Author Topic: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.  (Read 23230 times)

gentmach

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 109
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #500 on: November 01, 2017, 11:11:46 AM »
Maybe host free Saturday workshops at the local library? $5 to register and give their $5 back when they actually attend?

Good Idea!

I forgot add "rebuild communities" to my earlier list. If people have a local support network then they don't feel isolated and alone.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #501 on: November 01, 2017, 12:33:00 PM »
In 1979 the American public health community adopted the "objective to reduce the number
of handguns in private ownership," the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000.

This is a direct quote from the publication "GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?"
AN HONEST LOOK AT WHY ANTI-GUN RESEARCHERS SPIN THE FACTS!"  (available here:  http://www.gunsandcrime.org/epidemic.pdf).  I find it ironic that you use a quote from an opinion piece written by gun rights activists to demonstrate that we can't trust research about guns by people who have strong opinions on the matter.  Can you explain your logic on that to me?  :P


In a 1989 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) official Patrick O’Carroll, MD stated “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.  We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.”

Mr. O'Carroll was misquoted.


Well, of course. Rosenberg is director of the National Center for Injury Prevention, a division of the National Centers for Disease Control, and the infectious-disease approach may be the only tool he has. "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol -- cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly -- and banned." Rosenberg's thought is that if we could transform public attitudes toward guns the way we have transformed public attitudes toward cigarettes, we'd go a long way toward curbing our national epidemic of violence.

I don't actually see a smoking gun (if you'll pardon the pun) here.  Cigarettes are still legal in the states and used by millions.  By using the power of advertising a reduction in smoking rates was achieved to the benefit of public health.  It feels like you're really overreaching on this one.


“Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”—Dr. Katherine Christoffel, pediatrician, in American Medical News, January 3, 1994. In the 1990s Dr. Christoffel was the leader of the now-defunct HELP Network, a Chicago-based association of major medical organizations and grant seekers advancing gun control in the medical media. The name HELP was an acronym for Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan.

“Data on [assault weapons’] risks are not needed, because they have no redeeming social value.—Jerome Kassirer, M.D., former editor, New England Journal of Medicine, writing in vol. 326, no. 17, page 1161 (April 23, 1992).

“I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”—Assistant Dean Deborah Prothrow-Stith, M.D., Harvard School of Public Health in her book Deadly Consequences.

All valid points of concern I suppose.


Someone having opinions on things is fine, but people in charge of organizations that are supposed to be doing proper scientific research coming out with this sort of bias is ridiculous. This is constantly painted as a "The NRA are just afraid of what the research will find!" situation, when that's not true at all. It's like if someone in charge of research on racial violence went on a rant about how they're sure it's because minorities are stupid because of their inferior genetics. Would you trust them to do unbiased research after saying something like that?

Sure, I'd be a little concerned.  I'd want to go over the work that they produce carefully.  But you're contending that the personal opinions held/expressed by any of these people prevented them from doing valid work.  Given this, are you equally concerned about religious people who work in science?  Science is dependent upon observing phenomenon and finding the theory that best fits the available facts.  Belief in God is absent proof, and therefore a denial of reason.  By your own logic, all religious scientists should have funding removed and the field should be dominated by agnostics.



Here's a CDC study from 2015 on gun violence in Delaware.  http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
Note how many possible solutions they come up with that have nothing to do with restricting law abiding gun owners. Pages 13-15 have their recommendations.

I'm on board with the recommendations given in this study.  They seem sensible.  That said, they have nothing to do with "restricting law abiding gun owners" because that option was not considered at any point in the study, not because of any reasoned or justified problem with implementing restrictions.



edit: And for anyone who remembers Obama making a big deal about this, and commissioning research personally, here is the result:

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319

I'm surprised this isn't referenced more often by gun control advocates, but maybe it's because it doesn't say that restricting gun ownership will solve the problems:

"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies."

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

The quote in full:

Quote
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.


Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a small piece of the larger puzzle, and absolutely should be part of the discussion regarding a path forward to take involving guns.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #502 on: November 01, 2017, 01:15:53 PM »
This is a direct quote from the publication "GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?"
AN HONEST LOOK AT WHY ANTI-GUN RESEARCHERS SPIN THE FACTS!"  (available here:  http://www.gunsandcrime.org/epidemic.pdf).  I find it ironic that you use a quote from an opinion piece written by gun rights activists to demonstrate that we can't trust research about guns by people who have strong opinions on the matter.  Can you explain your logic on that to me?  :P

I didn't check my sources as carefully as you did, my mistake. Had I known that was the source I wouldn't have posted it. Clearly that is extremely biased.

edit: I did take a peek at the .pdf, and it appears they cited the claim. Since neither of us has a way to verify it I'll concede it is probably biased. One of the many troubles with discussing things from the 90's.

Quote
Mr. O'Carroll was misquoted.

How so?

Quote
I don't actually see a smoking gun (if you'll pardon the pun) here.  Cigarettes are still legal in the states and used by millions.  By using the power of advertising a reduction in smoking rates was achieved to the benefit of public health.  It feels like you're really overreaching on this one.

Specifically calling out something dirty, deadly, and banned, and saying that's how guns need to be seems slightly biased considering the lack of a "smoking gun" (liked it so much I stole it) in the available research. Putting the cart before the horse, some might say. If this was the worst that was said, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion, it's just part of the broader picture.

Quote
All valid points of concern I suppose.


ure, I'd be a little concerned.  I'd want to go over the work that they produce carefully.  But you're contending that the personal opinions held/expressed by any of these people prevented them from doing valid work.  Given this, are you equally concerned about religious people who work in science?  Science is dependent upon observing phenomenon and finding the theory that best fits the available facts.  Belief in God is absent proof, and therefore a denial of reason.  By your own logic, all religious scientists should have funding removed and the field should be dominated by agnostics.

I'm not arguing that it was the right decision, or that this is the way that everything should be handled. I agree with you that putting a hard stop on research is the wrong call. There's junk science out there for all sorts of things, so it wouldn't exactly be out of place, and theoretically the internet should help water it down (yeah right). 

