really cared about this, you would.

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. Itís what youíre up against. People who literally donít give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just donít matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #204 on: October 04, 2017, 08:33:22 PM »
59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

By the way, to all the folks complaining about the power of the NRA, nothing is stopping you from donating or volunteering for an opposing organization.  If you really cared about this, you would.

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. Itís what youíre up against. People who literally donít give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just donít matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


Look, I could say nobody gives a shit about people dying from drunk drivers, and that would be as untrue as your statement.  People can (and do) care about the deaths, and they also recognize that saving those lives has a trade off. 


I don't know why you think I'm on a particular team - I've voted yes on every gun control measure that's even been on my ballot, and I've never given money to any pro gun groups, so I think you might have the wrong impression of my views. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #205 on: October 04, 2017, 08:37:20 PM »
59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

By the way, to all the folks complaining about the power of the NRA, nothing is stopping you from donating or volunteering for an opposing organization.  If you really cared about this, you would.

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. Itís what youíre up against. People who literally donít give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just donít matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


Look, I could say nobody gives a shit about people dying from drunk drivers, and that would be as untrue as your statement.  People can (and do) care about the deaths, and they also recognize that saving those lives has a trade off. 


I don't know why you think I'm on a particular team - I've voted yes on every gun control measure that's even been on my ballot, and I've never given money to any pro gun groups, so I think you might have the wrong impression of my views.

You do not care. You say as much.

I am merely repeating that people like you do not care.

Which is what people who want things to change are up against. Cynicism and apathy.

Donít try to make yourself look better. You owned your position. Keep owning it.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Hotstreak

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 725
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #206 on: October 04, 2017, 09:17:09 PM »
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.


59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

By the way, to all the folks complaining about the power of the NRA, nothing is stopping you from donating or volunteering for an opposing organization.  If you really cared about this, you would.

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. Itís what youíre up against. People who literally donít give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just donít matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


Look, I could say nobody gives a shit about people dying from drunk drivers, and that would be as untrue as your statement.  People can (and do) care about the deaths, and they also recognize that saving those lives has a trade off. 


I don't know why you think I'm on a particular team - I've voted yes on every gun control measure that's even been on my ballot, and I've never given money to any pro gun groups, so I think you might have the wrong impression of my views.

You do not care. You say as much.

I am merely repeating that people like you do not care.

Which is what people who want things to change are up against. Cynicism and apathy.

Donít try to make yourself look better. You owned your position. Keep owning it.

nemesis

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #207 on: October 04, 2017, 11:49:42 PM »
Interesting posts so far.  It's nice to see relatively calm discussion over this sensitive topic.

I'm torn - I see logic from both sides.

for gun control: it does make sense if you reduce the availability of the guns, it should reduce the gun deaths / injuries.

against gun control:  most people are responsible gun owners and do not break the law.  If you ban guns, then only criminals may have guns.

I do find it interesting that in Europe where guns are far more restricted, there have been more fatalities than the US. In the 2015 Paris concert attack, about 130 people died even though guns have been tightly regulated.  By creating a huge "gun free" zone it made the innocent people far easier to be made victims.

Where there is a will, a mad person or a group of evil doers will find a way to hurt innocent people.

I honestly don't know what the right answer is... I feel both parties are right in some ways, but also wrong in some ways. 

The real question is - how do you prevent evil people from doing evil things?   I don't think the answer is as easy as "ban some guns", it needs to be addressed in a variety of ways, including allowing law abiding citizens to have self defense tools like some guns to protect themselves from evil doers.   This is a very complex issue and it's clear both sides are very skeptical of the other side.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 527
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #208 on: October 05, 2017, 12:53:21 AM »
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

I've got to agree with Kris: That's pretty weak.

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
  • Location: Herefordshire
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #209 on: October 05, 2017, 02:07:26 AM »

I do find it interesting that in Europe where guns are far more restricted, there have been more fatalities than the US. In the 2015 Paris concert attack, about 130 people died even though guns have been tightly regulated.  By creating a huge "gun free" zone it made the innocent people far easier to be made victims.



Sorry. That is simply not true.
Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2523
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #210 on: October 05, 2017, 02:27:42 AM »
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.
Oklahoma City was 30 years ago and one occasion in what, 200 years?

Well, it's mass murder we're talking about here, isn't it?  Implicated in which fists, knives, bats and cars are almost entirely absent.  As we are talking mass murder, we are almost exclusively talking guns.  People change the subject when they've nothing new to say on the original topic, right?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

nemesis

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #211 on: October 05, 2017, 02:45:26 AM »

I do find it interesting that in Europe where guns are far more restricted, there have been more fatalities than the US. In the 2015 Paris concert attack, about 130 people died even though guns have been tightly regulated.  By creating a huge "gun free" zone it made the innocent people far easier to be made victims.



Sorry. That is simply not true.
What do you mean?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks  The attackers killed 130 people...  ??

Perhaps I should have qualified - in a single attack?

Rightflyer

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
  • Location: Herefordshire
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #212 on: October 05, 2017, 04:18:46 AM »

I do find it interesting that in Europe where guns are far more restricted, there have been more fatalities than the US. In the 2015 Paris concert attack, about 130 people died even though guns have been tightly regulated.  By creating a huge "gun free" zone it made the innocent people far easier to be made victims.




Sorry. That is simply not true.
What do you mean?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks  The attackers killed 130 people...  ??

Perhaps I should have qualified - in a single attack?

If you were comparing numbers from a single attack, then yes, more people were killed in the instance you referenced.

But that brings your next assertion into question.
Did the "huge gun free zone" really enable and facilitate the deaths of the victims?

A serious question for all.
Can anyone point me to the statistics showing when a mass shooting had has been effectively stopped partway through by civilians using a firearm?

Six is having problems adjusting to his clone status.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #213 on: October 05, 2017, 05:32:28 AM »
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. I flinched like hell. I woke up, grabbed my coffee, sat down to catch up on the news, and as soon as I read this a sudden uncontrolled sadness came over me. Just an FYI you might want to choose your words more carefully. You seem to be insinuating that this tragedy had absolutely no affect on you at all. Like you weren't even sad about it.

I follow this officers Facebook page (and he has a blog). He is pro 2nd amendment and pro sensible gun control. Much of what he writes and speaks about is quite frankly common sense. He often addresses many of the same arguments those against gun control tend to make.
https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #214 on: October 05, 2017, 06:08:56 AM »
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.

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. I don't think we should own guns because they save lives, and I've never argued that they do. Maybe sometimes they do, other times they end them. I was merely responding to this:

Quote
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?

Guns can be the difference between life and death for the gun owner, while not affecting homicide rate (or negatively affecting it). In reality the chances of an individual who's not in a gang or some other special group being killed in a robbery is vanishingly low. We live in a very safe country, significantly safer than it was 20 years ago during the "let your kids walk to school by themselves" years, despite what the news might tell you.

I think having guns is important to prevent government tyranny (which franky I'm surprised more of the pro regulation folks aren't worried about with our current administration). Personal protection, for example in the case of an extended disaster situation where authorities aren't working particularly well, is a side benefit.

I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. I flinched like hell. I woke up, grabbed my coffee, sat down to catch up on the news, and as soon as I read this a sudden uncontrolled sadness came over me. Just an FYI you might want to choose your words more carefully. You seem to be insinuating that this tragedy had absolutely no affect on you at all. Like you weren't even sad about it.

I follow this officers Facebook page (and he has a blog). He is pro 2nd amendment and pro sensible gun control. Much of what he writes and speaks about is quite frankly common sense. He often addresses many of the same arguments those against gun control tend to make.
https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This

Then you might consider how well the news is doing at manipulating your emotions. How much did you flinch at Saudia Arabia executing 60 people in the last 3 months? Or the car bombing in Afghanistan that killed over 150 people earlier this year? There are 4 billion people in the world, if we all dropped what we were doing and started weeping every time someone died we'd never have time to do anything.

