Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 27583 times)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2017, 09:03:34 AM »
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?

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

You original topic was gun control in the wake of a mass shooting.  Unless you don't know what a bumpfire stock is, I'm not sure how you would perceive discussion regarding something that may have dramatically contributed to the casualty rate off topic.

Cwadda

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1966
  • Age: 23
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2017, 09:14:14 AM »
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

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

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

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

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

Thank you for bettering my understanding of world history.  Admittedly, I only took a single history class in college, and only a small handful in high school so my knowledge is very limited.  My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the idea of protecting people from a tyrannical government.  A form of checks and balances, if you will.  In some cases (i.e. Hitler, Nazis), it definitely provides civilians a way of creating perpetuating tyrant power. But I do not think this necessarily applies to all cases.  "The idea of fighting off a tyrannical government with small arms is pure myth", but is there an alternate method of fighting off such a government? To what extent should people have the right to resist?

To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns.  However, I do not think banning semi-automatic rifles is a viable solution (which is what I interpreted former player's language was suggesting, but perhaps I was jumping to conclusions?)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 09:16:05 AM by Cwadda »

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2017, 09:16:30 AM »
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?

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

You original topic was gun control in the wake of a mass shooting.  Unless you don't know what a bumpfire stock is, I'm not sure how you would perceive discussion regarding something that may have dramatically contributed to the casualty rate off topic.

How about in my eyes, "away from topic" instead? Not going to get into a pissing match about it though.

In current news: Pat Robertson blames the massacre on lack of respect for Donald Trump. And Shawn Hannity says it's shameful to discuss gun control now.
Fuck those guys.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2017, 09:19:20 AM »
Fox and friends blames it on CNN and the shooter's lack of religion.

Dabnasty

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2017, 09:19:32 AM »
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

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

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

Personally I'm at a loss for what we can do about these incidents other than examining the problem from a mental health standpoint (which may not have prevented this case but could prevent others), but I think there's a lot we can do about gun violence/accidents in general. I agree with Milkshake that it is far too easy to buy a gun. Why not require a license. Why not require training.

Mass killings are what bring the conversation up but the conversation we should be having really doesn't apply to most of these cases. From what I see no one should own or operate a gun without understanding it thoroughly. If they make a mistake they should be held responsible for the outcome and most likely have their right to own a gun revoked. These are just ideas. I don't know what laws would actually reduce gun deaths, but it would be nice if we could talk about it without being offended by those who have opposing views.

Shanksy

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Phoenix, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2017, 09:21:24 AM »
When I was a lot younger and more naive, I had a long discussion with my best friend about guns, and it was something along the lines of, I believed people were primarily good and she believed people were primarily bad. As a person who believed others to be primarily bad, she needed to protect herself from them by owning a gun. I recall a time when she visited me and brought her gun in with her because she thought I lived in a bad neighborhood. I don't still believe people are primarily good. I believe we are all capable of doing good things though.

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

If you are a gun owner who believes in the 'bad guy' myth, might be worth doing some internal reflection, because the shooter above, he might have been you. He could be any of us. It's a funny thing when these things happen, we all sympathize with the victims, OMG it could have been me! The alternative is also true. IF you have access to guns that is.

 

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2017, 09:23:37 AM »
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

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

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

Clearly he had some mental issues because last time I checked, normal folks don't gun down hundreds of people. He may have been flagged in a mandatory mental health screening.

Do we know that taking a drivers ed course will prevent every instance of traffic accidents? Obviously it doesn't. Accidents happen all the time. Am I still glad that you have to take drivers ed before you go zooming around the countryside? Absolutely. Regulations =/= Gun grabbing.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 09:28:03 AM by Milkshake »

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2017, 09:28:57 AM »
1. Require corresponding liability insurance for arsenals and keep them out of the hands of mentally ill young men
I firmly believe that scores of little children from Newtown would be alive right now if Nancy Lanza (who was reportedly an off her rocker doomsday prepper and should never have owned an arsenal) had been escorted home from the facility where she had arranged to send her son with a LEO or security officer who could have secured the weapons in the house and completed the transfer of Adam Lanza.  Who knows why this didn't happen, but there is a link between young men, mental illness, and arsenals.  Did the doctors not ask because of existing gag laws that prevent them from asking about weapons?  The existence of so many weapons in a house with such an unstable and nonfunctional young man should have warranted more than a "OK-we'll see you next week"  I also believe that laws that required heightened insurance coverage and ensuing storage for arsenals might have reduced her insatiable quest for guns.  Particularly if insurance pricing considered the risk involved in an unemployed and mentally ill adult son in the home.  Pricing for one gun would still be within reach, but an arsenal should carry much higher costs.  There is some connection between these shootings and amassing an arsenal, and I'm not sure if it's a chicken or egg problem.  The LV shooter could have accomplished his evil with far fewer guns, but he wanted an arsenal.  Does amassing the arsenal play a part in the psychology of the crime?  Who knows?  Not us, because the CDC isn't allowed to do the research.

2. Prosecute idiots whose negligence results in accidents/deaths
Leave your gun in your purse and your kids shoots someone?  Go to prison.  Concealed carry and your gun drops out of your pocket and goes off?  Pay an enormous fine if no one is hurt, go to prison if someone is hurt.  Never get another license again regardless.  What's that?  Accidents happen?  Sorry-but don't gun people spend a LOT of time telling us that accidental discharges are impossible and that's why concealed carry is no problem?  Then this should never happen to a responsible gun owner.

3. Enforce straw sale laws, and close gun show loopholes/ normalize enforcement of restrictions on domestic violence offenders
This is one area where many deaths can be prevented.  A domestic violence citation and the presence of guns carries enormous future risk to the victim. Send a LEO officer to collect guns, tighten up access to other guns by enforcing straw sale laws and closing loopholes.  Enhance penalties for those whose negligence allows offenders access to a gun.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2017, 09:30:58 AM »
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

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

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

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

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

Thank you for bettering my understanding of world history.  Admittedly, I only took a single history class in college, and only a small handful in high school so my knowledge is very limited.  My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the idea of protecting people from a tyrannical government.  A form of checks and balances, if you will.  In some cases (i.e. Hitler, Nazis), it definitely provides civilians a way of creating perpetuating tyrant power. But I do not think this necessarily applies to all cases.  "The idea of fighting off a tyrannical government with small arms is pure myth", but is there an alternate method of fighting off such a government?

If the government is popular and powerful enough, no.  There is no real way to fight them off and they will likely stay in power for ages.  If a government is weak and there is a critical mass of people who want revolution . . . they'll have a revolution, guns or no guns.   As I mentioned, there are several tyrannically ruled countries with very high small arms ownership rates where no attempt has been made to overthrow the government . . . because people living in these situations realize the futility of the attempt.

The 2nd amendment is pretty goofy.  In the United States, there is legal and governmental framework in place that prevents someone like Trump from becoming too tyrannical.  If this system fails, a disorganized rabble with small arms aren't likely to amount to much.  (Even in the American revolutionary war, the militias weren't particularly effective.)  Based on history, if they do manage to somehow topple the US military, the US government, and then implement their own ruler . . . he will be a terrible despot anyway.  So, do you want to be ruled by the iron fist of the tyrannical government, or by the iron fist of the militia leader who topples the tyrannical government?

Or . . . do you want to accept that toppling a tyrannical government really has little to nothing to do with owning a gun in modern America?



Quote
To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns.  However, I do not think banning semi-automatic rifles is a viable solution (which is what I interpreted former player's language was suggesting, but perhaps I was jumping to conclusions?)

