The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: accolay on October 02, 2017, 04:41:35 PM

Title: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 02, 2017, 04:41:35 PM
"Americans Prove They Can Still Come Together"

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

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

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

When will you or someone you know be next?

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 02, 2017, 04:43:37 PM
Well, the NRA and people who own stock in gun companies have a vested interest in keeping the mass shootings going, so...

https://boingboing.net/2017/10/02/gun-company-stocks-soar-after.html
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 02, 2017, 05:42:25 PM
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: wenchsenior on October 02, 2017, 06:26:05 PM
I'm pretty numb to it at this point.  I think the last time I really had a breakdown over one was...whew...Virginia Tech.  Boy that was a lot of shootings ago, amirite?  And the last time I got really rageful was Sandy Hook. I think I've cauterized the part of my brain that reacts in self defense.  I mean, what's the point of caring?  I figure if mass shooting of a bunch of little kids didn't overcome the NRA/guns rights objections, nothing is EVER going to.

My gallows humor take is that eventually, a group of shooters will manage to mass-kill a number close to that killed in the Twin Towers on 9/11...and on that day, when some 'overly emotional libtard' mentions that we went to war against the terrorist group that killed that many of our citizens, and the least we could do is ban some weaponry, there will inevitably be a Fox News  led chorus of right wingers saying how, "A tragedy is not the time to be discussing politics or policy about gun rights".

Cause that is apparently how Murica rolls. Greatest nation on earth HOO YEAH.

Sorry, the Puerto Rico situation has been driving me nuts with anxiety...so today's events have me in a very nihilistic head-space.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ahoy on October 02, 2017, 06:37:04 PM
How many more innocent people have to die????  This is very sad, frustrating and unnecessary.

So many funds and portfolios are filled with these manufactures. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against those hunting. 

I don't know much about this website, but looks interesting.

https://goodbyegunstocks.com/


Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nnls on October 02, 2017, 06:49:37 PM
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/silencers-armor-piercing-bullets-congress-looks-rollback-gun-laws-n806881)

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ixtap on October 02, 2017, 06:55:26 PM
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/silencers-armor-piercing-bullets-congress-looks-rollback-gun-laws-n806881)

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

The second amendment allows for "a well regulated militia". Many of us do not understand how that means unlimited guns for all whenever they please.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 02, 2017, 07:18:26 PM
Gun manufacturers' stocks are going up, so that's all right.  Right?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 02, 2017, 08:15:02 PM
Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will

I'm from the United States and it doesn't make any sense to me.

Crickets from the NRA...again. Fuck those guys.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 02, 2017, 09:23:47 PM
Is it time to talk about gun control yet?
Every time there's a mass shooting, there's a knee-jerk reaction to ask this question.  And there's always a knee-jerk reaction of "hands off muh guns!"

But once you get beyond the initial reactions of shock, horror, grief, etc, if you're in favor of more gun control, you have to get down to brass tacks and make specific policy proposals.  And then you must explain how exactly those specific proposals would prevented the tragedy.



It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/silencers-armor-piercing-bullets-congress-looks-rollback-gun-laws-n806881)

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

With respect to "silencers," while they reduce the intensity of the sound coming from a rifle, the noise is still pretty loud, just less "bang"y.  It's still very clear where the sound is coming from.  Silencers aren't really a significant contributor to crime in the base case, because 1) they're expensive, 2) you can still hear the gun, and 3) they make the gun longer and heavier.  Also, it's not actually difficult to make your own suppressor--an oil filter ($5) and a thread adapter ($7) are all you need to make a rudimentary (and illegal) suppressor.  If suppressors were going to help someone get away with a crime, you'd see all the gangs in Chicago running around with 'em.  In fact, in many places in Europe (certainly no bastion of gun rights), you can buy a suppressor over the counter with no paperwork whatsoever, and they don't seem to have a problem with criminals using them.

On the "shield people transporting guns across state lines" issue, the problem is this:  per federal law, you can transport a gun you lawfully own across states lines without local/state authorities messing with you, including through areas that have stricter gun laws.  To be clear, this is a situation where the gun is unloaded and locked in a case in the trunk of your car.  Some states (especially NY and NJ) have decided that they don't like that law, and they will use any excuse to try to throw you in jail.  Stop for gas?  Ooh, suddenly you're not just passing through, and they think you're fair game.  They always lose, but the innocent gun owner gets detained and often brought all the way through trial and ends up having to pay lots of lawyer's fees, even though the law is clearly on their side.  The proposed law would add some teeth to the federal law by making the arresting state or local government pay for the defendant's legal fees in these cases.

Regarding concealed carry reciprocity, the issue is similar--otherwise law-abiding people (who pose no threat to anyone) are getting caught up in a patchwork of laws, to nobody's benefit.  It's worth pointing out that people who go through the process to get a concealed carry permit are, by definition, law-abiding people.  In fact, they have about the lowest crime rate of any group of people in the US.  Or put another way, you simply don't hear stories about CC permit holders committing crimes.

Gun rights on public lands - a good chunk of the law is about expanding hunting access to public land.  I'm not sure what the objection here is.

"surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have" Here's where the rub is.  The devil, as they say, is in the details.  There's a very understandable urge to "do something," but we must be sure that 1) the "something" will actually prevent future tragedies, and 2) the "something" won't cause more problems than it solves.

There is no "gun control" debate.  At all.  Those wanting unfettered access to firearms have won.  A complete, total victory.
reductio ad absurdum much?  Gun laws in the US on a federal level haven't changed much in the last few decades.  There's the machine gun ban of 1986, and the now-defunct assault weapons ban in 1994, but not much else.  On a state level is where you've seen changes.  Illinois now has concealed carry, Connecticut and New York (and a few other states) have passed some laws in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, and a few states have widened concealed and open carry laws, but by and large the landscape hasn't changed dramatically.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Lance Hiruma on October 02, 2017, 09:27:02 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/02/i-cannot-express-how-wrong-i-was-country-guitarist-changes-mind-on-gun-control-after-vegas/
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nnls on October 02, 2017, 09:32:59 PM
Is it time to talk about gun control yet?
Every time there's a mass shooting, there's a knee-jerk reaction to ask this question.  And there's always a knee-jerk reaction of "hands off muh guns!"

But once you get beyond the initial reactions of shock, horror, grief, etc, if you're in favor of more gun control, you have to get down to brass tacks and make specific policy proposals.  And then you must explain how exactly those specific proposals would prevented the tragedy.


I would say policies similar to what Australia put in place might help, we havent had a mass shooting since  April 1996

When gun control makes a difference (https://theconversation.com/when-gun-control-makes-a-difference-4-essential-reads-85043)

Quote
To clamp down on guns, the federal government worked with Australia’s states to ban semiautomatic rifles and pump action shotguns, establish a uniform gun registry and buy the now-banned guns from people who had purchased them before owning them became illegal. The country also stopped recognizing self-defense as an acceptable reason for gun ownership and outlawed mail-order gun sales.

There have been no mass murders since the Port Arthur massacre and the subsequent clampdown on guns, Chapman observes. In contrast, there were 13 of those tragic incidents over the previous 18 years – in which a total of 104 victims died. Other gun deaths have also declined.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 02, 2017, 09:47:32 PM
High-profile mass murder crimes like this one distract from the actual problem of gun violence that mostly occurs one or two deaths at a time. It's fun to imagine the 2nd Amendment away, but it exists, as well as the Heller SCOTUS case. Gun control at the level where most gun violence is substantially precluded is problematic for a few reasons:

1) the Heller decision would need to be substantially overturned and/or the 2nd Amendment would have to be repealed
2) Congress would need to pass laws banning almost all firearms and begin programs that draw down the enormous stock of guns in circulation in the country
3) the culture of hunting and shooting sports popular throughout much of the (flyover) US would either need to be accommodated somehow (without leaking guns to potential criminals) or else denied its primary tool of choice

The politically complicated path-dependency of these changes is such that I don't see a realistic approach towards the meaningful elimination of firearms from the US in the foreseeable future.

Finally, this case is a little odd since the shooter is so old (64).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ysette9 on October 02, 2017, 09:59:14 PM
In my mind there is no question that logistically we could come up with a solution and reduce or eliminate mass shootings and deaths overall. Politically though we seem to have zero will collectively to do anything. I think that is what a previous poster meant by the NRA winning entirely. They have completely dominated the debate to the point that the mass murder of innocent children isn’t enough to limit even the most extreme and absurd weapons. If we can’t summon the will to ban weapons designed solely for killing as many people as quickly as possible, we are hopeless.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Taran Wanderer on October 02, 2017, 10:27:29 PM
I like data. Here is some interesting data:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ahoy on October 02, 2017, 10:35:00 PM
 Las Vegas is number 273 mass shooting for this year.  We are 275 days into the current year.  And yet, some people still don't think there is a problem.  So, tomorrow there will be another mass shooting, yet most people won't hear about it.   
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Lance Hiruma on October 02, 2017, 10:43:54 PM
I like data. Here is some interesting data:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
This is, awesome. Love Vox.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Radagast on October 02, 2017, 11:01:02 PM
A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 02, 2017, 11:20:24 PM
I like data. Here is some interesting data:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
This is, awesome. Love Vox.
This (http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/) has some useful criticism of that voxplaination; regarding chart #5:

As the old saying goes, guns don’t kill people; guns controlled for robbery rate, alcoholism, income, a dummy variable for Southernness, and a combined measure of social deprivation kill people.

Getting to the tentative conclusion:

How much would gun control actually cut US gun ownership? That obviously depends on the gun control, but a lot of people talk about Australia’s gun buyback program as a model to be emulated. These people say it decreased gun ownership from 7% of people to 5% of people (why is this number so much lower than Canada and Germany? I think because it’s people rather than households – if a gun owner is married to a non-gun-owner, they count as one gun-owner and one non-owner, as opposed to a single gun-owning household. The Australian household number seems to be 19% or so). So the gun buyback program in Australia decreased gun ownership by (relative) 30% or so. If a similar program decreased gun ownership in America by (relative) 30%, it would decrease it by (absolute) 10% and decrease the homicide rate by (absolute) 22%. Since there are about 13000 homicides in the US per year, that would save about 3000 lives – or avert about one 9/11 worth of deaths per year.

(note that our murder rate would still be 3.0, compared to Germany’s 0.8 and Canada’s 1.4. Seriously, I’m telling you, the murder rate difference is not primarily driven by guns!)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: marty998 on October 03, 2017, 12:59:20 AM
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: farfromfire on October 03, 2017, 01:09:52 AM
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?
IIRC most police officers in the US believe concealed carry and armed law-abiding citizens decrease crime, and thus decrease the chances of their colleagues getting mowed down.

ETA:
I have to say that the whole gun debate looks pretty ridiculous to most outside the US. But as with healthcare, the prevailing opinion seems to be that the US is special, or Americans are a different breed, and what works elsewhere could not possibly work in America.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Debonair on October 03, 2017, 01:47:03 AM
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?

From my experience as an EMT, lots of first responders are working class guys that grew up around guns and hunting.  Many also hunt or own guns themselves so the lack of "non extreme" gun control preposals turn them off.

Also their has been a shift in gun owner ship in the USA. It's a lot less hunters now and a lot more people that are worried about personal safety. That has in turn changed the types of people you see at the range. I remember as a kid I almost never saw any women at the range. When I went this summer on my trip home their was a lot.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: libertarian4321 on October 03, 2017, 03:40:01 AM
No, we can't come together. I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism, and that this couldn't possibly have been prevented. But yeah, it could have.

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

It seems like yet another knee-jerk "do something" plea that won't have any effect on criminals.

I'm a gun owner.  I've been using guns since I was about 12 years old.  I was on my college rifle team.  I'm ex-military.  I don't consider myself an expert on guns, but I'm a bit more knowledgeable than the average bear.

I've never shot a living thing in my life.  Not a bird, not a squirrel, and definitively not a person.

Paper targets need to fear me, people don't (unless they are invading my home at 3 AM- those SOBs had better hope their life insurance is paid up).

I'm an engineer, a mustachian, a self-made multimillionaire, a philanthropist, a pillar of my community.   Other than 3 speeding tickets (last one, 2003 or thereabouts), I've had no run ins with the law in 54 years. I'm not saying that to be a blow hard, but rather to illustrate that most gun owners, like me, are good, law abiding citizens, and no threat to anyone.

How will restricting my access, or that of millions of other similar law abiding citizens, stop a psycho who doesn't give a damn about the law?

I'm NOT an uncaring "gun nut."  These sort of events are tragic.  I wish I could think of a way to prevent them that didn't involve turning this nation into a police state.  Punishing decent, law abiding citizens for the bad acts of psychos won't solve the problem.

FWIW, I've donated $500 (a $250 donation, then another $250 donation after my wife called me a "cheap bastard" :) to https://www.gofundme.com/dr2ks2-las-vegas-victims-fund .  I understand that with all the pleas for donations lately (the hurricanes, etc), some may be a little "compassion" fatigued.  But if any of y'all want to help, this seems like a good way to do it.  Or by donating blood, especially if you are somewhere close to Las Vegas.

And I agree with the OP, I'm tired of this too...

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 03, 2017, 04:00:53 AM

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: libertarian4321 on October 03, 2017, 04:02:00 AM
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?

From my experience as an EMT, lots of first responders are working class guys that grew up around guns and hunting.  Many also hunt or own guns themselves so the lack of "non extreme" gun control preposals turn them off.

Also their has been a shift in gun owner ship in the USA. It's a lot less hunters now and a lot more people that are worried about personal safety. That has in turn changed the types of people you see at the range. I remember as a kid I almost never saw any women at the range. When I went this summer on my trip home their was a lot.

Yup.  I've been familiar with guns as long as I can remember.

My wife, an immigrant from Hong Kong, had never even though about using a weapon prior to coming to the USA.

I wanted her to learn to shoot for her own protection.  The first time I took her to a range, she was, to say the least, apprehensive.  She thought I was nuts to take her there.

An hour later, after running through a 100 rounds or so on the pistol range, I couldn't drag her away.  She just loves shooting.  Maybe because she's got way better eyes than I do at this point, despite my vast advantage in experience, she can generally out shoot me at the range. 

I'll probably have to turn in my "man card" for admitting that. :)

10-years later, she won't leave me alone.  I want to stay home on the weekend and watch football, and she insists on dragging me to the range.  I've created a monster.

Oh, I should also say that she is also not a "threat" to anyone who isn't a paper target.  Most of the time, she's a quiet, respectful, Chinese-American scientist.  Ridiculously meek and mild mannered.  She only becomes "Rambo" at the range. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: libertarian4321 on October 03, 2017, 04:26:24 AM

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.

Unless you go back to restricting gun ownership to only antique guns made before WWI or so, you aren't going to stop semi-autos.  I still love to shoot an old fashioned bolt action on occasion.  I first learned to shoot using bolt action.  But thinking that we are going to go back to 1915 probably isn't realistic.

Even simple hunting rifles are semi-auto.  Millions of semi-auto hunting rifles, that have the same ability, but not the same "style" as "assault style rifles" are sold here every year.  In the USA, there is an obsession among the leftist gun banners about "military style assault rifles.  These folks generally know about as much about guns as I know about high fashion, which is to say, next to nothing.

To say nothing of the probably tens of millions of semi-auto handguns sold every year.

"Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?"

Yes, there is a good reason.  A semi-auto gives the individual a chance to overcome a group of people with bad intentions.

If I was 21, I could probably fire a bolt action fast enough to overcome a group of 3-4 criminals invading my home.  I was young. I was fit.  I had no health problems.  I had great vision.  I probably could have held my own.

In my mid-50s, I'd be hard pressed to do so.  I'm getting old.  I can't chamber that round quickly like I could when I was young.  I can't fire as accurately as when I was young and my vision was 20/20.

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

I would also suggest that, in addition to the TENS OF MILLIONS (maybe hundreds of millions) of semi-autos already out there, that technology has advanced to the point that backyard weapon smiths could create a semi-auto fairly easily.

In the end, the only folks you would "restrict" would be law abiding citizens.  The criminals, those who really wanted to do evil, would find a way to get that semi-auto (or full auto).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 03, 2017, 05:20:27 AM
[...]

Hunting: learn to shoot before you hunt, then a single shot will be fine (works in the Scottish Highlands, right?).

The chances of you or your father being the subject of a home invasion seem pretty small to me, and the chances of either of you being in a position to resist using guns seem pretty small too - you are probably better off with the instincts to call 911 and hide until the cops arrive. 

Also, the chances of either of you or your family members dying in a gun accident or using a gun to commit suicide are probably much higher than the home invasion fantasy.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: alsoknownasDean on October 03, 2017, 05:53:05 AM
Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

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

When will you or someone you know be next?

Won't happen. The current ultra laissez-faire approach to guns is too culturally ingrained. Sad, but true.

Even without taking into account the second amendment, would the concept of a gun licence really be accepted? Or the argument that 'some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns'.

Food for thought, if an armed thug breaks into your house with the intention of stealing your possessions, which of your possessions are worth risking your life over? If they really want to steal my TV or even my car, I'd rather survive and have them take it than risk dying defending it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Freedom2016 on October 03, 2017, 07:14:14 AM

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 03, 2017, 07:25:54 AM

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.

Your statistical chance of being a victim of a mass shooter are similarly low.  Automatic weapons are illegal and this guy purchased the weapons in several states (including CA) who had background checks.

With 300M+ guns in the US, what gun laws would work short of confiscation?  I'm disgusted by this killing, I have yet to hear a reasonable idea for preventing it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: conpewter on October 03, 2017, 07:29:15 AM
The main thing I think of when I see these tragedies is the lack of mental health care in this country.

This asshole had two planes, if he wanted to kill a lot of folks he could have flown one of those into the crowd, or he could have easily built an explosive to do the same.  He had enough money to buy any amount of illegally created weapons.  We need to treat the problem, not the symptom.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 07:29:26 AM
There is no "gun control" debate.  At all.  Those wanting unfettered access to firearms have won.  A complete, total victory.

Now we all reap what has been sown.

A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).

Pretty much this.


You'll get all the standard gun advocacy arguments in this thread:
- The only reason the evil gubmint hasn't killed and enslaved every last American is guns
- Licences for owning a firearm won't work (see above)
- Gun controls won't work in the US because it's different than every other country where gun controls have ever been implemented
- Hand guns kill more people than any other gun type, and we don't want to regulate hand guns therefore no other type of gun should be controlled
- Hand guns can't be regulated because they're essential to self defense
- Criminals don't always follow gun laws, therefore no gun laws should exist
- We already have gun laws and they don't work (but I've conveniently forgotten the many ways we hamstring our current gun laws)
- I need guns to protect my house from ninja assassins
- The problem isn't guns, it's crazy people
- Without guns the king of England would just take over the country
- Swimming pools kill more children then guns, therefore we shouldn't worry about guns
- There are other ways to kill people and therefore we shouldn't worry about guns


But the real reason that gun control won't be implemented in the US is that a sizable chunk of the population have decided that the right to own firearms supersedes (and should always supersede) being safe from them.  The very idea of doing something that might inconvenience yourself for the common good is blasphemy in the land of hyper-individualism.

So yeah.  Another big mass shooting.  A completely foreseeable and expected tragedy that will happen again soon.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 03, 2017, 07:33:48 AM
Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?
Summing up this debate: yes.

If you bring a semi-automatic weapons ban to the Supreme Court, I am almost 100% certain it will be struck down.

There is no conceivable way to prevent a "mass shooting" that does not involve banning magazines and semi-automatic weapons. If you bring ANY semi-automatic weapon to a crowded area with the intent to do harm, you will likely do harm to a LOT of people.

Most gun owners I know are not on board with most gun control efforts because of this. "Slippery slope." For them, the Rubicon was the Assault Weapons Ban. They do not take anyone who says "military-grade" or "military-style" assault weapon seriously.

Here's an image summing up their basic position:
(https://warrenvandervalk.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/rifles.png)

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but they won't listen when they hear people talking about mandatory gun buy-backs and have lived through cities trying to ban entire classes of weapons.

