Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 27586 times)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #250 on: October 05, 2017, 09:50:27 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.

Ohh don't start with the straw-man. My point is that you can dream up an infinite number of scenarios. Are you going to discuss everyone of them? The Vegas shooter and his arsenal + bomb making material should throw up red flags to everyone. Because until something happens, this will happen again and again and again.

I am not suspicious of "the other side." I am pro-gun and pro-gun laws. The only "side" I feel is opposite are folks who want absolutely nothing done.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #251 on: October 05, 2017, 09:50:52 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.

Right.  And Hitler was wildly popular as he was doing this.  None of the Germans came after him with guns when he started rounding up the Jews . . . even though they totally could have.  By the time tyranny is recognized by the majority of people in a society to the point that they want to fight back it is way too late.



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.

Can you outline a scenario where small arms actually defend against a tyrannical government?

Has this ever happened in modern history?

Well it all depends on what you mean by tyrannical, our escapades in the middle east are probably seen as tyrannical to some, and they've been doing a pretty decent job considering the power disparity.

So where are the militia winners?  Palestine?  Afghanistan?  ISIS?  Which is the country you want to live in after the militia is done?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#2010s

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

I'm not going to pretend to know what all of these revolutions are about, but I suspect at least one or two of them use small arms. It's doubly hard to prove who is "right" in many of these situations because the winners control history, and often both sides have their merits.

My argument is not that small arms serve no purpose to a militia.  It's that a few individuals have no chance to fight off the government . . . and by the time that there's a big enough problem that a sizable militia with a chance to win is involved, it's already too late.  Either the tyrannical government wins, or the tyrannical militia wins.



Here's one that through a quick read seems to be roughly what you're looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

Given that a brutal governmental tyrannical regime was replaced with another brutal tyrannical regime (this time led by the winning militia leader), can you explain why a great example of the benefits of militias?  This is exactly the type of scenario I was talking about.  You've pointed to a 22 year conflict with endless atrocities on both sides (and the most dead in a conflict since WWII) that put another tyrant in power.

The second amendment as a protection against tyranny is patently ridiculous from a logical point of view.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 09:54:47 AM by GuitarStv »

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #252 on: October 05, 2017, 09:59:35 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.

Can you outline a scenario where small arms actually defend against a tyrannical government?

Has this ever happened in modern history?

Well it all depends on what you mean by tyrannical, our escapades in the middle east are probably seen as tyrannical to some, and they've been doing a pretty decent job considering the power disparity.

So where are the militia winners?  Palestine?  Afghanistan?  ISIS?  Which is the country you want to live in after the militia is done?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#2010s

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

I'm not going to pretend to know what all of these revolutions are about, but I suspect at least one or two of them use small arms. It's doubly hard to prove who is "right" in many of these situations because the winners control history, and often both sides have their merits.

My argument is not that small arms serve no purpose to a militia.  It's that a few individuals have no chance to fight off the government . . . and by the time that there's a big enough problem that a sizable militia with a chance to win is involved, it's already too late.  Either the tyrannical government wins, or the tyrannical militia wins.



Here's one that through a quick read seems to be roughly what you're looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

Given that a brutal governmental tyrannical regime was replaced with another brutal tyrannical regime (this time led by the winning militia leader), can you explain why a great example of the benefits of militias?  This is exactly the type of scenario I was talking about.  You've pointed to a 22 year conflict with endless atrocities on both sides (and the most dead in a conflict since WWII) that put another tyrant in power.

The second amendment as a protection against tyranny is patently ridiculous from a logical point of view.

Ah okay, so you're asking for the last time Britain or Australia rebelled against their government and turned it into Utopia. My bad, I misunderstood the question.

You asked for a situation where small arms defended against a tyrannical government, I gave you an example. Did that magically fix everything in the country? Of course not. Did it make things worse? Maybe, but now we're getting into a really in depth analysis that has a lot of different possibilities.

I suppose Sudan would've been better off if only their government had guns, right? Then it would have been a wonderful place where everyone gets along and sings songs together holding hands? Clearly allowing rebel forces to exist at all was the problem, and not the tyrannical government.

Of course I don't want to live in any of those places. Then again I wouldn't want to live there if the civilians were unarmed either. If the US becomes embroiled in civil war or a violent government I won't want to live here either, but if it does I'd rather be armed than not.

edit: And just noticed the Hitler comment. So your argument is that since Germans didn't do the right thing, it would've been better if they hadn't had the tools to do so even if they wanted to? 
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 10:05:19 AM by ooeei »

BarkyardBQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #253 on: October 05, 2017, 10:00:44 AM »
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

If you want to talk about Las Vegas you should talk about the people, tourists, police response, the heros at the event, the community, the off duty hospital staff, paramedics and EMTs who sped through city streets at 100MPH to get to work. Maybe how Las Vegas spends a massive amount of resources trying to keep millions of people safe every year, and has done so successfully for many years. This isn't just a city for people to visit and get entertained, real people live here, there are stories. Your gun control thread has nothing to do with Las Vegas. Las Vegas is just the most recent victim.

Let me help you get started.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-heroes/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/02/us/02reuters-usa-lasvegas-shooting-hospitals.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/04/555305057/listen-amid-chaos-in-las-vegas-police-dispatches-reveal-an-evolving-response
https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/SouthernNevadaCounterTerrorismCenter.aspx
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/counter-terrorism-fusion-center-opens-in-las-vegas/82001058
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooting-marine-veteran-steals-truck-drives-nearly-30-victims-hospital/726942001/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_x5qmiVMZYVkQpsrFpujfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT1weh9M1-s

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #254 on: October 05, 2017, 10:07:40 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?

I should have stated head of the NRA, LaPierre, and many of it's members. Some are for and some are against. LaPierre gave an interview on Fox news about 4 years ago trying to explain how background checks were useless, despite them preventing well over 1 million (my numbers were grossly underestimated) folks being denied for failing background checks. He complained about loopholes (which there admittedly are loopholes that need to be addressed, See: Adam Lanza and Ft. Lauderdale airport shooter). He alos complained about having to go to a dealer and spend money if he wanted to sell a gun to a friend. Keep in mind the cost is a whopping $5-15 typically. Years before he very much supporter background checks. Now, ehhh not so much.

hoping2retire35

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1194
  • Location: UPCOUNTRY CAROLINA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #255 on: October 05, 2017, 10:09:17 AM »
/\/\

"Americans Prove They Can Still Come Together"

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

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

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

When will you or someone you know be next?

the OP specifically wanted to discuss gun control. Las Vegas was just the nexus for it.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #256 on: October 05, 2017, 10:11:36 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.

Can you outline a scenario where small arms actually defend against a tyrannical government?

Has this ever happened in modern history?