The main argument against permits is related to the 'I'm Rambo and will topple a tyrannical government with my trusty rifle' viewpoint.  Once it is more widely accepted that this argument has no validity, some movement on permits and registration should be possible.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 09:35:07 AM by GuitarStv »

MissMoneyBags

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2017, 09:36:34 AM »
As a European, I've always had a hard time understanding the lack of gun control in the US. I've never held a gun, and I wouldn't have a clue how to get hold of one. I don't know anybody who owns a gun. Most police officers in the UK don't even carry one. The statistics speak for themselves. In countries with tighter regulations, deaths by guns, and mass shootings are way way below that of the US.

I'm sure most people who own a gun, are law abiding citizens - but so was this guy, until he went crazy and killed 59 people and injured 527. If someone has a psychotic episode in other developed countries, they have NO access to guns. They may stab someone with a kitchen knife - they may punch someone. But they wouldn't be able to kill 59 people in a matter of minutes.

Sure, gun regulations may infringe on personal freedom, but so do many other laws. It's called living in a civilized society, and abiding by the rules that are best for the majority.


Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #60 on: October 03, 2017, 09:38:00 AM »
1. Require corresponding liability insurance for arsenals and keep them out of the hands of mentally ill young men
I firmly believe that scores of little children from Newtown would be alive right now if Nancy Lanza (who was reportedly an off her rocker doomsday prepper and should never have owned an arsenal) had been escorted home from the facility where she had arranged to send her son with a LEO or security officer who could have secured the weapons in the house and completed the transfer of Adam Lanza.  Who knows why this didn't happen, but there is a link between young men, mental illness, and arsenals.  Did the doctors not ask because of existing gag laws that prevent them from asking about weapons?  The existence of so many weapons in a house with such an unstable and nonfunctional young man should have warranted more than a "OK-we'll see you next week"  I also believe that laws that required heightened insurance coverage and ensuing storage for arsenals might have reduced her insatiable quest for guns.  Particularly if insurance pricing considered the risk involved in an unemployed and mentally ill adult son in the home.  Pricing for one gun would still be within reach, but an arsenal should carry much higher costs.  There is some connection between these shootings and amassing an arsenal, and I'm not sure if it's a chicken or egg problem.  The LV shooter could have accomplished his evil with far fewer guns, but he wanted an arsenal.  Does amassing the arsenal play a part in the psychology of the crime?  Who knows?  Not us, because the CDC isn't allowed to do the research.

2. Prosecute idiots whose negligence results in accidents/deaths
Leave your gun in your purse and your kids shoots someone?  Go to prison.  Concealed carry and your gun drops out of your pocket and goes off?  Pay an enormous fine if no one is hurt, go to prison if someone is hurt.  Never get another license again regardless.  What's that?  Accidents happen?  Sorry-but don't gun people spend a LOT of time telling us that accidental discharges are impossible and that's why concealed carry is no problem?  Then this should never happen to a responsible gun owner.

3. Enforce straw sale laws, and close gun show loopholes/ normalize enforcement of restrictions on domestic violence offenders
This is one area where many deaths can be prevented.  A domestic violence citation and the presence of guns carries enormous future risk to the victim. Send a LEO officer to collect guns, tighten up access to other guns by enforcing straw sale laws and closing loopholes.  Enhance penalties for those whose negligence allows offenders access to a gun.


+1

The best part is, people can still get a gun (or more) if they want for self defense and target shooting. No rights were infringed! Win-win-win. Everybody wins. Elementary schoolers get to go home and open Christmas presents.

Just as your right to freedom goes away when you screw up (go to prison), your right to gun ownership goes away when you screw up.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2017, 09:40:37 AM »
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?
My honest opinion?  They're a gimmick.  You can get the same effect using a block of wood (seriously!).  With a little bit of practice, you can "bump fire" a semiautomatic rifle with no modifications.  A bumpfire stock just makes it easier for the average Joe to spend more money on ammunition :)

I'd like to point out also that unless you've practiced with it, it's quite difficult to control muzzle climb when firing rapidly, whether you're shooting with a fully automatic weapon or rapidly pulling the trigger on a semiauto.  That's part of the reason why US troops carry rifles that can fire once per trigger pull (semiauto), or three times (burst). Any more than that, and you're just wasting ammunition.  Every action movie gets this wrong, BTW.

To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns. 
Can you help me understand how such stricter laws would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?  The guy was clearly willing and able to jump through the regulatory hoops.
Quote
Personally I'm at a loss for what we can do about these incidents other than examining the problem from a mental health standpoint (which may not have prevented this case but could prevent others), but I think there's a lot we can do about gun violence/accidents in general. I agree with Milkshake that it is far too easy to buy a gun. Why not require a license. Why not require training.

Mass killings are what bring the conversation up but the conversation we should be having really doesn't apply to most of these cases. From what I see no one should own or operate a gun without understanding it thoroughly. If they make a mistake they should be held responsible for the outcome and most likely have their right to own a gun revoked. These are just ideas. I don't know what laws would actually reduce gun deaths, but it would be nice if we could talk about it without being offended by those who have opposing views.
I'd like to address a few bolded points above:
--Can we leave accidents out of the current discussion?  I know it's an important issue to a lot of people, but I feel it's not really relevant to the current discussion.
--It still sounds like this guy would have passed any mental health screening.
--I'm not sure where this concern comes from--gun owners are already responsible for what they do with a gun.  Is there a hole in this that I'm missing?
--This is a big reason why pro-gun people are extremely hostile to mentions of gun control--short of outright confiscation (or a forced buy-back, a la Australia) of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, I haven't seen any specific proposals that would be more effective than the laws that are already on the books.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #62 on: October 03, 2017, 09:41:39 AM »
those against gun control will have to be personally involved in such tragedy before something is done.
I rest my case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band
"Guitarist says Las Vegas concert attack changed his mind on gun control"

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1211
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #63 on: October 03, 2017, 09:49:53 AM »
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?
My honest opinion?  They're a gimmick.  You can get the same effect using a block of wood (seriously!).  With a little bit of practice, you can "bump fire" a semiautomatic rifle with no modifications.  A bumpfire stock just makes it easier for the average Joe to spend more money on ammunition :)

I'd like to point out also that unless you've practiced with it, it's quite difficult to control muzzle climb when firing rapidly, whether you're shooting with a fully automatic weapon or rapidly pulling the trigger on a semiauto.  That's part of the reason why US troops carry rifles that can fire once per trigger pull (semiauto), or three times (burst). Any more than that, and you're just wasting ammunition.  Every action movie gets this wrong, BTW.

Clearly the rate of fire contributed to this. When your objective is indiscriminate firing into a crowd, accuracy is not exactly paramount.  if the stock was a bumpfire or similar device, I would be open to having that conversation.

I couldn't pull the trigger fast enough for what I heard on those tapes.

omachi

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #64 on: October 03, 2017, 09:52:38 AM »
There are two points on gun control that I have, both relating to the 2nd amendment.

First point, it's an amendment to the constitution and enshrines the right of Americans to bear armaments. There is a process for amending the constitution. We have repealed amendments to the constitution before. In order to enact gun control we should have to amend this amendment. Either tone it down or repeal it entirely, fine. But removing our rights in the constitution without altering it is something I'd rather not see happen due to the precedent it would set for all the other rights we have.

Second point, the second amendment is irrelevant when it comes to stopping tyranny. Ask anybody that thinks it is a couple simple questions: What event will indicate to them that tyranny has come and it's time for violent revolution? When will they start shooting people in the government? The best answers seem to be when they start shooting civilians. Many answer that or when the government starts confiscating weapons. But there's no need for a tyrannical government to do either of these things. Just erode away all the rights we have slowly but surely, increase the number of things people can be put in jail for, and selectively enforce those things to target the out group. Done without a shot fired on either side.

To be clear, I'm pro-control. Like, Japanese levels of gun control. A country where merely possessing a handgun, even without ammo, could get you up to 10 years in jail. Where mob bosses can be sentenced to prison if their underlings have guns. Somehow it's pretty safe there.