Quote
Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.
So this is what the US govt has to say about it:
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
Quote
An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year
on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization

7% of 3.7 million is 260,000 home invasions that result in violent crime.
The number of gun homicides in the US in 2005 was 10,000 per quick Wiki("Gun deaths" includes suicides).

So there are about 26 times the number of people injured during home invasions, then there are people killed by guns. It's not a totally fair comparison, injuries to deaths, but people are fretting about getting killed by guns, which is extremely rare. The chances of you getting killed in a mass shooting even like this are practically non-existent.

I don't much worry about suffering a home invasion, particularly in my suburb, but I do not worry at all about getting shot. It is VASTLY more likely that I will be killed by my unhealthy bacon habit or some idiot motorist speeding through a stop sign (which almost happened once this year!)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: radram on October 03, 2017, 07:40:59 AM

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.

Unless you go back to restricting gun ownership to only antique guns made before WWI or so, you aren't going to stop semi-autos.  I still love to shoot an old fashioned bolt action on occasion.  I first learned to shoot using bolt action.  But thinking that we are going to go back to 1915 probably isn't realistic.

Even simple hunting rifles are semi-auto.  Millions of semi-auto hunting rifles, that have the same ability, but not the same "style" as "assault style rifles" are sold here every year.  In the USA, there is an obsession among the leftist gun banners about "military style assault rifles.  These folks generally know about as much about guns as I know about high fashion, which is to say, next to nothing.

To say nothing of the probably tens of millions of semi-auto handguns sold every year.

"Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?"

Yes, there is a good reason.  A semi-auto gives the individual a chance to overcome a group of people with bad intentions.

If I was 21, I could probably fire a bolt action fast enough to overcome a group of 3-4 criminals invading my home.  I was young. I was fit.  I had no health problems.  I had great vision.  I probably could have held my own.

In my mid-50s, I'd be hard pressed to do so.  I'm getting old.  I can't chamber that round quickly like I could when I was young.  I can't fire as accurately as when I was young and my vision was 20/20.

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

I would also suggest that, in addition to the TENS OF MILLIONS (maybe hundreds of millions) of semi-autos already out there, that technology has advanced to the point that backyard weapon smiths could create a semi-auto fairly easily.

In the end, the only folks you would "restrict" would be law abiding citizens.  The criminals, those who really wanted to do evil, would find a way to get that semi-auto (or full auto).

Am I correctly summarizing your position:  "But.... my vision is failing, and my ability to react is slower. Oh yeah, and my body can no longer do what my mind wants it to do. This is why I need semi-automatic weapons."


Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 07:50:18 AM
Even without taking into account the second amendment, would the concept of a gun licence really be accepted? Or the argument that 'some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns'.

Food for thought, if an armed thug breaks into your house with the intention of stealing your possessions, which of your possessions are worth risking your life over? If they really want to steal my TV or even my car, I'd rather survive and have them take it than risk dying defending it.
There already exist laws for preclude certain individuals from purchasing/owning firearms in the US.  Convicted felons, the mentally unstable, etc.  The NICS database exists for that exact reason.

If the armed thug enters your home, are you sure he's just there for the TV, and that he'll calmly and coolly leave you alone?  I'm sure you've heard of a mugging/robbery "gone bad," i.e. the mugger ends up shooting the victim. If you're uncomfortable with the idea of having a weapon in your home to defend yourself, that's absolutely fine!  I have no problems with that, and nobody is trying to take away your ability to follow that course.  Just please don't  attempt to impose those same values on people who would prefer to defend themselves.

One thing I find interesting about this tragedy is that everyone is focused on the "how" rather than the "why."  Within hours of the shooting, there was rampant speculation about the types of weapons this moron used, but I have yet to see much interest in what drove him to commit such a terrible act.

Your statistical chances of being the victim of a home invasion are virtually NON EXISTENT.
Actually, there are about 250,000 (https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-are-killed-during-home-invasions-every-year) home invasions per year (burglaries where a violent crime occurred), although death is indeed very uncommon.  True, if you're in a single-family home out in a middle-class suburb, it's far less likely to happen.  Mass shootings of this type, on the other hand, are exceptionally rare, about 1 per year.  You are literally just as likely to be killed by a lightning strike as in a shooting spree.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: iris lily on October 03, 2017, 07:53:00 AM
It could have been worse.  The CBC said that there is a push to allow silencers - and then how does anyone know the best direction in which to flee?

I was just reading about that Silencers, Armor-Piercing Bullets: Congress Looks to Rollback Gun Laws (https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/silencers-armor-piercing-bullets-congress-looks-rollback-gun-laws-n806881)

It seems crazy to me that the USA would relax gun laws to allow people to have concealed weapons even in states where you currently don't, as well as having silencers and loosen regulations on the sale of armor-piercing bullets, expand gun rights on public lands and shield people transporting guns across state lines from local laws.

I understand your 2nd amendment rights, but surely there should be some restrictions on the type of arms that you can have? Particularly when you have so many mass shootings.

Being from Australia the whole thing makes no sense to me and probably never will but  hopefully one day something can be done to stop so many innocent people dying.

In response to the bolded, there *are* all kinds of restrictions. To have a real discussion about restricted weaponry,  one gets into the weeds of detailed technical issues. I am not especially knowledgeable about them but I have read through several such discussions and my eyes glaze over, it is very technical.

Suffice to say, your portrayal of gun ownership as being without restrictions on arms is simplistic to the point of absurdity. i dont intend to be rude here, just want to correct your basic premise.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Cwadda on October 03, 2017, 07:54:06 AM
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

Yes, to protect Americans from a tyrannic upheaval from the government.  With DJT at the helm, we're not too far from this.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: J Boogie on October 03, 2017, 08:14:21 AM
I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism


This wasn't terrorism.

Quick copy and paste from dictionary.com:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

9/11, Dylan Roof, Unabomber, McVeigh, Tsarnaev brothers, etc - Terrorists.  Their violence was in pursuit of political aims.

San Bernadino & Pulse nightclub are a little foggier as these appeared to be very tenuous connections/allegiances to ISIS.  I'm not sure I would consider them terrorists. 

This shooter had no apparent goal beyond causing immense harm.  If he did, he probably would have made it more well known - that's the point.


I get that people think the selective use of the word terrorist is racist - and I would agree if it's being selectively used only to describe brown killers but not white ones.  But race is irrelevant to what makes a mass murderer a terrorist or not.  It's the political motive.  So let's not rush to call every white mass murderer a terrorist as part of a misguided racial equity strategy.



Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Cwadda on October 03, 2017, 08:18:22 AM
I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism


This wasn't terrorism.

Quick copy and paste from dictionary.com:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

9/11, Dylan Roof, Unabomber, McVeigh, Tsarnaev brothers, etc - Terrorists.  Their violence was in pursuit of political aims.

San Bernadino & Pulse nightclub are a little foggier as these appeared to be very tenuous connections/allegiances to ISIS.  I'm not sure I would consider them terrorists. 

This shooter had no apparent goal beyond causing immense harm.  If he did, he probably would have made it more well known - that's the point.


I get that people think the selective use of the word terrorist is racist - and I would agree if it's being selectively used only to describe brown killers but not white ones.  But race is irrelevant to what makes a mass murderer a terrorist or not.  It's the political motive.  So let's not rush to call every white mass murderer a terrorist as part of a misguided racial equity strategy.

Great post.  On this subject, do you think civil war constitutes terrorism?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: J Boogie on October 03, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
I keep hearing that this wasn't terrorism


This wasn't terrorism.

Quick copy and paste from dictionary.com:

ter·ror·ism
ˈterəˌrizəm/Submit
noun
the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

9/11, Dylan Roof, Unabomber, McVeigh, Tsarnaev brothers, etc - Terrorists.  Their violence was in pursuit of political aims.

San Bernadino & Pulse nightclub are a little foggier as these appeared to be very tenuous connections/allegiances to ISIS.  I'm not sure I would consider them terrorists. 

This shooter had no apparent goal beyond causing immense harm.  If he did, he probably would have made it more well known - that's the point.


I get that people think the selective use of the word terrorist is racist - and I would agree if it's being selectively used only to describe brown killers but not white ones.  But race is irrelevant to what makes a mass murderer a terrorist or not.  It's the political motive.  So let's not rush to call every white mass murderer a terrorist as part of a misguided racial equity strategy.

Great post.  On this subject, do you think civil war constitutes terrorism?

It does if it involves the killing of civilians.  I don't think it does if it involves violence against military forces/bases though.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 03, 2017, 08:37:55 AM

From what I read (and I know, the reports are preliminary) the shooter used a fully auto ILLEGAL gun.  A weapon that has been illegal for more than 30-years.

He broke the law regarding guns.  To say nothing of the laws about murder.

So how would adding more "anti gun laws" have stopped a guy who broke existing gun laws (plus murder laws)?

As far as I can tell (I'm a Brit: chances of my ever owning a gun are nil, and I like it that way) the illegal action consisted of converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic.  If you make the owning of a semi-automatic illegal then you have a more effective means of preventing that conversion.

Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

I recognise that there is a big problem with the guns already out in the world, but there are ways of dealing with that (see, UK and in particularl Australia: compensation for formerly legal guns handed in to the authorities, using records to trace holders).   But the transitional problem is a different one from the basic question of where is the right place to be.

Unless you go back to restricting gun ownership to only antique guns made before WWI or so, you aren't going to stop semi-autos.  I still love to shoot an old fashioned bolt action on occasion.  I first learned to shoot using bolt action.  But thinking that we are going to go back to 1915 probably isn't realistic.

Even simple hunting rifles are semi-auto.  Millions of semi-auto hunting rifles, that have the same ability, but not the same "style" as "assault style rifles" are sold here every year.  In the USA, there is an obsession among the leftist gun banners about "military style assault rifles.  These folks generally know about as much about guns as I know about high fashion, which is to say, next to nothing.

To say nothing of the probably tens of millions of semi-auto handguns sold every year.

"Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?"

Yes, there is a good reason.  A semi-auto gives the individual a chance to overcome a group of people with bad intentions.

If I was 21, I could probably fire a bolt action fast enough to overcome a group of 3-4 criminals invading my home.  I was young. I was fit.  I had no health problems.  I had great vision.  I probably could have held my own.

In my mid-50s, I'd be hard pressed to do so.  I'm getting old.  I can't chamber that round quickly like I could when I was young.  I can't fire as accurately as when I was young and my vision was 20/20.

And frankly, I don't see why I should be forced to rely on my slowing reflexes (to say nothing of my deteriorating eyesight), just to negate the NON EXISTENT "threat" that I pose to my community.  In other words, you'd be potentially endangering my life just so you could "feel good" about "doing something" to stop gun violence.  When, in essence, you'd be stopping nothing.

My father, at age 84, also ex-military, would be completely screwed if he didn't have a semi auto (arthritis, among other age related disabilities, is not your friend if you use an old fashioned bolt action rifle).  Your "feel good" anti-gun legislation would make him a victim of any thug that decided to invade his home.  About all it would do is embolden criminals, and prevent honest citizens from defending themselves.

I would also suggest that, in addition to the TENS OF MILLIONS (maybe hundreds of millions) of semi-autos already out there, that technology has advanced to the point that backyard weapon smiths could create a semi-auto fairly easily.

In the end, the only folks you would "restrict" would be law abiding citizens.  The criminals, those who really wanted to do evil, would find a way to get that semi-auto (or full auto).

Am I correctly summarizing your position:  "But.... my vision is failing, and my ability to react is slower. Oh yeah, and my body can no longer do what my mind wants it to do. This is why I need semi-automatic weapons."

No, you're playfully misconstruing it, but you know that :P

Semi-autos are more useful than bolt-action. They are not more useful for INTIMIDATION: someone spooked by a gun is going to be spooked by a gun regardless of it being an 18th century musket or a SAW.

If you have to actually USE it in a life-or-death situation, though, semi-autos are the only reasonable option. Guns are not magic wands and probably will not stop a determined assailant in a single round. You need to fire multiple times, and that means semi-auto weapons.

This will become less of a problem when drones become cheap enough that I can have one permanently flying around my house that gives nasty shocks to anyone who breaks into my house.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 08:38:09 AM
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

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

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

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

Overlooking the truly terrible outcomes of well armed militias (Fidel Castro, the Khmer Rouge, Lenin, the Taliban, etc.), guns in the hands of the people are useless when the people are wrong.  Sure, after you've put a tyrant into power they may well come for your guns.  At that point it's too late to fight back though.  They'll be powerful and popular enough that they'll be able to pick off the armed trouble makers quickly and efficiently through informants and overwhelming might.  The idea of fighting off a tyrannical government with small arms is pure myth.  Look at Saudi Arabia or Yemen if you want to see how a well armed populace really responds to a tyrannical government in the real world, not imaginary fantasy land.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 03, 2017, 08:39:44 AM
There is no "gun control" debate.  At all.  Those wanting unfettered access to firearms have won.  A complete, total victory.

Now we all reap what has been sown.

A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).

Pretty much this.


You'll get all the standard gun advocacy arguments in this thread:
- The only reason the evil gubmint hasn't killed and enslaved every last American is guns
- Licences for owning a firearm won't work (see above)
- Gun controls won't work in the US because it's different than every other country where gun controls have ever been implemented
- Hand guns kill more people than any other gun type, and we don't want to regulate hand guns therefore no other type of gun should be controlled
- Hand guns can't be regulated because they're essential to self defense
- Criminals don't always follow gun laws, therefore no gun laws should exist
- We already have gun laws and they don't work (but I've conveniently forgotten the many ways we hamstring our current gun laws)
- I need guns to protect my house from ninja assassins
- The problem isn't guns, it's crazy people
- Without guns the king of England would just take over the country
- Swimming pools kill more children then guns, therefore we shouldn't worry about guns
- There are other ways to kill people and therefore we shouldn't worry about guns


But the real reason that gun control won't be implemented in the US is that a sizable chunk of the population have decided that the right to own firearms supersedes (and should always supersede) being safe from them. The very idea of doing something that might inconvenience yourself for the common good is blasphemy in the land of hyper-individualism.

So yeah.  Another big mass shooting.  A completely foreseeable and expected tragedy that will happen again soon.

+1,000
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 03, 2017, 08:40:15 AM
It seems like yet another knee-jerk "do something" plea that won't have any effect on criminals.
Is it a knee jerk reaction to think the same thing every time another mass shooting happens in this country since others have pointed out that this is about every single day?
I'm an engineer, a mustachian, a self-made multimillionaire, a philanthropist, a pillar of my community.   Other than 3 speeding tickets (last one, 2003 or thereabouts), I've had no run ins with the law in 54 years. I'm not saying that to be a blow hard, but rather to illustrate that most gun owners, like me, are good, law abiding citizens, and no threat to anyone.
From all accounts he was also a law abiding citizen. According to his brother he was also a multimillionaire from real estate and had no political or religious affiliations. See the problem with the argument?
How will restricting my access, or that of millions of other similar law abiding citizens, stop a psycho who doesn't give a damn about the law?

I'm NOT an uncaring "gun nut."  These sort of events are tragic.  I wish I could think of a way to prevent them that didn't involve turning this nation into a police state.  Punishing decent, law abiding citizens for the bad acts of psychos won't solve the problem.

And I agree with the OP, I'm tired of this too...

I'm ok with "punishing" everyone who owns guns by getting rid of all of them (including the police) if that means that someday either myself or people I know wont be killed by them randomly sometime. Kinda like the opioid crisis: those against gun control will have to be personally involved in such tragedy before something is done. Many more will die before they change their mind. Just hope it's not me or mine.

Again: we can't come together on this. We will continue to have mass shooting that gun people will feel so sorry for, but too bad there is no solution "shrugs shoulders."
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Barbaebigode on October 03, 2017, 08:41:40 AM
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

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

Coming from a country that had a dictatorship less than 30 years ago, I always think that citizens armed fighting a "tyrannic goverment" is nothing but a fantasy. Dictatorships more often than not are popular or at least enjoy support from a large portion of the population. It's not a hollywoodian good vs evil situation. People will just give up their liberties if they are scared enough and think that the alternative is worse. And even now after almost 30 years we still have lots of dictatorship apologists and nostalgic people that miss the old days when there were no bad news on the news.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 03, 2017, 08:42:04 AM
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

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

If you are a fully competent person who passes a more strict background check and mental health evaluation, and can prove after X amount of hours of practice that you can accurately fire a weapon, then by all means, have your guns. But "well regulated militia" literally has the word REGULATED in it. That means rules for the right to bear arms. We do not have enough rules for gun ownership. I can get a concealed carry permit valid in 35 states by sitting on my couch and watching an hour and a half of youtube videos. That is not ok. And yes, I did get my concealed carry doing exactly that, and I am not exaggerating.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 08:48:25 AM
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

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

If you are a fully competent person who passes a more strict background check and mental health evaluation, and can prove after X amount of hours of practice that you can accurately fire a weapon, then by all means, have your guns. But "well regulated militia" literally has the word REGULATED in it. That means rules for the right to bear arms. We do not have enough rules for gun ownership. I can get a concealed carry permit valid in 35 states by sitting on my couch and watching an hour and a half of youtube videos. That is not ok. And yes, I did get my concealed carry doing exactly that, and I am not exaggerating.
Can you help me understand how such training requirements would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?  The guy was clearly willing and able to jump through any regulatory hoops.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 03, 2017, 08:57:02 AM
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 03, 2017, 09:01:21 AM
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?

I feel like it still kills people and is off topic.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 03, 2017, 09:03:34 AM
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?

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

You original topic was gun control in the wake of a mass shooting.  Unless you don't know what a bumpfire stock is, I'm not sure how you would perceive discussion regarding something that may have dramatically contributed to the casualty rate off topic.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Cwadda on October 03, 2017, 09:14:14 AM
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns.  However, I do not think banning semi-automatic rifles is a viable solution (which is what I interpreted former player's language was suggesting, but perhaps I was jumping to conclusions?)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 03, 2017, 09:16:30 AM
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?

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

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

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

In current news: Pat Robertson blames the massacre on lack of respect for Donald Trump. And Shawn Hannity says it's shameful to discuss gun control now.
Fuck those guys.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 03, 2017, 09:19:20 AM
Fox and friends blames it on CNN and the shooter's lack of religion.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 03, 2017, 09:19:32 AM
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

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

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

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

Mass killings are what bring the conversation up but the conversation we should be having really doesn't apply to most of these cases. From what I see no one should own or operate a gun without understanding it thoroughly. If they make a mistake they should be held responsible for the outcome and most likely have their right to own a gun revoked. These are just ideas. I don't know what laws would actually reduce gun deaths, but it would be nice if we could talk about it without being offended by those who have opposing views.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Shanksy on October 03, 2017, 09:21:24 AM
When I was a lot younger and more naive, I had a long discussion with my best friend about guns, and it was something along the lines of, I believed people were primarily good and she believed people were primarily bad. As a person who believed others to be primarily bad, she needed to protect herself from them by owning a gun. I recall a time when she visited me and brought her gun in with her because she thought I lived in a bad neighborhood. I don't still believe people are primarily good. I believe we are all capable of doing good things though.

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

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

 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 03, 2017, 09:23:37 AM
I get people don't want their guns taken, but what is wrong with stronger regulations before you get the gun?

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

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

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

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

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

3. Enforce straw sale laws, and close gun show loopholes/ normalize enforcement of restrictions on domestic violence offenders
This is one area where many deaths can be prevented.  A domestic violence citation and the presence of guns carries enormous future risk to the victim. Send a LEO officer to collect guns, tighten up access to other guns by enforcing straw sale laws and closing loopholes.  Enhance penalties for those whose negligence allows offenders access to a gun.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 09:30:58 AM
Quote
Is there any good reason why a civilian needs a semi-automatic?  Is stopping civilians owning semi-automatics an unjustified infringement on liberty which outweighs the right to life of others?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

The main argument against permits is related to the 'I'm Rambo and will topple a tyrannical government with my trusty rifle' viewpoint.  Once it is more widely accepted that this argument has no validity, some movement on permits and registration should be possible.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MissMoneyBags on October 03, 2017, 09:36:34 AM
As a European, I've always had a hard time understanding the lack of gun control in the US. I've never held a gun, and I wouldn't have a clue how to get hold of one. I don't know anybody who owns a gun. Most police officers in the UK don't even carry one. The statistics speak for themselves. In countries with tighter regulations, deaths by guns, and mass shootings are way way below that of the US.