Well it all depends on what you mean by tyrannical, our escapades in the middle east are probably seen as tyrannical to some, and they've been doing a pretty decent job considering the power disparity.

So where are the militia winners?  Palestine?  Afghanistan?  ISIS?  Which is the country you want to live in after the militia is done?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions#2010s

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

I'm not going to pretend to know what all of these revolutions are about, but I suspect at least one or two of them use small arms. It's doubly hard to prove who is "right" in many of these situations because the winners control history, and often both sides have their merits.

My argument is not that small arms serve no purpose to a militia.  It's that a few individuals have no chance to fight off the government . . . and by the time that there's a big enough problem that a sizable militia with a chance to win is involved, it's already too late.  Either the tyrannical government wins, or the tyrannical militia wins.



Here's one that through a quick read seems to be roughly what you're looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War

Given that a brutal governmental tyrannical regime was replaced with another brutal tyrannical regime (this time led by the winning militia leader), can you explain why a great example of the benefits of militias?  This is exactly the type of scenario I was talking about.  You've pointed to a 22 year conflict with endless atrocities on both sides (and the most dead in a conflict since WWII) that put another tyrant in power.

The second amendment as a protection against tyranny is patently ridiculous from a logical point of view.

Ah okay, so you're asking for the last time Britain or Australia rebelled against their government and turned it into Utopia. My bad, I misunderstood the question.

You asked for a situation where small arms defended against a tyrannical government, I gave you an example. Did that magically fix everything in the country? Of course not. Did it make things worse? Maybe, but now we're getting into a really in depth analysis that has a lot of different possibilities.

I suppose Sudan would've been better off if only their government had guns, right? Then it would have been a wonderful place where everyone gets along and sings songs together holding hands? Clearly allowing rebel forces to exist at all was the problem, and not the tyrannical government.

Of course I don't want to live in any of those places. Then again I wouldn't want to live there if the civilians were unarmed either. If the US becomes embroiled in civil war or a violent government I won't want to live here either, but if it does I'd rather be armed than not.


I don't know what would have happened in the Sudan.  Heavy duty modern weapons far surpassing small arms were supplied to both sides of the conflict from a whole variety of countries.  I suspect that gun control wouldn't have worked given that the rebels were able to get tanks and missiles.  What I'm pointing out is that the very concept you're trying to argue - that being able to form a militia and fight off a government is beneficial . . . well, it just isn't supported by history.

The fundamental problem with the militia argument is that the dude who is wildly successful at leading a militia is a ruthless asshole.  He'll use human shields, thinks nothing of killing civilians, taking slaves, uses child soldiers, uses suicide bombers, uses torture, amputation, and rape to instill fear.  This stuff works great at winning an conflict against overwhelming odds.  They're not the qualities you want in your leader though.  There you want restraint, a sense of fairness, care for people . . . all things that work against you while leading a guerrilla militia.  It's exceedingly rare for a victorious militia leader to give up his power though, so he's the guy who ends up in charge.

As I suspect you are now aware, in the last couple hundred years wherever a militia has rebelled against a tyrannical government and 'won' they've implemented an as bad or worse government.  That's what you're clinging to when you say that the 2nd amendment is necessary to fight tyranny . . . the virtual promise that those small arms will be used for tyranny.

Hopefully this silly line of reasoning can now be laid to rest.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #257 on: October 05, 2017, 10:12:54 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?

I should have stated head of the NRA, LaPierre, and many of it's members. Some are for and some are against. LaPierre gave an interview on Fox news about 4 years ago trying to explain how background checks were useless, despite them preventing well over 1 million (my numbers were grossly underestimated) folks being denied for failing background checks. He complained about loopholes (which there admittedly are loopholes that need to be addressed, See: Adam Lanza and Ft. Lauderdale airport shooter). He alos complained about having to go to a dealer and spend money if he wanted to sell a gun to a friend. Keep in mind the cost is a whopping $5-15 typically. Years before he very much supporter background checks. Now, ehhh not so much.

So the NRA is not making any effort to dismantle the current background check system?  I'm aware the NRA and many other are against expanding background checks, but haven't heard a peep about eliminating the current system.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #258 on: October 05, 2017, 10:24:39 AM »
All this talk about guns and revolutions in foreign places makes me wonder: is a "technical" vehicle legal in the USA?  You have the pickups, you have the guns....

If not, why not?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

BarkyardBQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #259 on: October 05, 2017, 10:25:46 AM »
/\/\

"Americans Prove They Can Still Come Together"

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

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

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

When will you or someone you know be next?

the OP specifically wanted to discuss gun control. Las Vegas was just the nexus for it.

That's obvious, why is Las Vegas the thread title? You're not discussing it at all.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #260 on: October 05, 2017, 10:30:40 AM »
I don't know what would have happened in the Sudan.  Heavy duty modern weapons far surpassing small arms were supplied to both sides of the conflict from a whole variety of countries.  I suspect that gun control wouldn't have worked given that the rebels were able to get tanks and missiles.  What I'm pointing out is that the very concept you're trying to argue - that being able to form a militia and fight off a government is beneficial . . . well, it just isn't supported by history.

The fundamental problem with the militia argument is that the dude who is wildly successful at leading a militia is a ruthless asshole.  He'll use human shields, thinks nothing of killing civilians, taking slaves, uses child soldiers, uses suicide bombers, uses torture, amputation, and rape to instill fear.  This stuff works great at winning an conflict against overwhelming odds.  They're not the qualities you want in your leader though.  There you want restraint, a sense of fairness, care for people . . . all things that work against you while leading a guerrilla militia.  It's exceedingly rare for a victorious militia leader to give up his power though, so he's the guy who ends up in charge.

As I suspect you are now aware, in the last couple hundred years wherever a militia has rebelled against a tyrannical government and 'won' they've implemented an as bad or worse government.  That's what you're clinging to when you say that the 2nd amendment is necessary to fight tyranny . . . the virtual promise that those small arms will be used for tyranny.

Hopefully this silly line of reasoning can now be laid to rest.

So basically nobody should ever try to rebel against a government, is that your argument?

As I said before, places in civil war or rebellions are horrible, and I'd hate to live in any of them. I'd still way rather live in a place like that while armed than one like North Korea where the government has absolute control.

Virtually every government in existence today got its start with a rebellion against someone else. Some turned out great, others didn't. Sure it may take a long time to get it right, but rebellion itself is not always a bad thing. Maybe right now the United States is worse off than if we'd never revolted against England, I don't know. Maybe Canada would be better off if it were still French, and Mexico if they were still Spanish. In the short term revolutions are horrible, and war in general is horrible. In the long term we've seen it work out in numerous places. Expecting a fully developed nation 20 years after a civil war is quite a lot to ask for though, and seems to be what you're looking for. Generally it's better to work within the government to make changes from within, but sometimes there are those certain dictators or regimes that can't be dealt with that way, and revolution is the only path forward. For example, it appears the Southern Sudanese were given 6 spots in their government out of a 800. What are they supposed to do about that?