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2017, 09:55:40 AM »

Just want to point out how highly inaccurate the graphic is (like almost all of them in this thread).

Its based on the # of deaths in a country that has a drastically higher population than the comparison countries.  If you are going to do a real comparison, use percentages.  If we have 20 times the population but only 3 times the number of deaths, the results would actually be in our favor.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #66 on: October 03, 2017, 09:55:51 AM »
1. Require corresponding liability insurance for arsenals and keep them out of the hands of mentally ill young men

2. Prosecute idiots whose negligence results in accidents/deaths
Leave your gun in your purse and your kids shoots someone?  Go to prison.  Concealed carry and your gun drops out of your pocket and goes off?  Pay an enormous fine if no one is hurt, go to prison if someone is hurt.  Never get another license again regardless.  What's that?  Accidents happen?  Sorry-but don't gun people spend a LOT of time telling us that accidental discharges are impossible and that's why concealed carry is no problem?  Then this should never happen to a responsible gun owner.

3. Enforce straw sale laws, and close gun show loopholes/ normalize enforcement of restrictions on domestic violence offenders
This is one area where many deaths can be prevented.  A domestic violence citation and the presence of guns carries enormous future risk to the victim. Send a LEO officer to collect guns, tighten up access to other guns by enforcing straw sale laws and closing loopholes.  Enhance penalties for those whose negligence allows offenders access to a gun.
1) I'm not sure this is a good idea--it's like holding someone liable if their car gets stolen and used in a crime.
2) I strongly object to making one person legally responsible for the choices of another.  Do we permanently ban people from driving if they get into an accident while texting?  I'm not sure where you get the impression that gun owners claim that accidental or negligent discharges never happen.  They do, sadly, and a lot of what the much-maligned NRA does is centered around gun safety and training.
3) I agree with you on the issue of straw purchases.  That's where a lot of gang members get their guns.  Domestic violence is a bit stickier, however--there are a lot of cases where a DV accusation has been used to confiscate someone's guns, without any sort of evidence or conviction.

I rest my case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band
"Guitarist says Las Vegas concert attack changed his mind on gun control"
Yay, by all means let's make sweeping legislative changes based on anecdotal experiences!  That sounds like a sure winner!
Clearly the rate of fire contributed to this. When your objective is indiscriminate firing into a crowd, accuracy is not exactly paramount.  if the stock was a bumpfire or similar device, I would be open to having that conversation.
You're correct.  I'm skeptical about the efficacy of banning bumpfire stocks, though, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #67 on: October 03, 2017, 09:58:22 AM »

Just want to point out how highly inaccurate the graphic is (like almost all of them in this thread).

Its based on the # of deaths in a country that has a drastically higher population than the comparison countries.  If you are going to do a real comparison, use percentages.  If we have 20 times the population but only 3 times the number of deaths, the results would actually be in our favor.
Actually, the chart is in "deaths per 100,000," so it takes into account the differences in population.  What's more interesting is that if you take out all gun deaths for all countries, the US still has a higher murder rate than the other countries.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #68 on: October 03, 2017, 10:01:29 AM »

I'd like to point out also that unless you've practiced with it, it's quite difficult to control muzzle climb when firing rapidly, whether you're shooting with a fully automatic weapon or rapidly pulling the trigger on a semiauto.  That's part of the reason why US troops carry rifles that can fire once per trigger pull (semiauto), or three times (burst). Any more than that, and you're just wasting ammunition.  Every action movie gets this wrong, BTW.

I bet it's pretty easy to control muzzle climb when it's mounted to a tripod facing out a window like the Las Vegas shooter had.

You didn't respond to my comparison to driver's ed. Your argument is that we have to prove why the regulations would have stopped the shooting (which I still think he may have been flagged in a mental screening, who cares that his brother didn't know of any mental issues), why don't you prove that these wouldn't have stopped the shooting?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #69 on: October 03, 2017, 10:03:27 AM »
To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns. 

Can you help me understand how such stricter laws would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?  The guy was clearly willing and able to jump through the regulatory hoops.

Those particular suggestions probably wouldn't have.  These ones would:

- A national gun registry and limit to the number of guns someone is allowed to own would have prevented this person from acquiring so many weapons to begin with.

- RFID type microchipping of all firearms sold would have allowed law enforcement to find and stop the shooter more quickly, and would have potentially allowed law enforcement to identify and question the shooter prior to the shooting taking place while he was driving around with them, and would have allowed the hotel to stop him at the door (why are you taking those rifles into that hotel room sir?) - leading to fewer casualties.

- A limit on the capacity of magazines sold would have limited the amount of damage done by the shooter.

elvisz

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Age: 26
  • Location: Pensacola, FL
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #70 on: October 03, 2017, 10:12:33 AM »
We have to take a class and pass a test to drive. And you lose that privilege if you prove you don't deserve it e.g. get a DUI. Why not the same standards for weapons? I think it is perfectly reasonable that we implement a course, a test, and a means of removing the privilege to own and operate a gun. Felons, mental health issues, etc should be reasons disqualifying someone from gun ownership.
"Follow your bliss" - Joseph Campbell
What is man? "A biped without feathers." - Plato

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7019
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #71 on: October 03, 2017, 10:14:19 AM »

Just want to point out how highly inaccurate the graphic is (like almost all of them in this thread).

Its based on the # of deaths in a country that has a drastically higher population than the comparison countries.  If you are going to do a real comparison, use percentages.  If we have 20 times the population but only 3 times the number of deaths, the results would actually be in our favor.
Actually, the chart is in "deaths per 100,000," so it takes into account the differences in population.  What's more interesting is that if you take out all gun deaths for all countries, the US still has a higher murder rate than the other countries.

And horrific as the number of deaths and injuries were in Las Vegas, one of the reasons Canada is so low on that chart is that handguns are illegal here (yes, police and military and Brinks guards have them but that is about it).  Semi-automatic and automatic rifles can kill a lot of people at once, but hand guns are equally effective for killing a few people at a time.  And there are lot of hand guns in the U.S.  Since I have difficulty understanding why hand guns would be part of a well regulated militia, I also have difficulty understanding why they are part of the easy access.
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!

MissMoneyBags

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #72 on: October 03, 2017, 10:16:01 AM »

Just want to point out how highly inaccurate the graphic is (like almost all of them in this thread).

Its based on the # of deaths in a country that has a drastically higher population than the comparison countries.  If you are going to do a real comparison, use percentages.  If we have 20 times the population but only 3 times the number of deaths, the results would actually be in our favor.

It's number of deaths per 100.000 inhabitants, not actual numbers. How would percentages make it any clearer? (0.01054% of the US population is killed by guns every year. In the UK, the figure is 0.00023%, if my math is right.) The graph shows in a clear way, how gun deaths in the US in relation to population size, dwarfs the equivalent in comparable countries. I've never seen a statistic on gun deaths, that didn't somehow compare population size, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2661
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #73 on: October 03, 2017, 10:16:50 AM »
My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the idea of protecting people from a tyrannical government.  A form of checks and balances, if you will.  In some cases (i.e. Hitler, Nazis), it definitely provides civilians a way of creating perpetuating tyrant power. But I do not think this necessarily applies to all cases.  "The idea of fighting off a tyrannical government with small arms is pure myth", but is there an alternate method of fighting off such a government? To what extent should people have the right to resist?
The second amendment is only an amendment.  It wasn't in the original constitution, and it can be changed by a further amendment.  It isn't one of the Ten Commandments, and shouldn't be treated as such.

As to how to fight off a tyrannical government -

1) Make use of the rule of law to protect individuals against the government (eg the English barons with Magna Carta).  The rule of law means that the government is subject to the rule of law.  Of course, tyrants will subvert the law if they can by killing lawyers and corrupting judges (eg Putin in Russia).