Of course the situation is horrible, and it's heart wrenching watching the interviews of people describing it and meeting their rescuers. On the other hand, we live in a country of 300,000,000 people, and this event was less than 1% of the homicides that have/will happen this year.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 06:26:57 AM by ooeei »

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #215 on: October 05, 2017, 06:17:19 AM »
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

Now, somebody takes their bolt action gun or revolver or whatever they are using, and walks into a school and shoots 20 kids/teachers. They did everything by the book, and the only illegal part of their whole event was taking the gun into a school zone and shooting people.

Will you all still be satisfied with the regulations? Will you say "You know what, it's a tragedy, but we've reduced our gun violence to among the lowest in the world, and I think that's good enough. Tragedies do happen sometimes and it sucks, but we've gone far enough with gun control and it's time to focus on other things." Will you be callous and cold as you watch the news with interviews of little kids talking about their friends dying?

Or will you keep pushing for more regulations? Because if any time someone kills people you are going to insist on more regulations, the only eventual solution we can end at is total confiscation and banning of firearms.


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 06:31:34 AM by ooeei »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2523
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #216 on: October 05, 2017, 06:39:59 AM »
The UK has progressively regulated guns out of most people's lives following two of the types of tragedies that you mention.  Australia did the same.  Works for me.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #217 on: October 05, 2017, 07:14:17 AM »
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.
Oklahoma City was 30 years ago and one occasion in what, 200 years?

Well, it's mass murder we're talking about here, isn't it?  Implicated in which fists, knives, bats and cars are almost entirely absent.  As we are talking mass murder, we are almost exclusively talking guns.  People change the subject when they've nothing new to say on the original topic, right?

We seem to be talking gun control here with a murder in Vegas as the catalyst.  You insinuate that banning guns would prevent mass murders in the US, I think that's wholly unrealistic.  Certainly it would prevent many shootings, but many of the murderers would simply use other means.

Let's look at Europe - In France, where guns are much more regulated, a truck killed 87 people in Nice.  The truck did most of the damage. 

Here's a list of European attacks - Many used means other than guns and were quite effective - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe

Given the level of planning in Vegas, this loser would have simply used other means to attack.  Many of the others would have done the same.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #218 on: October 05, 2017, 07:21:04 AM »
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

Now, somebody takes their bolt action gun or revolver or whatever they are using, and walks into a school and shoots 20 kids/teachers. They did everything by the book, and the only illegal part of their whole event was taking the gun into a school zone and shooting people.

Will you all still be satisfied with the regulations? Will you say "You know what, it's a tragedy, but we've reduced our gun violence to among the lowest in the world, and I think that's good enough. Tragedies do happen sometimes and it sucks, but we've gone far enough with gun control and it's time to focus on other things." Will you be callous and cold as you watch the news with interviews of little kids talking about their friends dying?

Or will you keep pushing for more regulations? Because if any time someone kills people you are going to insist on more regulations, the only eventual solution we can end at is total confiscation and banning of firearms.


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.

Try using real world scenarios. Otherwise it's pointless to debate. If commons sense gun regulations were in place, it's highly likely we wouldn't need to keep saying "largest mass shooting in US history" repeatedly. The Vegas shooter had accumulated an entire arsenal, multiple bump stocks, and bomb making materials. Yet not one single alarm bell went off anywhere. Really??!?!?!? Not really someone getting ready to go skeet shooting or deer hunting. This dude should have been monitored like a hawk. Hell he shouldn't have even been allowed to purchase an entire arsenal.

Yes more gun control will not always prevent another tragedy. But it could. It dam sure could reduce the number of deaths when it does happen. And that equals lives saved. And it sure beats doing nothing because you know "what if....." Let's take your scenario and make it 50 kids with over 500 injured. Why not? You are allowed to accumulate enough weapons to carry this out. Would you still be arguing against gun control?

So you are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. The question should be how many more innocent senseless lives have to be lost before we can at least start instituting some sensible gun control? 500? 1,000? 10,000? There aren't enough lives?

So let's stick to real world scenarios. I mean really you are just making a case to have no laws. Because people are going to break them anyways.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 07:22:43 AM by MasterStache »

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #219 on: October 05, 2017, 07:22:44 AM »
I read the vox article and the response (first page of thread). Two things I got from those.

1. The US is violent. When controlling for gun homicides, we just kill more people per capita.

2. What seems counter to this point is the one made about suicides. I believe the vox article had a graph of people dying from different instruments in suicide. Cutting was 1-3%, poison was 1-4 %, but guns were 90%+. This would appear as though people are able to more effectively killing themselves with guns; leading to a higher suicide 'success' rate. While this is obviously true, what is missing is that if someone were hurting themselves but did not want to kill themselves outright (typically done as means to get attention and help). If someone used a gun and wanted help, they it would either be obvious, like shooting in the foot, or they would be accidentally kill themselves (unintentionally). Cutting and poisoning can be done in small enough doses to get 'close' but still enough to go the hospital and possibly get whatever is wanted from others in their lives. edit Guns are just the means, it would necessarily cut down on the number of suicides.

Back to 1, I am not really sure why this is the case. I know a lot has been written about this but still, nothing seems conclusive.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 07:26:47 AM by hoping2retire35 »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #220 on: October 05, 2017, 07:24:31 AM »

I do find it interesting that in Europe where guns are far more restricted, there have been more fatalities than the US. In the 2015 Paris concert attack, about 130 people died even though guns have been tightly regulated.  By creating a huge "gun free" zone it made the innocent people far easier to be made victims.




Sorry. That is simply not true.
What do you mean?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks  The attackers killed 130 people...  ??

Perhaps I should have qualified - in a single attack?

If you were comparing numbers from a single attack, then yes, more people were killed in the instance you referenced.

Let's not also forget that there have been mass shootings in the US on average every day now for several years.




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.
Oklahoma City was 30 years ago and one occasion in what, 200 years?

Well, it's mass murder we're talking about here, isn't it?  Implicated in which fists, knives, bats and cars are almost entirely absent.  As we are talking mass murder, we are almost exclusively talking guns.  People change the subject when they've nothing new to say on the original topic, right?

We seem to be talking gun control here with a murder in Vegas as the catalyst.  You insinuate that banning guns would prevent mass murders in the US, I think that's wholly unrealistic.  Certainly it would prevent many shootings, but many of the murderers would simply use other means.

Let's look at Europe - In France, where guns are much more regulated, a truck killed 87 people in Nice.  The truck did most of the damage. 

Here's a list of European attacks - Many used means other than guns and were quite effective - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe

Given the level of planning in Vegas, this loser would have simply used other means to attack.  Many of the others would have done the same.

Absolutely . . . it's going to be possible to kill people somehow in a well planned terror attack.  Restricting some types of guns, having rules regarding firearms handling, and keeping a registration list won't change that.  Nobody here has argued that gun control will prevent terror entirely - that's a straw man.

Guns are designed to kill.  That's their whole purpose.  They're designed to kill animals while hunting, to kill varmints around the farm, and to kill people.  Giving everyone easy access to a tool designed to kill makes it easier to kill.  Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #221 on: October 05, 2017, 07:31:56 AM »
Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.

It is called the Man, and he ALWAYS has to be kept in check. Think for a second, why is it part of our Constitution? If it was to keep away invading armies then there would be no need to guarantee it as a right. It is to protect us from ourselves.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1066
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #222 on: October 05, 2017, 07:32:03 AM »
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #223 on: October 05, 2017, 07:36:41 AM »
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.

I am not aware of the NRA making any effort to eliminate the current background check system.  Do you have a source?