By definition places that revolt are going to be shitholes, because nobody revolts unless they're in an absolutely horrible situation. That doesn't mean the rebellion is wrong, or that the rebellion made the country horrible. It was already horrible, the revolt is a symptom of that.

Edit: and I'm wasting way too much time on this thread. I'll concede the last word to you, but I'm gonna head out.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 10:42:23 AM by ooeei »

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #261 on: October 05, 2017, 10:46:34 AM »
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

You're more than welcome to start your own thread with that name.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #262 on: October 05, 2017, 10:59:32 AM »
I don't know what would have happened in the Sudan.  Heavy duty modern weapons far surpassing small arms were supplied to both sides of the conflict from a whole variety of countries.  I suspect that gun control wouldn't have worked given that the rebels were able to get tanks and missiles.  What I'm pointing out is that the very concept you're trying to argue - that being able to form a militia and fight off a government is beneficial . . . well, it just isn't supported by history.

The fundamental problem with the militia argument is that the dude who is wildly successful at leading a militia is a ruthless asshole.  He'll use human shields, thinks nothing of killing civilians, taking slaves, uses child soldiers, uses suicide bombers, uses torture, amputation, and rape to instill fear.  This stuff works great at winning an conflict against overwhelming odds.  They're not the qualities you want in your leader though.  There you want restraint, a sense of fairness, care for people . . . all things that work against you while leading a guerrilla militia.  It's exceedingly rare for a victorious militia leader to give up his power though, so he's the guy who ends up in charge.

As I suspect you are now aware, in the last couple hundred years wherever a militia has rebelled against a tyrannical government and 'won' they've implemented an as bad or worse government.  That's what you're clinging to when you say that the 2nd amendment is necessary to fight tyranny . . . the virtual promise that those small arms will be used for tyranny.

Hopefully this silly line of reasoning can now be laid to rest.

So basically nobody should ever try to rebel against a government, is that your argument?

As I said before, places in civil war or rebellions are horrible, and I'd hate to live in any of them. I'd still way rather live in a place like that while armed than one like North Korea where the government has absolute control.

Virtually every government in existence today got its start with a rebellion against someone else. Some turned out great, others didn't. Sure it may take a long time to get it right, but rebellion itself is not always a bad thing. Maybe right now the United States is worse off than if we'd never revolted against England, I don't know. Maybe Canada would be better off if it were still French, and Mexico if they were still Spanish. In the short term revolutions are horrible, and war in general is horrible. In the long term we've seen it work out in numerous places. Expecting a fully developed nation 20 years after a civil war is quite a lot to ask for though, and seems to be what you're looking for. Generally it's better to work within the government to make changes from within, but sometimes there are those certain dictators or regimes that can't be dealt with that way, and revolution is the only path forward. For example, it appears the Southern Sudanese were given 6 spots in their government out of a 800. What are they supposed to do about that?

By definition places that revolt are going to be shitholes, because nobody revolts unless they're in an absolutely horrible situation. That doesn't mean the rebellion is wrong, or that the rebellion made the country horrible. It was already horrible, the revolt is a symptom of that.

Edit: and I'm wasting way too much time on this thread. I'll concede the last word to you, but I'm gonna head out.


No.  My argument is that if things get to the point that armed revolution is your only way out, you have already lost.  At best you will win your rebellion and then be crushed for generations under the boots of whoever led your rebellion.  At worst you'll simply be crushed by the superior forces.  The kind of military led revolution that once (occasionally) happened doesn't take place any more.  This is why the founders are wrong about the second amendment . . . it's something that might have been valid in their time, but no longer is.

In the past, when people with pitchforks were rebelling against people with spears, or even when people with muskets were rebelling against other people with muskets things were less wildly slanted against the militia.  I'd argue that the only way you can "win" as a militia today with the incredibly extreme disadvantages you are facing when taking on a modern military is to go most extreme route possible.  That means that you're going to have a bloodthirsty and ruthless asshole of a leader . . . who will take over your country if you win.

I don't expect a fully developed nation 20, 40, or 60 years after a revolution.  I expect what modern history has taught us will happen . . . a tyrant who led the militia will form the head of government and continue to do bad shit.  The changes that eventually stop a tyrannical government aren't necessarily related to violent militias at all . . . and yes, they are very slow.  They happen over generations, requiring changes to the way that the people in power view and treat their subjects.  The violent overthrowing that you advocate rarely (if ever) seems to actually hasten this process at all.

Despite all the jingoistic rhetoric so commonly heard . . . in the end, some rifles and hand guns don't amount to any real benefit to the people of a country.  So, let's stop pretending that 'government tyranny' is any real reason to support weapons in the US.

nemesis

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #263 on: October 05, 2017, 11:04:01 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?
Here are a couple of articles sharing some info about when good guys with a guy stopped a mass attack (it's clear most mass gun attackers are cowards, they run and flee when confronted by anyone else with a gun, or they shoot themselves like this Las Vegas shooter... it doesn't take much, just a single person with a gun can fight back and end the fight or cause the attacker to retreat):

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

Guns are an equalizer for those who are physically weaker, especially women who are more vulnerable.

It seems to me mass killings happen in 2 common areas:  gun free zones, and places like Vegas where the shooter is either remote or elevated location that is hard to fight back right away.  This will be a game changer for public venue security, as it highlights a weak spot that should be taken into consideration for crowd protection.

Also, consider the fact that police have zero duty to protect your life as an individual - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html ... that means you are solely responsible for your own life when threatened.   Police can be minutes away, while your life may end in seconds.  I think that type of situation makes people more inclined to carry guns for self protection.

This post may make it seem I'm anti-gun control... I'm not.  I think sensible gun control makes sense.. the only problem - how do you define sensible?  Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned or gun ownership severely neutered, it makes it more likely that there will be more gun free zones where evil people can take advantage of to do great harm. 

So again I'm torn... I see the argument from both sides.  And I'm not sure gun control is the silver bullet (pardon the pun) to these complex issues.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 11:14:12 AM by nemesis »

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #264 on: October 05, 2017, 11:10:46 AM »
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

If you want to talk about Las Vegas you should talk about the people, tourists, police response, the heros at the event, the community, the off duty hospital staff, paramedics and EMTs who sped through city streets at 100MPH to get to work. Maybe how Las Vegas spends a massive amount of resources trying to keep millions of people safe every year, and has done so successfully for many years. This isn't just a city for people to visit and get entertained, real people live here, there are stories. Your gun control thread has nothing to do with Las Vegas. Las Vegas is just the most recent victim.