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

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

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

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

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


+1

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

Just as your right to freedom goes away when you screw up (go to prison), your right to gun ownership goes away when you screw up.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 09:40:37 AM
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?
My honest opinion?  They're a gimmick.  You can get the same effect using a block of wood (seriously!).  With a little bit of practice, you can "bump fire" a semiautomatic rifle with no modifications.  A bumpfire stock just makes it easier for the average Joe to spend more money on ammunition :)

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

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

Mass killings are what bring the conversation up but the conversation we should be having really doesn't apply to most of these cases. From what I see no one should own or operate a gun without understanding it thoroughly. If they make a mistake they should be held responsible for the outcome and most likely have their right to own a gun revoked. These are just ideas. I don't know what laws would actually reduce gun deaths, but it would be nice if we could talk about it without being offended by those who have opposing views.
I'd like to address a few bolded points above:
--Can we leave accidents out of the current discussion?  I know it's an important issue to a lot of people, but I feel it's not really relevant to the current discussion.
--It still sounds like this guy would have passed any mental health screening.
--I'm not sure where this concern comes from--gun owners are already responsible for what they do with a gun.  Is there a hole in this that I'm missing?
--This is a big reason why pro-gun people are extremely hostile to mentions of gun control--short of outright confiscation (or a forced buy-back, a la Australia) of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US, I haven't seen any specific proposals that would be more effective than the laws that are already on the books.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 03, 2017, 09:41:39 AM
those against gun control will have to be personally involved in such tragedy before something is done.
I rest my case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band)
"Guitarist says Las Vegas concert attack changed his mind on gun control"
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 03, 2017, 09:49:53 AM
Sources are reporting the shooter in vegas may have a used a bumpfire stock.  What do responsible gun owners think about those (whether they were used or not)?
My honest opinion?  They're a gimmick.  You can get the same effect using a block of wood (seriously!).  With a little bit of practice, you can "bump fire" a semiautomatic rifle with no modifications.  A bumpfire stock just makes it easier for the average Joe to spend more money on ammunition :)

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

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

I couldn't pull the trigger fast enough for what I heard on those tapes.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: omachi on October 03, 2017, 09:52:38 AM
There are two points on gun control that I have, both relating to the 2nd amendment.

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

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

To be clear, I'm pro-control. Like, Japanese levels of gun control. A country where merely possessing a handgun, even without ammo, could get you up to 10 years in jail. Where mob bosses can be sentenced to prison if their underlings have guns. Somehow it's pretty safe there.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 03, 2017, 09:55:40 AM

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

Its based on the # of deaths in a country that has a drastically higher population than the comparison countries.  If you are going to do a real comparison, use percentages.  If we have 20 times the population but only 3 times the number of deaths, the results would actually be in our favor.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 09:55:51 AM
1. Require corresponding liability insurance for arsenals and keep them out of the hands of mentally ill young men

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

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

I rest my case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band)
"Guitarist says Las Vegas concert attack changed his mind on gun control"
Yay, by all means let's make sweeping legislative changes based on anecdotal experiences!  That sounds like a sure winner!
Clearly the rate of fire contributed to this. When your objective is indiscriminate firing into a crowd, accuracy is not exactly paramount.  if the stock was a bumpfire or similar device, I would be open to having that conversation.
You're correct.  I'm skeptical about the efficacy of banning bumpfire stocks, though, for the reasons mentioned earlier.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 09:58:22 AM

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

Its based on the # of deaths in a country that has a drastically higher population than the comparison countries.  If you are going to do a real comparison, use percentages.  If we have 20 times the population but only 3 times the number of deaths, the results would actually be in our favor.
Actually, the chart is in "deaths per 100,000," so it takes into account the differences in population.  What's more interesting is that if you take out all gun deaths for all countries, the US still has a higher murder rate than the other countries.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 03, 2017, 10:01:29 AM

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

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

You didn't respond to my comparison to driver's ed. Your argument is that we have to prove why the regulations would have stopped the shooting (which I still think he may have been flagged in a mental screening, who cares that his brother didn't know of any mental issues), why don't you prove that these wouldn't have stopped the shooting?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 10:03:27 AM
To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns. 

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

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

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

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

- A limit on the capacity of magazines sold would have limited the amount of damage done by the shooter.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: mmmfan500 on October 03, 2017, 10:12:33 AM
We have to take a class and pass a test to drive. And you lose that privilege if you prove you don't deserve it e.g. get a DUI. Why not the same standards for weapons? I think it is perfectly reasonable that we implement a course, a test, and a means of removing the privilege to own and operate a gun. Felons, mental health issues, etc should be reasons disqualifying someone from gun ownership.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 03, 2017, 10:14:19 AM

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

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

And horrific as the number of deaths and injuries were in Las Vegas, one of the reasons Canada is so low on that chart is that handguns are illegal here (yes, police and military and Brinks guards have them but that is about it).  Semi-automatic and automatic rifles can kill a lot of people at once, but hand guns are equally effective for killing a few people at a time.  And there are lot of hand guns in the U.S.  Since I have difficulty understanding why hand guns would be part of a well regulated militia, I also have difficulty understanding why they are part of the easy access.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MissMoneyBags on October 03, 2017, 10:16:01 AM

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

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

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

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 03, 2017, 10:16:50 AM
My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is the idea of protecting people from a tyrannical government.  A form of checks and balances, if you will.  In some cases (i.e. Hitler, Nazis), it definitely provides civilians a way of creating perpetuating tyrant power. But I do not think this necessarily applies to all cases.  "The idea of fighting off a tyrannical government with small arms is pure myth", but is there an alternate method of fighting off such a government? To what extent should people have the right to resist?
The second amendment is only an amendment.  It wasn't in the original constitution, and it can be changed by a further amendment.  It isn't one of the Ten Commandments, and shouldn't be treated as such.

As to how to fight off a tyrannical government -

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

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

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

To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns.  However, I do not think banning semi-automatic rifles is a viable solution (which is what I interpreted former player's language was suggesting, but perhaps I was jumping to conclusions?)
Yes, I am in favour of banning civilians from keeping any rifles or shotguns which can be modified to become fully automatic.  If that means all of them, that's fine by me.  I don't see why it isn't a viable solution, other than the apparent political need to kowtow to the propaganda of the NRA.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 03, 2017, 10:29:35 AM

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

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

Whoops!  Misunderstood the chart.

Please carry on.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: iris lily on October 03, 2017, 10:31:22 AM
There are two points on gun control that I have, both relating to the 2nd amendment.

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

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

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

These bad dudes already break laws about gun possession and sometimes see jail time, sometimes dont. It is obvious to me that in creased laws do little to stem criminal behaviour. And if ya'll think the magic bullet is to legalize drug, well,
I am ok with that but wonder what criminal activity will take its place because there will always be something that is high risk and attractive to the criminal mnd.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 03, 2017, 10:33:54 AM
1. Require corresponding liability insurance for arsenals and keep them out of the hands of mentally ill young men

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

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

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

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

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

And, if you have an arsenal and a son so mentally ill you are trying to commit him, then you should be held responsible for allowing him access to those weapons.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 10:42:02 AM
Those particular suggestions probably wouldn't have.  These ones would:

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

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

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

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

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

...

Yes, I am in favour of banning civilians from keeping any rifles or shotguns which can be modified to become fully automatic.  If that means all of them, that's fine by me.  I don't see why it isn't a viable solution, other than the apparent political need to kowtow to the propaganda of the NRA.
How is its genesis as an amendment relevant to....anything, really?  "Only an amendment" doesn't mean anything.  Do you feel the same way about the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) or the 19th (women's suffrage)?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dogboyslim on October 03, 2017, 10:44:46 AM
The second amendment is only an amendment.  It wasn't in the original constitution, and it can be changed by a further amendment.  It isn't one of the Ten Commandments, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Once an amendment is passed it is part of the constitution, much like the freedom of the press, and free speech and free association.  None of those were in the 'original' constitution, but were added because enough people felt it should change.  If the time has come, then propose the repeal of the 2nd amendment to pursue your preferred restrictions.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 10:46:17 AM
I live in an urban area of high crime. DH was on a grand jury for three months and daynin and day out and day he and his jury collagues review gun vases. Guns and drugs were by far the majority of cases.   

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

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

Bad people break laws, therefore we shouldn't have laws?  C'mon.  You can do better than that.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 10:51:40 AM
Those particular suggestions probably wouldn't have.  These ones would:

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

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

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

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

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

#3 - Yep.  But it's another level of complexity for people doing bad things that doesn't really impact legal usage of the weapon in any appreciable way.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 10:56:01 AM
But we hold people liable if they leave their car running on the street with the keys inside and a 9 year old (or 30 year old) takes the car and mows a bunch of people down. If a two year old grabs a gun in a back seat and kills someone, should we hold the toddler responsible for his "choices"?  The person who left the gun in the backseat next to a carseat isn't responsible in any way? 

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

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

As for the "arsenal" comment, there's nothing particularly alarming about the list of guns available, or their quantity.  Two handguns, a couple of hunting rifles, a .22 rifle (great for plinking, if you've never tried it), a shotgun, and an AR-15.  It's a nice variety, with different guns good for different purposes.
 Having 1,400 rounds of ammunition doesn't mean much, either, when .22 ammunition commonly comes in boxes of 500 or more, and rifle and pistol ammunition in boxes of 50 or 100.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 11:01:43 AM
As for the "arsenal" comment, there's nothing particularly alarming about the list of guns available, or their quantity.  Two handguns, a couple of hunting rifles, a .22 rifle (great for plinking, if you've never tried it), a shotgun, and an AR-15.  It's a nice variety, with different guns good for different purposes.

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

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

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

#3 - Yep.  But it's another level of complexity for people doing bad things that doesn't really impact legal usage of the weapon in any appreciable way.
#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.
#2 - I'm afraid RFID doesn't work that way, sorry.  And even if it did, it'd be totally impractical to enforce it.
#3 - Sure, it creates a barrier to this specific scenario.  And some states have implemented such restrictions.  Hasn't made an impact on crime, though.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: acroy on October 03, 2017, 11:20:36 AM
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

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

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

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

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

If you are still worried about guns, don't own one. You are 21x more likely to off yourself than you are to be offed by someone using a gun.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 03, 2017, 11:23:09 AM
]
To clarify, I'm in favor of stricter gun laws. I think all states should require gun permits in order to have legal ownership of guns.  I also think there should be stronger background checks when purchasing guns. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Constitution that was signed in 1789 included the Bill of Rights. They're not the 10 Commandments, but in US law they're pretty damn close. The Constitution can only be changed by a wide margin of citizens or state governments making the decision.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 03, 2017, 11:27:07 AM
#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so many people die in car wrecks, yet WE STILL REQUIRE A LICENSE AND TRAINING TO OPERATE ONE. Because if we didn't, MORE people would die. No one is saying it will be perfect. We are saying we can do better than beating our record of mass shootings every year like it's a game of call of duty.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 11:29:55 AM
Bad people do break laws.  'Good' people help them do it when they can get away with it.  Felons can buy a private sale gun in most states for example.  Since there's no central and searchable database of firearms sales, it's very hard for law enforcement to find dealers who sell guns to criminals.  For the same reason, it's very hard for law enforcement to prevent 'straw purchases'.
Actually, all gun sales through dealers *are* tracked, albeit not in a central database.  If someone commits a crime with a gun, the authorities can take the serial number to the manufacturer, and trace its path of custody down to the firearms dealer, and get the information on the sale.  Dealers are required to perform the NICS check and record details on every sale (and there's lots of trouble if they don't).  That at least gets you to the person who bought the firearm from the dealer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#3 - Ah.  Moving goal posts.  First you didn't want to talk about any crime but the one in the OP, now we don't want to talk about the shooting.  I see how it is.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: bacchi on October 03, 2017, 12:06:45 PM
-In USA, the areas with the most gun control laws have by far the highest gun violence.

https://xkcd.com/552/

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

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



* A completely made up number but a lot of the "facts" in this thread are similarly made up or based on questionable studies.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MissMoneyBags on October 03, 2017, 12:22:12 PM
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

-Anders Behring got around many many gun control laws.



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

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

I would have thought people who frequent these forums would understand statistics, and the very clear correlation between gun deaths and lax gun control..
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2017, 12:38:30 PM
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

-Anders Behring got around many many gun control laws.



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

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

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

I think it is certainly true, that if you are going to have gun restriction, it has to be on a nationwide-basis. There are so many guns in the US (300 million, enough for every man, woman, and child), no existing way to know who bought most of these weapons even if legally, or way to track, that trying to restrict by state or smaller location, is going to be relatively ineffective. On a nation to nation basis, it is certainly true that gun control is related to gun death, not just correlationally (Canada versus US), but also causually by looking over time (Australia for example before and after laws passed).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dycker1978 on October 03, 2017, 12:41:08 PM
I am also sick of this.  It seems that when one killer kills 49 people, someone somewhere is in a basement, or a garage or wherever, saying, I bet this plan will get 50. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

This system is not perfect, and yes criminals will still get their hands on guns if they want to, but it seems better then the system of no fucks will be given to our south.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 12:45:54 PM
This system is not perfect, and yes criminals will still get their hands on guns if they want to, but it seems better then the system of no fucks will be given to our south.

Important to note - the vast majority of the guns that criminals get their hands on illegally in Canada are from the United States.  It's almost impossible to prevent this from happening since guns are so easy to conceal and so easy to purchase in the US.  Better US gun control would almost certainly improve gun safety in Canada as well.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: fluffmuffin on October 03, 2017, 12:46:42 PM
Before we get started, most of the men in my family hunt and own multiple guns; I learned to shoot when I was 13 and occasionally still shoot skeet on the weekends; and there's a gun in my household (for targets and skeet). I support responsible gun ownership and in no way, shape, or form want to prevent sportsmen and responsible gun owners from hitting the target range or nailing that 12-pointer.

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

But most importantly, if none of the gun control measures anyone is proposing would work for reasons XYZ (which I'm willing to believe--I'm no expert!), what do you think we should do instead?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MissMoneyBags on October 03, 2017, 12:46:59 PM

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

Very true - Australia is a great example of what happens when gun control in introduced/increased.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 12:52:13 PM
#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your argument that gun control laws don't work because one man got around them is total bullshit. Since Jan 2013 there has been 1516 mass shootings in the US (population 323 million). Norway (population 5 million) should then proportionally and statically have had... 23.46. As far as I know (and I live in this region of the world, and regularly watch Norwegian telly - I haven't been able to find any statistics..) None.. Zip.. Nada... Anders Breivik's attack was in 2011, and totally skewed gun deaths statistics in Norway.
The "1516" number is utter hogwash.  It was created by compiling every incident that could be interpreted to fit in a very broad classification of "mass shooting."
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MissMoneyBags on October 03, 2017, 01:04:55 PM


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

That definition is four or more casualties. I'm not sure it's "hogwash", but I agree it's a broad definition. It's nevertheless an admirable attempt to compile statistical and comparable evidence. How many victims do you think constitutes a mass killing? 20? 40? 60? Personally any fatal shooting is too much for me... And funnily enough the two incidents I mentioned in Denmark, don't meet this definition of mass shooting. That doesn't make them any less tragic for the victims..
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 01:13:39 PM
With all that said, I've a couple of questions for the folks shooting down all the gun-control measures. Why does the US have so much higher a rate of gun violence than other developed countries, even adjusted for population? Do you think that the US should do anything to prevent mass shootings and lessen our rates of gun violence?

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

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

What should we do instead of imposing more stringent gun laws?  I feel like the previous paragraph answers that point.  You seek out the root cause and address that, rather than chasing the scapegoat.  I also feel like we need to keep things in perspective, and not use a MOAB to kill a mosquito.  The attack in Las Vegas is tragic, but it is also (thankfully!) very rare.  As I pointed out earlier, you're more likely to be killed by lightning than in an attack like this.  There's an instinct to rush into trying to solve the problem we think we see (guns everywhere), without taking the time to properly evaluate the big picture.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 03, 2017, 01:14:03 PM
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah great comment. Some folks bypass the laws so we should get rid of them and ensure we have more mass shootings. Well and because of cars, suicides and poor health. Whatever the fuck those have to do with mass shootings.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: waltworks on October 03, 2017, 01:19:08 PM
Why not just some form of smart gun that can be remotely disabled by law enforcement (and that would disable itself if you tried to modify it)? The tech exists to make those right now, and you could make the system secure enough that your average Joe Burglar isn't going to be able to disable your gun with some stuff he bought at Radio Shack.

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

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

-W
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 03, 2017, 01:22:42 PM
#1 - it sounds like what you're looking for is expanded record-keeping (of private gun sales).  Many states already have that.  But there's another issue, and that is the fact that there are already a multitude of similar gun laws which aren't being enforced.  For example, law enforcement is supposed to follow up any time someone fails the NICS background check.  It doesn't happen.  In Chicago, felons are frequently given light (or no) sentencing even when they've committed a crime using a gun.

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

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

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

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

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

Is that not what you are asking us to do by saying, "prove that it would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter by using these measures"? It's the same thing. No we can't prove that it would work, just like you can't prove it wouldn't. But going to a concert and being shot at is a problem, and as a civilization I think there are simple steps that can at least be attempted to try to see if it helps.

And let me reiterate, if you are a good, law abiding citizen with no serious criminal record and no discoverable mental health issues, I think almost everyone here is ok with you having a gun for your target practice and your peace of mind.

Again, regulations DO NOT EQUAL gun grabbing.

In regards to the bump stock statement, it sure seems like all of those things in combination would set off red flags, just like flying frequently in specific ways for specific amounts of time sets off red flags for being on the no-fly list. "He could improvise a makeshift bump stock, so bump stocks should be legal" is an identical argument to someone saying "he can improvise a fully automatic weapon, so fully automatic weapons should be legal". Yet I don't see you making that argument...
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 01:28:32 PM



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

That definition is four or more casualties. I'm not sure it's "hogwash", but I agree it's a broad definition. It's nevertheless an admirable attempt to compile statistical and comparable evidence. How many victims do you think constitutes a mass killing? 20? 40? 60? Personally any fatal shooting is too much for me... And funnily enough the two incidents I mentioned in Denmark, don't meet this definition of mass shooting. That doesn't make them any less tragic for the victims..
I do not wish to minimize the impact on people impacted by shootings. I can only imagine how traumatic it must be for those who have to deal with it.  When I think of "mass shooting," I envision events like this one, Sandy Hook, Anders Breivik, Columbine, Fort Hood, etc. where one person (or a group of people) attempt to kill as many unarmed, innocent people as possible.  The 1516 number includes police-involved shootings (which I don't think are relevant) a lot of gang shootouts (where both sides are bad guys), and incidents where uninvolved bystanders were hurt or killed unintentionally, along with (IIRC) many cases where unrelated shootings happened within a relatively short period of time and geographic area.

Why not just some form of smart gun that can be remotely disabled by law enforcement (and that would disable itself if you tried to modify it)? The tech exists to make those right now, and you could make the system secure enough that your average Joe Burglar isn't going to be able to disable your gun with some stuff he bought at Radio Shack.