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #224 on: October 05, 2017, 07:41:57 AM »
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

Now, somebody takes their bolt action gun or revolver or whatever they are using, and walks into a school and shoots 20 kids/teachers. They did everything by the book, and the only illegal part of their whole event was taking the gun into a school zone and shooting people.

Will you all still be satisfied with the regulations? Will you say "You know what, it's a tragedy, but we've reduced our gun violence to among the lowest in the world, and I think that's good enough. Tragedies do happen sometimes and it sucks, but we've gone far enough with gun control and it's time to focus on other things." Will you be callous and cold as you watch the news with interviews of little kids talking about their friends dying?

Or will you keep pushing for more regulations? Because if any time someone kills people you are going to insist on more regulations, the only eventual solution we can end at is total confiscation and banning of firearms.


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.

Try using real world scenarios. Otherwise it's pointless to debate. If commons sense gun regulations were in place, it's highly likely we wouldn't need to keep saying "largest mass shooting in US history" repeatedly. The Vegas shooter had accumulated an entire arsenal, multiple bump stocks, and bomb making materials. Yet not one single alarm bell went off anywhere. Really??!?!?!? Not really someone getting ready to go skeet shooting or deer hunting. This dude should have been monitored like a hawk. Hell he shouldn't have even been allowed to purchase an entire arsenal.

Yes more gun control will not always prevent another tragedy. But it could. It dam sure could reduce the number of deaths when it does happen. And that equals lives saved. And it sure beats doing nothing because you know "what if....." Let's take your scenario and make it 50 kids with over 500 injured. Why not? You are allowed to accumulate enough weapons to carry this out. Would you still be arguing against gun control?

So you are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. The question should be how many more innocent senseless lives have to be lost before we can at least start instituting some sensible gun control? 500? 1,000? 10,000? There aren't enough lives?

So let's stick to real world scenarios. I mean really you are just making a case to have no laws. Because people are going to break them anyways.

Really? You don't think someone can kill 20 kids in a school with a bolt action hunting rifle? Maybe they have a pump action shotgun as well.

As far as "sensible gun control", I've said multiple times I'm open to it, but it has to go both directions. Limits on barrel length and the type of foregrip you can attach to a gun are far from sensible.

For example, required training or a mental health assessment before buying a gun to give you a "license" similar to the current concealed carry licenses, in exchange for a repeal on the NFA regulations on short barreled rifles, and a removal of all of the stupid cosmetic rules we currently have.

More stringent training criteria for concealed carry holders, in exchange for national reciprocity of concealed carry licenses.

Limits on the number of guns able to be purchased in a given time frame, in exchange for the repeals of silencer regulation.

The admittedly difficult part about this is, in either case one side is going to be suspicious of the other. Once we allow limits on the number of guns, that is a significant constitutional decision that will impact all future regulations, and there's nothing stopping the repeals of silencer regulation from being reversed without reversing the limit as well. In any case, I'm willing to actually discuss additional regulations, provided we actually compromise rather than continually moving in one direction.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 07:44:42 AM by ooeei »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #225 on: October 05, 2017, 07:48:00 AM »
Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.

It is called the Man, and he ALWAYS has to be kept in check. Think for a second, why is it part of our Constitution? If it was to keep away invading armies then there would be no need to guarantee it as a right. It is to protect us from ourselves.

'The Man' isn't kept in check by your small arms.  If anything, the proliferation of guns means that 'The Man' tends to come up with reasons to react with excessive force (as is so often seen in police actions in the US).  We've already discussed this earlier (first page I think?) but a well armed militia is a terrible way to protect yourself from a tyrannical government . . . nearly every example of a well armed militia overthrowing a government in modern history ends up seizing power and instituting a dictator or tyrant.  There are multiple examples of  populaces well armed with firearms living under tyrannical governments who don't rise up and overthow anything - because a modern military is incredibly scary/powerful.

As has been mentioned, putting the constitution on a pedestal is not a legitimate argument.  It's in the constitution because several hundred years ago some rich white misogynistic slave owners living in a country without a standing army decided it was a good idea for most people to have access to muskets.  Not really applicable in this day and age to the problems we're facing.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 07:50:53 AM by GuitarStv »

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #226 on: October 05, 2017, 07:50:48 AM »
'The Man' isn't kept in check by your small arms.  If anything, the proliferation of guns means that 'The Man' tends to come up with reasons to react with excessive force (as is so often seen in police actions in the US).  We've already discussed this earlier (first page I think?) but a well armed militia is a terrible way to protect yourself from a tyrannical government . . . nearly every example of a well armed militia overthrowing a government in modern history ends up seizing power and instituting a dictator or tyrant.

As has been mentioned, putting the constitution on a pedestal is not a legitimate argument.  It's in the constitution because several hundred years ago some rich white misogynistic slave owners living in a country without a standing army decided it was a good idea for most people to have access to muskets.  Not really applicable in this day and age to the problems we're facing.

So in order to stop the government from killing us, we should give up our defenses? Can't argue with that logic.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 107
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #227 on: October 05, 2017, 07:51:56 AM »
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

Now, somebody takes their bolt action gun or revolver or whatever they are using, and walks into a school and shoots 20 kids/teachers. They did everything by the book, and the only illegal part of their whole event was taking the gun into a school zone and shooting people.

Will you all still be satisfied with the regulations? Will you say "You know what, it's a tragedy, but we've reduced our gun violence to among the lowest in the world, and I think that's good enough. Tragedies do happen sometimes and it sucks, but we've gone far enough with gun control and it's time to focus on other things." Will you be callous and cold as you watch the news with interviews of little kids talking about their friends dying?

Or will you keep pushing for more regulations? Because if any time someone kills people you are going to insist on more regulations, the only eventual solution we can end at is total confiscation and banning of firearms.


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.

I would say at that point we have done nearly everything possible within the framework of our constitution to prevent the tragedy from a firearm regulation standpoint. More regulations would not help significantly (diminishing returns). From there we need to look at other issues (which we should be looking into now as well) like why does a person get the urge to kill a bunch of people? Where are the rest of our institutions failing this person and others like him/her? Education? Healthcare? Finances?

I feel like both sides come into these arguments with shields up and no one budges. Pro gun control people need to realize that there is a constitutional right to firearms in this country. You have to accept that. Pro gun freedom people need to realize there is a major issue with people shooting other people in this country, and you have to accept that. From there, we can all have reasonable discussions about change that both sides are ok with.

Compromise can happen, if we just stop getting so defensive at the slightest suggestion or ignorant question.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #228 on: October 05, 2017, 07:56:00 AM »
'The Man' isn't kept in check by your small arms.  If anything, the proliferation of guns means that 'The Man' tends to come up with reasons to react with excessive force (as is so often seen in police actions in the US).  We've already discussed this earlier (first page I think?) but a well armed militia is a terrible way to protect yourself from a tyrannical government . . . nearly every example of a well armed militia overthrowing a government in modern history ends up seizing power and instituting a dictator or tyrant.

As has been mentioned, putting the constitution on a pedestal is not a legitimate argument.  It's in the constitution because several hundred years ago some rich white misogynistic slave owners living in a country without a standing army decided it was a good idea for most people to have access to muskets.  Not really applicable in this day and age to the problems we're facing.

So in order to stop the government from killing us, we should give up our defenses? Can't argue with that logic.

I'm saying that the police in the US are human.  As a police officer when every person you come across could be packing a weapon, you have greater reason to mentally jump to lethal force.  Carrying a weapon makes you less safe in a high tension situation with police.  So yeah, a gun probably makes you less safe from the police.