Let me help you get started.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-heroes/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/02/us/02reuters-usa-lasvegas-shooting-hospitals.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/04/555305057/listen-amid-chaos-in-las-vegas-police-dispatches-reveal-an-evolving-response
https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/SouthernNevadaCounterTerrorismCenter.aspx
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/counter-terrorism-fusion-center-opens-in-las-vegas/82001058
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooting-marine-veteran-steals-truck-drives-nearly-30-victims-hospital/726942001/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_x5qmiVMZYVkQpsrFpujfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT1weh9M1-s

Hey everyone, discussing the Las Vegas shooter and ways to prevent the Las Vegas shooting do not count as talking about Las Vegas. Only talk about the victims, or maybe a bachelor party you had there one time.

Again, for those in the back, the Las Vegas shooting had nothing to do with guns and guns cannot be talked about because that is off topic.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #265 on: October 05, 2017, 11:12:15 AM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2611
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #266 on: October 05, 2017, 11:13:08 AM »
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

If you want to talk about Las Vegas you should talk about the people, tourists, police response, the heros at the event, the community, the off duty hospital staff, paramedics and EMTs who sped through city streets at 100MPH to get to work. Maybe how Las Vegas spends a massive amount of resources trying to keep millions of people safe every year, and has done so successfully for many years. This isn't just a city for people to visit and get entertained, real people live here, there are stories. Your gun control thread has nothing to do with Las Vegas. Las Vegas is just the most recent victim.

Let me help you get started.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-heroes/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/02/us/02reuters-usa-lasvegas-shooting-hospitals.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/04/555305057/listen-amid-chaos-in-las-vegas-police-dispatches-reveal-an-evolving-response
https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/SouthernNevadaCounterTerrorismCenter.aspx
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/counter-terrorism-fusion-center-opens-in-las-vegas/82001058
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooting-marine-veteran-steals-truck-drives-nearly-30-victims-hospital/726942001/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_x5qmiVMZYVkQpsrFpujfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT1weh9M1-s

Hey everyone, discussing the Las Vegas shooter and ways to prevent the Las Vegas shooting do not count as talking about Las Vegas. Only talk about the victims, or maybe a bachelor party you had there one time.

Again, for those in the back, the Las Vegas shooting had nothing to do with guns and guns cannot be talked about because that is off topic.

I went there once. And I Skyped with a friend who lives there last night.

There. NOW we’re on topic.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

nemesis

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #267 on: October 05, 2017, 11:16:02 AM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.
Really?  Take California - they implemented the micro stamping order on pistols, essentially banning pretty much all modern pistols in California.  I don't think that's much of a lie.  And good luck getting a concealed carry permit in many areas in California. 

And you clipped my original post, which read: "Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned or gun ownership severely neutered" and then you replied to that as "lie"... doesn't help anyone.  What I stated is true.

By saying "lie" it helps no one.  Both sides are convinced the other side is lying.  People in the middle like me just throw our hands up and say f*** it...

If you're going to be that disingenuous about your anti-gun position, then it makes someone in the middle like me less trustful of the anti-gun proponents and push me more into the camp that is in favor of less gun control (ie libertarian point of view).
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 11:21:56 AM by nemesis »

BarkyardBQ

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 667
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #268 on: October 05, 2017, 11:18:36 AM »
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

If you want to talk about Las Vegas you should talk about the people, tourists, police response, the heros at the event, the community, the off duty hospital staff, paramedics and EMTs who sped through city streets at 100MPH to get to work. Maybe how Las Vegas spends a massive amount of resources trying to keep millions of people safe every year, and has done so successfully for many years. This isn't just a city for people to visit and get entertained, real people live here, there are stories. Your gun control thread has nothing to do with Las Vegas. Las Vegas is just the most recent victim.

Let me help you get started.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-heroes/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/02/us/02reuters-usa-lasvegas-shooting-hospitals.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/04/555305057/listen-amid-chaos-in-las-vegas-police-dispatches-reveal-an-evolving-response
https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/SouthernNevadaCounterTerrorismCenter.aspx
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/counter-terrorism-fusion-center-opens-in-las-vegas/82001058
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooting-marine-veteran-steals-truck-drives-nearly-30-victims-hospital/726942001/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_x5qmiVMZYVkQpsrFpujfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT1weh9M1-s

Hey everyone, discussing the Las Vegas shooter and ways to prevent the Las Vegas shooting do not count as talking about Las Vegas. Only talk about the victims, or maybe a bachelor party you had there one time.

Again, for those in the back, the Las Vegas shooting had nothing to do with guns and guns cannot be talked about because that is off topic.

Cute.

6 pages of a thread where the only place "Las Vegas" appears is in the title. The discussion has nothing to do with Las Vegas.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #269 on: October 05, 2017, 11:31:47 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?

I should have stated head of the NRA, LaPierre, and many of it's members. Some are for and some are against. LaPierre gave an interview on Fox news about 4 years ago trying to explain how background checks were useless, despite them preventing well over 1 million (my numbers were grossly underestimated) folks being denied for failing background checks. He complained about loopholes (which there admittedly are loopholes that need to be addressed, See: Adam Lanza and Ft. Lauderdale airport shooter). He alos complained about having to go to a dealer and spend money if he wanted to sell a gun to a friend. Keep in mind the cost is a whopping $5-15 typically. Years before he very much supporter background checks. Now, ehhh not so much.

So the NRA is not making any effort to dismantle the current background check system? I'm aware the NRA and many other are against expanding background checks, but haven't heard a peep about eliminating the current system.

Not that I am aware of, but I also am not heavily involved in the political happenings. But that has nothing to do with my comment. Not sure why you keep asking a question unrelated to my comment. LaPierre used what he believes to be the "failings" of the current background check system as a means to justify his stance opposing gun show background checks. If someone believes a system is failing, why would he then be for said system?

 “I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors.” - LaPierre's  response at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on preventing gun violence in 2013.


MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #270 on: October 05, 2017, 11:34:24 AM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.
Really?  Take California - they implemented the micro stamping order on pistols, essentially banning pretty much all modern pistols in California.  I don't think that's much of a lie.  And good luck getting a concealed carry permit in many areas in California. 

And you clipped my original post, which read: "Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned or gun ownership severely neutered" and then you replied to that as "lie"... doesn't help anyone.  What I stated is true.

By saying "lie" it helps no one.  Both sides are convinced the other side is lying.  People in the middle like me just throw our hands up and say f*** it...

If you're going to be that disingenuous about your anti-gun position, then it makes someone in the middle like me less trustful of the anti-gun proponents and push me more into the camp that is in favor of less gun control (ie libertarian point of view).