I'm simply explaining that it's a much more complicated situation than "The NRA is afraid of research because they know guns are bad!" which I know you didn't say, but is often the implication when someone brings this point up. It's a complicated issue that is played off as a simple obvious one. It's become a marketing blurb at this point, similar to the law that prevents people from suing gun manufacturers for what their products are used for and spawns articles like this: "We Lost Our Daughter to a Mass Shooter and Now Owe $203,000 to His Ammo Dealer" https://www.huffingtonpost.com/lonnie-and-sandy-phillips/lucky-gunner-lawsuit_b_8197804.html. That's another law with a fairly complex, and actually very reasonable background that has been turned into a gun regulation marketing tool.

One of the original studies that started all of this determined that someone with a gun was 43 times more likely to have it used against them than on an attacker. Of course the study was debunked by the scientific community, but that didn't stop it from being referenced all over the place. It's STILL used occasionally today. Again, not arguing the merits of the reasoning, just explaining what it was.

And as far as "they should still be able to do the work." Surely you're not that naïve. If someone was a member of the KKK and wrote a book called "The Inferior Race" before even starting their research, would you trust them to do research on crime with regards to race? Would you let an outspoken anti-vaxxer design experiments to test the efficacy of vaccines? Surely they're a scientist so they could be neutral, right?

For most people Christianity deals with questions that can't be answered, so it's much easier for a scientist to compartmentalize it. I would not trust someone who believes the earth to be 4000 years old to be an authority on dinosaurs, but they could probably do great medical research on cancer treatments.

Quote
Here's a CDC study from 2015 on gun violence in Delaware.  http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
Note how many possible solutions they come up with that have nothing to do with restricting law abiding gun owners. Pages 13-15 have their recommendations.

I'm on board with the recommendations given in this study.  They seem sensible.  That said, they have nothing to do with "restricting law abiding gun owners" because that option was not considered at any point in the study, not because of any reasoned or justified problem with implementing restrictions.

And yet, they found other things that they think would prove effective. Also of note in the study is that the vast majority of people who commit gun crimes commit other violent crimes first. Perhaps we should work on preventing all of the crimes, rather than just blanket gun restrictions that even in theory only prevent one method of performing a crime.

Quote
The quote in full:

Quote
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.


Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a small piece of the larger puzzle, and absolutely should be part of the discussion regarding a path forward to take involving guns.

Agreed. I just felt it prudent to point out this massive study that was conducted, and that it found very little to support restriction of firearms. The issue of violence is extremely complex, and gun control is addressing a symptom using a "maybe it'll help" medicine with side effects when we should be searching for and addressing the root cause.

Back before Australia's relatively intense gun control initiatives took place, they already had 1/5 of the violent crime rate as the United States. I'm interested in what caused THAT discrepancy. I'm less interested in their gun control initiatives that saw their rates drop roughly the same amount as the US over the next 20 years.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2017, 01:21:59 PM by ooeei »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #503 on: November 01, 2017, 02:30:34 PM »
Quote
Mr. O'Carroll was misquoted.

How so?

That's what he said (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc) regarding the quotation.



And as far as "they should still be able to do the work." Surely you're not that naïve. If someone was a member of the KKK and wrote a book called "The Inferior Race" before even starting their research, would you trust them to do research on crime with regards to race? Would you let an outspoken anti-vaxxer design experiments to test the efficacy of vaccines? Surely they're a scientist so they could be neutral, right?

For most people Christianity deals with questions that can't be answered, so it's much easier for a scientist to compartmentalize it. I would not trust someone who believes the earth to be 4000 years old to be an authority on dinosaurs, but they could probably do great medical research on cancer treatments.

See, the problem with this whole line of reasoning is that you're attacking the person and not the argument.  If you think that they're doing bad science, prove it.  Discredit the work, not the person.



Quote
Here's a CDC study from 2015 on gun violence in Delaware.  http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
Note how many possible solutions they come up with that have nothing to do with restricting law abiding gun owners. Pages 13-15 have their recommendations.

I'm on board with the recommendations given in this study.  They seem sensible.  That said, they have nothing to do with "restricting law abiding gun owners" because that option was not considered at any point in the study, not because of any reasoned or justified problem with implementing restrictions.

And yet, they found other things that they think would prove effective. Also of note in the study is that the vast majority of people who commit gun crimes commit other violent crimes first. Perhaps we should work on preventing all of the crimes, rather than just blanket gun restrictions that even in theory only prevent one method of performing a crime.

There's no 'And yet' here.  You can't draw conclusions about what wasn't studied by a report.  That's like me pointing to the same report and saying that they're obviously Donald Trump supporters because they didn't mention that he's an idiot.  It's not a reasonable argument to make.


Quote
The quote in full:

Quote
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.


Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a small piece of the larger puzzle, and absolutely should be part of the discussion regarding a path forward to take involving guns.

Agreed. I just felt it prudent to point out this massive study that was conducted, and that it found very little to support restriction of firearms. The issue of violence is extremely complex, and gun control is addressing a symptom using a "maybe it'll help" medicine with side effects when we should be searching for and addressing the root cause.

This study wasn't intended to provide solutions but to identify factors and potential problems related to guns.  Debate about restrictions are only one small part of a solution, not a panacea.  The document clearly spells out other pieces, including the need for better record keeping by law enforcement (currently legislated to ridiculous non-searchable paper or microfilm documents), the issues with ease of access to guns by criminals due to personal sale loopholes, etc.



Back before Australia's relatively intense gun control initiatives took place, they already had 1/5 of the violent crime rate as the United States. I'm interested in what caused THAT discrepancy. I'm less interested in their gun control initiatives that saw their rates drop roughly the same amount as the US over the next 20 years.

Yep.  That's another aspect that needs to be looked at closely.  My main concern is that from what I see, there is plenty of interest in pointing out these problems that need to be worked on . . . but there seems to be little interest on the side of pro gun folks when it comes to actually proposing solutions or passing plans that will help in these areas.  They're merely brought up as a tactic to avoid discussing the particular parts of the issue (typically related to registration, regulation, and enforcement of current regulation) that they're uncomfortable with.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #504 on: November 01, 2017, 02:52:40 PM »
That's what he said (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc) regarding the quotation.

Even if we assume he was misquoted, my point was that is part of what drove this regulation. Again, just trying to explain why we have the regulation, I'm not arguing that it was the right decision.

Quote
See, the problem with this whole line of reasoning is that you're attacking the person and not the argument.  If you think that they're doing bad science, prove it.  Discredit the work, not the person.

Yes, I'm aware of what an ideal world looks like. Then again I'd be pretty pissed if the CDC was giving vocal racists funds to study race, or vocal anti-vaxxers funds to study vaccines. Let them pay for their own research.