2) Resistance within the law.  (If armed resistance has ever produced a democratic government out of a tyranny I'm not aware of it.  Persistant, peaceful resistance can sometimes do it.)

3) The tide of economic history (eg the end of the Soviet Union, apartheid in South Africa, and arguably slavery in the Southern USA).  This can take decades.

To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns.  However, I do not think banning semi-automatic rifles is a viable solution (which is what I interpreted former player's language was suggesting, but perhaps I was jumping to conclusions?)
Yes, I am in favour of banning civilians from keeping any rifles or shotguns which can be modified to become fully automatic.  If that means all of them, that's fine by me.  I don't see why it isn't a viable solution, other than the apparent political need to kowtow to the propaganda of the NRA.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 10:20:09 AM by former player »
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

TexasRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #74 on: October 03, 2017, 10:29:35 AM »

Just want to point out how highly inaccurate the graphic is (like almost all of them in this thread).

Its based on the # of deaths in a country that has a drastically higher population than the comparison countries.  If you are going to do a real comparison, use percentages.  If we have 20 times the population but only 3 times the number of deaths, the results would actually be in our favor.
Actually, the chart is in "deaths per 100,000," so it takes into account the differences in population.  What's more interesting is that if you take out all gun deaths for all countries, the US still has a higher murder rate than the other countries.

Whoops!  Misunderstood the chart.

Please carry on.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

iris lily

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2473
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #75 on: October 03, 2017, 10:31:22 AM »
There are two points on gun control that I have, both relating to the 2nd amendment.

First point, it's an amendment to the constitution and enshrines the right of Americans to bear armaments. There is a process for amending the constitution. We have repealed amendments to the constitution before. In order to enact gun control we should have to amend this amendment. Either tone it down or repeal it entirely, fine. But removing our rights in the constitution without altering it is something I'd rather not see happen due to the precedent it would set for all the other rights we have.

Second point, the second amendment is irrelevant when it comes to stopping tyranny. Ask anybody that thinks it is a couple simple questions: What event will indicate to them that tyranny has come and it's time for violent revolution? When will they start shooting people in the government? The best answers seem to be when they start shooting civilians. Many answer that or when the government starts confiscating weapons. But there's no need for a tyrannical government to do either of these things. Just erode away all the rights we have slowly but surely, increase the number of things people can be put in jail for, and selectively enforce those things to target the out group. Done without a shot fired on either side.

To be clear, I'm pro-control. Like, Japanese levels of gun control. A country where merely possessing a handgun, even without ammo, could get you up to 10 years in jail. Where mob bosses can be sentenced to prison if their underlings have guns. Somehow it's pretty safe there.
I live in an urban area of high crime. DH was on a grand jury for three months and daynin and day out and day he and his jury collagues review gun vases. Guns and drugs were by far the majority of cases.   

These bad dudes already break laws about gun possession and sometimes see jail time, sometimes dont. It is obvious to me that in creased laws do little to stem criminal behaviour. And if ya'll think the magic bullet is to legalize drug, well,
I am ok with that but wonder what criminal activity will take its place because there will always be something that is high risk and attractive to the criminal mnd.

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #76 on: October 03, 2017, 10:33:54 AM »
1. Require corresponding liability insurance for arsenals and keep them out of the hands of mentally ill young men

2. Prosecute idiots whose negligence results in accidents/deaths
Leave your gun in your purse and your kids shoots someone?  Go to prison.  Concealed carry and your gun drops out of your pocket and goes off?  Pay an enormous fine if no one is hurt, go to prison if someone is hurt.  Never get another license again regardless.  What's that?  Accidents happen?  Sorry-but don't gun people spend a LOT of time telling us that accidental discharges are impossible and that's why concealed carry is no problem?  Then this should never happen to a responsible gun owner.

3. Enforce straw sale laws, and close gun show loopholes/ normalize enforcement of restrictions on domestic violence offenders
This is one area where many deaths can be prevented.  A domestic violence citation and the presence of guns carries enormous future risk to the victim. Send a LEO officer to collect guns, tighten up access to other guns by enforcing straw sale laws and closing loopholes.  Enhance penalties for those whose negligence allows offenders access to a gun.
1) I'm not sure this is a good idea--it's like holding someone liable if their car gets stolen and used in a crime.
2) I strongly object to making one person legally responsible for the choices of another.  Do we permanently ban people from driving if they get into an accident while texting?  I'm not sure where you get the impression that gun owners claim that accidental or negligent discharges never happen.  They do, sadly, and a lot of what the much-maligned NRA does is centered around gun safety and training.
3) I agree with you on the issue of straw purchases.  That's where a lot of gang members get their guns.  Domestic violence is a bit stickier, however--there are a lot of cases where a DV accusation has been used to confiscate someone's guns, without any sort of evidence or conviction.

I rest my case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band
"Guitarist says Las Vegas concert attack changed his mind on gun control"
Yay, by all means let's make sweeping legislative changes based on anecdotal experiences!  That sounds like a sure winner!
Clearly the rate of fire contributed to this. When your objective is indiscriminate firing into a crowd, accuracy is not exactly paramount.  if the stock was a bumpfire or similar device, I would be open to having that conversation.
You're correct.  I'm skeptical about the efficacy of banning bumpfire stocks, though, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

But we hold people liable if they leave their car running on the street with the keys inside and a 9 year old (or 30 year old) takes the car and mows a bunch of people down. If a two year old grabs a gun in a back seat and kills someone, should we hold the toddler responsible for his "choices"?  The person who left the gun in the backseat next to a carseat isn't responsible in any way? 

I think if you "store" your gun like a dipshit (loaded and accessible by a young child), you should be held responsible.  It's a deadly weapon.  I know people who were at a real estate showing and the home owner left a loaded gun a toddler level.  I would like to hold them responsible.  I would like the sort of people who can't get even their kid to do homework or pick up their socks but who turn around flatly insist that their kids would "never disobey them" when it comes to something like guns to get a clue.  Since they won't get it on their own, I'd like to enforce it on the insurance and going to prison level.

And, if you have an arsenal and a son so mentally ill you are trying to commit him, then you should be held responsible for allowing him access to those weapons.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2017, 10:42:02 AM »
Those particular suggestions probably wouldn't have.  These ones would:

- A national gun registry and limit to the number of guns someone is allowed to own would have prevented this person from acquiring so many weapons to begin with.

- RFID type microchipping of all firearms sold would have allowed law enforcement to find and stop the shooter more quickly, and would have potentially allowed law enforcement to identify and question the shooter prior to the shooting taking place while he was driving around with them, and would have allowed the hotel to stop him at the door (why are you taking those rifles into that hotel room sir?) - leading to fewer casualties.

- A limit on the capacity of magazines sold would have limited the amount of damage done by the shooter.
#1  Might be effective, but easy to circumvent (borrow from a friend, straw purchase, etc).
#2  With the kind of planning this guy did, I'm sure the guy would have microwaved any RFID anything in the guns
#3  Mag changes can be very quick with practice.

We have to take a class and pass a test to drive. And you lose that privilege if you prove you don't deserve it e.g. get a DUI. Why not the same standards for weapons? I think it is perfectly reasonable that we implement a course, a test, and a means of removing the privilege to own and operate a gun. Felons, mental health issues, etc should be reasons disqualifying someone from gun ownership.
There's already a well-established process for disqualifying individuals from owning guns.  The objection to legal standards for training in order to own a gun is this: if you give the government the ability to set the standards, you open up the opportunity for the government to make the standards impossibly high.  This isn't just hypothetical.  Every state (to my knowledge, IL was the last) either allows concealed carry outright or has a process to get a permit.  However, some states make it either nearly impossible to get such a permit (HI, NJ), or make it trivial for a local bigwig to deny your application with nothing more than a "because I don't think you need it."