As far as the government . . . if they want to kill you, they don't even need to send people.  They can fly a drone to your home and bomb the shit out of it.  They can launch a missile from miles away and blow the shit out of you.  They can drive a tank through your front hall and blow the shit out of you.  Etc.  Pretending that small arms terrify a government in control of a modern military is laughable Hollywood Rambo silliness.  Heck, the government doesn't even need to fire a shot.  They can just close all the roads that lead to your town, turn off the water, and starve you out.  In this case guns probably don't make you less safe from the government . . . they're simply a non-factor.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 07:59:08 AM by GuitarStv »

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #229 on: October 05, 2017, 07:59:47 AM »
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

Now, somebody takes their bolt action gun or revolver or whatever they are using, and walks into a school and shoots 20 kids/teachers. They did everything by the book, and the only illegal part of their whole event was taking the gun into a school zone and shooting people.

Will you all still be satisfied with the regulations? Will you say "You know what, it's a tragedy, but we've reduced our gun violence to among the lowest in the world, and I think that's good enough. Tragedies do happen sometimes and it sucks, but we've gone far enough with gun control and it's time to focus on other things." Will you be callous and cold as you watch the news with interviews of little kids talking about their friends dying?

Or will you keep pushing for more regulations? Because if any time someone kills people you are going to insist on more regulations, the only eventual solution we can end at is total confiscation and banning of firearms.


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.

I would say at that point we have done nearly everything possible within the framework of our constitution to prevent the tragedy from a firearm regulation standpoint. More regulations would not help significantly (diminishing returns). From there we need to look at other issues (which we should be looking into now as well) like why does a person get the urge to kill a bunch of people? Where are the rest of our institutions failing this person and others like him/her? Education? Healthcare? Finances?

I feel like both sides come into these arguments with shields up and no one budges. Pro gun control people need to realize that there is a constitutional right to firearms in this country. You have to accept that. Pro gun freedom people need to realize there is a major issue with people shooting other people in this country, and you have to accept that. From there, we can all have reasonable discussions about change that both sides are ok with.

Compromise can happen, if we just stop getting so defensive at the slightest suggestion or ignorant question.

Agreed, hence my list of compromises I'm interested in discussing above.

I tend to think things like healthcare reform (including access to mental healthcare), income inequality, and education reform will have a far greater impact on our nation's problems than limiting how many guns someone can buy in a month, or how long their barrel is allowed to be. I'd prefer to address those problems first, but I'm open to compromises in the meantime.


'The Man' isn't kept in check by your small arms.  If anything, the proliferation of guns means that 'The Man' tends to come up with reasons to react with excessive force (as is so often seen in police actions in the US).  We've already discussed this earlier (first page I think?) but a well armed militia is a terrible way to protect yourself from a tyrannical government . . . nearly every example of a well armed militia overthrowing a government in modern history ends up seizing power and instituting a dictator or tyrant.

As has been mentioned, putting the constitution on a pedestal is not a legitimate argument.  It's in the constitution because several hundred years ago some rich white misogynistic slave owners living in a country without a standing army decided it was a good idea for most people to have access to muskets.  Not really applicable in this day and age to the problems we're facing.

So in order to stop the government from killing us, we should give up our defenses? Can't argue with that logic.

I'm saying that the police in the US are human.  As a police officer when every person you come across could be packing a weapon, you have greater reason to mentally jump to lethal force.  Carrying a weapon makes you less safe in a high tension situation with police.  So yeah, a gun probably makes you less safe from the police.

Oh I get it, it's just ridiculous to blame the police killings on the fact that people are allowed to have guns. Even if we did make guns illegal, criminals would still have them and police would use that as their new excuse, or a knife, or whatever.

Quote
As far as the government . . . if they want to kill you, they don't even need to send people.  They can fly a drone to your home and bomb the shit out of it.  They can launch a missile from miles away and blow the shit out of you.  They can drive a tank through your front hall and blow the shit out of you.  Etc.  Pretending that small arms terrify a government in control of a modern military is laughable Hollywood Rambo silliness.  In this case guns probably don't make you less safe from the government . . . they're simply a non-factor.

Yeah, that's why we've had such an easy time over in the Middle East over the last 16 years. All of those non factors with their homemade bombs and AK-47s.

If you were trying to take over a country by violent force, and you could choose between one where 1/3 civilians was armed, and one where nobody was armed, which would you pick?

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 415
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #230 on: October 05, 2017, 08:03:15 AM »
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

Now, somebody takes their bolt action gun or revolver or whatever they are using, and walks into a school and shoots 20 kids/teachers. They did everything by the book, and the only illegal part of their whole event was taking the gun into a school zone and shooting people.

Will you all still be satisfied with the regulations? Will you say "You know what, it's a tragedy, but we've reduced our gun violence to among the lowest in the world, and I think that's good enough. Tragedies do happen sometimes and it sucks, but we've gone far enough with gun control and it's time to focus on other things." Will you be callous and cold as you watch the news with interviews of little kids talking about their friends dying?

Or will you keep pushing for more regulations? Because if any time someone kills people you are going to insist on more regulations, the only eventual solution we can end at is total confiscation and banning of firearms.


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.

Try using real world scenarios. Otherwise it's pointless to debate. If commons sense gun regulations were in place, it's highly likely we wouldn't need to keep saying "largest mass shooting in US history" repeatedly. The Vegas shooter had accumulated an entire arsenal, multiple bump stocks, and bomb making materials. Yet not one single alarm bell went off anywhere. Really??!?!?!? Not really someone getting ready to go skeet shooting or deer hunting. This dude should have been monitored like a hawk. Hell he shouldn't have even been allowed to purchase an entire arsenal.

Yes more gun control will not always prevent another tragedy. But it could. It dam sure could reduce the number of deaths when it does happen. And that equals lives saved. And it sure beats doing nothing because you know "what if....." Let's take your scenario and make it 50 kids with over 500 injured. Why not? You are allowed to accumulate enough weapons to carry this out. Would you still be arguing against gun control?

So you are asking the wrong questions to the wrong people. The question should be how many more innocent senseless lives have to be lost before we can at least start instituting some sensible gun control? 500? 1,000? 10,000? There aren't enough lives?

So let's stick to real world scenarios. I mean really you are just making a case to have no laws. Because people are going to break them anyways.

What "common sense" gun regulation will stop mass shootings? Because anyone can take a pair of handguns into a crowded area and blow away dozens of people if conditions are right. Anyone can take a bolt-action rifle, get up into a clock tower overseeing the high school football game, and blow away a dozen people.

So, what gun regulation do YOU think are common sense?

I live in a blue-state, I can see the laws of foreign nations, and I can read this forum, and the obvious implication of "common sense" gun regulations is that people do not have the right to own deadly weapons and do not have the right to self-defense, so "common sense" regulations involves banning all weapons except for sport and antique weapons.

Are you honestly telling me that to prevent a Las Vegas shooting that you need to ban weapons that have a bayonet mount? Were you worrying about this guy launching a bayonet charge? Because that's a "common sense" gun regulation in many states. Oh, and I can have a weapon with a pistol grip as long as it did not have a bayonet mount...which does not make any sense to me.

No, I do not want my rights subject to revision just because there is a tragedy. This is how you get stupid stuff like Australia confiscating weapons for something that happened once, or silly "assault weapons" bans because of a LA shoot-out. In other spheres, it's also how you get the government looking at my library records or monitoring my phone calls for my "safety" or a US President saying he has the unilateral right to kill any American at any point at any place in the world at his sole discretion without any sort of oversight.

I'm far warier of government overreach than I am of fellow law-abiding citizens.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #231 on: October 05, 2017, 08:05:37 AM »
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

Now, somebody takes their bolt action gun or revolver or whatever they are using, and walks into a school and shoots 20 kids/teachers. They did everything by the book, and the only illegal part of their whole event was taking the gun into a school zone and shooting people.