Sure, we could give them the money then spend more money disproving it, but why would we?

Quote
There's no 'And yet' here.  You can't draw conclusions about what wasn't studied by a report.  That's like me pointing to the same report and saying that they're obviously Donald Trump supporters because they didn't mention that he's an idiot.  It's not a reasonable argument to make.

I'm not drawing conclusions about whether restrictions are effective or not. I'm saying they didn't look at restricting firearm ownership, AND YET they were  able to find other ways to combat the problems. That indicates that restricting firearms is not our only option here, so I'd prefer to try out some of those methods.

The general gist of their report seems to indicate that giving people incentives and resources to do the right things might be better than trying to prevent them from doing the wrong things. Seems reasonable to me.

Quote
This study wasn't intended to provide solutions but to identify factors and potential problems related to guns.  Debate about restrictions are only one small part of a solution, not a panacea.  The document clearly spells out other pieces, including the need for better record keeping by law enforcement (currently legislated to ridiculous non-searchable paper or microfilm documents), the issues with ease of access to guns by criminals due to personal sale loopholes, etc.

Agreed. I'm fine with looking at these ideas, and have discussed them many times on these forums. I'm glad we agree that restrictions are only a small part of a solution, and for me they're pretty low on the priority list.

Quote
Yep.  That's another aspect that needs to be looked at closely.  My main concern is that from what I see, there is plenty of interest in pointing out these problems that need to be worked on . . . but there seems to be little interest on the side of pro gun folks when it comes to actually proposing solutions or passing plans that will help in these areas.  They're merely brought up as a tactic to avoid discussing the particular parts of the issue (typically related to registration, regulation, and enforcement of current regulation) that they're uncomfortable with.

Yeah I'm not too happy about that myself. I'm not too big on the whole personal freedom crowd legislating women's bodies or supporting for profit prisons either. I really wish the Democrats would take a friendlier stance on guns, it might draw some of us middle of the road folks more in that direction. Our political system just sucks (granted, I can't think of a better one) if you like multiple things from different parties.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #505 on: November 06, 2017, 10:45:11 AM »
Just checking in to see if we've stopped masturbating with our guns in the US with the ubiquitous hopes, prayers and moments of silence finish in light of our most recent shoot 'em up spree in Texas.

But of course it's only the "crazies" this time, nothing to do with the actual weapons.

No? Carry on.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #506 on: November 06, 2017, 10:57:32 AM »
Just checking in to see if we've stopped masturbating with our guns in the US with the ubiquitous hopes, prayers and moments of silence finish in light of our most recent shoot 'em up spree in Texas.

But of course it's only the "crazies" this time, nothing to do with the actual weapons.

No? Carry on.


Accoding to CNN, the shooter was stopped early by a "good guy with a gun". BUT the shooter legally purchased the gun despite having a record for domestic assault on his wife and child, so the "perfectly fine" background checks that we currently have clearly failed here.

This is literally the most clear cut case I've seen for the argument "Yes you can keep your guns, but lets make a real control system".

For the people in the back: Gun control does not equal gun grabbing. We can have both.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #507 on: November 06, 2017, 11:15:50 AM »
Accoding to CNN, the shooter was stopped early by a "good guy with a gun".

According to this article, Kelley was shot only after leaving the church.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

He was shot by this guy who wasn't even in the congregation.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html


That's after completing his "mission." But then again, it was only 26 dead this time.

Texas AG wants to arm everyone. I'm sure that's the answer.

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #508 on: November 06, 2017, 11:24:45 AM »
Accoding to CNN, the shooter was stopped early by a "good guy with a gun".

According to this article, Kelley was shot only after leaving the church.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

He was shot by this guy who wasn't even in the congregation.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/us/texas-church-shooting-resident-action/index.html


That's after completing his "mission." But then again, it was only 26 dead this time.

Texas AG wants to arm everyone. I'm sure that's the answer.


Your second link says "The suspect dropped his rifle, which was a Ruger AR assault-type rifle and fled from the church," said Martin.

Not sure which one is accurate. Either way, this suspect dressed all in black with a tactical vest probably planned on getting away with it, or at least leaving the area without a bullet hole. Having the shooter get shot by someone was not a bad result, and better than the headline "Armed and dangerous man at large, everyone stay inside with your children".

But again, this POS shouldn't have been able to buy a gun in the first place with his record. Digital records would have stopped this purchase, and potentially changed the whole outcome.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #509 on: November 06, 2017, 11:30:50 AM »
"...Americans do what we do best: we pull together. We join hands. We lock arms and through the tears and the sadness, we stand strong..."

And do NOTHING.  Hope and prayers, that is all.  Such a useless sentiment.  What a sad day.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 11:32:42 AM by Johnez »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #510 on: November 06, 2017, 11:41:58 AM »
Ex military guy - dishonorable discharge, assault charges on spouse and child, spent a year in jail.

There are a few red flags there regarding a weapons purchase.  It's too bad that current laws do not recognize that fact.

Just Joe

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 970
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #511 on: November 06, 2017, 11:48:18 AM »
But his RIGHTS! Must protect his right to own a weapon! Or a dozen weapons...

Never mind the victims' collective rights to be alive... I think those rights should always win...

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #512 on: November 06, 2017, 12:15:43 PM »
Just checking in to see if we've stopped masturbating with our guns in the US with the ubiquitous hopes, prayers and moments of silence finish in light of our most recent shoot 'em up spree in Texas.

But of course it's only the "crazies" this time, nothing to do with the actual weapons.

No? Carry on.


Accoding to CNN, the shooter was stopped early by a "good guy with a gun". BUT the shooter legally purchased the gun despite having a record for domestic assault on his wife and child, so the "perfectly fine" background checks that we currently have clearly failed here.

This is literally the most clear cut case I've seen for the argument "Yes you can keep your guns, but lets make a real control system".

For the people in the back: Gun control does not equal gun grabbing. We can have both.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-church-shooting/index.html

He is a prohibited person due to his domestic violence conviction, unfortunately it somehow got past the NICS system and wasn't flagged. Had he been dishonorably discharged that would have been cause to deny as well, however he was a "bad-conduct discharge" which isn't treated the same.

The system has denied well over a million people since it's inception, so it's not like it just lets anyone go through. This isn't a matter of the system or laws not being strict enough, it's about the system not having the correct information.

But his RIGHTS! Must protect his right to own a weapon! Or a dozen weapons...