The second amendment is only an amendment.  It wasn't in the original constitution, and it can be changed by a further amendment.  It isn't one of the Ten Commandments, and shouldn't be treated as such.

...

Yes, I am in favour of banning civilians from keeping any rifles or shotguns which can be modified to become fully automatic.  If that means all of them, that's fine by me.  I don't see why it isn't a viable solution, other than the apparent political need to kowtow to the propaganda of the NRA.
How is its genesis as an amendment relevant to....anything, really?  "Only an amendment" doesn't mean anything.  Do you feel the same way about the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) or the 19th (women's suffrage)?

dogboyslim

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2017, 10:44:46 AM »
The second amendment is only an amendment.  It wasn't in the original constitution, and it can be changed by a further amendment.  It isn't one of the Ten Commandments, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Once an amendment is passed it is part of the constitution, much like the freedom of the press, and free speech and free association.  None of those were in the 'original' constitution, but were added because enough people felt it should change.  If the time has come, then propose the repeal of the 2nd amendment to pursue your preferred restrictions.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #79 on: October 03, 2017, 10:46:17 AM »
I live in an urban area of high crime. DH was on a grand jury for three months and daynin and day out and day he and his jury collagues review gun vases. Guns and drugs were by far the majority of cases.   

These bad dudes already break laws about gun possession and sometimes see jail time, sometimes dont. It is obvious to me that in creased laws do little to stem criminal behaviour. And if ya'll think the magic bullet is to legalize drug, well,
I am ok with that but wonder what criminal activity will take its place because there will always be something that is high risk and attractive to the criminal mnd.

Bad people do break laws.  'Good' people help them do it when they can get away with it.  Felons can buy a private sale gun in most states for example.  Since there's no central and searchable database of firearms sales, it's very hard for law enforcement to find dealers who sell guns to criminals.  For the same reason, it's very hard for law enforcement to prevent 'straw purchases'.

Bad people break laws, therefore we shouldn't have laws?  C'mon.  You can do better than that.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #80 on: October 03, 2017, 10:51:40 AM »
Those particular suggestions probably wouldn't have.  These ones would:

- A national gun registry and limit to the number of guns someone is allowed to own would have prevented this person from acquiring so many weapons to begin with.

- RFID type microchipping of all firearms sold would have allowed law enforcement to find and stop the shooter more quickly, and would have potentially allowed law enforcement to identify and question the shooter prior to the shooting taking place while he was driving around with them, and would have allowed the hotel to stop him at the door (why are you taking those rifles into that hotel room sir?) - leading to fewer casualties.

- A limit on the capacity of magazines sold would have limited the amount of damage done by the shooter.
#1  Might be effective, but easy to circumvent (borrow from a friend, straw purchase, etc).
#2  With the kind of planning this guy did, I'm sure the guy would have microwaved any RFID anything in the guns
#3  Mag changes can be very quick with practice.

#1 - Isn't easy to circumvent with a national database of gun owners.  People would be a lot less likely to do straw purchases if there was an easy record that would lead right back to them.  Make anyone who loans a weapon to another an accessory to whatever crime that the other person commits and I suspect that loaning guns would dramatically drop off.

#2 - That's why alarm bells should go off every time someone disables one of these tracking chips.  Police can show up at the person's door in moments.

#3 - Yep.  But it's another level of complexity for people doing bad things that doesn't really impact legal usage of the weapon in any appreciable way.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #81 on: October 03, 2017, 10:56:01 AM »
But we hold people liable if they leave their car running on the street with the keys inside and a 9 year old (or 30 year old) takes the car and mows a bunch of people down. If a two year old grabs a gun in a back seat and kills someone, should we hold the toddler responsible for his "choices"?  The person who left the gun in the backseat next to a carseat isn't responsible in any way? 

I think if you "store" your gun like a dipshit (loaded and accessible by a young child), you should be held responsible.  It's a deadly weapon.  I know people who were at a real estate showing and the home owner left a loaded gun a toddler level.  I would like to hold them responsible.  I would like the sort of people who can't get even their kid to do homework or pick up their socks but who turn around flatly insist that their kids would "never disobey them" when it comes to something like guns to get a clue.  Since they won't get it on their own, I'd like to enforce it on the insurance and going to prison level.

And, if you have an arsenal and a son so mentally ill you are trying to commit him, then you should be held responsible for allowing him access to those weapons.
Leaving a loaded gun on a back seat is typically illegal already, and leaving it next to a kid's car seat is certainly moronic and already illegal(endangerment to a child, reckless endangerment, etc).  Leaving a loaded gun for a home showing is stupid in the base case, but what are you holding them responsible *for*?  The consequences?  I'm pretty sure they already are liable.  Also, leaving a loaded gun lying around for a toddler is a far cry from someone breaking into your house, shooting you in the head, and taking the guns out of your safe.

As for the "arsenal" comment, there's nothing particularly alarming about the list of guns available, or their quantity.  Two handguns, a couple of hunting rifles, a .22 rifle (great for plinking, if you've never tried it), a shotgun, and an AR-15.  It's a nice variety, with different guns good for different purposes.
 Having 1,400 rounds of ammunition doesn't mean much, either, when .22 ammunition commonly comes in boxes of 500 or more, and rifle and pistol ammunition in boxes of 50 or 100.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #82 on: October 03, 2017, 11:01:43 AM »
As for the "arsenal" comment, there's nothing particularly alarming about the list of guns available, or their quantity.  Two handguns, a couple of hunting rifles, a .22 rifle (great for plinking, if you've never tried it), a shotgun, and an AR-15.  It's a nice variety, with different guns good for different purposes.

There is something wrong the normalization of large arsenals of firearms.  As was demonstrated by this shooting.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #83 on: October 03, 2017, 11:06:04 AM »
Bad people do break laws.  'Good' people help them do it when they can get away with it.  Felons can buy a private sale gun in most states for example.  Since there's no central and searchable database of firearms sales, it's very hard for law enforcement to find dealers who sell guns to criminals.  For the same reason, it's very hard for law enforcement to prevent 'straw purchases'.
Actually, all gun sales through dealers *are* tracked, albeit not in a central database.  If someone commits a crime with a gun, the authorities can take the serial number to the manufacturer, and trace its path of custody down to the firearms dealer, and get the information on the sale.  Dealers are required to perform the NICS check and record details on every sale (and there's lots of trouble if they don't).  That at least gets you to the person who bought the firearm from the dealer.

#1 - Isn't easy to circumvent with a national database of gun owners.  People would be a lot less likely to do straw purchases if there was an easy record that would lead right back to them.  Make anyone who loans a weapon to another an accessory to whatever crime that the other person commits and I suspect that loaning guns would dramatically drop off.

#2 - That's why alarm bells should go off every time someone disables one of these tracking chips.  Police can show up at the person's door in moments.

#3 - Yep.  But it's another level of complexity for people doing bad things that doesn't really impact legal usage of the weapon in any appreciable way.
#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.
#2 - I'm afraid RFID doesn't work that way, sorry.  And even if it did, it'd be totally impractical to enforce it.
#3 - Sure, it creates a barrier to this specific scenario.  And some states have implemented such restrictions.  Hasn't made an impact on crime, though.

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #84 on: October 03, 2017, 11:20:36 AM »
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

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

90 people per day are killed in car wrecks; and 121 per day by suicide, including 57 per day by guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

And as always, the vast majority of us in the 1st world will die from poor health.

Statistically, gun homicides are a tiny problem. It's a pimple on the country's ass.

If you are still worried about guns, don't own one. You are 21x more likely to off yourself than you are to be offed by someone using a gun.
SWAMI (Satisfied Working Advanced Mustachian Individual) 1 stash, 1 DW, 7 Mini MM's...
God, Family, Country. Everything else is details.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1844
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #85 on: October 03, 2017, 11:23:09 AM »
]
To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns. 