Will you all still be satisfied with the regulations? Will you say "You know what, it's a tragedy, but we've reduced our gun violence to among the lowest in the world, and I think that's good enough. Tragedies do happen sometimes and it sucks, but we've gone far enough with gun control and it's time to focus on other things." Will you be callous and cold as you watch the news with interviews of little kids talking about their friends dying?

Or will you keep pushing for more regulations? Because if any time someone kills people you are going to insist on more regulations, the only eventual solution we can end at is total confiscation and banning of firearms.


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.

I would say at that point we have done nearly everything possible within the framework of our constitution to prevent the tragedy from a firearm regulation standpoint. More regulations would not help significantly (diminishing returns). From there we need to look at other issues (which we should be looking into now as well) like why does a person get the urge to kill a bunch of people? Where are the rest of our institutions failing this person and others like him/her? Education? Healthcare? Finances?

I feel like both sides come into these arguments with shields up and no one budges. Pro gun control people need to realize that there is a constitutional right to firearms in this country. You have to accept that. Pro gun freedom people need to realize there is a major issue with people shooting other people in this country, and you have to accept that. From there, we can all have reasonable discussions about change that both sides are ok with.

Compromise can happen, if we just stop getting so defensive at the slightest suggestion or ignorant question.

Generally agree with your post.  On the topic of doing something that might actually work - Improved security in high risk, high rise buildings.   This guy carried up a whole lot of hardware undetected and would not have been nearly as effective without the elevated position.

In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 08:09:47 AM by Midwest »

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #232 on: October 05, 2017, 08:14:23 AM »
I'm not that familiar with current federal gun control regulation, and I know it varies a lot state by state, so could someone propose a quick list of current federal-level gun control laws that they would like repealed in exchange for something more sensible?  I have a few ideas, but I don't know which regulations that folks dislike are federal vs state.

Basic ideas:
 - Standardize concealed carry requirements so that the local sheriff can't deny you just cause he's in a bad mood - must give a valid reason
 - By doing that, it should also standardize reciprocity between states, so a legal permit holder can't get in trouble for crossing state lines (I think states/cities should still be able to designate particular places as gun-free areas, like schools and govt buildings)
 - The limits on grip types and barrel length don't seem actually useful, fine to get rid of those
 - Fix the background check system so you don't have clearly mentally ill people getting approved and people who have done nothing wrong getting denied for stupid reasons (per that link someone posted above by the LEO officer getting denied)

What I'd want to see in return:
 - Allow gun purchase records to be digitized, so that straw purchases can actually be tracked and prosecuted effectively
 - Require person-to-person purchases that currently don't require a background check to report the sale so that ownership can be updated in the records

If that's over-reaching state's rights, you could instead grant access to the digital records to local LEOs based on the state's compliance with certain recommendations, including the above.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #233 on: October 05, 2017, 08:22:39 AM »
I'm not that familiar with current federal gun control regulation, and I know it varies a lot state by state, so could someone propose a quick list of current federal-level gun control laws that they would like repealed in exchange for something more sensible?  I have a few ideas, but I don't know which regulations that folks dislike are federal vs state.

Basic ideas:
 - Standardize concealed carry requirements so that the local sheriff can't deny you just cause he's in a bad mood - must give a valid reason
 - By doing that, it should also standardize reciprocity between states, so a legal permit holder can't get in trouble for crossing state lines (I think states/cities should still be able to designate particular places as gun-free areas, like schools and govt buildings)
 - The limits on grip types and barrel length don't seem actually useful, fine to get rid of those
 - Fix the background check system so you don't have clearly mentally ill people getting approved and people who have done nothing wrong getting denied for stupid reasons (per that link someone posted above by the LEO officer getting denied)

What I'd want to see in return:
 - Allow gun purchase records to be digitized, so that straw purchases can actually be tracked and prosecuted effectively
 - Require person-to-person purchases that currently don't require a background check to report the sale so that ownership can be updated in the records

If that's over-reaching state's rights, you could instead grant access to the digital records to local LEOs based on the state's compliance with certain recommendations, including the above.

The first part about concealed carry sounds fair enough.

The second part about registration is a pretty big deal, because it's setting the stage for future confiscation in the event that another tragedy happens in the future (which it will, regardless of regulation). There would have to be something VERY significant given up in exchange for that, with some clear limits put on confiscation, and even then I'm not sure it'd be worth it. The only way I can see that being all right with me is through a constitutional amendment that strictly prohibits confiscation (be it through direct means like mandatory buybacks, or indirect means like taxation or individual state rules and regulations on features, or other methods) and guarantees a set of rights in exchange for it, such as a repeal of a significant number of the NFA restrictions and 922r restrictions on imports.

A good example of a de-facto ban is California's current pistol situation. Pistols are required to have microstamping technology in order to be sold there, and it's not a viable/practical technology to implement. This essentially means no new handguns can be added to the "allowed in California" roster they have. They're stuck with guns that were grandfathered in, and a change as minor as a different color means the gun no longer qualifies and is removed. Californians are not getting the benefit of improved safety technology because of this silly regulation, which is only there because an actual ban was too hard for them to pass.

Here are a few more ideas I listed above:

For example, required training or a mental health assessment before buying a gun to give you a "license" similar to the current concealed carry licenses, in exchange for a repeal on the NFA regulations on short barreled rifles, and a removal of all of the stupid cosmetic rules we currently have.

More stringent training criteria for concealed carry holders, in exchange for national reciprocity of concealed carry licenses.

Limits on the number of guns able to be purchased in a given time frame, in exchange for the repeals of silencer regulation.

The admittedly difficult part about this is, in either case one side is going to be suspicious of the other. Once we allow limits on the number of guns, that is a significant constitutional decision that will impact all future regulations, and there's nothing stopping the repeals of silencer regulation from being reversed without reversing the limit as well. In any case, I'm willing to actually discuss additional regulations, provided we actually compromise rather than continually moving in one direction.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 08:27:31 AM by ooeei »

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 107
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #234 on: October 05, 2017, 08:27:28 AM »
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.

I agree. I'm not sure why they were ever legal in the first place. From what I've read most law abiding gun owners thought bump stocks were a novelty at best, and generally a way to throw dollars away faster for each trigger pull. If you are hunting or target shooting, you never need a simulated fully automatic weapon. Your deer would turn into a lead filled shredded mush.

Looks like some of the GOP is ok with regulating bump stocks now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html


I fully agree with removing regulations on silencers. There is no silencer in existence that does what James Bond's silencers do. They are extremely useful for hunting, because they reduce recoil and help to protect hunting dogs' ears. They are good for home protection because you can use them marginally without hearing protection and not become disoriented.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1085
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #235 on: October 05, 2017, 08:31:19 AM »
Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.

It is called the Man, and he ALWAYS has to be kept in check. Think for a second, why is it part of our Constitution? If it was to keep away invading armies then there would be no need to guarantee it as a right. It is to protect us from ourselves.

'The Man' isn't kept in check by your small arms.  If anything, the proliferation of guns means that 'The Man' tends to come up with reasons to react with excessive force (as is so often seen in police actions in the US).  We've already discussed this earlier (first page I think?) but a well armed militia is a terrible way to protect yourself from a tyrannical government . . . nearly every example of a well armed militia overthrowing a government in modern history ends up seizing power and instituting a dictator or tyrant.  There are multiple examples of  populaces well armed with firearms living under tyrannical governments who don't rise up and overthow anything - because a modern military is incredibly scary/powerful.

As has been mentioned, putting the constitution on a pedestal is not a legitimate argument.  It's in the constitution because several hundred years ago some rich white misogynistic slave owners living in a country without a standing army decided it was a good idea for most people to have access to muskets.  Not really applicable in this day and age to the problems we're facing.
off topic. Perhaps that could have some bearing on another conversation, but not this one.