Never mind the victims' collective rights to be alive... I think those rights should always win...

Yes we all have the right to life, that doesn't mean we have the right to restrict anyone from having anything that can kill us. Owning a gun doesn't affect anyone's right to life. Shooting someone does, and is illegal.

But again, this POS shouldn't have been able to buy a gun in the first place with his record. Digital records would have stopped this purchase, and potentially changed the whole outcome.

As far as I know the background check records are digital. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Crime_Information_Center

The records you're likely referencing are records on purchases, basically on who bought a gun and when/where. Those records being digitized might help with tracking down the origins of criminal's guns more easily, but they would have no effect on the background check system and wouldn't have helped in this situation.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #513 on: November 06, 2017, 12:24:14 PM »
http://www.abc15.com/news/data/mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-over-270-mass-shootings-have-occurred-in-2017

There have been 307 mass shootings in 2017 in the U.S.  483 in 2016.

The NRA cucks can get in the sea.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #514 on: November 06, 2017, 12:26:42 PM »
But his RIGHTS! Must protect his right to own a weapon! Or a dozen weapons...

Never mind the victims' collective rights to be alive... I think those rights should always win...

Yes we all have the right to life, that doesn't mean we have the right to restrict anyone from having anything that can kill us. Owning a gun doesn't affect anyone's right to life. Shooting someone does, and is illegal.

Ah yes, this shitty excuse of an argument again.  I've heard "but, but...CARS!" a bunch as well.  Ya know what?  How about regulating guns even AS EQUALLY as cars?  Can you agree to that?

License, registration, driver's ed, driver's test, etc.  Can you agree guns should be at least regulated as well as cars?
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #515 on: November 06, 2017, 12:36:06 PM »
Ah yes, this shitty excuse of an argument again.  I've heard "but, but...CARS!" a bunch as well.  Ya know what?  How about regulating guns even AS EQUALLY as cars?  Can you agree to that?

License, registration, driver's ed, driver's test, etc.  Can you agree guns should be at least regulated as well as cars?

As has been discussed numerous times (I think even in this thread), guns and cars are not the same in all ways, although they can both kill people.

Additionally, cars are not required to be registered, you don't need a license to buy one, and you don't have to show proficiency to drive one. Only to do so on public property, similar to the vast majority of concealed carry regulations (licensing and training required). I can buy a car from my neighbor in cash, never put a license plate on it, and let a person who's never been to a DMV drive it all over my private property without breaking any laws.


Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #516 on: November 06, 2017, 01:00:30 PM »
If guys using their trucks to haul around crap on their properties started drifting out onto public roads and ended up hitting people and running things over, don't you think the gov't would have to step in at some time to regulate those yahoos?  Would it be out of line for the local gov't to attempt to protect those potentially in the path of vehicles?  I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a whole lot of laws governing automobile use when they first became viable transportation.  As their potential speed and weight increased, more laws were passed to ensure public safety.  Even the most rudimentary gun regulations talked about are batted down. 


« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 01:02:07 PM by Johnez »

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #517 on: November 06, 2017, 01:18:53 PM »
If guys using their trucks to haul around crap on their properties started drifting out onto public roads and ended up hitting people and running things over, don't you think the gov't would have to step in at some time to regulate those yahoos?  Would it be out of line for the local gov't to attempt to protect those potentially in the path of vehicles?  I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a whole lot of laws governing automobile use when they first became viable transportation.  As their potential speed and weight increased, more laws were passed to ensure public safety.  Even the most rudimentary gun regulations talked about are batted down.

In fact 20% of collisions involve unlicensed drivers, roughly 8400 people per year are killed by them, yet the laws still stand as is. Where is the outrage and campaigning for common sense automotive regulation? http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118913

Quote
One in every five fatal car crashes in the United States each year involves a driver who does not have a valid license or whose license status is a mystery to law enforcement, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report, “Unlicensed to Kill,” sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, said that 8,400 people die on average each year in crashes with unlicensed drivers. It also found that 28 percent of the lawbreaking drivers had received three or more license suspensions or revocations in the three years before their fatal collision.

I made a post far earlier in this thread talking about compromises I'd be interested in discussing. What I'm not interested in is compromises that only go in one direction.

Found it:

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

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

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

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

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

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #518 on: November 06, 2017, 01:25:59 PM »
If guys using their trucks to haul around crap on their properties started drifting out onto public roads and ended up hitting people and running things over, don't you think the gov't would have to step in at some time to regulate those yahoos?  Would it be out of line for the local gov't to attempt to protect those potentially in the path of vehicles?  I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a whole lot of laws governing automobile use when they first became viable transportation.  As their potential speed and weight increased, more laws were passed to ensure public safety.  Even the most rudimentary gun regulations talked about are batted down.

In fact 20% of collisions involve unlicensed drivers, roughly 8400 people per year are killed by them, yet the laws still stand as is. Where is the outrage and campaigning for common sense automotive regulation? http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118913

Quote
One in every five fatal car crashes in the United States each year involves a driver who does not have a valid license or whose license status is a mystery to law enforcement, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report, “Unlicensed to Kill,” sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, said that 8,400 people die on average each year in crashes with unlicensed drivers. It also found that 28 percent of the lawbreaking drivers had received three or more license suspensions or revocations in the three years before their fatal collision.

I made a post far earlier in this thread talking about compromises I'd be interested in discussing. What I'm not interested in is compromises that only go in one direction.

Found it:

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

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

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

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

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

+1
I must say I appreciate your posts on firearm regulation in this thread, you articulate it quite well.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #519 on: November 06, 2017, 01:32:10 PM »
ooeei-The idea of compromise makes sense.  I wish cooler heads would come to the table and put together a plan.  When the president of the United States immediately tweets out from his phone that it's not a gun issue-how is this supposed to happen?  Curious though, why are silencers important enough to preserve?  I hear they don't even work that well.  Ear protection?  Anyway, maybe if the NRA stepped forward in leadership with proposals, they wouldn't have to bat down unpopular ideas all the time.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #520 on: November 06, 2017, 01:41:30 PM »
ooeei-The idea of compromise makes sense.  I wish cooler heads would come to the table and put together a plan.  When the president of the United States immediately tweets out from his phone that it's not a gun issue-how is this supposed to happen?  Curious though, why are silencers important enough to preserve?  I hear they don't even work that well.  Ear protection?  Anyway, maybe if the NRA stepped forward in leadership with proposals, they wouldn't have to bat down unpopular ideas all the time.