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

It would be expensive, for sure. And there are an awful lot of legacy guns that will be around for the foreseeable future. So probably not workable, but something like that seems like the best way forward to me.
That idea of a smart gun has been thoroughly explored, and even brought to market!  Gun owners have roundly rejected it for very good reasons.
1) A gun has one job to do: go bang when you pull the trigger in an emergency situation.  Anything (and I mean ANYTHING) that interferes with that one purpose simply isn't going to fly.
2) There are too many things that can go wrong with such a device.  Dead battery, sweaty palms, heaven forbid you're injured and your hand is bloody and the fingerprint sensor doesn't work
3) A gun is an inherently mechanical device, and it will be vulnerable where the electronics meet the mechanicals.
4) They're easy to hack (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANllOmgJH9Y).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: waltworks on October 03, 2017, 01:35:33 PM
Sure, it's a hard engineering problem. But it's just an engineering problem. A bottom of the barrel used smartphone can do all the stuff you need to do.

Let's say you could solve the reliability issue (keeping in mind that no gun is perfectly reliable, of course) and battery life (seems pretty easy to me, you'd just need to make sure you charged your gun occasionally just like you'd need to load it or clean it). No need for fingerprint sensors or any of that, this is just a device that can be remotely disabled (but only by LE with the right crypto). People could still murder each other with it, people could still steal it and do terrible things, but it would be *harder* to use for a mass shooting because the cops could shut it down.

Appealing at all? It doesn't seem to me that gun confiscation is realistic or legal (or desirable), and that's really the only other way to deal with this problem. As many people have pointed out, background checks and magazine size laws and all that are easy to circumvent. If I want to kill people, breaking a gun law is the least of my concerns.

-W
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 03, 2017, 01:44:08 PM
Walt - how would a smart gun have impacted what happened in vegas or many of the other mass shootings?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 01:51:05 PM
From your link:
"It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true."

Is that not what you are asking us to do by saying, "prove that it would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter by using these measures"? It's the same thing.

And let me reiterate, if you are a good, law abiding citizen with no serious criminal record and no discoverable mental health issues, I think almost everyone here is ok with you having a gun for your target practice and your peace of mind.

Again, regulations DO NOT EQUAL gun grabbing.

In regards to the bump stock statement, it sure seems like all of those things in combination would set off red flags, just like flying frequently in specific ways for specific amounts of time sets off red flags for being on the no-fly list. "He could improvise a makeshift bump stock, so bump stocks should be legal" is an identical argument to someone saying "he can improvise a fully automatic weapon, so fully automatic weapons should be legal". Yet I don't see you making that argument...
Since you're the one proposing that additional mental health checks might have helped, the burden of proof is on you.  Saying something like  "maybe a different check for mental health would have caught him" is just like saying "maybe some new gun control measures would have stopped him" without specifying *what* the mental health check or the gun control measure is.  It's arguing a hypothetical.

If someone is mentally sound enough to own a rifle, why would they not also be mentally sound enough to own a bumpfire stock?  For what it's worth, I think a fair number of ATF regulations are pointless, but since this discussion is primarily about imposing new gun regulations rather than loosening existing ones, I'll save that soapbox for another day.

Regulations != gun grabbing?  It sure seems like that's exactly what happened in Australia, and it sure is what happened in the UK.  And it's happening in the US, too, as a result of New York's SAFE Act.  A fair number of people have been erroneously (and in come cases, maliciously) placed on a list, and the cops come calling to confiscate weapons, without any due process.

Sure, it's a hard engineering problem. But it's just an engineering problem. A bottom of the barrel used smartphone can do all the stuff you need to do.

Let's say you could solve the reliability issue (keeping in mind that no gun is perfectly reliable, of course) and battery life (seems pretty easy to me, you'd just need to make sure you charged your gun occasionally just like you'd need to load it or clean it). No need for fingerprint sensors or any of that, this is just a device that can be remotely disabled (but only by LE with the right crypto). People could still murder each other with it, people could still steal it and do terrible things, but it would be *harder* to use for a mass shooting because the cops could shut it down.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.  No, it's not "just an engineering problem."  The very premise of smart guns is flawed.  And charging up the battery is not like cleaning it.  A handgun may sit for months or years in a drawer in case of emergency.  There's no need to clean it or load it for that whole time.

The whole "can be disabled by law enforcement" is a hard one to sell as well, given the anti-gun proclivities of some local/county/state governments.  That's a cultural issue, not an engineering one :)

Walt - how would a smart gun have impacted what happened in vegas or many of the other mass shootings?
The idea is that law enforcement could have hypothetically disabled this man's guns in order to limit further carnage.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: waltworks on October 03, 2017, 01:58:21 PM
I was thinking the massive LE presence would mean someone could shut down the shooter's guns within a minute or two. It was, after all, a concert with 20k people, and Las Vegas is full of cops.

I'm actually pretty impressed that SWAT got there in ~10 minutes. That's pretty amazing. If you just needed an officer to hit a button and shut down the guns, you'd cut that response time down dramatically.

Again, not a perfect solution. But it seems more workable than anything else I hear.

Of course it's possible there's just not a solution, in which case you shake your head and move on, rather than just trotting out the same old arguments again and again. If having guns available comes at a cost of lots of homicides using guns, and we're ok with that (and honestly, that's basically what we've decided) then we should probably just not worry about it.

-W
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MissMoneyBags on October 03, 2017, 02:00:57 PM



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

That definition is four or more casualties. I'm not sure it's "hogwash", but I agree it's a broad definition. It's nevertheless an admirable attempt to compile statistical and comparable evidence. How many victims do you think constitutes a mass killing? 20? 40? 60? Personally any fatal shooting is too much for me... And funnily enough the two incidents I mentioned in Denmark, don't meet this definition of mass shooting. That doesn't make them any less tragic for the victims..
I do not wish to minimize the impact on people impacted by shootings. I can only imagine how traumatic it must be for those who have to deal with it.  When I think of "mass shooting," I envision events like this one, Sandy Hook, Anders Breivik, Columbine, Fort Hood, etc. where one person (or a group of people) attempt to kill as many unarmed, innocent people as possible.  The 1516 number includes police-involved shootings (which I don't think are relevant) a lot of gang shootouts (where both sides are bad guys), and incidents where uninvolved bystanders were hurt or killed unintentionally, along with (IIRC) many cases where unrelated shootings happened within a relatively short period of time and geographic area.



We can argue all we want about the definition of mass shooting (and quite frankly I'm horrified if your definition is 13 or more victims as suggested by your examples - that just shows how numbed and indifferent we have all become..)

Mass shootings by police, or gang related murders quite frankly shouldn't be happening either- nor can they be justified or dismissed in such sweeping terms. What happened to incapacitating suspects instead of aiming for the heart or head? What are the statistics of correlation between number of gang members and gun ownership? Is it just possible that guns CREATE gangs? Again the evidence shows that there's a correlation between those shootings and gun ownership proportional to population..

The countries I think are relevant to compare to the US are: Canada, Australia, and western Europe, in particular the UK. I spoke about Norway, because Anders Breivik was brought up in the discussion. And Denmark because I used to live there. The UK have huge problems with gang related crime with some guns involved - but guess what? Gun deaths (whether by mass shootings, gang crime, or police shootings) are still way below that of the US (proportional to population!).

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 03, 2017, 02:05:29 PM
With all that said, I've a couple of questions for the folks shooting down all the gun-control measures. Why does the US have so much higher a rate of gun violence than other developed countries, even adjusted for population? Do you think that the US should do anything to prevent mass shootings and lessen our rates of gun violence?

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

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

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

It's funny that the political party that doesn't want any gun regulation...is also the political party that has voted 50,000 times to strip Americans of the mental health care protections they gained under the ACA.  It's almost like they aren't concerned with the symptoms or the cause, but I suppose they have to mumble something that make them sound less like sociopaths.  Too bad we caught on to the whole "sending thoughts and prayers" BS, since that was working well for a while to stall us until we became distracted by the next shiny object.  Now people want something done since a whole heck of a lot of people can relate to seeing a country music concert in Vegas and being a random victim. 

I sense a growing chorus of "but Chicago!" or "hey-gangs, ammirite?" as a dog whistle to imply that it's really only minorities that cause all this gun violence, and we can ignore all this other stuff.  Is that persuasive to anyone here?  Are those the talking points spinning around Fox and Breitbart (can someone go check their "Black Crime" section and report back?)  I...can see who shot people in Vegas.  He wasn't in a gang.  Adam Lanza wasn't in a gang.  Elliot Rogers wasn't in a gang. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: fluffmuffin on October 03, 2017, 02:06:05 PM
With all that said, I've a couple of questions for the folks shooting down all the gun-control measures. Why does the US have so much higher a rate of gun violence than other developed countries, even adjusted for population? Do you think that the US should do anything to prevent mass shootings and lessen our rates of gun violence?

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

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

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

Okay, I totally agree that we should be working on gang violence. That's a huge problem. But it's a problem that results from, and is fed by, so many complex, interlocking factors: racism, disenfranchisement, unequal economic and educational opportunity, the War on Drugs, culture, mass incarceration of Black men, zoning laws, redlining, housing policies, distrust of the police (often with good reason), even things like lack of public transit. That's just off the top of my head. How are we supposed to address every. single. one. of those problems? And then give it a few decades for a cultural shift to take place?

If we're accepting that mental illness is a common theme among mass shooters--but also that the NV shooter would likely have passed a mental health screen, so should still be able to buy a gun--what are the symptoms that we're looking for? If you look at recent mass shooters, they don't all seem to present with the same profile. It's easy to say "Dylann Roof was crazy," but it's a lot harder to figure out exactly what Stephen Paddock, Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Adam Lanza, and Seung-Hui Cho all had in common, much less how to proactively screen for those characteristics. And then without gun control laws, how do you keep someone from getting a gun if they've been identified to be a risk, while they undergo treatment?

To be clear, I think we should be addressing all of these underlying issues. (And also, toxic masculinity! Because if you want a real evidence-based ways to screen for mass shooters, let's keep men from owning guns! Joking, but also not.) But I think--even if there were the political and economic will to tackle every single one of those issues tomorrow--something also has to be done in the short term. There are no quick-fix band-aids for the structural problems underlying all of this. If gun control is off the table, what does that leave us? I'm really trying to understand.

I think we can all agree, though, that the Dickey amendment needs to GO. If guns are so safe and everyone should be able to have as many guns of whatever caliber they want (per your long and slavering list on the last page, zolotiyeruki), the CDC should be able to study the link between guns and public health, and prove it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 03, 2017, 02:20:24 PM
I was thinking the massive LE presence would mean someone could shut down the shooter's guns within a minute or two. It was, after all, a concert with 20k people, and Las Vegas is full of cops.


Would they shut every non-law enforcement gun down?  They had not idea who or where he was for most of that time.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: surfhb on October 03, 2017, 02:32:41 PM
Treat all fire arms like you would the DMV.   Each one is yearly registered and everybody is required to retake training every 5 years or so. 

I abhor weapons of any kind but you are free to own as many as you like.    I used to own 2 MAK-90s and several hand guns....then I grew up and wondered why I kept these worthless piles of steel when they were better used in my bank account.   

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 03, 2017, 02:34:15 PM
Do you really not know the difficulty (and manpower costs) of wading through millions of paper (not digital) document held in thousands of locations that law enforcement must undertake to search these records, or are you being purposely dishonest with your response?

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


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

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

#3 - Ah.  Moving goal posts.  First you didn't want to talk about any crime but the one in the OP, now we don't want to talk about the shooting.  I see how it is.
We might be talking about two different things.  Why would anyone need to wade through a pile of paperwork?  I'm thinking about a case where a bad guy does something bad with a gun and gets caught.  The authorities don't have to wade through any large quantity of paperwork, they just follow the chain of custody for that serial number.

  If, of course, the criminal hasn't filed it off, in which case the database does you no good anyway.  Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

You appear to have no idea how a weapons trace actually takes place in the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8 (http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8)

"There is no national database of guns. We have no centralized record of who owns all the firearms we so vigorously debate, no hard data regarding how many people own them, how many of them are bought or sold, or how many even exist."

"Anytime a cop in any jurisdiction in America wants to connect a gun to its owner, the request for help ends up here, at the National Tracing Center, in a low, flat, boring building that belies its past as an IRS facility, just off state highway 9 in Martinsburg, West Virginia, in the eastern panhandle of the state, a town of some 17,000 people, a Walmart, a JCPenney, and various dollar stores sucking the life out of a quaint redbrick downtown. On any given day, agents here are running about 1,500 traces; they do about 370,000 a year."

"“It's a shoestring budget,” says Charlie, who runs the center. “It's not 10,000 agents and a big sophisticated place. It's a bunch of friggin' boxes. All half-ass records. We have about 50 ATF employees. And all the rest are basically the ladies. The ladies that live in West Virginia—and they got a job. There's a huge amount of labor being put into looking through microfilm.”

I want to ask about the microfilm—microfilm?—but it's hard to get a word in. He's already gone three rounds on the whiteboard, scribbling, erasing, illustrating some of the finer points of gun tracing, of which there are many, in large part due to the limitations imposed upon this place. For example, no computer. The National Tracing Center is not allowed to have centralized computer data.

“That's the big no-no,” says Charlie.

That's been a federal law, thanks to the NRA, since 1986: No searchable database of America's gun owners. So people here have to use paper, sort through enormous stacks of forms and record books that gun stores are required to keep and to eventually turn over to the feds when requested. It's kind of like a library in the old days—but without the card catalog. They can use pictures of paper, like microfilm (they recently got the go-ahead to convert the microfilm to PDFs), as long as the pictures of paper are not searchable. You have to flip through and read. No searching by gun owner. No searching by name."

"“You want to see the loading dock?” We head down a corridor lined with boxes. Every corridor in the whole place is lined with boxes, boxes up to the eyeballs. In the loading dock, there's a forklift beeping, bringing in more boxes. “You go, ‘Whoa!’ ” he says. “Okay? Yeah, but a million a month?” Almost 2 million new gun records every month he has to figure out what to do with. Almost 2 million slips of paper that record the sale of a gun—who bought it and where—like a glorified receipt. If you take pictures of the gun records, you can save space. “Two million images! You know, it's 2 million photo shots. I've got to have at least seven machines running 16 hours a day, or otherwise, right? I fall behind. And to fall behind means that instead of 5,000 boxes in process, there's maybe 5,500 tomorrow, you know?"




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

If you didn't forget 'em, then you know full well that there is no existing mechanism or way for police to trace the 40% of gun sales in the country that take place this way.




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

If people can figure out how to charge their cell in the morning, I think they can figure out how to charge their gun too.  If not . . . they may well be too stupid to responsibly own a gun, so this seems like a win-win really.

Will there be logistical challenges?  Sure.  It might even make it slightly more little inconvenient to own a weapon.  There will be a greater need for additional policing, especially at implementation.  It will make things much safer though.


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

How about limiting it to two firearms per adult?  One per hand.  You can own the guns you really want, but not the whole armory.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: waltworks on October 03, 2017, 02:48:41 PM
I was thinking the massive LE presence would mean someone could shut down the shooter's guns within a minute or two. It was, after all, a concert with 20k people, and Las Vegas is full of cops.


Would they shut every non-law enforcement gun down?  They had not idea who or where he was for most of that time.

Sure, why not? Shutting down every gun in a 5 mile radius would have been a great solution. Or you could have a code that shuts down non-LE guns but leaves the LE guns operating. That's easy.

-W
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dandarc on October 03, 2017, 02:54:07 PM
I was thinking the massive LE presence would mean someone could shut down the shooter's guns within a minute or two. It was, after all, a concert with 20k people, and Las Vegas is full of cops.


Would they shut every non-law enforcement gun down?  They had not idea who or where he was for most of that time.

Sure, why not? Shutting down every gun in a 5 mile radius would have been a great solution. Or you could have a code that shuts down non-LE guns but leaves the LE guns operating. That's easy.

-W
I see a huge market for "antique" guns in this alternate reality.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 03, 2017, 03:00:26 PM
I was thinking the massive LE presence would mean someone could shut down the shooter's guns within a minute or two. It was, after all, a concert with 20k people, and Las Vegas is full of cops.


Would they shut every non-law enforcement gun down?  They had not idea who or where he was for most of that time.

Sure, why not? Shutting down every gun in a 5 mile radius would have been a great solution. Or you could have a code that shuts down non-LE guns but leaves the LE guns operating. That's easy.

-W
I see a huge market for "antique" guns in this alternate reality.

or gun shaped faraday cages. That might be a problem if a law abiding citizen were defending themselves within the 5 mile radius.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 03, 2017, 03:03:39 PM
I was thinking the massive LE presence would mean someone could shut down the shooter's guns within a minute or two. It was, after all, a concert with 20k people, and Las Vegas is full of cops.


Would they shut every non-law enforcement gun down?  They had not idea who or where he was for most of that time.

Sure, why not? Shutting down every gun in a 5 mile radius would have been a great solution. Or you could have a code that shuts down non-LE guns but leaves the LE guns operating. That's easy.

-W
I see a huge market for "antique" guns in this alternate reality.

If revolvers made a comeback, then the folks who want smaller magazines would win too. They're also difficult to reload under stress.

I saw a demo where a 92F was enabled/disabled by a proximity signal sent to the gun through a ring around the shooter's finger, but they said it couldn't be adapter to revolvers. That was a decade ago though.  Anyone have an update to share?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 03:09:51 PM
We can argue all we want about the definition of mass shooting (and quite frankly I'm horrified if your definition is 13 or more victims as suggested by your examples - that just shows how numbed and indifferent we have all become..)

Mass shootings by police, or gang related murders quite frankly shouldn't be happening either- nor can they be justified or dismissed in such sweeping terms. What happened to incapacitating suspects instead of aiming for the heart or head? What are the statistics of correlation between number of gang members and gun ownership? Is it just possible that guns CREATE gangs? Again the evidence shows that there's a correlation between those shootings and gun ownership proportional to population..
I'm not arguing that you have to accept my (arbitrary and personal) definition of mass shooting, it's simply the picture that comes to mind when I hear the term.

When I referred to police-involved shootings, I'm talking about incidents where, for example, there are two criminals and a crowd of police in a gun fight.  If the two criminals get shot and two officers also get injured, it gets included as a "mass shooting," when it's really a very different type of event than what we saw in Las Vegas.  The same goes for inter-gang violence--possibly many casualties, but again, a very different type of event than Las Vegas. I guess that if you're coming from the pro-gun-control side, it's easier to conflate the three, but if you're looking at the root-cause side, they're very different.

I further do not wish to simply dismiss gang violence, either.  Instead, I'm saying that rather than rush to enact laws which will only affect law-abiding citizens and will not affect crime at all, we should instead focus on resolving the problems that lead to gang activity.

Actually, there's a slight negative correlation (http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/06/guns-and-states/) between gun ownership and gun murders in the US.  The positive correlation is only relevant to suicide-by-gun (which accounts for 2/3 to 3/4 of all gun deaths).

Okay, I totally agree that we should be working on gang violence. That's a huge problem. But it's a problem that results from, and is fed by, so many complex, interlocking factors: racism, disenfranchisement, unequal economic and educational opportunity, the War on Drugs, culture, mass incarceration of Black men, zoning laws, redlining, housing policies, distrust of the police (often with good reason), even things like lack of public transit. That's just off the top of my head. How are we supposed to address every. single. one. of those problems? And then give it a few decades for a cultural shift to take place?

If we're accepting that mental illness is a common theme among mass shooters--but also that the NV shooter would likely have passed a mental health screen, so should still be able to buy a gun--what are the symptoms that we're looking for? If you look at recent mass shooters, they don't all seem to present with the same profile. It's easy to say "Dylann Roof was crazy," but it's a lot harder to figure out exactly what Stephen Paddock, Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Adam Lanza, and Seung-Hui Cho all had in common, much less how to proactively screen for those characteristics. And then without gun control laws, how do you keep someone from getting a gun if they've been identified to be a risk, while they undergo treatment?

To be clear, I think we should be addressing all of these underlying issues. (And also, toxic masculinity! Because if you want a real evidence-based ways to screen for mass shooters, let's keep men from owning guns! Joking, but also not.) But I think--even if there were the political and economic will to tackle every single one of those issues tomorrow--something also has to be done in the short term. There are no quick-fix band-aids for the structural problems underlying all of this. If gun control is off the table, what does that leave us? I'm really trying to understand.