California instituted laws that would be more along the lines of "severely neutered" in your scenario. I am not aware of any blue state wanting to ban all guns outright.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #271 on: October 05, 2017, 11:36:01 AM »
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

If you want to talk about Las Vegas you should talk about the people, tourists, police response, the heros at the event, the community, the off duty hospital staff, paramedics and EMTs who sped through city streets at 100MPH to get to work. Maybe how Las Vegas spends a massive amount of resources trying to keep millions of people safe every year, and has done so successfully for many years. This isn't just a city for people to visit and get entertained, real people live here, there are stories. Your gun control thread has nothing to do with Las Vegas. Las Vegas is just the most recent victim.

Let me help you get started.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-heroes/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/02/us/02reuters-usa-lasvegas-shooting-hospitals.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/04/555305057/listen-amid-chaos-in-las-vegas-police-dispatches-reveal-an-evolving-response
https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/SouthernNevadaCounterTerrorismCenter.aspx
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/counter-terrorism-fusion-center-opens-in-las-vegas/82001058
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooting-marine-veteran-steals-truck-drives-nearly-30-victims-hospital/726942001/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_x5qmiVMZYVkQpsrFpujfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT1weh9M1-s

Hey everyone, discussing the Las Vegas shooter and ways to prevent the Las Vegas shooting do not count as talking about Las Vegas. Only talk about the victims, or maybe a bachelor party you had there one time.

Again, for those in the back, the Las Vegas shooting had nothing to do with guns and guns cannot be talked about because that is off topic.

Cute.

6 pages of a thread where the only place "Las Vegas" appears is in the title. The discussion has nothing to do with Las Vegas.

"would those gun laws have changed this event?" or phrases similar to that have been made numerous times on this discussion. "This" being a pronoun for Las Vegas.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

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

www.goarmy.com

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #272 on: October 05, 2017, 11:40:18 AM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.



Really?  Take California - they implemented the micro stamping order on pistols, essentially banning pretty much all modern pistols in California.  I don't think that's much of a lie.  And good luck getting a concealed carry permit in many areas in California. 

Microstamping doesn't prevent you from buying a new hand gun in California.  You can buy any brand new hand gun you want that does microstamping, any new non-semiautomatic hand gun, any semi-automatic hand gun on the approved list to be sold without microstamping, or any old handgun that was made before the microsamping rule came into effect.  (Then there are all the classes of gun not impacted by microstamping.)  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping

Certainly not even in the ballpark of approaching a 'ban on all guns'.



And you clipped my original post, which read: "Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned or gun ownership severely neutered" and then you replied to that as "lie"... doesn't help anyone.  What I stated is true.

"You're a rapist and I like the colour blue." 

Telling the truth in half a statement doesn't make the rest of the statement true.  I'm still lying in the first half (hopefully).  See how that works?



By saying "lie" it helps no one.  Both sides are convinced the other side is lying.  People in the middle like me just throw our hands up and say f*** it...

Save yourself frustration.  Next time, don't make objectively false claims.



By saying "lie" it helps no one.  Both sides are convinced the other side is lying.  People in the middle like me just throw our hands up and say f*** it...

If you're going to be that disingenuous about your anti-gun position, then it makes someone in the middle like me less trustful of the anti-gun proponents and push me more into the camp that is in favor of not having gun control (ie libertarian point of view).

You objectively lied and were called on it.  No state is considering the banning of all guns.  Not a single one.  To the best of my knowledge, no state has ever proposed that.  Countries with supposed 'strict gun laws' like Canada, Australia, and the UK don't even ban all guns.  It's a patently ridiculous comment to make.

I'm sorry if that makes you believe that gun control is bad.  (And particularly sorry if it turns you into a Libertarian.)  :P
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 11:43:56 AM by GuitarStv »

nemesis

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #273 on: October 05, 2017, 11:43:55 AM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.



Really?  Take California - they implemented the micro stamping order on pistols, essentially banning pretty much all modern pistols in California.  I don't think that's much of a lie.  And good luck getting a concealed carry permit in many areas in California. 

Microstamping doesn't prevent you from buying a new hand gun in California.  You can buy any brand new hand gun you want that does microstamping, any new non-semiautomatic hand gun, any semi-automatic hand gun on the approved list to be sold without microstamping, or any old handgun that was made before the microsamping rule came into effect.  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microstamping

Certainly not even approaching a 'ban on all guns'.



And you clipped my original post, which read: "Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned or gun ownership severely neutered" and then you replied to that as "lie"... doesn't help anyone.  What I stated is true.

"You're a rapist and I like the colour blue." 

Telling the truth in half a statement doesn't make the rest of the statement true.  I'm still lying in the first half.  See how that works?



By saying "lie" it helps no one.  Both sides are convinced the other side is lying.  People in the middle like me just throw our hands up and say f*** it...

Save yourself frustration.  Next time, don't make false claims.



By saying "lie" it helps no one.  Both sides are convinced the other side is lying.  People in the middle like me just throw our hands up and say f*** it...

If you're going to be that disingenuous about your anti-gun position, then it makes someone in the middle like me less trustful of the anti-gun proponents and push me more into the camp that is in favor of not having gun control (ie libertarian point of view).

You objectively lied and were called on it.  No state is considering the banning of all guns.  Not a single one.  To the best of my knowledge, no state has ever proposed that.  Countries with supposed 'strict gun laws' like Canada, Australia, and the UK don't even ban all guns.  It's a patently ridiculous comment to make.

I'm sorry if that makes you believe that gun control is bad.  (And particularly sorry if it turns you into a Libertarian.)  :P
Let's not be coy, you don't think some states / politicians wouldn't ban all guns if they had a chance?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2013/03/11/gun-makers-packing-their-bags-as-states-consider-bans.html

Right now it's politically unfeasible to ban all guns, but if some politicians (Feinstein, etc) start being able to severely restrict gun ownership, chipping away at gun ownership a little bit at a time, eventually they will arrive at the end game - removing gun ownership for all except law enforcement and criminals. 

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #274 on: October 05, 2017, 11:48:15 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?

I should have stated head of the NRA, LaPierre, and many of it's members. Some are for and some are against. LaPierre gave an interview on Fox news about 4 years ago trying to explain how background checks were useless, despite them preventing well over 1 million (my numbers were grossly underestimated) folks being denied for failing background checks. He complained about loopholes (which there admittedly are loopholes that need to be addressed, See: Adam Lanza and Ft. Lauderdale airport shooter). He alos complained about having to go to a dealer and spend money if he wanted to sell a gun to a friend. Keep in mind the cost is a whopping $5-15 typically. Years before he very much supporter background checks. Now, ehhh not so much.

So the NRA is not making any effort to dismantle the current background check system? I'm aware the NRA and many other are against expanding background checks, but haven't heard a peep about eliminating the current system.