If you're asking how we fix our government I think we're onto a whole different issue, and one I don't have an answer for.

The problem is it's hard to say you support something only if something else happens. Basically if a democrat said they'd be okay with silencers as long as we had quantity limits on firearms (pretty much unrelated), the republicans would try to trap them into saying silencers are okay, and then not compromise. The same goes for the other side. Laws pretty much have to exist in a vacuum in our system.

Additionally, some other democrat would platform on how tough he is on guns, and this other guy is giving up. "I won't give them an inch! This guy is giving those child killers whatever they want! I'll get quantity limits without allowing death dealing silencers!" and will likely get voted in. I mean, look at our president for a great example.


Even the UK allows silencers over the counter. Ear protection has numerous problems, the biggest being a lot of people don't use it because they don't have it at the time or it's inconvenient. If someone breaks into your home at night you're not likely to take the time to roll up little foam earplugs (and risk not hearing the perpetrator). Additionally it can fail by being installed improperly, or just mechanically fail. Another note is the ear protection only protects the person wearing it, and not anyone else who might happen to be nearby.

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/03/15/silencers-easy-get-uk-american-tourist-brings-home-goes-prison/

edit: And if they don't even work that well, why bother regulating them so harshly? The reality is how well they work is highly dependent on what type of gun/ammo you are using.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 01:44:03 PM by ooeei »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #521 on: November 06, 2017, 01:43:57 PM »
If guys using their trucks to haul around crap on their properties started drifting out onto public roads and ended up hitting people and running things over, don't you think the gov't would have to step in at some time to regulate those yahoos?  Would it be out of line for the local gov't to attempt to protect those potentially in the path of vehicles?  I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure there wasn't a whole lot of laws governing automobile use when they first became viable transportation.  As their potential speed and weight increased, more laws were passed to ensure public safety.  Even the most rudimentary gun regulations talked about are batted down.

In fact 20% of collisions involve unlicensed drivers, roughly 8400 people per year are killed by them, yet the laws still stand as is. Where is the outrage and campaigning for common sense automotive regulation? http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/story?id=118913

Quote
One in every five fatal car crashes in the United States each year involves a driver who does not have a valid license or whose license status is a mystery to law enforcement, according to a study released Wednesday.

The report, “Unlicensed to Kill,” sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, said that 8,400 people die on average each year in crashes with unlicensed drivers. It also found that 28 percent of the lawbreaking drivers had received three or more license suspensions or revocations in the three years before their fatal collision.

I made a post far earlier in this thread talking about compromises I'd be interested in discussing. What I'm not interested in is compromises that only go in one direction.

Found it:

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

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

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

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

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

The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #522 on: November 06, 2017, 01:51:00 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

edit: And in the end I don't make the laws, and am not a high ranking political figure, so the reality is this discussion is all theoretical anyway. I'm just trying to give my perspective to people who are on the other side of the fence.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 01:59:42 PM by ooeei »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #523 on: November 06, 2017, 02:00:17 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #524 on: November 06, 2017, 02:02:06 PM »
If the shooter in TX was a prohibited person who slipped through the background check system, why don't we look at how that happened and improve the system we have?  If that requires hiring more people for the NICS system, hire them.  No new laws, just better enforcement an existing law. 

PS - A better NICS system would have helped to avoid the Charleston shooting.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #525 on: November 06, 2017, 02:05:08 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #526 on: November 06, 2017, 02:08:44 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

Sigh.

This is why the conversation is over before it starts.

Because for every single measure that could reduce gun violence, there is an instance that someone can point to and say, "It wouldn't have worked in this instance."

So, yeah. I'm out. I don't know why I bother.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #527 on: November 06, 2017, 02:12:21 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

How about banning automatic assault rifles?

The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #528 on: November 06, 2017, 02:13:32 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

What do you mean universal background checks?

And I'm guessing you mean a registry by that database?

I think repealing the silencers and barrel/length limits on the NFA, 922r import parts number restrictions, and very strict controls on how/why/by whom that registry can be accessed would be all right with me. For something as big as a registry I'd like to see a constitutional amendment, but that's not realistic. A provision in the registry that it cannot be used for confiscation due to law changes would be good as well, but I'm not sure if that's really how that works.

The silencers, parts restrictions, and NFA length stuff is the important part though.

Additionally, tragedies will still happen, so we'll be having this same discussion again, I'm assuming with some more restrictive regulation. I guess that's a bridge we'll cross when we come to it.

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #529 on: November 06, 2017, 02:15:57 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

Sigh.

This is why the conversation is over before it starts.

Because for every single measure that could reduce gun violence, there is an instance that someone can point to and say, "It wouldn't have worked in this instance."

So, yeah. I'm out. I don't know why I bother.

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.

ooeei

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1050
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #530 on: November 06, 2017, 02:17:09 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

How about banning automatic assault rifles?

[img]https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23132137_2102630696414564_531958267617706018_n.jpg?oh=6c581c2cc73a324752dbde19fba6a9f1&oe=5AAC8DE6img]

You mean the style of weapon responsible for roughly 4% of firearm murders (including single shot rifles)? What will we do about the other 96%?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about and just saw a meme somewhere...

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.

Yeah but I was having a conversation about overall gun laws with her, so the idea was valid. The types of shootings you just described are an extremely small portion of gun deaths each year, as we've discussed earlier in this thread, so it doesn't make sense to design our gun laws purely around them.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 02:19:02 PM by ooeei »

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1208
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #531 on: November 06, 2017, 02:23:25 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

How about banning automatic assault rifles?

[img]https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23132137_2102630696414564_531958267617706018_n.jpg?oh=6c581c2cc73a324752dbde19fba6a9f1&oe=5AAC8DE6img]

You mean the style of weapon responsible for roughly 4% of firearm murders (including single shot rifles)? What will we do about the other 96%?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about and just saw a meme somewhere...

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.

Yeah but I was having a conversation about overall gun laws with her, so the idea was valid. The types of shootings you just described are an extremely small portion of gun deaths each year, as we've discussed earlier in this thread, so it doesn't make sense to design our gun laws purely around them.

Fair enough.  But if you have a law (background checks) in place that is failing in some instances because of under funding and lack of information sharing, that's an easier sell to fix the funding /information share issues than it is to pass a new law (universal background checks).