I think we can all agree, though, that the Dickey amendment needs to GO. If guns are so safe and everyone should be able to have as many guns of whatever caliber they want (per your long and slavering list on the last page, zolotiyeruki), the CDC should be able to study the link between guns and public health, and prove it.
I like your use of the phrase "long and slavering list." :)

Every single one of those problems?  Sure, why not?  Collectively, yes, it's intimidating, and some individual problems (like racism) are difficult to solve on their own.  But many of those are things we (as a society) can work on.  Some of those issues I might disagree on, or I'm not well-enough-informed (mass incarceration?  We're not rounding up all the black men in an area, are we?  If they're committing crimes, are you proposing that we *not* punish them?) to form an opinion.  You're right that there's no quick fix.

I'm not super-informed on the Dickey amendment, although it seems like such research would be more in the DoJ's wheelhouse, maybe?  I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I can certainly understand the resistance from gun owners' points of view.  The demographics of federal government employees skews VERY heavily to the left, and there's a history (or at least a perception of it) of government studies being massaged/edited/redacted (or even in some cases, withheld entirely) in order to support a certain political goal.  So there's an understandable (if not completely justified) reluctance to allow any potential for encroachment.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2017, 03:23:19 PM
The simple fact of the matter is that the only reason we don't have gun control is because, as a society, we do not want it. We can (and have, many times) amended the constitution to override previous amendments. Many other countries have successfully had MANDATORY gun buybacks and successfully reduced gun violence (Australia comes to mind in the 90s). America is a deeply violent society. Unless we change that, we will continue to have lots of guns and lots of violence. It saddens me that we cannot be better than this.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 03:25:57 PM
You appear to have no idea how a weapons trace actually takes place in the US.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8 (http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-cops-actually-trace-a-gun-2016-8)
Huh. Learn something new every day. 
Quote
I didn't "forget" private sales.  I was including them in my response to #1.  Besides, this is another example of a mechanism that is seldom enforced and even more rarely used in solving a crime, and once again, becomes impotent once the serial number is filed off.  It sounds effective in theory, but historically hasn't proven to have much (if any) effect.

If you didn't forget 'em, then you know full well that there is no existing mechanism or way for police to trace the 40% of gun sales in the country that take place this way.
I get the feeling my words aren't getting through.  Some states, like IL where I live, require individuals to maintain a record of sale if they sell a firearm to another individual for 10 years, so that police *can* trace those 40% of sales if needed.  Those records are rarely if ever used.

Quote

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

If people can figure out how to charge their cell in the morning, I think they can figure out how to charge their gun too.  If not . . . they may well be too stupid to responsibly own a gun, so this seems like a win-win really.

Will there be logistical challenges?  Sure.  It might even make it slightly more little inconvenient to own a weapon.  There will be a greater need for additional policing, especially at implementation.  It will make things much safer though.
Will it really make things much safer, though?  Would it have prevented the Las Vegas shooting?  I doubt it.  Drive 5 minutes out of town, cut the wires on the transponders, drive back into town, and you've now got a bunch of rifles they don't know are there.  Sure, the police know that your guns aren't pinging any more, but for all they know, you're out in the desert, out of cell phone range, punching holes in paper.  "Slightly more inconvenient"?  Daily charging for a cell phone that you use daily is one thing.  Requiring daily charging for a handgun that you hope to never use but keep just in case is entirely different.  Also, it's basically a "boy who cried wolf" scenario.

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

How about limiting it to two firearms per adult?  One per hand.  You can own the guns you really want, but not the whole armory.
I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 03:34:37 PM
America is a deeply violent society. Unless we change that, we will continue to have lots of guns and lots of violence. It saddens me that we cannot be better than this.
I take issue with this statement.  We don't have hard-and-fast numbers, but there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US (some estimates put it at twice that number), and somewhere between 60 and 100 million gun owners.  There seems a constant fixation on the One Guy who does something horrific, as if he is representative of our entire society, while we ignore the other 59,999,999 gun owners who went about their lives like every other day, without causing any problems.

I also take issue the implication that American culture is homogeneous, and that the actions of one subculture are reflective of every other subculture.  Is there a culture of violence in some places or among some groups?  Absolutely, whether it's gangs in Chicago or the Alt-right or Antifa or MS-13.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dycker1978 on October 03, 2017, 03:46:41 PM
America is a deeply violent society. Unless we change that, we will continue to have lots of guns and lots of violence. It saddens me that we cannot be better than this.
I take issue with this statement.  We don't have hard-and-fast numbers, but there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US (some estimates put it at twice that number), and somewhere between 60 and 100 million gun owners.  There seems a constant fixation on the One Guy who does something horrific, as if he is representative of our entire society, while we ignore the other 59,999,999 gun owners who went about their lives like every other day, without causing any problems.

I also take issue the implication that American culture is homogeneous, and that the actions of one subculture are reflective of every other subculture.  Is there a culture of violence in some places or among some groups?  Absolutely, whether it's gangs in Chicago or the Alt-right or Antifa or MS-13.
America is a deeply violent society.  I am not even just talking guns here.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 03, 2017, 03:57:52 PM
America is a deeply violent society. Unless we change that, we will continue to have lots of guns and lots of violence. It saddens me that we cannot be better than this.
I take issue with this statement.  We don't have hard-and-fast numbers, but there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US (some estimates put it at twice that number), and somewhere between 60 and 100 million gun owners.  There seems a constant fixation on the One Guy who does something horrific, as if he is representative of our entire society, while we ignore the other 59,999,999 gun owners who went about their lives like every other day, without causing any problems.

I also take issue the implication that American culture is homogeneous, and that the actions of one subculture are reflective of every other subculture.  Is there a culture of violence in some places or among some groups?  Absolutely, whether it's gangs in Chicago or the Alt-right or Antifa or MS-13.
America is a deeply violent society.  I am not even just talking guns here.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946
How does this demonstrate a violent society, as it pertains to increased gun crime?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: surfhb on October 03, 2017, 04:14:40 PM
The simple fact of the matter is that the only reason we don't have gun control is because, as a society, we do not want it. We can (and have, many times) amended the constitution to override previous amendments. Many other countries have successfully had MANDATORY gun buybacks and successfully reduced gun violence (Australia comes to mind in the 90s). America is a deeply violent society. Unless we change that, we will continue to have lots of guns and lots of violence. It saddens me that we cannot be better than this.

Hmmmm.   I'll be willing to bet most want more gun control in this country.   The problem is we wont see it with the GOP in control of any part of congress/and or the White House for an expanded period of time. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dycker1978 on October 03, 2017, 04:17:41 PM
America is a deeply violent society. Unless we change that, we will continue to have lots of guns and lots of violence. It saddens me that we cannot be better than this.
I take issue with this statement.  We don't have hard-and-fast numbers, but there are an estimated 300 million guns in the US (some estimates put it at twice that number), and somewhere between 60 and 100 million gun owners.  There seems a constant fixation on the One Guy who does something horrific, as if he is representative of our entire society, while we ignore the other 59,999,999 gun owners who went about their lives like every other day, without causing any problems.

I also take issue the implication that American culture is homogeneous, and that the actions of one subculture are reflective of every other subculture.  Is there a culture of violence in some places or among some groups?  Absolutely, whether it's gangs in Chicago or the Alt-right or Antifa or MS-13.
America is a deeply violent society.  I am not even just talking guns here.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946
How does this demonstrate a violent society, as it pertains to increased gun crime?

Who said it was?  This is an indication of how violent the USA is.   
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 03, 2017, 04:21:48 PM
I rest my case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band)
"Guitarist says Las Vegas concert attack changed his mind on gun control"
Yay, by all means let's make sweeping legislative changes based on anecdotal experiences!  That sounds like a sure winner!

You absolutely missed the point of my comment. What I said first was: "those against gun control will have to be personally involved in such tragedy before something is done." Did you even read the article?

Pointing out that anecdotal evidence seems to be shaping how we're going to deal with our opioid problem in the US. Because lots of people now have had personal experience with that tragedy. Before it just used to be a problem with someone else.

But maybe I'm wrong and the takeaway from the majority of the people in that Las Vegas crowd were that they should all have guns and keep them on us at all times, just in case.

I don't understand what you're advocating for here besides "there's nothing we can do." What I read from your comments is you shrugging your shoulders saying "oh well, another day in America."

That's not good enough for me.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Chesleygirl on October 03, 2017, 04:55:57 PM
Does our constitutional right to bear arms,  mean we as citizens can carry any kind of weapon we want to? Even nukes? I'm asking as a serious question.

I have a relative who is very much into pro-gun politics, and she thinks children should be able to tote guns to school. Even children as young as age 5. She says it is their constitutional right to bear arms. She is also good friends with someone who ran for for a very high office in our nation recently.

So I think we have a problem here.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: omachi on October 03, 2017, 05:07:18 PM
Does our constitutional right to bear arms,  mean we as citizens can carry any kind of weapon we want to? Even nukes? I'm asking as a serious question.

I have a relative who is very much into pro-gun politics, and she thinks children should be able to tote guns to school. Even children as young as age 5. She says it is their constitutional right to bear arms. She is also good friends with someone who ran for for a very high office in our nation recently.

So I think we have a problem here.
Nukes, probably not, from a non-proliferation angle. We have treaties that limit those. Can't see how citizens get around that.

There were non-government privateers armed with cannon in revolutionary times. So it seems likely the founders weren't limiting the arms mentioned in the second amendment to the blunderbuss. I don't know if a private citizen could outfit their ship with 20 heavy cannon these days, but I imagine it would be fun to try.

As for kids with guns, that's patently ridiculous. Minors often have a different set of rules, and with good reason. It's every citizen's right to vote, too, but we keep them from doing so until they're 18. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind not laughing out of the room a person suggesting 5 year-olds should be armed. That was your reaction when you heard this, right?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Chesleygirl on October 03, 2017, 05:15:43 PM
Does our constitutional right to bear arms,  mean we as citizens can carry any kind of weapon we want to? Even nukes? I'm asking as a serious question.

I have a relative who is very much into pro-gun politics, and she thinks children should be able to tote guns to school. Even children as young as age 5. She says it is their constitutional right to bear arms. She is also good friends with someone who ran for for a very high office in our nation recently.

So I think we have a problem here.
Nukes, probably not, from a non-proliferation angle. We have treaties that limit those. Can't see how citizens get around that.

There were non-government privateers armed with cannon in revolutionary times. So it seems likely the founders weren't limiting the arms mentioned in the second amendment to the blunderbuss. I don't know if a private citizen could outfit their ship with 20 heavy cannon these days, but I imagine it would be fun to try.

As for kids with guns, that's patently ridiculous. Minors often have a different set of rules, and with good reason. It's every citizen's right to vote, too, but we keep them from doing so until they're 18. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind not laughing out of the room a person suggesting 5 year-olds should be armed. That was your reaction when you heard this, right?

There are people who seriously believe 5 year olds should be able to tote loaded rifles to school with them. I'd laugh about it, but it makes me scared and so it's not so funny any more. And the US constitution doesn't state that minors "can't" be armed. So there is always the risk that they can do so.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2017, 05:17:46 PM
I mean, what could go wrong if we armed kids with automatic weapons, even under highly controlled environments?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/us/arizona-firing-range-instructor-killed-by-girl-9-in-accident.html
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: waltworks on October 03, 2017, 05:19:19 PM
I see a huge market for "antique" guns in this alternate reality.

I agree, and that's probably the biggest drawback. You'd have to either confiscate existing guns (somehow I don't think the people who own them would be too happy, even if they got to trade them in for a new smart model) or else wait for the existing non-smart guns to wear out. That would be... a long time.

In the meantime, though, you could stop non-smart guns from being manufactured, and maybe in 50 or 100 years, you'd have helped solve the problem.

I guess my point is that the only viable solution is probably going to have to involve something like that. It's either that, or just admit that we can't do anything.

-W
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 03, 2017, 05:21:21 PM
Does our constitutional right to bear arms,  mean we as citizens can carry any kind of weapon we want to? Even nukes? I'm asking as a serious question.

I have a relative who is very much into pro-gun politics, and she thinks children should be able to tote guns to school. Even children as young as age 5. She says it is their constitutional right to bear arms. She is also good friends with someone who ran for for a very high office in our nation recently.

So I think we have a problem here.

There are weapons that are banned from the hands of private citizens, but I can't speak to what the legal justification is vice the small arms that we're allowed to own.  Full-auto assault rifles and belt-fed machine guns have been on the banned list for a long time.  You can buy an old tank, but it can't be functional as a weapon.  If I recall correctly the Supreme Court turned down a handgun ban in D.C. or somewhere stating that was too deep of a gun ban which would essentially mean the ability to ban every firearm in between.  Wherever the legal gray area is between heavy machine gun and pistol is where you see gun legislation occur.

And there's plenty of debate as to what constitutional rights minors have in the first place.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 03, 2017, 05:22:26 PM
Based on Canadian data, the most dangerous gun owner I can encounter is a male I am close to.  When I think of most local homicides, almost all have been domestic.  As in, he shot his ex-girlfriend or ex-wife.  Even though I worked in Montreal for the Concordia, Ecole Polytechnique and Dawson shootings, and lived near Ottawa for the Parliament Hill shootings.  And even though there is gang violence in Montreal and Ottawa (hey there was a Hell's Angels affiliate camp-out just outside Ottawa a while ago).

Canadians have lots of guns (long guns are legal, hand guns are very difficult to have legally, gangs love them).

Since Canada is right next door to the US and we have similar settlement patterns, a lot of Americans seem to think we must be very much like them.  Nope.  Here is the Canadian picture from a few years ago. 

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11882-eng.htm (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11882-eng.htm)

PS  There are things we don't like about our governments (federal and provincial), but we seem to have managed to not have the deep distrust of them that Americans have.  That may also be a factor (?).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zolotiyeruki on October 03, 2017, 05:59:49 PM
The simple fact of the matter is that the only reason we don't have gun control is because, as a society, we do not want it. We can (and have, many times) amended the constitution to override previous amendments. Many other countries have successfully had MANDATORY gun buybacks and successfully reduced gun violence (Australia comes to mind in the 90s). America is a deeply violent society. Unless we change that, we will continue to have lots of guns and lots of violence. It saddens me that we cannot be better than this.

Hmmmm.   I'll be willing to bet most want more gun control in this country.   The problem is we wont see it with the GOP in control of any part of congress/and or the White House for an expanded period of time.
Interesting that you bring up that point. It's true that when you ask a very generic question about whether gun laws should be improved, you get a majority.  But as we've seen in this thread, once you get down into specific proposals, the support for increased gun control very rapidly erodes.

You absolutely missed the point of my comment. What I said first was: "those against gun control will have to be personally involved in such tragedy before something is done." Did you even read the article?

...

But maybe I'm wrong and the takeaway from the majority of the people in that Las Vegas crowd were that they should all have guns and keep them on us at all times, just in case.

I don't understand what you're advocating for here besides "there's nothing we can do." What I read from your comments is you shrugging your shoulders saying "oh well, another day in America."

That's not good enough for me.
I did read the article, actually.  But there's an implicit assumption there that I don't think is valid:  that personal exposure to gun violence will lead people to become anti-gun.  I don't know if that's statistically true or false.

You're stating a false choice in your "But maybe I'm wrong" statement.  This event is a black swan, an extremely rare and unique occurrence in nearly every respect, from the profile of the shooter to the level of planning to the type of weapons used to the number of victims.  It's also unusual in the fact that the victims, even if armed, could not have fought back, and nobody (at least that I've heard) is arguing that they could have, which also makes it a straw man argument. :)

I haven't stated any specific policy proposals, simply because I don't have a solution.  But to be frank, neither does anyone else, short of full-on repeal of the 2nd amendment and total confiscation. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Chesleygirl on October 03, 2017, 06:08:05 PM
I mean, what could go wrong if we armed kids with automatic weapons, even under highly controlled environments?
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/28/us/arizona-firing-range-instructor-killed-by-girl-9-in-accident.html

The gun advocates will  just keep saying it's the person's right to own a gun no matter what, because the US constitution says it is. So even a child should be able to own a gun. They will also say knives and other weapons are "just as dangerous" as guns are. They will also say it's the person's fault, not the weapon's fault. Those are some of their standard arguments.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2017, 06:33:56 PM
those against gun control will have to be personally involved in such tragedy before something is done.
I rest my case:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-gun-control-caleb-keeter-josh-abbott-band)
"Guitarist says Las Vegas concert attack changed his mind on gun control"
I think Jim Wright had a reasonable take on this guy's change of heart:
https://www.facebook.com/Stonekettle/posts/1470848952950503

That said, I think that having people with public exposure openly question existing dogma on gun control and change their mind is very useful because it normalizes that it is okay for people to question and change their mind (and this can go both ways on this issue, to be sure).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: omachi on October 03, 2017, 07:37:43 PM
Does our constitutional right to bear arms,  mean we as citizens can carry any kind of weapon we want to? Even nukes? I'm asking as a serious question.

I have a relative who is very much into pro-gun politics, and she thinks children should be able to tote guns to school. Even children as young as age 5. She says it is their constitutional right to bear arms. She is also good friends with someone who ran for for a very high office in our nation recently.

So I think we have a problem here.
Nukes, probably not, from a non-proliferation angle. We have treaties that limit those. Can't see how citizens get around that.

There were non-government privateers armed with cannon in revolutionary times. So it seems likely the founders weren't limiting the arms mentioned in the second amendment to the blunderbuss. I don't know if a private citizen could outfit their ship with 20 heavy cannon these days, but I imagine it would be fun to try.

As for kids with guns, that's patently ridiculous. Minors often have a different set of rules, and with good reason. It's every citizen's right to vote, too, but we keep them from doing so until they're 18. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind not laughing out of the room a person suggesting 5 year-olds should be armed. That was your reaction when you heard this, right?

There are people who seriously believe 5 year olds should be able to tote loaded rifles to school with them. I'd laugh about it, but it makes me scared and so it's not so funny any more. And the US constitution doesn't state that minors "can't" be armed. So there is always the risk that they can do so.

You don't laugh at these people because it's funny. You laugh at them because you want to belittle the position. If everyone did so, there might be a chance they would reconsider such an insane position. That people don't, or at least don't challenge the position as crazy gives it a sort of Kafka-esque legitimacy in their mind.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Chesleygirl on October 03, 2017, 08:28:02 PM
I think if our country did see 5 year olds toting guns to school on a regular basis and the inevitable massive numbers of deaths that would result from this craziness, they'd want to rewrite the US constitution to permanently remove "right to bear arms", or we'd see record numbers of Americans fleeing the country to get out as fast as they could.

But I'm not joking around when I say, I know people who want their young kids to be able to carry loaded guns around.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 03, 2017, 08:34:45 PM
I think if our country did see 5 year olds toting guns to school on a regular basis and the inevitable massive numbers of deaths that would result from this craziness, they'd want to rewrite the US constitution to permanently remove "right to bear arms", or we'd see record numbers of Americans fleeing the country to get out as fast as they could.

But I'm not joking around when I say, I know people who want their young kids to be able to carry loaded guns around.

Nah. The NRA would just put out some video ads showing five year-olds prepping to protect themselves and their families against liberals, shoot some money to key Congressional Republicans, and presto — untapped revenue source!

Hell, Don Jr. has already auditioned as spokesmodel.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/14/1620367/-While-We-Watched-His-Dad-Trump-Jr-Praised-Gun-Silencers-For-Getting-Little-Kids-In-The-Game
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Radagast on October 03, 2017, 10:58:47 PM
How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.
Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. This could allow all the uninfringed stuff and still add a modicum of non-centralized regulation.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nnls on October 03, 2017, 11:31:13 PM
How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.
Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. This could allow all the uninfringed stuff and still add a modicum of non-centralized regulation.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.

and maybe a restriction on the number of guns each person could legally own, with a register of this and if those guns are used in a  crime(and you haven't reported them missing) then you lose your gun licence.