Not that I am aware of, but I also am not heavily involved in the political happenings. But that has nothing to do with my comment. Not sure why you keep asking a question unrelated to my comment. LaPierre used what he believes to be the "failings" of the current background check system as a means to justify his stance opposing gun show background checks. If someone believes a system is failing, why would he then be for said system?

 “I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors.” - LaPierre's  response at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on preventing gun violence in 2013.

You stated the "keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks"

This implies the NRA and others are trying to rollback background checks (which is false).  I'm simply pointing that no one is trying to roll back background checks as you implied.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #275 on: October 05, 2017, 11:50:41 AM »
Let's not be coy, you don't think some states / politicians wouldn't ban all guns if they had a chance?

I don't know how to read minds so can't tell you what others think.  Certainly, there has been no indication of any kind that any state has ever considered banning all guns.  FWIW, I'd be against banning all guns here in Canada (I have spent many years hunting with friends for deer and partridge) . . . and I strongly support gun control.


http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2013/03/11/gun-makers-packing-their-bags-as-states-consider-bans.html

Right now it's politically unfeasible to ban all guns, but if some politicians (Feinstein, etc) start being able to severely restrict gun ownership, chipping away at gun ownership a little bit at a time, eventually they will arrive at the end game - removing gun ownership for all except law enforcement and criminals.

As I mentioned, it's not politically feasible to ban all guns in Canada . . . even though the vast majority of people support gun control.  We have restrictions on firearms and there is no real push to ban guns.  I'm not sure why you think the end-game of politicians in favour of gun control in your country want to ban all guns when nobody has actually tried to do this.  It seems kinda like fear mongering.

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #276 on: October 05, 2017, 11:56:54 AM »

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've not chimed in on this discussion much, but this point has come up a few times, but this was the most, I don't know, .....direct????

I'd love to really understand the fantasy where individual citizens with guns are going to stand up to government tyranny?  Are you planning on holing up in your shed and shooting it out with the police when you disagree with them, because that's who your first contact with a tyrannical government will be.  And while you plan that, have you worked out your network of neighbors and your minuteman call sign to be able to get them to one place in a moments notice?  Because larger groups than one lone citizen with a gun have tried to stand up to the government, with out much success.  This to me is one of the poorest arguments for why we need guns.    Are we seriously thinking there is some favorable path to a good outcome if we get into a shooting match with the police and army (which would be the arms of government tyranny that will respond to a gun wielding citizen trying to rebel)?  Do we really think that a situation that amounts to "well, if I have my guns they'll behave because they're scared of me and my guns" is in any way a healthy relationship between said citizen and his government, who by the way, they had a hand in electing?

ETA:  And I'd suggest reading "Lights Out" by Ted Koppel if you want a rather seasoned assessment about how those guns and supplies will actually help you have any chance of survival beyond a  few extra days before you too die, to address your side benefit in an extended disaster.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 11:59:09 AM by caracarn »

nemesis

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 51
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #277 on: October 05, 2017, 12:00:54 PM »
Noodling on this further, here are some random thoughts I have on this topic:

1. The focus should be on mass shooting prevention, and crowd security.  It seems gun free zones should be better protected (which may be impractical), or eliminated.  Perhaps have trusted zones where only people who have gone through background checks / severe vetting can carry guns in those places.  This means people like ex-law enforcement, private security guards (who are allowed to carry guns in the course of their jobs), people with government security clearances, etc., can carry guns in places like concerts, schools, etc.  That means there are more potential lawful defenders of innocent people against someone who is crazy or evil enough to attack innocent people.     

2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

3. Technology will eventually solve or eliminate gun crimes.  Advanced gun shot sensor analysis devices will instantly pinpoint where a shot is coming from, enabling rapid response.  Public and private cameras will capture perpetrators and their movements, making their gun crimes a single event that ends in their capture or demise.  Advanced future sensors (combination infrared / mass detection / metal detection technology) can detect when people are carrying firearms or ammo, or even explosives or other dangerous devices, and set off alarms for rapid response.  These technologies will probably evolve sooner rather than later, as we are on the cusp of a new era where, like it or not, your every public movement will be analyzed and tracked as soon as you step outside your home. 

4. Suzanna Gratia Hupp's testimonty was very compelling to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis  in terms of being vulnerable as a victim in a mass shooting situation.

5. Evil people will do evil things, instead of singularly focusing on the exact method they used at any one time, focus on how to improve public safety in combination of factors - how to deter / prevent innocent people from harm by any number of factors - guns, explosives, vehicles, etc.   Where this is a will, there will be a way for bad people to do bad things.  If we can enable more good people to have tools to fight back against bad people, and better design public security / safety, society as a whole should be better off.

6. If I could snap a finger and have all guns disappear from this planet, I would.  That ain't happening, so if the chances are that bad guys will have guns, then good guys / gals should have guns.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.

/end my random stream of thoughts on this topic.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #278 on: October 05, 2017, 12:46:12 PM »
I'm simply pointing that no one is trying to roll back background checks as you implied.

I implied no such thing. You implied it. In case you were somehow confused.

..... keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #279 on: October 05, 2017, 12:53:57 PM »
I'm simply pointing that no one is trying to roll back background checks as you implied.

I implied no such thing. You implied it. In case you were somehow confused.

..... keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks.

If that's not what you meant fine.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #280 on: October 05, 2017, 12:58:00 PM »
2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.
#2. Why do we need a national concealed carry permit? What's the point of that? Why not just make federal gun laws/background check database to apply across the land. Kinda stupid that you have to check laws when taking firearms across state boarders as it is now. However, I am down with an in depth weapons course every firearms owner should have to complete. While we're at it, why have "voluntary" registration? Should be mandatory along with that firearms course. Once you take the course and pass the federal background check, then you can register the firearm of your choice.

#7. I think alcohol vs weapons is a pretty faulty comparison.

Edit to add...I don't really see that 99% good stopping the 1% evil with all the weapons we already have. One large subset of killers in the US is....toddlers.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 01:03:52 PM by accolay »

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #281 on: October 05, 2017, 01:17:24 PM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned
Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.

I can only speak for myself. I live in a blue part of a blue state....but to say that the entire state is only filled with crazy liberals like myself is incorrect, as it would be to say that all red states are filled with "conservative" nut jobs. Besides, conservatives have gerrymandered

But yeah, I think banning all guns is a great idea. But being realistic, it's not going to happen. Too much money and gun dogma in the US.

But in other news, bumper stocks have been selling like hotcakes since congress is talking about banning them. Sorry to say though, as I understand existing items wont be grandfathered.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7019
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #282 on: October 05, 2017, 01:21:02 PM »
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.