Why did they think it was good for most people to have muskets (and some cannons)? And not just a good idea but necessary. That is the question. If it was just to have an armed populace incase of invasion they could have made it a law, not a #2 in the bill of rights.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #236 on: October 05, 2017, 08:35:15 AM »
Oh I get it, it's just ridiculous to blame the police killings on the fact that people are allowed to have guns. Even if we did make guns illegal, criminals would still have them and police would use that as their new excuse, or a knife, or whatever.

I don't blame police killings on the fact that people are allowed to have guns.  The blame completely and totally lies on the shoulders of any officer who uses excessive force.  I do understand why more officers choose to use excessive force when dealing with an armed populace though, that's all I was pointing out.

A knife can be a deadly weapon.  It's not as deadly as a gun.  Implying that it is, or that a police officer would react the same way to one is silly.


Quote
As far as the government . . . if they want to kill you, they don't even need to send people.  They can fly a drone to your home and bomb the shit out of it.  They can launch a missile from miles away and blow the shit out of you.  They can drive a tank through your front hall and blow the shit out of you.  Etc.  Pretending that small arms terrify a government in control of a modern military is laughable Hollywood Rambo silliness.  In this case guns probably don't make you less safe from the government . . . they're simply a non-factor.

Yeah, that's why we've had such an easy time over in the Middle East over the last 16 years. All of those non factors with their homemade bombs and AK-47s.

If you were trying to take over a country by violent force, and you could choose between one where 1/3 civilians was armed, and one where nobody was armed, which would you pick?

In the middle east America isn't the government.  Your country is a foreign invader who came in and topples governments, doesn't speak the language, doesn't understand the culture, and blows up rather than provides infrastructure for most people.  It's not a remotely comparable situation to any place in the mainland US . . . but let's play along with your wargames fantasy for a bit and take it through to it's logical conclusion.

A foreign power has invaded the US.  They were strong enough to obliterate the US military.  They have no way to communicate since the foreign power has knocked out all cell communication and internet in the country.  Forces patrol the streets and anyone found with a gun is shot, then their family tortured and killed.  Now let's say that the few hardy American gun owners who haven't decided to just deal with the new way things are perform regular terror attacks and suicide bombings against their occupiers . . . They can certainly be annoying for years.  They will never retake the country though.  (Think the Palestinians vs the Israelis.)

But let's suspend belief again.  The hardy American gun owners somehow manage to band together, somehow manage to overwhelm the incredible odds against them, capture enough military hardware to drive the foreign invaders from their soil forever!  Now it's time to pick new leaders.  History has shown us time and time and time and time and time again that the leaders of the militias will institute themselves as dictators.  Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, the Taliban, Ayatollah Khomeini, Kim Il-sung, etc. - these are the types of men who come to power after a militia led revolution.  Congrats!  You have traded one oppressive regime for another!  A win for the people?


Can we stop with the goofy American myth that a well armed militia will ever fight off a massively dominant military force and then miraculously not institute their own tyrant?  It's simply not supported by history.

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #237 on: October 05, 2017, 08:39:11 AM »
I'm not that familiar with current federal gun control regulation, and I know it varies a lot state by state, so could someone propose a quick list of current federal-level gun control laws that they would like repealed in exchange for something more sensible?  I have a few ideas, but I don't know which regulations that folks dislike are federal vs state.

Basic ideas:
 - Standardize concealed carry requirements so that the local sheriff can't deny you just cause he's in a bad mood - must give a valid reason
 - By doing that, it should also standardize reciprocity between states, so a legal permit holder can't get in trouble for crossing state lines (I think states/cities should still be able to designate particular places as gun-free areas, like schools and govt buildings)
 - The limits on grip types and barrel length don't seem actually useful, fine to get rid of those
 - Fix the background check system so you don't have clearly mentally ill people getting approved and people who have done nothing wrong getting denied for stupid reasons (per that link someone posted above by the LEO officer getting denied)

What I'd want to see in return:
 - Allow gun purchase records to be digitized, so that straw purchases can actually be tracked and prosecuted effectively
 - Require person-to-person purchases that currently don't require a background check to report the sale so that ownership can be updated in the records

If that's over-reaching state's rights, you could instead grant access to the digital records to local LEOs based on the state's compliance with certain recommendations, including the above.

The first part about concealed carry sounds fair enough.

The second part about registration is a pretty big deal, because it's setting the stage for future confiscation in the event that another tragedy happens in the future (which it will, regardless of regulation). There would have to be something VERY significant given up in exchange for that, with some clear limits put on confiscation, and even then I'm not sure it'd be worth it. The only way I can see that being all right with me is through a constitutional amendment that strictly prohibits confiscation (be it through direct means like mandatory buybacks, or indirect means like taxation or individual state rules and regulations on features, or other methods) and guarantees a set of rights in exchange for it, such as a repeal of a significant number of the NFA restrictions and 922r restrictions on imports.

Here are a few more ideas I listed above:

For example, required training or a mental health assessment before buying a gun to give you a "license" similar to the current concealed carry licenses, in exchange for a repeal on the NFA regulations on short barreled rifles, and a removal of all of the stupid cosmetic rules we currently have.

More stringent training criteria for concealed carry holders, in exchange for national reciprocity of concealed carry licenses.

Limits on the number of guns able to be purchased in a given time frame, in exchange for the repeals of silencer regulation.

The admittedly difficult part about this is, in either case one side is going to be suspicious of the other. Once we allow limits on the number of guns, that is a significant constitutional decision that will impact all future regulations, and there's nothing stopping the repeals of silencer regulation from being reversed without reversing the limit as well. In any case, I'm willing to actually discuss additional regulations, provided we actually compromise rather than continually moving in one direction.

So you like the parts where I offered to improve gun owners rights, but not the parts where I asked for something in return?  (kinda joking here, no insult meant)

The problem I have is that none of your suggestions allow us to prevent someone from legally buying a gun and giving/selling it to someone who is not legally allowed to buy it.  We have laws against straw-man purchases, but they cannot be enforced because there is a complete lack of accountability for sales, due in large part to the lack of usable records.  How do you propose to fix this particular problem?

For the record, my SO owns guns, I enjoy shooting them, and I'm definitely not a "ban all guns" type.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.
I'd be perfectly happy with a warrant being required to access the records.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #238 on: October 05, 2017, 08:39:20 AM »
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.

I agree. I'm not sure why they were ever legal in the first place. From what I've read most law abiding gun owners thought bump stocks were a novelty at best, and generally a way to throw dollars away faster for each trigger pull. If you are hunting or target shooting, you never need a simulated fully automatic weapon. Your deer would turn into a lead filled shredded mush.

Looks like some of the GOP is ok with regulating bump stocks now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html


I fully agree with removing regulations on silencers. There is no silencer in existence that does what James Bond's silencers do. They are extremely useful for hunting, because they reduce recoil and help to protect hunting dogs' ears. They are good for home protection because you can use them marginally without hearing protection and not become disoriented.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.

I'm against the registry because a) the govt does not need more information on our lives* and b) the registry, at best, has not not clearly been proven beneficial in Canada. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4a18e8535a1b

* The "war on terror" has already brought too much intrusion at the excuse of safety.  We have the NSA gathering data on every US citizen and a secret no fly list.  I'm against furthering that agenda.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #239 on: October 05, 2017, 08:45:56 AM »
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.

I agree. I'm not sure why they were ever legal in the first place. From what I've read most law abiding gun owners thought bump stocks were a novelty at best, and generally a way to throw dollars away faster for each trigger pull. If you are hunting or target shooting, you never need a simulated fully automatic weapon. Your deer would turn into a lead filled shredded mush.

Looks like some of the GOP is ok with regulating bump stocks now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html


I fully agree with removing regulations on silencers. There is no silencer in existence that does what James Bond's silencers do. They are extremely useful for hunting, because they reduce recoil and help to protect hunting dogs' ears. They are good for home protection because you can use them marginally without hearing protection and not become disoriented.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.