I know criminals would still have guns and not follow the law, but when there are gun restrictions it is harder for criminals to get guns.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 03, 2017, 11:38:09 PM
I haven't stated any specific policy proposals, simply because I don't have a solution. 

Yeah, we know.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2017, 06:20:39 AM
I see a huge market for "antique" guns in this alternate reality.

I agree, and that's probably the biggest drawback. You'd have to either confiscate existing guns (somehow I don't think the people who own them would be too happy, even if they got to trade them in for a new smart model) or else wait for the existing non-smart guns to wear out. That would be... a long time.

In the meantime, though, you could stop non-smart guns from being manufactured, and maybe in 50 or 100 years, you'd have helped solve the problem.

I guess my point is that the only viable solution is probably going to have to involve something like that. It's either that, or just admit that we can't do don't really want to do anything.

-W

Fixed that for you.

There's plenty that can be done.  People who like owning guns would prefer to keep things they way they are.  The deaths and mass murders are just an acceptable loss in their eyes.  It's why they never have any solutions for the problem (only complaints about things proposed) . . . because they know any solution will make their ability to own, use, and buy a gun slightly more difficult.  And in the end, lives simply aren't worth that kind of hassle.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 04, 2017, 07:15:48 AM
People who like owning guns do not trust gun control advocates. The reason they do not want a searchable database or national registry is because they believe it will be used to confiscate guns.

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

I'm not really a gun guy at all, but I'm definitely on the side of not restricting fundamental American rights because of an elevated homicide rate.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2017, 07:27:53 AM
I'm definitely on the side of not restricting fundamental American rights because of an elevated homicide rate.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was typing about.

Quote
And in the end, lives simply aren't worth that kind of hassle.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 04, 2017, 07:45:23 AM
If people don't like the trade-off, they can always try to pass a Constitutional amendment. Or they can try to insert it in the Article V convention that we're probably going to have this century at the rate we're going (assuming we don't just choose to dissolve the Republic entirely).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 04, 2017, 07:46:05 AM
I thought this was an interesting analysis on gun control -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: scottish on October 04, 2017, 08:05:36 AM
The US is way too far gone for gun control to help.    The only way the US is going to get gun violence under control is to confiscate and destroy all firearms in civilian hands.     Once they're all gone (a multi-year project if I ever heard of one), then you can start with modern gun regulation.

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

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

You would be better to focus on things that will make a difference.    Dealing with ghettos and urban poverty.   Better mental health care (along with better health care in general.)   Eliminating racism.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 04, 2017, 08:08:02 AM
If people don't like the trade-off, they can always try to pass a Constitutional amendment. Or they can try to insert it in the Article V convention that we're probably going to have this century at the rate we're going (assuming we don't just choose to dissolve the Republic entirely).
This isn't a debate about what our lawmakers are going to do, it's about what they should do. We want your opinion and your defense of that position.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2017, 08:14:27 AM
The US is way too far gone for gun control to help.    The only way the US is going to get gun violence under control is to confiscate and destroy all firearms in civilian hands.     Once they're all gone (a multi-year project if I ever heard of one), then you can start with modern gun regulation.

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

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

You would be better to focus on things that will make a difference.    Dealing with ghettos and urban poverty.   Better mental health care (along with better health care in general.)   Eliminating racism.

I agree that we're too far gone. The NRA and the Republican lawmakers in their pockets get rich off this shit. They have a great Rambo narrative that people who thrive on the myth of the lone warrior eat up like it's mother's milk. And they've conveniently folded into this narrative that lefties are the enemy, so any attempt to discuss solutions on their part is just seen as at best clueless and at worst anti-American.

The ONLY place reform can come from now is from the right. In the form of changing campaign financing and donations, changing the stranglehold of lobby groups on our policies, rolling back Citizens United, lifting the CDC ban on gun violence research that the Republicans put in place, and dealing with the issues that Scottish pointed to above. And none of those things will ever happen as long as Republicans are in control. Which they will be for the foreseeable future, because of gerrymandering and a Supreme Court that will only lean more rightward as the next justice retires or dies and Trump replaces them with someone even worse than Gorsuch.

We're done here, kids. Until the GOP starts to wake up and get a conscience. Which apparently it takes a literal death sentence to happen.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2017/10/john_mccain_urges_supreme_court_to_return_control_of_our_elections_to_the

So try to make it through as best you can.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: FLBiker on October 04, 2017, 08:29:14 AM
For us, the questions raised by events like this have less to do with gun control than with timing.  How late is too late to leave? 

Right now we've got good gigs, but this culture is toxic and growing increasingly moreso.  I worked overseas from 1999 to 2007 and never really intended to come back.  I left (in 1999) because of frustration with the direction in which we seemed to be headed (relentlessly pro-consumerism, pro-corporate, bully foreign policy, no social safety net, etc.) and it hasn't gotten better.  Not sure if this will be the particular tipping point, but last night DW asked me if I'd consider using a headhunter to find a position in Canada, Australia or New Zealand.  We'll see...
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 04, 2017, 08:56:35 AM
The US is way too far gone for gun control to help.    The only way the US is going to get gun violence under control is to confiscate and destroy all firearms in civilian hands.     Once they're all gone (a multi-year project if I ever heard of one), then you can start with modern gun regulation.

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

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

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

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

Concerning gang violence I think the single biggest step we can take is drug legalization. Gangs exist primarily to sell drugs.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 04, 2017, 09:00:50 AM
If people don't like the trade-off, they can always try to pass a Constitutional amendment. Or they can try to insert it in the Article V convention that we're probably going to have this century at the rate we're going (assuming we don't just choose to dissolve the Republic entirely).
This isn't a debate about what our lawmakers are going to do, it's about what they should do. We want your opinion and your defense of that position.
My opinion is that the media should stop glamorizing these events with wall-to-wall coverage, as it inspires copy-cat attacks in a fashion similar to suicides.

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

That's my overall position, but that wouldn't stop mass shootings. Ft Hood was carried out with a single semi-automatic pistol. It'll just keep happening.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 04, 2017, 09:25:16 AM

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


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

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

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

We want to believe that with all the possible combinations of human beings and human feelings, predicting violence is as difficult as picking the winning lottery ticket, yet it usually isn’t difficult at all. We want to believe that human violence is somehow beyond our understanding, because as long as it remains a mystery, we have no duty to avoid it, explore it, or anticipate it. We need feel no responsibility for failing to read signals if there are none to read. We can tell ourselves that violence just happens without warning, and usually to others, but in service of these comfortable myths, victims suffer and criminals prosper.
-- Gavin de Becker
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: partgypsy on October 04, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
People who like owning guns do not trust gun control advocates. The reason they do not want a searchable database or national registry is because they believe it will be used to confiscate guns.

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

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

That's a terribly callous statement. I personally do not think people's (apparently unrestricted) right to bear arms overrides individual citizens' right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The 2nd amendment needs to be revised because the types of arms people can now purchase, are far far different and more deadlier than the original framers invisioned. And also it was written before we had a standing army for the country, which overrides the need for a locally raised "militia." It is an outdated amendment that is doing more harm than good for our country.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 04, 2017, 09:58:17 AM
If people don't like the trade-off, they can always try to pass a Constitutional amendment. Or they can try to insert it in the Article V convention that we're probably going to have this century at the rate we're going (assuming we don't just choose to dissolve the Republic entirely).
This isn't a debate about what our lawmakers are going to do, it's about what they should do. We want your opinion and your defense of that position.
My opinion is that the media should stop glamorizing these events with wall-to-wall coverage, as it inspires copy-cat attacks in a fashion similar to suicides.

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

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

Understanding how the television news works and what it does to you is directly relevant to your safety and well-being. First, the fear of crime is itself a form of victimization. But there is a much more practical issue involved: Being exposed to constant alarm and urgency shell-shocks us to the point that it becomes impossible to separate the survival signal from the sound bite. Because it’s sensationalism and not informationalism, we get a distorted view of what actually poses a hazard to us. -- Gavin De Becker, The Gift of Fear
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 04, 2017, 09:59:43 AM
Gun control laws are total bullshit. In fact, worse than bullshit, because bullshit has some use as fertilizer.

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


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

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

New York City has stricter gun laws than Chicago:

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

New York City also has record-low homicide rates.  A great deal of research ties the number of available guns to the homicide rate.  When people wave their hands and yell CHICAGO!!! but not NEW YORK!!!  there's a reason.  Team Trump isn't competent at much of anything, but they are really, really good at stoking racial resentment.  And pushing the racial resentment button for conservatives is very effective at getting them to line up with policies that they see as being on their team.  That's how you get people to vote for politicians who support no universal background checks, even though that policy has wide public support among conservatives.  It's how you get people to forget that even suburban white 6 year olds can be the victims of horrific gun violence perpetrated by a white male, by replacing that picture with a mental picture of a "thug" with a gun.  Suddenly, gun violence isn't your problem anymore, it's by the "other", and you won't be a victim because you don't go to godless places like Chicago.  And you need your gun to protect you from those thugs, anyway.  Wait-violence at a country music concert in a place you go on vacation?  Quick, send out many messages of CHICAGO to soothe the part of your brain that says that maybe you should be worried and that things could be different, better.  It doesn't matter that it's not supported by facts.  Just keep saying Chicago and you'll feel better soon.
 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: jim555 on October 04, 2017, 10:04:35 AM
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 04, 2017, 10:14:57 AM
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.
Perhaps the Dems would like fewer people to die painful and untimely deaths, or have lifelong disabilities?

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

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

Perhaps they have not yet given up on making the USA that shining city on the hill.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2017, 10:15:46 AM
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.

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

None of these arguments are reasons not to try to make the country better.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 04, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
The second amendment is settled law.  Military weapons are protected and it is a personal right.  The 1938 Miller case said a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it is not a weapon used in the military.  So it follows a .223 or .308 that is used in the military are protected weapons.  It will require an amendment change and that is not happening any time soon.  I don't know why the Dems keep on with the gun control issue when it can't be changed (due to the 2nd) and it is not popular and probably would have no impact due to the hundreds of millions of guns already out there.

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

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

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

The "Dems" are skating uphill due to the restrictions the 2nd Amendment places on their efforts, which is unfortunate because some of the laws that get passed in individual states make literal cosmetic changes to guns and gun laws leading to ridicule of their overall efforts.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 04, 2017, 12:09:22 PM
Gun control is a very small part of this overall puzzle, and mass shootings like this one are so rare they're almost not worth talking about in the scope of the homicide rate in our country (yet will be the only thing that IS talked about). 41 people every day die due to homicide in the US, this event was 1/3 of 1% of this year's homicides. Homicides have also been on the decline since the 90's, at roughly the same rate as Australia whose gun control laws people love to point to as the solution to our problems. To clarify, Australia implemented strict gun control in 1996, we didn't, and our homicide rate still declined at roughly the same rate.  http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html https://www.infoplease.com/us/crime/homicide-rate-1950-2014

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

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

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

As I've said in past threads, if we start talking about actual compromise, like adding a new restriction WHILE getting rid of an old ridiculous one, I'm down to listen. What I'm not interested in is the whole "we have to compromise" when one side doesn't want to give anything. One other pet peeve is people using these tragedies as a way to try and introduce regulations that wouldn't have prevented these tragedies.  It doesn't mean their regulation wouldn't work, but it's just annoying. "We need a 30 day waiting period!" "This guy had his guns for 10 years." "Yeah but still." That sort of strategy usually lets me know the person is more interested in making legal gun ownership a pain in the ass than actually addressing the problem.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 04, 2017, 12:29:54 PM
You need a license and training to drive. That license is searchable by police and corresponds to a registered vehicle. They can also see how many vehicles are registered to you.

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

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

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

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

The next argument is "now they know where I live, so they'll come take my guns". Except, there is still that amendment there that lets you have them...
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 04, 2017, 12:32:03 PM

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

I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 04, 2017, 12:53:59 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This post is a good example of one of those ideas that wouldn't have helped this situation at all.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: omachi on October 04, 2017, 12:59:11 PM
What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

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

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

What about secondary effects? If gun violence by citizens was reduced to the point of an oddity, the police could also de-escalate and not decide to reach for lethal force at the drop of a hat. They certainly wouldn't have as much excuse for it. The "I feared for my life" thing when shooting into a car would be pretty unbelievable if gun violence was rare.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 04, 2017, 01:18:08 PM

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

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

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

Finally, drop the semantics about licensing. It's an analogy. There can be differences. Guns don't have steering wheels either, does that make my point invalid? Come on.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 04, 2017, 01:19:50 PM
What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

I think the semantics about licensing are pretty relevant. The fact is you DONT have to have a license to buy a car or to use it on private property, only to use it on public property. We currently have concealed carry license requirements in the vast majority of states where you do have a test to take to carry your gun/use it in public. They're more similar than you think. There also aren't limits on the number of cars you can buy or how often you have to wait between them.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 04, 2017, 01:29:14 PM
You need a license and training to drive. That license is searchable by police and corresponds to a registered vehicle. They can also see how many vehicles are registered to you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

It's much less important what the NRA thinks than what the Supreme Court has already said on the matter.  The writers of the Constitution did a great job with that document; however, their choice of sentence structure on that one statement has caused a lot of grief over the last century.  Reading that statement for the first time, one would think it was authorization for government-sponsored militia members to maintain their firearms at home.  Over the last 200 years though, the various iterations of the Supreme Court have felt differently and seem to latch onto "shall not be infringed" as the more important clause.  A new amendment would be required that clearly separates private ownership from ownership for "official" purposes with something about the weapon's capabilities.  It would also require language that restricts or requires state-level compliance since if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution, the states get to make their own rules.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: mre on October 04, 2017, 01:32:42 PM
I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.

"well regulated" is not in the operative clause of the 2nd amendment and has no  bearing on the operative clause, which provides for the right to keep and bear arms.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 04, 2017, 01:56:07 PM
The available evidence points toward some factor other than regulation being the driving force of the homicide reduction. Reconcile it however you like, I'm not going to theorize what the other mechanism is because it's very likely a complex answer.

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

Out of curiosity, where does gun control rank in the book?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: acroy on October 04, 2017, 02:05:46 PM
The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

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

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

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

Gun owners in US have hundreds of millions of guns and TRILLIONS of rounds of ammo. They are not the problem; if they were, the map would be a different color.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: partgypsy on October 04, 2017, 02:07:11 PM
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/us-gun-deaths-versus-other-countries-2016/

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

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

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

We can do better.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 04, 2017, 02:07:54 PM
I often think the same thing about defenders of the NRA.  They seem to have all misplaced their dictionaries and cannot credibly tell me what the term "well-regulated" means.

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


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

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





Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: lifeanon269 on October 04, 2017, 02:14:08 PM
A common argument from gun-rights proponents when gun control is talked about is whether or not any particular control would have made any specific impact on the latest tragic incident.

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

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

In short, discrediting gun control measures based on whether or not they would've prevented any given single instance of crime is a poor method for determining whether new gun controls should be adopted. If statistically speaking, putting in more gun controls will reduce access to guns, then at some point you have to admit that there will come a day where a tragedy will be prevent and it will make those controls worth it in the lives it saved. If I'm a law abiding gun owner, then please, inconvenience me all you'd like. If I can save a life by being inconvenienced, then I'll spend days/weeks/months being inconvenienced.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: partgypsy on October 04, 2017, 02:23:50 PM
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.

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

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

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

Note also that “antique firearms are not considered firearms for licensing and registration purposes.”[11]
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 04, 2017, 02:27:42 PM
The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

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

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

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

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

"Honey, look at this map that was posted here! We're moving to China, no guns and no homicides!"
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 04, 2017, 02:28:29 PM
A common argument from gun-rights proponents when gun control is talked about is whether or not any particular control would have made any specific impact on the latest tragic incident.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Canadians also watch more Hockey than Americans. Maybe that's the secret to their lack of gun violence?  The whole "well less guns and more regulation sure can't mean less killing, huh?" with a wink works really well in short clips on the Daily Show or an SNL skit, but the reality is it's a much more complicated situation than that.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 04, 2017, 02:30:57 PM
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


Have you considered mexico which has very strong gun laws a very high murder rate?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 04, 2017, 02:31:33 PM
So-the map grouped all countries with 5 homicides/100,000 people into one color.  That masks the fact that the homicide rate in the U.S. is approximately 6x that of Canada.  But they are both the same lovely green so it looks like we are all one country just having some Tim Horton's coffee while not shooting each other.  Neat!

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

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2017, 02:39:43 PM
The writers of the Constitution did a great job with that document

[[citation needed]]


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


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

It's weird that the 2nd amendment is the only part that gets people riled up.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 04, 2017, 02:42:15 PM
Here's a map from Huffington Post of all places that shows homicide rates around the world. Notice how most countries tend to be pretty much an average of their neighbors, it's rare/nonexistent for a country to be 3+ shades away from its neighbor. England, Australia, Sweden, Norway, etc etc all tend to have pretty friendly border countries. I'm not saying this is the whole story, because it's not, but this is another one of those things that indicates gun regulations are not the whole story. Then again, maybe it's just a coincidence.

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

edit: Changed to link because huge picture.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: partgypsy on October 04, 2017, 02:43:54 PM
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


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

What exactly do you mean by "strong" gun laws? Do you mean strict laws, or laws that are consistently and fairly regulated and enforced? Do you know anything about living in Mexico? I have a friend there, and the thing that most bothers her is that laws are not enforced, little help from the gov such as when a crime is committed. In certain areas, the cartels have as much money and power as the government. Do you think the government is taking their illegal guns away? Answer no.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TheInsuranceMan on October 04, 2017, 02:49:56 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: 2Birds1Stone on October 04, 2017, 02:55:55 PM
"Americans Prove They Can Still Come Together"

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

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

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

When will you or someone you know be next?

Looking like an inside job now....
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 04, 2017, 03:06:32 PM
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


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

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

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

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2017, 03:11:30 PM
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


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

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

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

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

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

What exactly do you consider strong gun laws?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 04, 2017, 03:16:22 PM
It's not like we don't know what does or does not work. We can just look over the border at Canada, which also has a high number of guns per populace, but much much lower incidence of gun deaths.


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

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

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

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

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

What exactly do you consider strong gun laws?

I think Canada and Mexico both have fairly strong laws on the books.  Are they draconian like Great Britain and/or Australia?  No. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Poundwise on October 04, 2017, 03:17:05 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html
I saw that article today also.  I find a number of logic faults in the two articles of hers that  I have read. Don't have time today to go into every one, but for instance, from this article: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/
Quote
Reuter and Mouzos only had a few years of post-ban data to judge, but last month, a more recent study of Australia’s gun buyback program published in the Journal of the American Medical Association still found only muted results. After the ban, firearm deaths (which were already declining) fell faster than they had before the ban. However, non-firearm suicides and homicides also fell, and even more sharply, in the aftermath of the ban than firearm deaths did, making it hard to tell if the trend in firearm deaths was the result of the ban or if all suicides and homicides were falling for a different reason. Because non-firearm suicides and homicides fell after the ban, the researchers found it unlikely that Australians who tended toward suicide or homicide simply switched methods after the ban. If they had, the number of deaths by suicide and homicide without guns should have risen.
(bolding mine)

I find that particular assumption, that non-firearm suicides and homicides should remain constant or rise when firearms were decreased, to be a leap.  Why shouldn't non-firearm suicides and homicides fall overall once access to guns was decreased? Perhaps, in the absence of a gun, some suicides and homicides simply did not happen. Also, why shouldn't a decrease in firearm violence cause a decrease in other kinds of violence? Fewer stresses on society. Every violent death leaves a jagged hole; fewer holes means less sorrow and less anger.
 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 04, 2017, 03:23:52 PM

Given that 1/2 of homicide victims are young men and 2/3 are black https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/, maybe we should focus on why that is happening and work to solve it.
Fine. But why not work on the whole problem of homicides not just part of it?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 04, 2017, 03:32:02 PM

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

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

If we look at Vegas, this asshole could have killed that many or more with a bomb.  We need to figure out why these acts are happening and quit the hysterics about the gun, the number of guns, etc.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 04, 2017, 04:06:11 PM
The writers of the Constitution did a great job with that document

[[citation needed]]


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


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

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

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

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

The 2nd Amendment gets folks riled up more than others I expect for a few reasons.
-Our foundation as a country with wide open frontiers and the need for personal protection and the traditions/nostalgia that come with that.
-It's the only part of the Constitution that specifically states "you can own this thing."
-In the balance of liberty and security, we have enough liberty that people don't think the government can protect them without a stopgap.
-It's a source of power and independence. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 04, 2017, 04:21:09 PM
A common argument from gun-rights proponents when gun control is talked about is whether or not any particular control would have made any specific impact on the latest tragic incident.