There were some problems with the registry, but it was dismantled along the baby and bathwater lines.  And the Province of Quebec appealed it.  Quebec has had some of the nastiest ones (nothing like in the US, but still nasty to us) and people (including rural residents) are sick of it.  The most recent (that I am aware of) in Quebec was vehicular, because it is difficult to do it with guns.
The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

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

Peter Parker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #283 on: October 05, 2017, 01:21:33 PM »
We tend to think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  And we think the Supreme Court Justices all look at the Constitution the same way.  But they don’t.  They are human, come to the bench with bias and prejudices, and read our founding father’s work differently.

The 2nd Amendment states:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this mean? For me (and some legal scholars) the second part (....”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is solely for the purpose of having the first part (having a “well-regulated militia”  for the “security of a free state.”)

If you read it this way too, then you have to ask yourself, what is a “militia?” According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a militia is “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for the discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.”   Further, “enrolled” according to Black’s means “registered; recorded” and “emergencies” according to Black’s is a “sudden unexpected happening, an unforeseen occurrence or condition.”
 
So, it seems to me that people who wish to be part of a militia should register to do so. They should act as a "military force" rather than a bunch of individuals garnishing weapons.   The type of arms they wish to obtain should be regulated for necessity of securing “a free state.”  Further, these arms should only be employed during “emergencies.”

If you read the 2nd Amendment’s phrase that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual right that shall not be infringed (and not limited to the notions of a “militia”) then you also have to believe that right would be unfettered by regulation, thus allowing individuals to “bear any arms they wish…”  Automatic rifles?  Fine.  Grenades?  Fine.  Tank?  Fine.  To me this makes no sense.
 
I come down on the side that the right to bear arms is limited to the sole purpose of a controlled, regulated, militia which is needed only for emergencies. 

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7019
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #284 on: October 05, 2017, 01:27:49 PM »
Since we are talking terrorist attacks and guns, inspired by the Las Vegas mess, let's look at this one:
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/it-was-textbook-how-edmonton-police-masterfully-prevented-a-mass-casualty-terrorist-attack

It failed, so it is not making big news.  The analysis of a counter-terrorist analysis is that the local police did everything right.

This excerpt is interesting:
The alleged actions of Abdulahi Hasan Sharif clearly indicate a man who did not have access to a firearm, and was forced to rely on everyday items. Sharif could conceivably have signed up for a Canadian Firearms Safety Course and then applied for a Possession and Acquisition License. During the screening process, however, it’s possible he could have been blocked due to an inconclusive 2015 police investigation into his alleged religious extremism. However, a key aspect of ISIL-inspired lone wolf attacks is that they’re supposed to be spontaneous and involve little to no planning. “Previous types of terrorist attacks you would be actively securing explosives and fertilizer and chemicals and things like that; those raise a lot more flags,” said Michael Zekulin, a terrorism and radicalization researcher at the University of Calgary. In short, if a would-be ISIL attacker doesn’t already have a gun around the house, the standard strategy is not to bother trying to get one.

How would this have played out in the US, where someone like this would easily get weapons?

The measure of civilization is how people treat one another.

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

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #285 on: October 05, 2017, 02:04:30 PM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned
Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.

I can only speak for myself. I live in a blue part of a blue state....but to say that the entire state is only filled with crazy liberals like myself is incorrect, as it would be to say that all red states are filled with "conservative" nut jobs. Besides, conservatives have gerrymandered


"Red" or "Blue" tends to be measured against their governmental representation. I grew up in California where as long as I can remember we've had two Democrat senators, our state legislature has had Democrat majorities since my parents were kids, 39/53 House representatives are Democrat, and our Electoral College votes go to Democrats.  There are a ton of Republicans in California, but they're not the ones making the majority of the decisions for the state (hence why it's called "blue.")
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

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

www.goarmy.com

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 518
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #286 on: October 05, 2017, 02:35:53 PM »
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned
Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.

I can only speak for myself. I live in a blue part of a blue state....but to say that the entire state is only filled with crazy liberals like myself is incorrect, as it would be to say that all red states are filled with "conservative" nut jobs. Besides, conservatives have gerrymandered


"Red" or "Blue" tends to be measured against their governmental representation. I grew up in California where as long as I can remember we've had two Democrat senators, our state legislature has had Democrat majorities since my parents were kids, 39/53 House representatives are Democrat, and our Electoral College votes go to Democrats.  There are a ton of Republicans in California, but they're not the ones making the majority of the decisions for the state (hence why it's called "blue.")


Blue/Red only become hardcore wedge issues recently. New York and New Jersey have some differences in gun laws despite both being blue states and being right next to each other.
Among the most permissive states is Vermont, which is wayyyy Blue. You want a silenced machine gun and you want to march it outside city hall? Go right on ahead, sir, no permit required, and would you like 20,000 rounds of ammo to go with that?

New Hampshire is up there as well, which is a swing state.

The most restrictive states are all Blue, and there are additional localities within those blue states with even heavier restrictions. It's unlikely that they could translate this into a national ban even if Constitutionally permitted because any sort of national policy like this is insanely hard. The analogy might be to single payer healthcare: almost impossible to do at a national level, but several states have already floated proposals and might move in that direction in 10-20 years if permitted.


caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #287 on: October 05, 2017, 03:11:49 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.

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
He posted another article today with a proposed solution.

Basically he talks about extending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to extend to rifles with regards to multiple purchases.  Handguns have been under this since 1968 without issue.  Might be worth a read for those who are interested.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #288 on: October 05, 2017, 04:03:09 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.

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
He posted another article today with a proposed solution.

Basically he talks about extending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to extend to rifles with regards to multiple purchases.  Handguns have been under this since 1968 without issue.  Might be worth a read for those who are interested.

I literally just read that. He has some very good viable solutions. 

https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/05/A-Simple-Solution-For-Both-Sides

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #289 on: October 05, 2017, 04:35:23 PM »
Noodling on this further, here are some random thoughts I have on this topic:

1. The focus should be on mass shooting prevention, and crowd security.  It seems gun free zones should be better protected (which may be impractical), or eliminated.  Perhaps have trusted zones where only people who have gone through background checks / severe vetting can carry guns in those places.  This means people like ex-law enforcement, private security guards (who are allowed to carry guns in the course of their jobs), people with government security clearances, etc., can carry guns in places like concerts, schools, etc.  That means there are more potential lawful defenders of innocent people against someone who is crazy or evil enough to attack innocent people.     

...

I could very much get behind a federal level (issued by states but reciprocal between all states) "Advanced License To Carry" that includes in depth background checks, annualized automatic background checks and possibly even mental health evaluations that would then allow the A-LTC holder to carry anywhere.  This would permit school admins or principals to carry on campus (a common request around Tx), off-duty police or military to worry much less about crossing state lines, and would open up security/personal defense options.

You get the best of both worlds that those with expanded rights have the restrictions of evaluations and stringent background checks, but with the expanded rights that allow carrying in certain areas.