BDWW

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Location: MT
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #532 on: November 06, 2017, 02:25:30 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

How about banning automatic assault rifles?


Done ... 30 years ago, now what?

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #533 on: November 06, 2017, 02:53:11 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

How about banning automatic assault rifles?


Done ... 30 years ago, now what?

Looks like the AR-15 is still a freaking problem there, genius.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #534 on: November 06, 2017, 03:27:59 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

How about banning automatic assault rifles?


Done ... 30 years ago, now what?

Looks like the AR-15 is still a freaking problem there, genius.

Pump the brakes, guy. You are saying an AR-15 is an automatic assault rifle? False. AR-15s are semi-automatic. one bullet per trigger pull.
You don't get to be a jerk while being wrong.

Really, people such as yourself are the biggest barrier to people like me agreeing to regulation - just the shear, unadulterated ignorance.  It's impossible to have a nuanced, adult conversation when one party doesn't understand the terminology - and at times, it seems like the ignorance is willful.  Protip: don't develop hard-line opinions on something you clearly don't understand, and definitely don't adopt a condescending attitude about it either!

Additionally, given the small percentage of deaths attributable to a murder who carried an AR-15, and the vanishingly small percentages of AR-15s out there that have been used to murder people,  they really aren't that big of a problem.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 03:33:53 PM by ncornilsen »

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #535 on: November 06, 2017, 03:28:58 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

Sigh.

This is why the conversation is over before it starts.

Because for every single measure that could reduce gun violence, there is an instance that someone can point to and say, "It wouldn't have worked in this instance."

So, yeah. I'm out. I don't know why I bother.

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.

I'm all for improving the NICS background checks.  That's a common sense place to start.  Of course, there's likely to be little point in improving background checks for firearms sale if private firearms are regularly sold without any sort of background check.  But at least some small improvement would be made towards the situation.

dcamnc

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #536 on: November 06, 2017, 03:36:02 PM »
Yes, ar's are everywhere, I have one in fact. If they banned ar's, the nuts would just use something else. Ar's just happen to be plentiful. If they banned guns altogether, baddies would just use vehicles, like in NY. It's not about the tool, it's about the person. We're never going to be able to stop mass killings, no matter what laws are enacted.

caffeine

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 64
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #537 on: November 06, 2017, 03:40:53 PM »
Most reasonable people think regulation of guns should go further, but everything being suggested without repeal or modification of the 2nd Amendment only erodes all rights. If Government is allowed to circumvent the 2nd Amendment, I fear it essentially weakens every other right until Government priorities and whims supersede rights.

A quote from A Man for all Seasons comes to mind:

Quote
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • Location: Southern California
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #538 on: November 06, 2017, 03:45:10 PM »
The thing is, your "openness" to discussion on this is completely transactional, instead of being based in any sort of discussion of solutions that would help. It's not about sensible regulation, or about working together to diminish gun violence.

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

Those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. So, why "in exchange for?" It's just moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic, instead of trying to come up with actual solutions.

Because we are talking about compromise. Numerous people in this thread have asked what it would take for gun owners to agree to ____ restriction, or asked why we're so opposed to it. One of the big reasons is that currently there's significant numbers of regulations that do nothing but make things a pain on gun owners.

If you want me to add more restrictions to guns, I'd like for you to give up some of the restrictions that are currently on the books that are ineffective. I think that's a reasonable position. We can certainly argue about which regulations should be tied together though.  I'm not asking to get rid of background checks, I'm asking to get rid of the requirement that imports must have 5 (or whatever the number is) American made parts for some reason.

Pick a regulation you think would actually help. I'm sure I can provide you with plenty of regulations that don't help that we could consider exchanging between the two. That's the discussion I'm talking about, what I gave were merely examples.

Universal background checks, and a national, digitized database that can be accessed quickly and efficiently by law enforcement.

How would that have prevented this tragedy?  It appears this guy bought a gun and passed a background check.  If he shouldn't have passed the background check and did, let's solve that problem.

How about banning automatic assault rifles?


Done ... 30 years ago, now what?

Looks like the AR-15 is still a freaking problem there, genius.
.
Semi-automatic "assault rifles."  Quite a few guns fall under the term "semi-automatic." 

Your argument is the reason people go "derp, cars are dangerous, why don't ya ban those!"
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 03:46:57 PM by Johnez »

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #539 on: November 06, 2017, 04:24:22 PM »
Not sure which one is accurate. Either way, this suspect dressed all in black with a tactical vest probably planned on getting away with it, or at least leaving the area without a bullet hole. Having the shooter get shot by someone was not a bad result, and better than the headline "Armed and dangerous man at large, everyone stay inside with your children".

I guess my point was that the guy had already killed 26 people before leaving the church and before this other guy intervened. Despite a Real American Hero shooting him is moot.

We've really become normalized to the number of dead in each one of these.

See my first post in this thread.

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #540 on: November 06, 2017, 04:46:19 PM »
If the shooter in TX was a prohibited person who slipped through the background check system, why don't we look at how that happened and improve the system we have?  If that requires hiring more people for the NICS system, hire them.  No new laws, just better enforcement an existing law. 

PS - A better NICS system would have helped to avoid the Charleston shooting.

This early into the TX shooting there needs to be some patience for the investigators to figure this part out.  The system in place should have prevented this and it seems unlikely a new law or system would have made the difference.*  The conjecture this morning on the radio was "Did he buy it at a store? Was his conviction in the system? Did the NICS flag him? Did the store owner ignore it? Did the store owner overlook it? Did NICS somehow not give the correct report back?"  All valid and pertinent questions.



*Barring something like his buddy just loaning him the rifle.


Edit: Air Force screwed up his conviction paperwork.  Air Force Error Allowed Texas Gunman to Buy Weapons




How do you alter a hyperlink to show a title rather than the URL?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2017, 07:34:38 PM by Travis »
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

kingxiaodi

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #541 on: November 06, 2017, 05:46:44 PM »

Edit: Air Force screwed up his conviction paperwork.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html

How do you alter a hyperlink to show a title rather than the URL?

Leave the URL alone inside the first bracket. Type what you want between the two tags. E.g. {url=www.google.com}Title Here{/url} becomes Title Here.

(Sorry if this isn't what you meant)

Travis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Location: Tempe, AZ
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #542 on: November 06, 2017, 07:34:52 PM »

Edit: Air Force screwed up his conviction paperwork.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/us/texas-shooting-church.html

How do you alter a hyperlink to show a title rather than the URL?