I'm against the registry because a) the govt does not need more information on our lives* and b) the registry, at best, has not not clearly been proven beneficial in Canada. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4a18e8535a1b

While the gun registry in Canada wasn't perfect, the people who used it certainly thought it was worth keeping (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-chiefs-endorse-long-gun-registry-1.886844) before a crusading right wing government decided to throw it out amid great argument.

The article you posted also doesn't touch on one of the biggest reasons that the US needs a registry though - detection and prevention of straw purchases . . . this is one of the most common ways that criminals obtain firearms in the US.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 08:48:09 AM by GuitarStv »

omachi

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 233
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #240 on: October 05, 2017, 08:47:22 AM »

I think we're misunderstanding each other here. I don't think we should own guns because they save lives, and I've never argued that they do. Maybe sometimes they do, other times they end them...
Ah, sorry about being in violent agreement then. Obviously they can save lives and I'd be a fool to argue there are zero such situations, but given the rarity of such situations and the overall harm from the prevalence of guns, I don't think it makes for a valid excuse to own one.

I think having guns is important to prevent government tyranny (which franky I'm surprised more of the pro regulation folks aren't worried about with our current administration). Personal protection, for example in the case of an extended disaster situation where authorities aren't working particularly well, is a side benefit.
At one point I thought the tyranny angle was reasonable, until I realized I couldn't pin down a bright line that would indicate we were living under a tyrannical government outside of them wantonly rounding up and killing people. By then it's way too late. Outside of that and gun confiscation, nobody seems to agree on when we have tyranny. I mean, in a lot of ways we're not getting better. We have "free speech zones". We have states on crusades to implement laws on thinly veiled religious beliefs. Civil forfeiture allows for and perpetuates horrible abuses. When have we arrived at tyranny?

So I'll ask my favorite question on the topic, as I posted above. When are you going to start shooting members of the government to defend against tyranny?

PriestTheRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 411
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #241 on: October 05, 2017, 08:52:29 AM »
I'm not that familiar with current federal gun control regulation, and I know it varies a lot state by state, so could someone propose a quick list of current federal-level gun control laws that they would like repealed in exchange for something more sensible?  I have a few ideas, but I don't know which regulations that folks dislike are federal vs state.

Basic ideas:
 - Standardize concealed carry requirements so that the local sheriff can't deny you just cause he's in a bad mood - must give a valid reason
 - By doing that, it should also standardize reciprocity between states, so a legal permit holder can't get in trouble for crossing state lines (I think states/cities should still be able to designate particular places as gun-free areas, like schools and govt buildings)
 - The limits on grip types and barrel length don't seem actually useful, fine to get rid of those
 - Fix the background check system so you don't have clearly mentally ill people getting approved and people who have done nothing wrong getting denied for stupid reasons (per that link someone posted above by the LEO officer getting denied)

What I'd want to see in return:
 - Allow gun purchase records to be digitized, so that straw purchases can actually be tracked and prosecuted effectively
 - Require person-to-person purchases that currently don't require a background check to report the sale so that ownership can be updated in the records

If that's over-reaching state's rights, you could instead grant access to the digital records to local LEOs based on the state's compliance with certain recommendations, including the above.

These are extremely good ideas and compromises.

Would never happen, but extremely good.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #242 on: October 05, 2017, 08:58:08 AM »
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.

I agree. I'm not sure why they were ever legal in the first place. From what I've read most law abiding gun owners thought bump stocks were a novelty at best, and generally a way to throw dollars away faster for each trigger pull. If you are hunting or target shooting, you never need a simulated fully automatic weapon. Your deer would turn into a lead filled shredded mush.

Looks like some of the GOP is ok with regulating bump stocks now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html


I fully agree with removing regulations on silencers. There is no silencer in existence that does what James Bond's silencers do. They are extremely useful for hunting, because they reduce recoil and help to protect hunting dogs' ears. They are good for home protection because you can use them marginally without hearing protection and not become disoriented.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.

I'm against the registry because a) the govt does not need more information on our lives* and b) the registry, at best, has not not clearly been proven beneficial in Canada. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4a18e8535a1b

While the gun registry in Canada wasn't perfect, the people who used it certainly thought it was worth keeping (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-chiefs-endorse-long-gun-registry-1.886844) before a crusading right wing government decided to throw it out amid great argument.

The article you posted also doesn't touch on one of the biggest reasons that the US needs a registry though - detection and prevention of straw purchases . . . this is one of the most common ways that criminals obtain firearms in the US.

Canada, which has a population about 35M and a few guns per capita, couldn't make the registry work.  If it couldn't work in Canada, it would be an even bigger failure in the US with 10x Canada's population.

Enforce the existing straw purchase laws.  If necessary, more clearly define what a straw purchase is, but I'll pass on the registry.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #243 on: October 05, 2017, 09:01:33 AM »
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.

I agree. I'm not sure why they were ever legal in the first place. From what I've read most law abiding gun owners thought bump stocks were a novelty at best, and generally a way to throw dollars away faster for each trigger pull. If you are hunting or target shooting, you never need a simulated fully automatic weapon. Your deer would turn into a lead filled shredded mush.

Looks like some of the GOP is ok with regulating bump stocks now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html


I fully agree with removing regulations on silencers. There is no silencer in existence that does what James Bond's silencers do. They are extremely useful for hunting, because they reduce recoil and help to protect hunting dogs' ears. They are good for home protection because you can use them marginally without hearing protection and not become disoriented.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.

I'm against the registry because a) the govt does not need more information on our lives* and b) the registry, at best, has not not clearly been proven beneficial in Canada. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4a18e8535a1b

While the gun registry in Canada wasn't perfect, the people who used it certainly thought it was worth keeping (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-chiefs-endorse-long-gun-registry-1.886844) before a crusading right wing government decided to throw it out amid great argument.

The article you posted also doesn't touch on one of the biggest reasons that the US needs a registry though - detection and prevention of straw purchases . . . this is one of the most common ways that criminals obtain firearms in the US.

Canada, which has a population about 35M and a few guns per capita, couldn't make the registry work.  If it couldn't work in Canada, it would be an even bigger failure in the US with 10x Canada's population.

Enforce the existing straw purchase laws.  If necessary, more clearly define what a straw purchase is, but I'll pass on the registry.

The registry was dismantled by an activist right wing government for political reasons, not because it didn't work.  It was dismantled against the express wishes of the police who used it on a regular basis.

Raenia

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #244 on: October 05, 2017, 09:02:18 AM »
Canada, which has a population about 35M and a few guns per capita, couldn't make the registry work.  If it couldn't work in Canada, it would be an even bigger failure in the US with 10x Canada's population.

Enforce the existing straw purchase laws.  If necessary, more clearly define what a straw purchase is, but I'll pass on the registry.

If you have any ideas on HOW to enforce straw purchase laws without a registry, I'd love to hear them.  I haven't seen any reasonable suggestions for how to do that.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #245 on: October 05, 2017, 09:02:32 AM »
So you like the parts where I offered to improve gun owners rights, but not the parts where I asked for something in return?  (kinda joking here, no insult meant)

The problem I have is that none of your suggestions allow us to prevent someone from legally buying a gun and giving/selling it to someone who is not legally allowed to buy it.  We have laws against straw-man purchases, but they cannot be enforced because there is a complete lack of accountability for sales, due in large part to the lack of usable records.  How do you propose to fix this particular problem?

For the record, my SO owns guns, I enjoy shooting them, and I'm definitely not a "ban all guns" type.

Oops, my bad. For some reason I thought one of the first two bullet points was about additional restrictions on concealed carry. Brain fart. I did outline some compromises in my post, so it wasn't intentional.