Can you help me understand how such stricter laws would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?  The guy was clearly willing and able to jump through the regulatory hoops.

Those particular suggestions probably wouldn't have.  These ones would:

- A national gun registry and limit to the number of guns someone is allowed to own would have prevented this person from acquiring so many weapons to begin with.

- RFID type microchipping of all firearms sold would have allowed law enforcement to find and stop the shooter more quickly, and would have potentially allowed law enforcement to identify and question the shooter prior to the shooting taking place while he was driving around with them, and would have allowed the hotel to stop him at the door (why are you taking those rifles into that hotel room sir?) - leading to fewer casualties.

- A limit on the capacity of magazines sold would have limited the amount of damage done by the shooter.

-Limit on number of firearms - it would have to be an absolute number no if/and/or/but, or an exorbitantly expense license for collectors.
-Would each police force have to have an entire department dedicated to keeping tabs on firearm locations or would this feature be activated in case of an emergency? I'm not following you how they'd know to go look for a particular suspect's firearms unless they knew who he was beforehand.
-I don't know the statistics if reduced mag size is at all effective, but changing a mag mid-shoot doesn't take much practice. I believe the Virginia Tech guy was loaded down with extra magazines for that reason.

All of these ideas (and any and all others being proposed here) would require a couple monumental changes to our system of laws:

A Constitutional Amendment redefining the Second Amendment in such a way that allows for more flexibility.  The words "shall not be infringed" would have to be eliminated, and language would have to be written to supersede state firearms laws since each state is allowed currently to decide how they want to handle these matters.

IMHO, there's a reason why the only gun laws that seem to go through are superficial in nature.  Any meaningful changes are basically unconstitutional.  I don't think the mental health screenings would get far since you're requiring a third-party's permission to enjoy a constitutional right.  The same goes for putting a location chip in a firearm. It sounds like giving the government permission to track your whereabouts at all times.  The Supreme Court's decisions regarding the Second Amendment make these proposals a non-starter. To have real effect on death rates you'd have to dial back the clock to private ownership being limited to revolvers, single-shot shotguns, and bolt-action rifles.  I don't know if that's Supreme Court-influenced or just wildly unpopular to become law.  Also, a constitutional amendment of this nature isn't going to happen without it being a citizen-driven initiative. Politicians simply won't allow it.

The second amendment is only an amendment.  It wasn't in the original constitution, and it can be changed by a further amendment.  It isn't one of the Ten Commandments, and shouldn't be treated as such.

The Constitution that was signed in 1789 included the Bill of Rights. They're not the 10 Commandments, but in US law they're pretty damn close. The Constitution can only be changed by a wide margin of citizens or state governments making the decision.
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

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 123
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #86 on: October 03, 2017, 11:27:07 AM »
#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.

So harsher enforcement of existing gun laws. Good, see things can be done to fix the problem.

You still haven't proven that our ideas won't fix the issue. How do you know for sure he would've passed a mental health check? As I said, healthy people don't create a plan to attempt to kill hundreds of people.

How do you know banning bump stocks wouldn't have stopped this specific shooting from being as bad? The guns were mounted to tripods, so control was not an issue.

Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

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

90 people per day are killed in car wrecks; and 121 per day by suicide, including 57 per day by guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

And as always, the vast majority of us in the 1st world will die from poor health.

Statistically, gun homicides are a tiny problem. It's a pimple on the country's ass.

If you are still worried about guns, don't own one. You are 21x more likely to off yourself than you are to be offed by someone using a gun.

And so many people die in car wrecks, yet WE STILL REQUIRE A LICENSE AND TRAINING TO OPERATE ONE. Because if we didn't, MORE people would die. No one is saying it will be perfect. We are saying we can do better than beating our record of mass shootings every year like it's a game of call of duty.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #87 on: October 03, 2017, 11:29:55 AM »
Bad people do break laws.  'Good' people help them do it when they can get away with it.  Felons can buy a private sale gun in most states for example.  Since there's no central and searchable database of firearms sales, it's very hard for law enforcement to find dealers who sell guns to criminals.  For the same reason, it's very hard for law enforcement to prevent 'straw purchases'.
Actually, all gun sales through dealers *are* tracked, albeit not in a central database.  If someone commits a crime with a gun, the authorities can take the serial number to the manufacturer, and trace its path of custody down to the firearms dealer, and get the information on the sale.  Dealers are required to perform the NICS check and record details on every sale (and there's lots of trouble if they don't).  That at least gets you to the person who bought the firearm from the dealer.

Do you really not know the difficulty (and manpower costs) of wading through millions of paper (not digital) document held in thousands of locations that law enforcement must undertake to search these records, or are you being purposely dishonest with your response?

You also 'forgot' that 40% of gun sales in the US don't go through a dealer, they're part of those untracked private sales.

#1 - Isn't easy to circumvent with a national database of gun owners.  People would be a lot less likely to do straw purchases if there was an easy record that would lead right back to them.  Make anyone who loans a weapon to another an accessory to whatever crime that the other person commits and I suspect that loaning guns would dramatically drop off.

#2 - That's why alarm bells should go off every time someone disables one of these tracking chips.  Police can show up at the person's door in moments.

#3 - Yep.  But it's another level of complexity for people doing bad things that doesn't really impact legal usage of the weapon in any appreciable way.

#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.
#2 - I'm afraid RFID doesn't work that way, sorry.  And even if it did, it'd be totally impractical to enforce it.
#3 - Sure, it creates a barrier to this specific scenario.  And some states have implemented such restrictions.  Hasn't made an impact on crime, though.

#1 - Yes.  Expanded record keeping across the country, and limits to the numbers of guns that can be owned.

#2 - Sorry, I mean GPS not RFID.  I build a lot of devices with tracking chips at work, they're not very expensive and would be pretty easy to set up for tracking.  Even easier with limited numbers of firearms per person.  Tremendous benefit from this . . . stolen weapons, hidden weapons, when police plan to raid a house they can get a good idea of what firearms are going to be in it before hand and will be able to reduce the force used, etc.

#3 - Ah.  Moving goal posts.  First you didn't want to talk about any crime but the one in the OP, now we don't want to talk about the shooting.  I see how it is.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 12:16:00 PM by GuitarStv »

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #88 on: October 03, 2017, 12:06:45 PM »
-In USA, the areas with the most gun control laws have by far the highest gun violence.

https://xkcd.com/552/

Quote
-In USA, gun homicides ex gangs are about 2,000 per year, of which about 1,000 are by cops, the vast majority of which are justified. This leaves about 1,000 homicides per year, 3 per day, by non-gang civilians.

Good point. If we exclude all bullet deaths, we only have ~20* deaths per year from guns.



* A completely made up number but a lot of the "facts" in this thread are similarly made up or based on questionable studies.

MissMoneyBags

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #89 on: October 03, 2017, 12:22:12 PM »
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

-Anders Behring got around many many gun control laws.



Your argument that gun control laws don't work because one man got around them is total bullshit. Since Jan 2013 there has been 1516 mass shootings in the US (population 323 million). Norway (population 5 million) should then proportionally and statically have had... 23.46. As far as I know (and I live in this region of the world, and regularly watch Norwegian telly - I haven't been able to find any statistics..) None.. Zip.. Nada... Anders Breivik's attack was in 2011, and totally skewed gun deaths statistics in Norway.

Denmark (my home country: population 5 million) : in my life time (40plus), I can only remember two - in 1994 a university student killed 2 people and wounded 2 others. In 2015 there was a religiously motivated shooting in Copenhagen - again killing 2 people.

I would have thought people who frequent these forums would understand statistics, and the very clear correlation between gun deaths and lax gun control..