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

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

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

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

Funny that you bring up IT security.  I do it for the Army. There is a cost/benefit analysis done on adding regulations, procedures, and hardware/software systems to increase security.  The best secured network is one that is not plugged in and has no users.  One extreme end of the gun control scale is not letting anyone out of the house.  The other extreme is the stereotypical Wild West.  Obviously neither is a good idea, but someone has to measure where personal freedom, operating costs, manpower, and death rates meet on the scale.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: omachi on October 04, 2017, 04:27:30 PM
What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

So again, where is gun ownership actually saving lives? It certainly isn't when people break into homes.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 04, 2017, 04:43:07 PM

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

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

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

But if the human has no easily accessible means of hurting that human, those wants are less likely to be acted upon and less likely to result in serious harm when they are.  Which is why the USA, with more guns in civilian hands than there are civilians, has such a high rate of deaths and serious injuries (lets not forget the 500 plus injured in Las Vegas as well as the 59 killed).  Controlling the availability of guns is easier than controlling for the vagaries of human nature.   We currently have the means (through the application of laws, including the changing of laws) to control that availability.   Nothing hysterical about that: it is stone cold logic.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 04, 2017, 04:56:42 PM

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

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

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

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

Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: SeaEhm on October 04, 2017, 05:20:36 PM
Can someone explain the sequence of events in the following situation.

Trump goes to ban all firearms.


How many steps to a utopian society with no gun murders is needed in your story?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 04, 2017, 05:30:35 PM
Can someone explain the sequence of events in the following situation.

Trump goes to ban all firearms.


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

An imaginary perfect unattainable place with conditions that nobody on this forum has suggested.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 04, 2017, 05:47:03 PM
Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.
Fists, knives, bats and even cars are in no way equal in quantity of destruction to the guns used at Las Vegas.  To even mention them shows a disregard for logical argument.  Nor in fact are bombs, absent some extraordinary circumstances (eg on a plane).  A bomb at Las Vegas would have been more difficult to plant, with a higher likelihood of detection and probably a significantly lower death and injury count (see eg the bomb at the Ariana Grande concert for comparison).

So although guns are not the only means for harm, they are in these circumstances by many orders the most destructive.  And they are the ones which are the current topic.  I appreciate the attempted diversion, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 04, 2017, 06:29:30 PM
Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.
Fists, knives, bats and even cars are in no way equal in quantity of destruction to the guns used at Las Vegas.  To even mention them shows a disregard for logical argument.  Nor in fact are bombs, absent some extraordinary circumstances (eg on a plane).  A bomb at Las Vegas would have been more difficult to plant, with a higher likelihood of detection and probably a significantly lower death and injury count (see eg the bomb at the Ariana Grande concert for comparison).

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

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

All the methods of violence u dismiss would be quite effective in the majority of murders in this country since mass shootings make up a small portion of the problem.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on October 04, 2017, 06:32:08 PM
I will tell you exactly why our gun laws are not going to change. My people -- the white trash -- have a disproportionate voice on Capitol Hill due to the Electoral College. White trash people don't want to do away with high-powered firearms with high rate of fire, because deep down inside we hope that someday we'll get the chance to use the weapons on people. Yeah, we'll say lots of things about "self-defense" and "I hope it's never necessary", but that's just a smokescreen to mask the fact that we are really bloodthirsty and we hope every day that this will be the day we'll have an excuse to gun down a whole lot of folks.

We feel this way because shooting things is a lot of fun. And we live our lives with a high level of cortisol in our bodies from trauma that heightens our fight or flight response to the point where we just want to kill everybody who pisses us off. The United States doesn't have the will to make this change, so instead we'll have lots more mass shootings for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Hotstreak on October 04, 2017, 06:57:16 PM
59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

By the way, to all the folks complaining about the power of the NRA, nothing is stopping you from donating or volunteering for an opposing organization.  If you really cared about this, you would.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2017, 07:31:27 PM
59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

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

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. It’s what you’re up against. People who literally don’t give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just don’t matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


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

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

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. It’s what you’re up against. People who literally don’t give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just don’t matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


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


I don't know why you think I'm on a particular team - I've voted yes on every gun control measure that's even been on my ballot, and I've never given money to any pro gun groups, so I think you might have the wrong impression of my views. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2017, 08:37:20 PM
59 dead isn't enough to make me flinch, and is far away from a death toll that I think should lead to drastic changes in the law.  10,000 people die every year in the US from drunk drivers, the reason we all don't blow in to breathalyzers before starting our cars is that it is inconvenient, and costly.  Drastic gun control measure such as requiring biometric sensors, requiring health screenings by competent professionals, etc., are also very costly, and highly inconvenient for law abiding gun owners (which is the vast, vast majority).  People who rarely use their guns, or don't own any, would not be subjected to the cost or the inconvenience of control measures and therefore they have nothing to lose by proposing them.

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

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. It’s what you’re up against. People who literally don’t give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just don’t matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


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


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

You do not care. You say as much.

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

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

Don’t try to make yourself look better. You owned your position. Keep owning it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Hotstreak on October 04, 2017, 09:17:09 PM
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.


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

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

This. This is why nothing will change.

Look hard at this comment. It’s what you’re up against. People who literally don’t give a shit about people dying. Because a life, or a few dozen lives, just don’t matter to them, as much as sticking it to the other team.


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


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

You do not care. You say as much.

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

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

Don’t try to make yourself look better. You owned your position. Keep owning it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nemesis on October 04, 2017, 11:49:42 PM
Interesting posts so far.  It's nice to see relatively calm discussion over this sensitive topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real question is - how do you prevent evil people from doing evil things?   I don't think the answer is as easy as "ban some guns", it needs to be addressed in a variety of ways, including allowing law abiding citizens to have self defense tools like some guns to protect themselves from evil doers.   This is a very complex issue and it's clear both sides are very skeptical of the other side.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 05, 2017, 12:53:21 AM
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

I've got to agree with Kris: That's pretty weak.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Rightflyer on October 05, 2017, 02:07:26 AM

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



Sorry. That is simply not true.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 05, 2017, 02:27:42 AM
Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.
Fists, knives, bats and even cars are in no way equal in quantity of destruction to the guns used at Las Vegas.  To even mention them shows a disregard for logical argument.  Nor in fact are bombs, absent some extraordinary circumstances (eg on a plane).  A bomb at Las Vegas would have been more difficult to plant, with a higher likelihood of detection and probably a significantly lower death and injury count (see eg the bomb at the Ariana Grande concert for comparison).

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

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

All the methods of violence u dismiss would be quite effective in the majority of murders in this country since mass shootings make up a small portion of the problem.
Oklahoma City was 30 years ago and one occasion in what, 200 years?

Well, it's mass murder we're talking about here, isn't it?  Implicated in which fists, knives, bats and cars are almost entirely absent.  As we are talking mass murder, we are almost exclusively talking guns.  People change the subject when they've nothing new to say on the original topic, right?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nemesis on October 05, 2017, 02:45:26 AM

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



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

Perhaps I should have qualified - in a single attack?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Rightflyer on October 05, 2017, 04:18:46 AM

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




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

Perhaps I should have qualified - in a single attack?

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

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

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

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 05:32:28 AM
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

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

I follow this officers Facebook page (and he has a blog). He is pro 2nd amendment and pro sensible gun control. Much of what he writes and speaks about is quite frankly common sense. He often addresses many of the same arguments those against gun control tend to make.
https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This (https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 06:08:56 AM
What it would probably do is reduce gun violence, but if the homicide rate stays roughly the same (as it did in Australia), then we didn't really fix anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course the situation is horrible, and it's heart wrenching watching the interviews of people describing it and meeting their rescuers. On the other hand, we live in a country of 300,000,000 people, and this event was less than 1% of the homicides that have/will happen this year.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 06:17:19 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


Where is your limit? And saying "Well I know it's not where we're at right now!" isn't a very good answer. I'd like to hear how many gun deaths is an acceptable number as a trade off for our ability to own firearms.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 05, 2017, 06:39:59 AM
The UK has progressively regulated guns out of most people's lives following two of the types of tragedies that you mention.  Australia did the same.  Works for me.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 07:14:17 AM
Guns are not the only means for harm - Fists, knives, bats, cars, bombs - There are, unfortunately, many ways to kill/injure someone without a gun.  What happened in Vegas was awful.  He could have done something equally awful with a bomb.  It appears he was considering do so given some of the materials found in the car.
Fists, knives, bats and even cars are in no way equal in quantity of destruction to the guns used at Las Vegas.  To even mention them shows a disregard for logical argument.  Nor in fact are bombs, absent some extraordinary circumstances (eg on a plane).  A bomb at Las Vegas would have been more difficult to plant, with a higher likelihood of detection and probably a significantly lower death and injury count (see eg the bomb at the Ariana Grande concert for comparison).

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

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

All the methods of violence u dismiss would be quite effective in the majority of murders in this country since mass shootings make up a small portion of the problem.
Oklahoma City was 30 years ago and one occasion in what, 200 years?

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

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

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

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

Given the level of planning in Vegas, this loser would have simply used other means to attack.  Many of the others would have done the same.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 07:21:04 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

So let's stick to real world scenarios. I mean really you are just making a case to have no laws. Because people are going to break them anyways.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 05, 2017, 07:22:44 AM
I read the vox article and the response (first page of thread). Two things I got from those.

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

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

Back to 1, I am not really sure why this is the case. I know a lot has been written about this but still, nothing seems conclusive.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 07:24:31 AM

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




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

Perhaps I should have qualified - in a single attack?

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

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




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

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

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

All the methods of violence u dismiss would be quite effective in the majority of murders in this country since mass shootings make up a small portion of the problem.
Oklahoma City was 30 years ago and one occasion in what, 200 years?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guns are designed to kill.  That's their whole purpose.  They're designed to kill animals while hunting, to kill varmints around the farm, and to kill people.  Giving everyone easy access to a tool designed to kill makes it easier to kill.  Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 05, 2017, 07:31:56 AM
Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.

It is called the Man, and he ALWAYS has to be kept in check. Think for a second, why is it part of our Constitution? If it was to keep away invading armies then there would be no need to guarantee it as a right. It is to protect us from ourselves.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 07:32:03 AM
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 07:36:41 AM
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.

I am not aware of the NRA making any effort to eliminate the current background check system.  Do you have a source?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 07:41:57 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The admittedly difficult part about this is, in either case one side is going to be suspicious of the other. Once we allow limits on the number of guns, that is a significant constitutional decision that will impact all future regulations, and there's nothing stopping the repeals of silencer regulation from being reversed without reversing the limit as well. In any case, I'm willing to actually discuss additional regulations, provided we actually compromise rather than continually moving in one direction.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 07:48:00 AM
Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.

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

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

As has been mentioned, putting the constitution on a pedestal is not a legitimate argument.  It's in the constitution because several hundred years ago some rich white misogynistic slave owners living in a country without a standing army decided it was a good idea for most people to have access to muskets.  Not really applicable in this day and age to the problems we're facing.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 07:50:48 AM
'The Man' isn't kept in check by your small arms.  If anything, the proliferation of guns means that 'The Man' tends to come up with reasons to react with excessive force (as is so often seen in police actions in the US).  We've already discussed this earlier (first page I think?) but a well armed militia is a terrible way to protect yourself from a tyrannical government . . . nearly every example of a well armed militia overthrowing a government in modern history ends up seizing power and instituting a dictator or tyrant.

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

So in order to stop the government from killing us, we should give up our defenses? Can't argue with that logic.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 05, 2017, 07:51:56 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


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

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

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

Compromise can happen, if we just stop getting so defensive at the slightest suggestion or ignorant question.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 07:56:00 AM
'The Man' isn't kept in check by your small arms.  If anything, the proliferation of guns means that 'The Man' tends to come up with reasons to react with excessive force (as is so often seen in police actions in the US).  We've already discussed this earlier (first page I think?) but a well armed militia is a terrible way to protect yourself from a tyrannical government . . . nearly every example of a well armed militia overthrowing a government in modern history ends up seizing power and instituting a dictator or tyrant.

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

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

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

As far as the government . . . if they want to kill you, they don't even need to send people.  They can fly a drone to your home and bomb the shit out of it.  They can launch a missile from miles away and blow the shit out of you.  They can drive a tank through your front hall and blow the shit out of you.  Etc.  Pretending that small arms terrify a government in control of a modern military is laughable Hollywood Rambo silliness.  Heck, the government doesn't even need to fire a shot.  They can just close all the roads that lead to your town, turn off the water, and starve you out.  In this case guns probably don't make you less safe from the government . . . they're simply a non-factor.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 07:59:47 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you were trying to take over a country by violent force, and you could choose between one where 1/3 civilians was armed, and one where nobody was armed, which would you pick?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 05, 2017, 08:03:15 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm far warier of government overreach than I am of fellow law-abiding citizens.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 08:05:37 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

To add - I thought bump stocks had the potential to cause more harm than good prior to this.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 08:22:39 AM
I'm not that familiar with current federal gun control regulation, and I know it varies a lot state by state, so could someone propose a quick list of current federal-level gun control laws that they would like repealed in exchange for something more sensible?  I have a few ideas, but I don't know which regulations that folks dislike are federal vs state.

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

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

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

The first part about concealed carry sounds fair enough.

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

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

Here are a few more ideas I listed above:

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

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

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

The admittedly difficult part about this is, in either case one side is going to be suspicious of the other. Once we allow limits on the number of guns, that is a significant constitutional decision that will impact all future regulations, and there's nothing stopping the repeals of silencer regulation from being reversed without reversing the limit as well. In any case, I'm willing to actually discuss additional regulations, provided we actually compromise rather than continually moving in one direction.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 05, 2017, 08:27:28 AM
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

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

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

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

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


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

I still think there should be some sort of digitization of records, even if the supreme court weighs in and requires a very specific cause and warrant before these records can be accessed by the government.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 05, 2017, 08:31:19 AM
Terrible shit happens, sure . . . but there's no need for us to make it easier for bad people to do bad things.

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

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

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

Why did they think it was good for most people to have muskets (and some cannons)? And not just a good idea but necessary. That is the question. If it was just to have an armed populace incase of invasion they could have made it a law, not a #2 in the bill of rights.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 08:35:15 AM
Oh I get it, it's just ridiculous to blame the police killings on the fact that people are allowed to have guns. Even if we did make guns illegal, criminals would still have them and police would use that as their new excuse, or a knife, or whatever.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Can we stop with the goofy American myth that a well armed militia will ever fight off a massively dominant military force and then miraculously not institute their own tyrant?  It's simply not supported by history.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 08:39:20 AM
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

* The "war on terror" has already brought too much intrusion at the excuse of safety.  We have the NSA gathering data on every US citizen and a secret no fly list.  I'm against furthering that agenda.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 08:45:56 AM
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

The article you posted also doesn't touch on one of the biggest reasons that the US needs a registry though - detection and prevention of straw purchases . . . this is one of the most common ways that criminals obtain firearms in the US.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: omachi on October 05, 2017, 08:47:22 AM

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

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

So I'll ask my favorite question on the topic, as I posted above. When are you going to start shooting members of the government to defend against tyranny?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 05, 2017, 08:52:29 AM
I'm not that familiar with current federal gun control regulation, and I know it varies a lot state by state, so could someone propose a quick list of current federal-level gun control laws that they would like repealed in exchange for something more sensible?  I have a few ideas, but I don't know which regulations that folks dislike are federal vs state.

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

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

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

These are extremely good ideas and compromises.

Would never happen, but extremely good.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 08:58:08 AM
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Enforce the existing straw purchase laws.  If necessary, more clearly define what a straw purchase is, but I'll pass on the registry.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 09:01:33 AM
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The registry was dismantled by an activist right wing government for political reasons, not because it didn't work.  It was dismantled against the express wishes of the police who used it on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 09:02:32 AM
So you like the parts where I offered to improve gun owners rights, but not the parts where I asked for something in return?  (kinda joking here, no insult meant)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will it ever happen? Probably not. More likely the government will use things like the NSA to gather data and point us all in the direction they want us to go through media influence. I'll ask again, if you were trying to take over a country, would you prefer one that was armed or one that wasn't?  If they were armed, would you prefer them to all be registered or not?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 09:07:28 AM
Quote
So I'll ask my favorite question on the topic, as I posted above. When are you going to start shooting members of the government to defend against tyranny?

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

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

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

Where is your small arms defense coming into play against that?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 09:08:31 AM
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't seem nearly that clear cut -

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 09:13:09 AM
In addition, the bump stocks added to the carnage and circumvent the original intent of the NFA.  I'm open to a discussion on them.  Maybe put them on the NFA. 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't seem nearly that clear cut -

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

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

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

As I said previously, the gun registry wasn't perfect.  To say that it was a failure though, is a matter of opinion.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 09:14:34 AM
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

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

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

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

Hitler did loosen restrictions (after they confiscated guns from their enemies they found through their registry). One notable exception to their restriction loosening was Jews.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 09:15:40 AM
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

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

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

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

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

Has this ever happened in modern history?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 09:26:33 AM
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

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

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

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

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

Has this ever happened in modern history?

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

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

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

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

Here's one that through a quick read seems to be roughly what you're looking for:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sudanese_Civil_War
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: omachi on October 05, 2017, 09:38:52 AM
Quote
At one point I thought the tyranny angle was reasonable, until I realized I couldn't pin down a bright line that would indicate we were living under a tyrannical government outside of them wantonly rounding up and killing people. By then it's way too late. Outside of that and gun confiscation, nobody seems to agree on when we have tyranny. I mean, in a lot of ways we're not getting better. We have "free speech zones". We have states on crusades to implement laws on thinly veiled religious beliefs. Civil forfeiture allows for and perpetuates horrible abuses. When have we arrived at tyranny?

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

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

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

If we're talking taking over as in pushing a social agenda and particular viewpoint from a position in government already, at the top or near enough to the top that I thought I could reach it, like in Trump, Pence, or Ryan's shoes, I'd probably prefer armed. Seems to me that the people that really like having guns and might actually have the wherewithal to use them on people lean towards the authoritarian side of things. Sure, they like to chant otherwise when the authority isn't feeding them things that appeal to them, but the winds change quickly when they like what they hear. The well armed would be a useful group to try to co-opt as paramilitaries to enforce a tyrannical vision.

Imagine, a group that will pick up on what you say you want to happen without having a chain of command where you would have to give orders, likely very illegal and subject to review within the law. If we come to see muslims being executed in our neighborhoods, I think it's far more likely to be by a group like this than by any secret police. Well, they'd probably be turned into such eventually, but it'd almost certainly start as paramilitaries acting on incitement.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 05, 2017, 09:44:18 AM
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

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


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

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

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

Has this ever happened in modern history?

Yep, small arms annoy governments all over the world. Governments have to respond by bringing in heavy forces, which they have a limited amount of and limited political will to use.

Small arms resistance won't let you topple a nation or stop a field army, but a sufficient number, sufficiently distributed, make a nation difficult to govern.

A good example is the Palestinian situation, which is done mostly through improvised rockets, small arms, and improvised bombs. They have carried out a multi-decade resistance, often violent, and won a number of self-government concessions from Israel. Israel has fully withdrawn from regions because it's not worth the effort to pacify them.

US gunowners wouldn't be able to stop the US army, but they could easily make this nation ungovernable.