Leave the URL alone inside the first bracket. Type what you want between the two tags. E.g. {url=www.google.com}Title Here{/url} becomes Title Here.

(Sorry if this isn't what you meant)

Perfect. Thanks.
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

DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #543 on: November 07, 2017, 07:41:57 AM »


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

The trend in mass shootings becoming more frequent and worse (in terms of casualties) is not a coincidence.  This has been going on since Congress let the 1994 Assault Weapons ban lapse in 2004 without even reconsidering their options at the time.

The fact is, among high-income developed nations, you are 25x more likely to die from a gun in the U.S.  It's a national embarrassment and thanks to the NRA stranglehold on the Republican Party, any hint of a change to the current process is immediately shut down.  Banning bump stocks? "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!" Stricter background checks? "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!" Require mental health screening? "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!"

#45 has weighed in from South Korea saying it's not a gun issue and he will not consider anything related to gun control.

Here are the NRA talking points after every mass shooting (307 this year and counting) - 1) It's too soon to talk about gun control.  It's time for thoughts and prayers, please.  2) Well, look, nothing legislatively would have prevented this tragedy from happening.  3) Repeat.

It's a complete joke and disgrace to the American people.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

Milkshake

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 121
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #544 on: November 07, 2017, 07:50:05 AM »
How about banning automatic assault rifles?

Looks like the AR-15 is still a freaking problem there, genius.

Statements like this literally take away informed gun control advocates ability to have a reasonable discussion, because the anti-gun control people think that we all believe stuff like this. If looking at a gun makes you feel like you are looking at Voldemort's wand, you have no right to discuss gun control.

Also Huffpost is never a valid source, and is akin to Conservative Daily in my mind.

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.

Gun control IS trying to fix the current system. Yet every time we try to bring up compromise, it gets shot down (like Kris said) because there's no guarantee it would've stopped the most recent tragedy. That isn't a valid argument because it's not provable or disprovable.

ooeei- I am mostly in favor of your compromises. I would absolutely be willing to at least give it a shot. People in favor of gun control need to realize that we won't get everything in one swoop. Steps in the right direction is worth it, and then we observe the changes. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. We don't need the whole farm here, let's settle for just a little better than nothing.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #545 on: November 07, 2017, 07:55:26 AM »


https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

The trend in mass shootings becoming more frequent and worse (in terms of casualties) is not a coincidence.  This has been going on since Congress let the 1994 Assault Weapons ban lapse in 2004 without even reconsidering their options at the time.

The fact is, among high-income developed nations, you are 25x more likely to die from a gun in the U.S.  It's a national embarrassment and thanks to the NRA stranglehold on the Republican Party, any hint of a change to the current process is immediately shut down.  Banning bump stocks? "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!" Stricter background checks? "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!" Require mental health screening? "YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS!"

#45 has weighed in from South Korea saying it's not a gun issue and he will not consider anything related to gun control.

Here are the NRA talking points after every mass shooting (307 this year and counting) - 1) It's too soon to talk about gun control.  It's time for thoughts and prayers, please.  2) Well, look, nothing legislatively would have prevented this tragedy from happening.  3) Repeat.

It's a complete joke and disgrace to the American people.

Is the huffington post trying to win a "lying with charts and graphs" award? What does only plotting the 12 most deadly shootings show us? Why not plot all of them? Why the 5 year lag between the end of the AWB and the next data point? How do you explain the one that happened during the AWB? That chart shows nothing compelling linking the AWB to these shootings.


In this particular case, the laws we already have SHOULD have stopped this. But there was a failure that allowed the guy to buy the weapon despite his history. THAT needs to be investigated.

And so what if those who support the 2nd ammendment point out that none of the laws floated by the left would have stopped this when that is infact the case?






ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #546 on: November 07, 2017, 08:14:39 AM »
How about banning automatic assault rifles?

Looks like the AR-15 is still a freaking problem there, genius.

Statements like this literally take away informed gun control advocates ability to have a reasonable discussion, because the anti-gun control people think that we all believe stuff like this. If looking at a gun makes you feel like you are looking at Voldemort's wand, you have no right to discuss gun control.

Also Huffpost is never a valid source, and is akin to Conservative Daily in my mind.

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.

Gun control IS trying to fix the current system. Yet every time we try to bring up compromise, it gets shot down (like Kris said) because there's no guarantee it would've stopped the most recent tragedy. That isn't a valid argument because it's not provable or disprovable.

ooeei- I am mostly in favor of your compromises. I would absolutely be willing to at least give it a shot. People in favor of gun control need to realize that we won't get everything in one swoop. Steps in the right direction is worth it, and then we observe the changes. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. We don't need the whole farm here, let's settle for just a little better than nothing.


I'd be on board with some compromises, as discussed by Ooeei.

Couple thoughts:
The whole "no law would prevent 100% of mass shootings" isn't brought up, at least by me, to say "the law must be 100% perfect or I won't buy in."  It is brought up because the fact is, no law will be 100% effective. I don't want to start a cycle of Tragedy -> more laws -> another tragedy -> more laws -> yet another tragedy -> more laws, now effectively negativing the 2nd.   Incrementalism is a real thing.  I'd want some sort of a 10 year cooling period on any reforms. IE, the laws cannot be changed for a decade.   

If there was to be compromise today, I am certain that we'll be having the same conversations 10 years later, only this time "you stupid conservatives won't compromise and allow us to ban anything that fires more than 1 shot!!11! we want common sense regulation!. " The nature of our two positions is that 2nd amendment supporters will compromise and add regulation, a new baseline will be set, and then we will be asked to compromise again. This is one reason I agree with Ooeei that any new law or regulation ought to be accompanied by relaxation of some other. There's plenty of stupid and ineffective laws to be removed to enact some that might do something. An apt analogy is that you have a rope on a winch tied to the head of an ox, trying to drag it into the pit. As long as the ox stays laying down, you can't drag him closer, the winch isn't strong enough. The second the ox stands up to take one step toward your pit of "common sense regulation" you can run the winch at full speed and pull them into the pit. Basically, I don't beleive the pro gun control politicians are approaching this debate in good faith.