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #90 on: October 03, 2017, 12:38:30 PM »
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

-Anders Behring got around many many gun control laws.



Your argument that gun control laws don't work because one man got around them is total bullshit. Since Jan 2013 there has been 1516 mass shootings in the US (population 323 million). Norway (population 5 million) should then proportionally and statically have had... 23.46. As far as I know (and I live in this region of the world, and regularly watch Norwegian telly - I haven't been able to find any statistics..) None.. Zip.. Nada... Anders Breivik's attack was in 2011, and totally skewed gun deaths statistics in Norway.

Denmark (my home country: population 5 million) : in my life time (40plus), I can only remember two - in 1994 a university student killed 2 people and wounded 2 others. In 2015 there was a religiously motivated shooting in Copenhagen - again killing 2 people.

I would have thought people who frequent these forums would understand statistics, and the very clear correlation between gun deaths and lax gun control..

I think it is certainly true, that if you are going to have gun restriction, it has to be on a nationwide-basis. There are so many guns in the US (300 million, enough for every man, woman, and child), no existing way to know who bought most of these weapons even if legally, or way to track, that trying to restrict by state or smaller location, is going to be relatively ineffective. On a nation to nation basis, it is certainly true that gun control is related to gun death, not just correlationally (Canada versus US), but also causually by looking over time (Australia for example before and after laws passed).
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 12:40:23 PM by partgypsy »

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 726
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #91 on: October 03, 2017, 12:41:08 PM »
I am also sick of this.  It seems that when one killer kills 49 people, someone somewhere is in a basement, or a garage or wherever, saying, I bet this plan will get 50. 

As far as gone control goes, I am not sure why people refuse to talk about this issue.  It seems to me that when there is an issue of safety in a car, that people change the laws, so that seat belts need to be worn, etc to keep people safer.  It is not a perfect system, by any stretch, but they are trying to help.

Sunday night in Vegas, there were 600 people that were injured or killed, at least.  And 22000 at least that were there.  The fact that only the 600 are being talked about with injuries or death were all that is affected is BS.  This will affect every one of those 22000.  There will be countless hours dealing with PTSD, with who knows what other mental issues that will arise from this.  The 22000 affected do have families.  These will be affected in some way as well.  This incident is far more reaching then 59 people.

But with guns, out comes the crowd, saying that if you cannot eliminate 100% of all deaths it is not worth it.    Why can the USA, not ban semi auto weapons? Because old hands cant pull the trigger fast enough to fend off a gang that will break into your house? 

My thoughts on gun control are this:  I am Canadian, our system is far from perfect, but it seems better then the free for all in the south.

I hunt, I have hunted since I was 12, and have competitively shot since I was 13.  I know gun.  Eliminate all concealed carry hand guns.  Here, you can get a permit to get handguns.  You have to have extensive background searches.  They must be stored in a locked cabinet, with a trigger lock on them, and ammunition must be locked separately. If you wish to transport them to a range for target practice, or competition, you must contact the RCMP and obtain a permit to make this happen.  This alone will save lives.

As far as long guns, we have to undergo screening in order to purchase, and then apply for a PAL or purchase and acquisition license.   This gives you the ability to purchase a long gun, AND is also needed for all ammunition purchase.   We also limit the amount of rounds you rifle can hold to five.  Honestly if you are hunting and take 5 shots, your target is either gone or dead.  Long guns must be held in a locked cabinet, trigger locked and ammunition stored separately.

This system is not perfect, and yes criminals will still get their hands on guns if they want to, but it seems better then the system of no fucks will be given to our south.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9508
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #92 on: October 03, 2017, 12:45:54 PM »
This system is not perfect, and yes criminals will still get their hands on guns if they want to, but it seems better then the system of no fucks will be given to our south.

Important to note - the vast majority of the guns that criminals get their hands on illegally in Canada are from the United States.  It's almost impossible to prevent this from happening since guns are so easy to conceal and so easy to purchase in the US.  Better US gun control would almost certainly improve gun safety in Canada as well.

fluffmuffin

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 194
  • Location: VA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #93 on: October 03, 2017, 12:46:42 PM »
Before we get started, most of the men in my family hunt and own multiple guns; I learned to shoot when I was 13 and occasionally still shoot skeet on the weekends; and there's a gun in my household (for targets and skeet). I support responsible gun ownership and in no way, shape, or form want to prevent sportsmen and responsible gun owners from hitting the target range or nailing that 12-pointer.

With all that said, I've a couple of questions for the folks shooting down all the gun-control measures. Why does the US have so much higher a rate of gun violence than other developed countries, even adjusted for population? Do you think that the US should do anything to prevent mass shootings and lessen our rates of gun violence?

But most importantly, if none of the gun control measures anyone is proposing would work for reasons XYZ (which I'm willing to believe--I'm no expert!), what do you think we should do instead?

MissMoneyBags

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #94 on: October 03, 2017, 12:46:59 PM »

I think it is certainly true, that if you are going to have gun restriction, it has to be on a nationwide-basis. There are so many guns in the US (300 million, enough for every man, woman, and child), no existing way to know who bought most of these weapons even if legally, or way to track, that trying to restrict by state or smaller location, is going to be relatively ineffective. On a nation to nation basis, it is certainly true that gun control is related to gun death, not just correlationally (Canada versus US), but also causually by looking over time (Australia for example before and after laws passed).
[/quote]

Very true - Australia is a great example of what happens when gun control in introduced/increased.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #95 on: October 03, 2017, 12:52:13 PM »
#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.

So harsher enforcement of existing gun laws. Good, see things can be done to fix the problem.

You still haven't proven that our ideas won't fix the issue. How do you know for sure he would've passed a mental health check? As I said, healthy people don't create a plan to attempt to kill hundreds of people.

How do you know banning bump stocks wouldn't have stopped this specific shooting from being as bad? The guns were mounted to tripods, so control was not an issue.
I don't think harsher punishments are necessary at this point. How about simply enforcing the law as written?  Then, if it has a measurably positive effect, we can talk about adjusting the harshness of the penalties.

On the mental health check issue, you're asking me to prove a negative, or, perhaps more precisely, it's an Argument_from_ignorance, so there's no reason to try.  You are assuming that there's some sort of mental health test that he would fail, and asking me to prove your imaginary test ineffective. 

But, to humor you with respect to the bumpfire stock: In this specific instance, the guy was capable of very thorough planning for his crime.  He purchased a large number of weapons, mounted bipods/tripods to improve stability, selected a specific room to have the best vantage point, set up cameras so he could see the police coming, brought along significant stores of ammunition, etc.  Compared with all that, the step of mounting a bump fire stock, or, if they're illegal, making his own method of inducing rapid fire (gatling crank, gatling glove, homemade bumpfire stock, simply training to do bumpfire without any equipment), doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Do you really not know the difficulty (and manpower costs) of wading through millions of paper (not digital) document held in thousands of locations that law enforcement must undertake to search these records, or are you being purposely dishonest with your response?

You also 'forgot' that 40% of gun sales in the US don't go through a dealer, they're part of those untracked private sales.


#1 - Yes.  Expanded record keeping across the country, and limits to the numbers of guns that can be owned.

#2 - Sorry, I mean GPS not RFID.  I build a lot of devices with tracking chips at work, they're not very expensive and would be pretty easy to set up for tracking.  Even easier with limited numbers of firearms per person.  Tremendous benefit from this . . . stolen weapons, hidden weapons, when police plan to raid a house they can get a good idea of what firearms are going to be in it before hand and will be able to reduce the force used, etc.