Not a bad idea considering it could be implemented above and beyond state-level license to carry that currently exists and works with the current system of federal gun free zones.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #290 on: October 05, 2017, 05:43:09 PM »
I think comparisons between guns and cars are very useful. Guns and cars kill aproximately the same number of people (cars a little more than guns). More gun deaths are intentional, but also about 2/3 of them are suicide, so far more inocent people are (unintentionally) killed by the choices of drivers than are intentionally killed by people with guns.

I've been reading Happy City and find it full of convincing arguments that cars have been detrimental to the happiness of our cities by eliminating the kinds of spaces that support covinial public life. I wonder how much of our mental illness problems (which occasionally lead to mass shootings) are influenced by the problems in city life we have created by prioritizing the private car over other means of transportation.

I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

Restricting weapon types and magazine size, requiring registration, etc. can be interpreted as infringing the right to keep and bare arms if you interprete the 2nd ammendment as a right to the means of defending yourself from a tyranical government. While this is a valid ideological argument, it is not a pragmatic one; I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this type of gun control.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #291 on: October 05, 2017, 06:02:52 PM »
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
My Journal: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/will-i-or-won't-i-a-home-run-or-a-base-hit/

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

www.goarmy.com

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #292 on: October 05, 2017, 08:38:21 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.

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
He posted another article today with a proposed solution.

Basically he talks about extending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to extend to rifles with regards to multiple purchases.  Handguns have been under this since 1968 without issue.  Might be worth a read for those who are interested.

I literally just read that. He has some very good viable solutions. 

https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/05/A-Simple-Solution-For-Both-Sides
I'd be very interested in those on the side of "propose something that would make a difference and is not infringing on my gun rights" to read Officer McMillan's proposal and comment here.

Heywood57

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 77

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #294 on: October 06, 2017, 05:18:57 AM »
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.

Driving itself is a privilege, but that has nothing to do with why specialized training is required.  We aren't born with the knowledge of the rules of the road. If the right to drive suddenly became an amendment, drivers ed wouldn't suddenly disappear. 

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #295 on: October 06, 2017, 05:56:48 AM »
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
I think this analogy falls apart on it's own.

The Constitution also has the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  While they are rights, you are not given them, you still need to do things to maintain them.  If I commit a crime, I lose my right of liberty, and if the crime is egregious enough I lose my right of life because I will be executed.  Therefore trying to argue that you cannot put rules into place that boil down to someone not giving you permission to exercise a Constitutional right is patently absurd.  Those laws that remove my right to life and liberty and not in the Constitution, they are in the criminal code.  Having rules for guns codified in other legislation is the exact same thing and does not permit anything different than the other example I cited that we do not have a societal uproar about.  No one if saying "you can pry my liberty from my cold dead hands" and submit themselves to the rule of law when they rob the mini mart and get put in jail.  But yet guns are magically different even though they are not.  Both rights are in the Constitution.  We need to stop thinking the Second Amendment is somehow not subject to the same restrictions and is automatically unassailable.

I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on Officer McMillan's proposal to make small changes to already accepted legislation that puts us on better footing and more importantly answers the question "how could this have stopped Las Vegas?"

caracarn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 821
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #296 on: October 06, 2017, 06:29:10 AM »
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
I think this analogy falls apart on it's own.

The Constitution also has the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  While they are rights, you are not given them, you still need to do things to maintain them.  If I commit a crime, I lose my right of liberty, and if the crime is egregious enough I lose my right of life because I will be executed.  Therefore trying to argue that you cannot put rules into place that boil down to someone not giving you permission to exercise a Constitutional right is patently absurd.  Those laws that remove my right to life and liberty and not in the Constitution, they are in the criminal code.  Having rules for guns codified in other legislation is the exact same thing and does not permit anything different than the other example I cited that we do not have a societal uproar about.  No one if saying "you can pry my liberty from my cold dead hands" and submit themselves to the rule of law when they rob the mini mart and get put in jail.  But yet guns are magically different even though they are not.  Both rights are in the Constitution.  We need to stop thinking the Second Amendment is somehow not subject to the same restrictions and is automatically unassailable.

I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on Officer McMillan's proposal to make small changes to already accepted legislation that puts us on better footing and more importantly answers the question "how could this have stopped Las Vegas?"

I'm guessing the answer is going to be a flat refusal, given that McMillan's proposal includes allowing the digitization of the current records system, which people in this thread have already vehemently refused.
OK, but they've refused it for a reason he addresses as well.  Read the other Business Insider article on page 3 of this thread about  how a gun trace works.  Even without digitization they still can get traces done in a hour with paper records.  And digitizing the records does not provide anything the other method does not because he's not proposing adding names to the records in the computer.  The entire process to tie a gun to a name would still require a warrant. 

Point being if they read the proposal closely without skimming it and seeing the word "computer" and throwing up their hands and yelling "no computer" then I think it would a good discussion to have.  The writer is a pro-gun advocate.  He's not some nut out to kill that off.  He's also a police officer that has to deal with the mess of things like Las Vegas or the Pulse club that he uses as the latest examples of how to simple changes could possibly, in a real way, have prevented the two incidents.  The tie to Mateen or Paddock still could not have happened with all the protections of the legal system the NRA stands behind.  All the digitization of the records would have flagged more easily is that a purchase of a gun and an assault rifle were made together or that 30 assault rifles were bought at one time.  The investigator still needs to convince a judge to issue a warrant to get the name, and if they can't prove their case that the search is warranted, they get nothing.

AdrianC

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 793
  • Location: Cincinnati
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #297 on: October 06, 2017, 06:45:35 AM »
A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).
Agreed.

Our high rate of gun ownership results in our high gun related death rate and high murder rate.

This the price we pay for our right to own guns.

No sane, law-abiding person wants any of these things to happen, the murders, mass shootings, suicides, accidental killings when a kid picks up an unsecured gun. They are the sacrifices we as a nation are willing to make for our freedom and right to own a gun. Let’s just say it.

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #298 on: October 06, 2017, 08:37:47 AM »
The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws.
That's why I only support "shall issue" permit laws, not "may issue" permit laws. In "may issue" juristictions, the issuer can deny the application on a whim, in "shall issue" juristictions they are legally required to issue the permit unless there is a specific reason the permit must be denied. Sure a clerk not doing their job right might mean a few applicants are denied and need to persue correction of the error with the clerk's management and/or the court system. This is an unfair inconvienience to the applicant and may involve extra upfront costs; however, ultimately the extra financial burden would fall apon the issuing agency.

Peter Parker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 165
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #299 on: October 06, 2017, 09:10:58 AM »
This guy sums up my feeling about gun control.  It's hilarious if you haven't seen it...

https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0

and

https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4