Straw purchases are tricky. They do currently get enforced when it's obvious, but you're right that without a registry it's awfully tricky to do. I just think a registry is a very big deal, and requires a significant amount more in return than what you outlined, and I'd really like to see it in a clear give/take amendment to the constitution.

The problem with just implementing new laws is the laws have to stand on their own, so any give/take is subject to being changed down the line. Hence my desire for an actual amendment rather than just a new law.

I'm against the registry because a) the govt does not need more information on our lives*

* The "war on terror" has already brought too much intrusion at the excuse of safety.  We have the NSA gathering data on every US citizen and a secret no fly list.  I'm against furthering that agenda.

Agree 100%. It would take a very big compromise, and some very strong guarantees in the constitution for me to consider one. Once the registration is out there, it enables so many other regulations and de facto regulations.

A good example is current "states rights" that essentially are given to the federal government, because the government holds money hostage if the states don't comply. Technically the decisions may be up to the state, but the federal government will just bankrupt them if they don't comply. There are workarounds to everything, so the existence of the registration alone is a huge deal.

Ah, sorry about being in violent agreement then. Obviously they can save lives and I'd be a fool to argue there are zero such situations, but given the rarity of such situations and the overall harm from the prevalence of guns, I don't think it makes for a valid excuse to own one.

Yeah that's a tricky position to argue, and isn't my personal view on it so I can't speak to it.

Quote
At one point I thought the tyranny angle was reasonable, until I realized I couldn't pin down a bright line that would indicate we were living under a tyrannical government outside of them wantonly rounding up and killing people. By then it's way too late. Outside of that and gun confiscation, nobody seems to agree on when we have tyranny. I mean, in a lot of ways we're not getting better. We have "free speech zones". We have states on crusades to implement laws on thinly veiled religious beliefs. Civil forfeiture allows for and perpetuates horrible abuses. When have we arrived at tyranny?

So I'll ask my favorite question on the topic, as I posted above. When are you going to start shooting members of the government to defend against tyranny?

Well, if Trump starts a secret police that goes around executing muslims in my neighborhood and/or taking them to concentration camps to be gassed, I'd definitely like the option of helping defend them. I can't tell you for certain what I'd do in a given situation, but if you can't imagine any situation where you might like a gun to help you against a tyrannical government, there are plenty examples in history.

Will it ever happen? Probably not. More likely the government will use things like the NSA to gather data and point us all in the direction they want us to go through media influence. I'll ask again, if you were trying to take over a country, would you prefer one that was armed or one that wasn't?  If they were armed, would you prefer them to all be registered or not?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 09:04:25 AM by ooeei »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #246 on: October 05, 2017, 09:07:28 AM »
Quote
So I'll ask my favorite question on the topic, as I posted above. When are you going to start shooting members of the government to defend against tyranny?

Well, if Trump starts a secret police that goes around executing muslims in my neighborhood and/or taking them to concentration camps to be gassed, I'd definitely like the option of helping defend them. I can't tell you for certain what I'd do in a given situation, but if you can't imagine any situation where you might like a gun to help you against a tyrannical government, there are plenty examples in history.

Will it ever happen? Probably not. More likely the government will use things like the NSA to gather data and point us all in the direction they want us to go through media influence. I'll ask again, if you were trying to take over a country, would you prefer one that was armed or one that wasn't?

If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

Where is your small arms defense coming into play against that?

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1203
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #247 on: October 05, 2017, 09:08:31 AM »
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.

I agree. I'm not sure why they were ever legal in the first place. From what I've read most law abiding gun owners thought bump stocks were a novelty at best, and generally a way to throw dollars away faster for each trigger pull. If you are hunting or target shooting, you never need a simulated fully automatic weapon. Your deer would turn into a lead filled shredded mush.

Looks like some of the GOP is ok with regulating bump stocks now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html


I fully agree with removing regulations on silencers. There is no silencer in existence that does what James Bond's silencers do. They are extremely useful for hunting, because they reduce recoil and help to protect hunting dogs' ears. They are good for home protection because you can use them marginally without hearing protection and not become disoriented.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.

I'm against the registry because a) the govt does not need more information on our lives* and b) the registry, at best, has not not clearly been proven beneficial in Canada. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4a18e8535a1b

While the gun registry in Canada wasn't perfect, the people who used it certainly thought it was worth keeping (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-chiefs-endorse-long-gun-registry-1.886844) before a crusading right wing government decided to throw it out amid great argument.

The article you posted also doesn't touch on one of the biggest reasons that the US needs a registry though - detection and prevention of straw purchases . . . this is one of the most common ways that criminals obtain firearms in the US.

Canada, which has a population about 35M and a few guns per capita, couldn't make the registry work.  If it couldn't work in Canada, it would be an even bigger failure in the US with 10x Canada's population.

Enforce the existing straw purchase laws.  If necessary, more clearly define what a straw purchase is, but I'll pass on the registry.

The registry was dismantled by an activist right wing government for political reasons, not because it didn't work.  It was dismantled against the express wishes of the police who used it on a regular basis.

Doesn't seem nearly that clear cut -

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9086
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #248 on: October 05, 2017, 09:13:09 AM »
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.

I agree. I'm not sure why they were ever legal in the first place. From what I've read most law abiding gun owners thought bump stocks were a novelty at best, and generally a way to throw dollars away faster for each trigger pull. If you are hunting or target shooting, you never need a simulated fully automatic weapon. Your deer would turn into a lead filled shredded mush.

Looks like some of the GOP is ok with regulating bump stocks now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/bump-stock-fire-legal-republicans-congress.html


I fully agree with removing regulations on silencers. There is no silencer in existence that does what James Bond's silencers do. They are extremely useful for hunting, because they reduce recoil and help to protect hunting dogs' ears. They are good for home protection because you can use them marginally without hearing protection and not become disoriented.

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.

I'm against the registry because a) the govt does not need more information on our lives* and b) the registry, at best, has not not clearly been proven beneficial in Canada. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4a18e8535a1b

While the gun registry in Canada wasn't perfect, the people who used it certainly thought it was worth keeping (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/police-chiefs-endorse-long-gun-registry-1.886844) before a crusading right wing government decided to throw it out amid great argument.

The article you posted also doesn't touch on one of the biggest reasons that the US needs a registry though - detection and prevention of straw purchases . . . this is one of the most common ways that criminals obtain firearms in the US.

Canada, which has a population about 35M and a few guns per capita, couldn't make the registry work.  If it couldn't work in Canada, it would be an even bigger failure in the US with 10x Canada's population.

Enforce the existing straw purchase laws.  If necessary, more clearly define what a straw purchase is, but I'll pass on the registry.

The registry was dismantled by an activist right wing government for political reasons, not because it didn't work.  It was dismantled against the express wishes of the police who used it on a regular basis.

Doesn't seem nearly that clear cut -

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/gary-mauser-why-the-long-gun-registry-doesnt-work-and-never-did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

Gary Mauser is a long time gun rights evangelist.  It's not too surprising that he would write a piece in the right wing National Post that supports the decision of the Conservative government.

As I said previously, the gun registry wasn't perfect.  To say that it was a failure though, is a matter of opinion.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #249 on: October 05, 2017, 09:14:34 AM »
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

Where is your small arms defense coming into play against that?

I don't recall saying small arms defends against every tactic the government can pull. There are other amendments we have that are supposed to prevent some of those, but in the end it is up to the people to defend themselves from government tyranny. I'm simply in favor of giving them one more tool to do so.

A wrench isn't much use if you have a hole in your fence, that doesn't mean it's a shitty tool.

Hitler did loosen restrictions (after they confiscated guns from their enemies they found through their registry). One notable exception to their restriction loosening was Jews.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 09:18:03 AM by ooeei »