#3 - Ah.  Moving goal posts.  First you didn't want to talk about any crime but the one in the OP, now we don't want to talk about the shooting.  I see how it is.
We might be talking about two different things.  Why would anyone need to wade through a pile of paperwork?  I'm thinking about a case where a bad guy does something bad with a gun and gets caught.  The authorities don't have to wade through any large quantity of paperwork, they just follow the chain of custody for that serial number.  If, of course, the criminal hasn't filed it off, in which case the database does you no good anyway.  Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

I didn't "forget" private sales.  I was including them in my response to #1.  Besides, this is another example of a mechanism that is seldom enforced and even more rarely used in solving a crime, and once again, becomes impotent once the serial number is filed off.  It sounds effective in theory, but historically hasn't proven to have much (if any) effect.

GPS (not RFID):  GPS is a battery hog.  Are the cops going to come knock on gun owners' doors every time someone forgets to charge up their device?  This sounds like a logistical nightmare.  Also, a large number of guns used in crimes have been stolen (or "stolen"), and would likely have this device promptly disabled anyway.

#3 - you're right--I did move the goalposts.  Thanks for pointing that out. :) The debate shifts between the two so fluidly, it's hard sometimes to keep up.  I think it's also worth reiterating that this event is very much a black swan, and public policy is rarely well-served with a basis of such events, tragic as they may be.

WRT limiting the total number of guns a person can own, let's explore a bit more.  Sure, a person with a pistol and a rifle is potentially more dangerous than someone with only one of them.  But the guy with 50 guns isn't going to pose much more of a threat to the public than the guy with 10.  And how do you set the limit?  I can easily come up with a list of 10 guns I'd be interested in owning, without it seeming outlandish.  A .22 rifle for plinking, a compact concealed carry pistol, a full-size pistol for the night stand, a shotgun for shooting clay pigeons, an AR-15, an M1 Garand (just because they're really cool), a carry pistol for DW, a bolt-action 30-06 or .308 for longer-range shooting, a smaller .22 bolt-action rifle for the kids to learn on, and a 20-gauge shotgun for the kids as well.  How would such a limit work on households with multiple adults?  Do you limit it by type of weapon?

Quote
-In USA, gun homicides ex gangs are about 2,000 per year, of which about 1,000 are by cops, the vast majority of which are justified. This leaves about 1,000 homicides per year, 3 per day, by non-gang civilians.

Good point. If we exclude all bullet deaths, we only have ~20* deaths per year from guns.

* A completely made up number but a lot of the "facts" in this thread are similarly made up or based on questionable studies.

He's not making up the statistics--those are straight from the FBI (albeit rounded a bunch), except I don't know about the "1,000 by police" number, which I'm not familiar with.  I think part of the point is that discussions of gun control are centered around removing the "how" from the equation, without addressing what is the larger issue--the "why."

Your argument that gun control laws don't work because one man got around them is total bullshit. Since Jan 2013 there has been 1516 mass shootings in the US (population 323 million). Norway (population 5 million) should then proportionally and statically have had... 23.46. As far as I know (and I live in this region of the world, and regularly watch Norwegian telly - I haven't been able to find any statistics..) None.. Zip.. Nada... Anders Breivik's attack was in 2011, and totally skewed gun deaths statistics in Norway.
The "1516" number is utter hogwash.  It was created by compiling every incident that could be interpreted to fit in a very broad classification of "mass shooting."

MissMoneyBags

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #96 on: October 03, 2017, 01:04:55 PM »


Your argument that gun control laws don't work because one man got around them is total bullshit. Since Jan 2013 there has been 1516 mass shootings in the US (population 323 million). Norway (population 5 million) should then proportionally and statically have had... 23.46. As far as I know (and I live in this region of the world, and regularly watch Norwegian telly - I haven't been able to find any statistics..) None.. Zip.. Nada... Anders Breivik's attack was in 2011, and totally skewed gun deaths statistics in Norway.
The "1516" number is utter hogwash.  It was created by compiling every incident that could be interpreted to fit in a very broad classification of "mass shooting."

That definition is four or more casualties. I'm not sure it's "hogwash", but I agree it's a broad definition. It's nevertheless an admirable attempt to compile statistical and comparable evidence. How many victims do you think constitutes a mass killing? 20? 40? 60? Personally any fatal shooting is too much for me... And funnily enough the two incidents I mentioned in Denmark, don't meet this definition of mass shooting. That doesn't make them any less tragic for the victims..

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2316
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #97 on: October 03, 2017, 01:13:39 PM »
With all that said, I've a couple of questions for the folks shooting down all the gun-control measures. Why does the US have so much higher a rate of gun violence than other developed countries, even adjusted for population? Do you think that the US should do anything to prevent mass shootings and lessen our rates of gun violence?

But most importantly, if none of the gun control measures anyone is proposing would work for reasons XYZ (which I'm willing to believe--I'm no expert!), what do you think we should do instead?
US's high murder rate - This is the question that I feel needs to be discussed first.  I read a while back that the FBI estimates that about 75% of gun murders are tied to gang activity.  I don't know a lot about crime rates in Europe, but gang activity appears to be far worse in the US than in many of the countries with which the US is often compared.  You also need to be careful when choosing countries to compare with, because you can make a pretty chart supporting either side of the argument by careful selection of the countries you compare.

Lessening the rates of gun violence is a very different question from preventing mass shootings.  Gun violence in general is largely driven by gang activity, so I'd suggest focusing efforts on cracking down on gangs and changing the culture that supports them.  For mass shootings, they're almost always committed by someone with some sort of mental imbalance, and so it would probably be more effective to focus efforts on mental health.

What should we do instead of imposing more stringent gun laws?  I feel like the previous paragraph answers that point.  You seek out the root cause and address that, rather than chasing the scapegoat.  I also feel like we need to keep things in perspective, and not use a MOAB to kill a mosquito.  The attack in Las Vegas is tragic, but it is also (thankfully!) very rare.  As I pointed out earlier, you're more likely to be killed by lightning than in an attack like this.  There's an instinct to rush into trying to solve the problem we think we see (guns everywhere), without taking the time to properly evaluate the big picture.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #98 on: October 03, 2017, 01:14:03 PM »
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

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

90 people per day are killed in car wrecks; and 121 per day by suicide, including 57 per day by guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

And as always, the vast majority of us in the 1st world will die from poor health.

Statistically, gun homicides are a tiny problem. It's a pimple on the country's ass.

If you are still worried about guns, don't own one. You are 21x more likely to off yourself than you are to be offed by someone using a gun.

Quite frankly the most horrendous comment I've read in a long time. People are going to get guns anyways, you know because one person bypassed the laws, and suicides, cars and poor health.

We should go back and issue guns to the 600,000+ people that were rejected because of a felony or serious misdemeanor conviction in the last 14 years of background checks. Oh and don't forget the over 10,000 that were rejected due to mental heath reasons. And the 140,000+ that were turned down for domestic violence convictions or because they were subjected to a restraining order related to domestic violence issues, like stalking or making threats. Oh the list goes on!

Yeah great comment. Some folks bypass the laws so we should get rid of them and ensure we have more mass shootings. Well and because of cars, suicides and poor health. Whatever the fuck those have to do with mass shootings.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2517
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #99 on: October 03, 2017, 01:19:08 PM »
Why not just some form of smart gun that can be remotely disabled by law enforcement (and that would disable itself if you tried to modify it)? The tech exists to make those right now, and you could make the system secure enough that your average Joe Burglar isn't going to be able to disable your gun with some stuff he bought at Radio Shack.

You'd keep the self-protection angle, can go hunting as much as you want, can target shoot to your heart's content, etc.  You lose the "fight against the tyrannical gov't" bit, but I think we can all agree that's crazed fantasy anyway. I mean, Red Dawn is a great movie, but you don't fight a modern army with small arms anyway.

It would be expensive, for sure. And there are an awful lot of legacy guns that will be around for the foreseeable future. So probably not workable, but something like that seems like the best way forward to me.

-W