There also needs to be some realization that we are not going to get to a .5/100K firearm homicide rate. Won't happen. There are too many factors working against the US that other European developed countries don't have. I'm talking about the war on drugs (end that, please?), the gang violence we deal with, and so on. Those people are beyond regulation. Due to these challenges, it's almost a false comparison to lump us with European developed countries, when we are infact dealing with many of the same issues that other 3rd world nations are. (drugs/gangs, etc.)





DarkandStormy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Midwest, USA
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #547 on: November 07, 2017, 08:54:56 AM »
And so what if those who support the 2nd ammendment point out that none of the laws floated by the left would have stopped this when that is infact the case?

The NRA worldview - we can't stop these mass killings.  Let's sit on our hands.

What an utter embarrassment.
The Chase Trifecta:
Earn 50,000 Ultimate Rewards points with Chase Sapphire Preferred - $4k spend in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/6/2MOVOLZCEJ
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom Unlimited - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/18/ENYF0FTS66
Earn a $150 bonus with Chase Freedom - only $500 spend needed in 3 months.
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/2/DBOP9XI9XT

Southwest Cards - Earn 40k miles for $1k spend in 3 months.
Premier -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/224/JY2BMSDZJ2
Plus -
https://www.referyourchasecard.com/223/F3ZW8H140N

Recommended Cell Service - Google's Project Fi: https://g.co/fi/r/THK0WX

robartsd

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1044
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #548 on: November 07, 2017, 09:30:44 AM »
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a-tures/did-the-assault-weapons-b_b_9740352.html

The trend in mass shootings becoming more frequent and worse (in terms of casualties) is not a coincidence.  This has been going on since Congress let the 1994 Assault Weapons ban lapse in 2004 without even reconsidering their options at the time.
This graph seems highly manipulated to me. I'm sure given time I could figure out some selection and presentation criteria that would show the 1994 ban had no effect. Specific questions based on this graph: What does the cumulative mass shooting graph look like when you include all mass shootings instead of picking the 12 worst ones? What does the graph look like if you graph per capita deaths in mass shootings instead of absolute numbers?

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9311
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
« Reply #549 on: November 07, 2017, 09:41:28 AM »
How about banning automatic assault rifles?

Looks like the AR-15 is still a freaking problem there, genius.

Statements like this literally take away informed gun control advocates ability to have a reasonable discussion, because the anti-gun control people think that we all believe stuff like this. If looking at a gun makes you feel like you are looking at Voldemort's wand, you have no right to discuss gun control.

Also Huffpost is never a valid source, and is akin to Conservative Daily in my mind.

Kris - The conversation has been mainly about Vegas and the latest shooting in Texas.  Both shooters in those instances passed background checks (as did many of the other mass shooters).  If we are talking about ways to fix those mass shootings, then what you proposed is irrelevant.  If we can improve the NICS, why not start there?  That's something that simply involves funding.

Gun control IS trying to fix the current system. Yet every time we try to bring up compromise, it gets shot down (like Kris said) because there's no guarantee it would've stopped the most recent tragedy. That isn't a valid argument because it's not provable or disprovable.

ooeei- I am mostly in favor of your compromises. I would absolutely be willing to at least give it a shot. People in favor of gun control need to realize that we won't get everything in one swoop. Steps in the right direction is worth it, and then we observe the changes. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. We don't need the whole farm here, let's settle for just a little better than nothing.


I'd be on board with some compromises, as discussed by Ooeei.

Couple thoughts:
The whole "no law would prevent 100% of mass shootings" isn't brought up, at least by me, to say "the law must be 100% perfect or I won't buy in."  It is brought up because the fact is, no law will be 100% effective. I don't want to start a cycle of Tragedy -> more laws -> another tragedy -> more laws -> yet another tragedy -> more laws, now effectively negativing the 2nd.   Incrementalism is a real thing.  I'd want some sort of a 10 year cooling period on any reforms. IE, the laws cannot be changed for a decade.   

Gun advocates have long said that the US can't follow the example of any other country . . . it's unique.  (In fact, this is an argument you use later on in this very post.)  If this is true, then the best way to figure out what works is to implement something and then check/monitor the data regarding the outcome of the implementation.  What you're proposing is the exact opposite of that.



If there was to be compromise today, I am certain that we'll be having the same conversations 10 years later, only this time "you stupid conservatives won't compromise and allow us to ban anything that fires more than 1 shot!!11! we want common sense regulation!. " The nature of our two positions is that 2nd amendment supporters will compromise and add regulation, a new baseline will be set, and then we will be asked to compromise again. This is one reason I agree with Ooeei that any new law or regulation ought to be accompanied by relaxation of some other. There's plenty of stupid and ineffective laws to be removed to enact some that might do something. An apt analogy is that you have a rope on a winch tied to the head of an ox, trying to drag it into the pit. As long as the ox stays laying down, you can't drag him closer, the winch isn't strong enough. The second the ox stands up to take one step toward your pit of "common sense regulation" you can run the winch at full speed and pull them into the pit. Basically, I don't beleive the pro gun control politicians are approaching this debate in good faith.

As colourful as your ox metaphor is, it's not very relevant to the discussion.

My main issue with your suggestion of tit-for-tat reciprocity is that doing something like making silencers more available (for example since this was suggested a bit earlier) is a confounding variable that could impact or mask the effectiveness of the change being made to regulate firearms.  There do exist some stupid and ineffective laws related to firearms which I suspect that many would be OK with loosening . . . but I don't often see discussion of them.



There also needs to be some realization that we are not going to get to a .5/100K firearm homicide rate. Won't happen. There are too many factors working against the US that other European developed countries don't have. I'm talking about the war on drugs (end that, please?), the gang violence we deal with, and so on. Those people are beyond regulation. Due to these challenges, it's almost a false comparison to lump us with European developed countries, when we are infact dealing with many of the same issues that other 3rd world nations are. (drugs/gangs, etc.)

The gun problem in the US is multi-faceted.  It should be approached from a variety of angles.  Gun regulation and controls are just a small part of the solution.  I agree with you, the war on drugs is a failed and damaging piece of legislation.  Gang violence is certainly not unique to the US, but there are underlying problems that contribute to it (poverty, racial equality issues, education, social mobility) that should all be examined.  Better access to health care (particularly mental health care) is also a factor in this discussion.

Yep, there are a lot of things to think about.  But simply saying 'It's too big, nothing can be done, we'll always suck relative to the rest of the world" . . . well, that's a defeatist attitude.  In many ways I'd argue that it's almost the opposite to the kind of attitude that led to the founding of the US and served so well in WWII and through the depression.