It has nothing to do with tyranny, though, but whether a government has the Mandate of Heaven. In your scenarios, the government is winning the support of the people, so it still has the Mandate of Heaven. Yes, there is absolutely nothing you can do if the people support the government, which libertarians on this forum fully recognize.


Obviously this is not the preferred method of defending or restoring rights, it's just considered an essential right. None of the rights on their own are going to a damn lick of good against the government, and none of them together are going to stop the government with the backing of its people.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Glenstache on October 05, 2017, 09:46:53 AM
From Mad Magazine:
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 09:50:27 AM
So let's pretend we put in all of these regulations everyone wants. Magazine limits, restrictions of semi automatics, restrictions on number of guns, a database that restricts people without due process, a national registry, 3 month waiting limits. Right, we get all of these regulations, and our gun violence drops to among the lowest in the world (although our homicide rate continues at roughly the same rate as it has been).

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not suspicious of "the other side." I am pro-gun and pro-gun laws. The only "side" I feel is opposite are folks who want absolutely nothing done.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 09:50:52 AM
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

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

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

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

Hitler did loosen restrictions (after they confiscated guns from their enemies they found through their registry). One notable exception to their restriction loosening was Jews.

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



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

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

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

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

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

Has this ever happened in modern history?

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

The second amendment as a protection against tyranny is patently ridiculous from a logical point of view.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 09:59:35 AM
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

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

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

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

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

Has this ever happened in modern history?

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit: And just noticed the Hitler comment. So your argument is that since Germans didn't do the right thing, it would've been better if they hadn't had the tools to do so even if they wanted to? 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: BarkyardBQ on October 05, 2017, 10:00:44 AM
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

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

Let me help you get started.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/us/las-vegas-shooting-heroes/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/10/02/us/02reuters-usa-lasvegas-shooting-hospitals.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/10/04/555305057/listen-amid-chaos-in-las-vegas-police-dispatches-reveal-an-evolving-response
https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Pages/SouthernNevadaCounterTerrorismCenter.aspx
http://www.lasvegasnow.com/news/counter-terrorism-fusion-center-opens-in-las-vegas/82001058
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooting-marine-veteran-steals-truck-drives-nearly-30-victims-hospital/726942001/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_x5qmiVMZYVkQpsrFpujfw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT1weh9M1-s
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 10:07:40 AM
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.

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

I should have stated head of the NRA, LaPierre, and many of it's members. Some are for and some are against. LaPierre gave an interview on Fox news about 4 years ago trying to explain how background checks were useless, despite them preventing well over 1 million (my numbers were grossly underestimated) folks being denied for failing background checks. He complained about loopholes (which there admittedly are loopholes that need to be addressed, See: Adam Lanza and Ft. Lauderdale airport shooter). He alos complained about having to go to a dealer and spend money if he wanted to sell a gun to a friend. Keep in mind the cost is a whopping $5-15 typically. Years before he very much supporter background checks. Now, ehhh not so much.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 05, 2017, 10:09:17 AM
/\/\

"Americans Prove They Can Still Come Together"

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

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

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

When will you or someone you know be next?

the OP specifically wanted to discuss gun control. Las Vegas was just the nexus for it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 10:11:36 AM
If I already had control of the government, small arms wouldn't matter at all to my plans.  I'd implement some populist tactics to scape-goat a minority, use my power to silence critical media outlets, tell people that I was going to restore my country to greatness, and then while most are wildly happy with what I'm doing I'd start quietly doing things in the background that change the country to my vision.  It worked well for Hitler (who loosened the gun restrictions of the Weimar republic as soon as he came to office).  It seems to be working well for Trump.

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

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

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

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

Has this ever happened in modern history?

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Hopefully this silly line of reasoning can now be laid to rest.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 10:12:54 AM
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.

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

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

So the NRA is not making any effort to dismantle the current background check system?  I'm aware the NRA and many other are against expanding background checks, but haven't heard a peep about eliminating the current system.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 05, 2017, 10:24:39 AM
All this talk about guns and revolutions in foreign places makes me wonder: is a "technical" vehicle legal in the USA?  You have the pickups, you have the guns....

If not, why not?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: BarkyardBQ on October 05, 2017, 10:25:46 AM
/\/\

"Americans Prove They Can Still Come Together"

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

Is it time to talk about gun control yet?

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

When will you or someone you know be next?

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

That's obvious, why is Las Vegas the thread title? You're not discussing it at all.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 05, 2017, 10:30:40 AM
I don't know what would have happened in the Sudan.  Heavy duty modern weapons far surpassing small arms were supplied to both sides of the conflict from a whole variety of countries.  I suspect that gun control wouldn't have worked given that the rebels were able to get tanks and missiles.  What I'm pointing out is that the very concept you're trying to argue - that being able to form a militia and fight off a government is beneficial . . . well, it just isn't supported by history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit: and I'm wasting way too much time on this thread. I'll concede the last word to you, but I'm gonna head out.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 05, 2017, 10:46:34 AM
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

You're more than welcome to start your own thread with that name.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 10:59:32 AM
I don't know what would have happened in the Sudan.  Heavy duty modern weapons far surpassing small arms were supplied to both sides of the conflict from a whole variety of countries.  I suspect that gun control wouldn't have worked given that the rebels were able to get tanks and missiles.  What I'm pointing out is that the very concept you're trying to argue - that being able to form a militia and fight off a government is beneficial . . . well, it just isn't supported by history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Despite all the jingoistic rhetoric so commonly heard . . . in the end, some rifles and hand guns don't amount to any real benefit to the people of a country.  So, let's stop pretending that 'government tyranny' is any real reason to support weapons in the US.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nemesis on October 05, 2017, 11:04:01 AM

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




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

Perhaps I should have qualified - in a single attack?

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

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

A serious question for all.
Can anyone point me to the statistics showing when a mass shooting had has been effectively stopped partway through by civilians using a firearm?
Here are a couple of articles sharing some info about when good guys with a guy stopped a mass attack (it's clear most mass gun attackers are cowards, they run and flee when confronted by anyone else with a gun, or they shoot themselves like this Las Vegas shooter... it doesn't take much, just a single person with a gun can fight back and end the fight or cause the attacker to retreat):

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

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

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

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

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

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

So again I'm torn... I see the argument from both sides.  And I'm not sure gun control is the silver bullet (pardon the pun) to these complex issues.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 05, 2017, 11:10:46 AM
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

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

Let me help you get started.

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

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

Again, for those in the back, the Las Vegas shooting had nothing to do with guns and guns cannot be talked about because that is off topic.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 11:12:15 AM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 05, 2017, 11:13:08 AM
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

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

Let me help you get started.

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

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

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

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

There. NOW we’re on topic.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nemesis on October 05, 2017, 11:16:02 AM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

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

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

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

If you're going to be that disingenuous about your anti-gun position, then it makes someone in the middle like me less trustful of the anti-gun proponents and push me more into the camp that is in favor of less gun control (ie libertarian point of view).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: BarkyardBQ on October 05, 2017, 11:18:36 AM
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

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

Let me help you get started.

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

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

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

Cute.

6 pages of a thread where the only place "Las Vegas" appears is in the title. The discussion has nothing to do with Las Vegas.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 11:31:47 AM
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 11:34:24 AM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

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

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

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

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

California instituted laws that would be more along the lines of "severely neutered" in your scenario. I am not aware of any blue state wanting to ban all guns outright.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 05, 2017, 11:36:01 AM
I'm from Las Vegas, born and raised. As far as I can tell this entire thread is off topic and should be renamed 'The gun control thread we haven't yet discussed'. Please change it.

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

Let me help you get started.

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

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

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

Cute.

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

"would those gun laws have changed this event?" or phrases similar to that have been made numerous times on this discussion. "This" being a pronoun for Las Vegas.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 11:40:18 AM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

I'm sorry if that makes you believe that gun control is bad.  (And particularly sorry if it turns you into a Libertarian.)  :P
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nemesis on October 05, 2017, 11:43:55 AM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned

Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Right now it's politically unfeasible to ban all guns, but if some politicians (Feinstein, etc) start being able to severely restrict gun ownership, chipping away at gun ownership a little bit at a time, eventually they will arrive at the end game - removing gun ownership for all except law enforcement and criminals. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 11:48:15 AM
Oh and for those that like to dream up scenarios to argue against gun control, keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks. Yet background checks have denied hundreds of thousands of criminals, rapist, mentally ill, stalkers etc. from obtaining guns. Yes there unfortunately ways around this, but that doesn't equate to just saying "fuck it" and getting rid of background checks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This implies the NRA and others are trying to rollback background checks (which is false).  I'm simply pointing that no one is trying to roll back background checks as you implied.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 05, 2017, 11:50:41 AM
Let's not be coy, you don't think some states / politicians wouldn't ban all guns if they had a chance?

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


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

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

As I mentioned, it's not politically feasible to ban all guns in Canada . . . even though the vast majority of people support gun control.  We have restrictions on firearms and there is no real push to ban guns.  I'm not sure why you think the end-game of politicians in favour of gun control in your country want to ban all guns when nobody has actually tried to do this.  It seems kinda like fear mongering.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 05, 2017, 11:56:54 AM

I think having guns is important to prevent government tyranny (which franky I'm surprised more of the pro regulation folks aren't worried about with our current administration). Personal protection, for example in the case of an extended disaster situation where authorities aren't working particularly well, is a side benefit.

I've not chimed in on this discussion much, but this point has come up a few times, but this was the most, I don't know, .....direct????

I'd love to really understand the fantasy where individual citizens with guns are going to stand up to government tyranny?  Are you planning on holing up in your shed and shooting it out with the police when you disagree with them, because that's who your first contact with a tyrannical government will be.  And while you plan that, have you worked out your network of neighbors and your minuteman call sign to be able to get them to one place in a moments notice?  Because larger groups than one lone citizen with a gun have tried to stand up to the government, with out much success.  This to me is one of the poorest arguments for why we need guns.    Are we seriously thinking there is some favorable path to a good outcome if we get into a shooting match with the police and army (which would be the arms of government tyranny that will respond to a gun wielding citizen trying to rebel)?  Do we really think that a situation that amounts to "well, if I have my guns they'll behave because they're scared of me and my guns" is in any way a healthy relationship between said citizen and his government, who by the way, they had a hand in electing?

ETA:  And I'd suggest reading "Lights Out" by Ted Koppel if you want a rather seasoned assessment about how those guns and supplies will actually help you have any chance of survival beyond a  few extra days before you too die, to address your side benefit in an extended disaster.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: nemesis on October 05, 2017, 12:00:54 PM
Noodling on this further, here are some random thoughts I have on this topic:

1. The focus should be on mass shooting prevention, and crowd security.  It seems gun free zones should be better protected (which may be impractical), or eliminated.  Perhaps have trusted zones where only people who have gone through background checks / severe vetting can carry guns in those places.  This means people like ex-law enforcement, private security guards (who are allowed to carry guns in the course of their jobs), people with government security clearances, etc., can carry guns in places like concerts, schools, etc.  That means there are more potential lawful defenders of innocent people against someone who is crazy or evil enough to attack innocent people.     

2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

3. Technology will eventually solve or eliminate gun crimes.  Advanced gun shot sensor analysis devices will instantly pinpoint where a shot is coming from, enabling rapid response.  Public and private cameras will capture perpetrators and their movements, making their gun crimes a single event that ends in their capture or demise.  Advanced future sensors (combination infrared / mass detection / metal detection technology) can detect when people are carrying firearms or ammo, or even explosives or other dangerous devices, and set off alarms for rapid response.  These technologies will probably evolve sooner rather than later, as we are on the cusp of a new era where, like it or not, your every public movement will be analyzed and tracked as soon as you step outside your home. 

4. Suzanna Gratia Hupp's testimonty was very compelling to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis  in terms of being vulnerable as a victim in a mass shooting situation.

5. Evil people will do evil things, instead of singularly focusing on the exact method they used at any one time, focus on how to improve public safety in combination of factors - how to deter / prevent innocent people from harm by any number of factors - guns, explosives, vehicles, etc.   Where this is a will, there will be a way for bad people to do bad things.  If we can enable more good people to have tools to fight back against bad people, and better design public security / safety, society as a whole should be better off.

6. If I could snap a finger and have all guns disappear from this planet, I would.  That ain't happening, so if the chances are that bad guys will have guns, then good guys / gals should have guns.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.

/end my random stream of thoughts on this topic.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 12:46:12 PM
I'm simply pointing that no one is trying to roll back background checks as you implied.

I implied no such thing. You implied it. In case you were somehow confused.

..... keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 05, 2017, 12:53:57 PM
I'm simply pointing that no one is trying to roll back background checks as you implied.

I implied no such thing. You implied it. In case you were somehow confused.

..... keep in mind the NRA and others are opposed to background checks.

If that's not what you meant fine.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 05, 2017, 12:58:00 PM
2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.
#2. Why do we need a national concealed carry permit? What's the point of that? Why not just make federal gun laws/background check database to apply across the land. Kinda stupid that you have to check laws when taking firearms across state boarders as it is now. However, I am down with an in depth weapons course every firearms owner should have to complete. While we're at it, why have "voluntary" registration? Should be mandatory along with that firearms course. Once you take the course and pass the federal background check, then you can register the firearm of your choice.

#7. I think alcohol vs weapons is a pretty faulty comparison.

Edit to add...I don't really see that 99% good stopping the 1% evil with all the weapons we already have. One large subset of killers in the US is....toddlers.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 05, 2017, 01:17:24 PM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned
Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.

I can only speak for myself. I live in a blue part of a blue state....but to say that the entire state is only filled with crazy liberals like myself is incorrect, as it would be to say that all red states are filled with "conservative" nut jobs. Besides, conservatives have gerrymandered

But yeah, I think banning all guns is a great idea. But being realistic, it's not going to happen. Too much money and gun dogma in the US.

But in other news, bumper stocks have been selling like hotcakes since congress is talking about banning them. Sorry to say though, as I understand existing items wont be grandfathered.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 05, 2017, 01:21:02 PM
Canada, which has a population about 35M and a few guns per capita, couldn't make the registry work.  If it couldn't work in Canada, it would be an even bigger failure in the US with 10x Canada's population.

Enforce the existing straw purchase laws.  If necessary, more clearly define what a straw purchase is, but I'll pass on the registry.

The registry was dismantled by an activist right wing government for political reasons, not because it didn't work.  It was dismantled against the express wishes of the police who used it on a regular basis.

There were some problems with the registry, but it was dismantled along the baby and bathwater lines.  And the Province of Quebec appealed it.  Quebec has had some of the nastiest ones (nothing like in the US, but still nasty to us) and people (including rural residents) are sick of it.  The most recent (that I am aware of) in Quebec was vehicular, because it is difficult to do it with guns.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Peter Parker on October 05, 2017, 01:21:33 PM
We tend to think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  And we think the Supreme Court Justices all look at the Constitution the same way.  But they don’t.  They are human, come to the bench with bias and prejudices, and read our founding father’s work differently.

The 2nd Amendment states:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this mean? For me (and some legal scholars) the second part (....”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is solely for the purpose of having the first part (having a “well-regulated militia”  for the “security of a free state.”)

If you read it this way too, then you have to ask yourself, what is a “militia?” According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a militia is “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for the discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.”   Further, “enrolled” according to Black’s means “registered; recorded” and “emergencies” according to Black’s is a “sudden unexpected happening, an unforeseen occurrence or condition.”
 
So, it seems to me that people who wish to be part of a militia should register to do so. They should act as a "military force" rather than a bunch of individuals garnishing weapons.   The type of arms they wish to obtain should be regulated for necessity of securing “a free state.”  Further, these arms should only be employed during “emergencies.”

If you read the 2nd Amendment’s phrase that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual right that shall not be infringed (and not limited to the notions of a “militia”) then you also have to believe that right would be unfettered by regulation, thus allowing individuals to “bear any arms they wish…”  Automatic rifles?  Fine.  Grenades?  Fine.  Tank?  Fine.  To me this makes no sense.
 
I come down on the side that the right to bear arms is limited to the sole purpose of a controlled, regulated, militia which is needed only for emergencies. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 05, 2017, 01:27:49 PM
Since we are talking terrorist attacks and guns, inspired by the Las Vegas mess, let's look at this one:
http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/it-was-textbook-how-edmonton-police-masterfully-prevented-a-mass-casualty-terrorist-attack (http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/it-was-textbook-how-edmonton-police-masterfully-prevented-a-mass-casualty-terrorist-attack)

It failed, so it is not making big news.  The analysis of a counter-terrorist analysis is that the local police did everything right.

This excerpt is interesting:
The alleged actions of Abdulahi Hasan Sharif clearly indicate a man who did not have access to a firearm, and was forced to rely on everyday items. Sharif could conceivably have signed up for a Canadian Firearms Safety Course and then applied for a Possession and Acquisition License. During the screening process, however, it’s possible he could have been blocked due to an inconclusive 2015 police investigation into his alleged religious extremism. However, a key aspect of ISIL-inspired lone wolf attacks is that they’re supposed to be spontaneous and involve little to no planning. “Previous types of terrorist attacks you would be actively securing explosives and fertilizer and chemicals and things like that; those raise a lot more flags,” said Michael Zekulin, a terrorism and radicalization researcher at the University of Calgary. In short, if a would-be ISIL attacker doesn’t already have a gun around the house, the standard strategy is not to bother trying to get one.

How would this have played out in the US, where someone like this would easily get weapons?

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 05, 2017, 02:04:30 PM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned
Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.

I can only speak for myself. I live in a blue part of a blue state....but to say that the entire state is only filled with crazy liberals like myself is incorrect, as it would be to say that all red states are filled with "conservative" nut jobs. Besides, conservatives have gerrymandered


"Red" or "Blue" tends to be measured against their governmental representation. I grew up in California where as long as I can remember we've had two Democrat senators, our state legislature has had Democrat majorities since my parents were kids, 39/53 House representatives are Democrat, and our Electoral College votes go to Democrats.  There are a ton of Republicans in California, but they're not the ones making the majority of the decisions for the state (hence why it's called "blue.")
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 05, 2017, 02:35:53 PM
Given that some blue states want to see all guns banned
Nope.  Commonly told lie in these conversations though.

I can only speak for myself. I live in a blue part of a blue state....but to say that the entire state is only filled with crazy liberals like myself is incorrect, as it would be to say that all red states are filled with "conservative" nut jobs. Besides, conservatives have gerrymandered


"Red" or "Blue" tends to be measured against their governmental representation. I grew up in California where as long as I can remember we've had two Democrat senators, our state legislature has had Democrat majorities since my parents were kids, 39/53 House representatives are Democrat, and our Electoral College votes go to Democrats.  There are a ton of Republicans in California, but they're not the ones making the majority of the decisions for the state (hence why it's called "blue.")


Blue/Red only become hardcore wedge issues recently. New York and New Jersey have some differences in gun laws despite both being blue states and being right next to each other.
Among the most permissive states is Vermont, which is wayyyy Blue. You want a silenced machine gun and you want to march it outside city hall? Go right on ahead, sir, no permit required, and would you like 20,000 rounds of ammo to go with that?

New Hampshire is up there as well, which is a swing state.

The most restrictive states are all Blue, and there are additional localities within those blue states with even heavier restrictions. It's unlikely that they could translate this into a national ban even if Constitutionally permitted because any sort of national policy like this is insanely hard. The analogy might be to single payer healthcare: almost impossible to do at a national level, but several states have already floated proposals and might move in that direction in 10-20 years if permitted.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 05, 2017, 03:11:49 PM
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. I flinched like hell. I woke up, grabbed my coffee, sat down to catch up on the news, and as soon as I read this a sudden uncontrolled sadness came over me. Just an FYI you might want to choose your words more carefully. You seem to be insinuating that this tragedy had absolutely no affect on you at all. Like you weren't even sad about it.

I follow this officers Facebook page (and he has a blog). He is pro 2nd amendment and pro sensible gun control. Much of what he writes and speaks about is quite frankly common sense. He often addresses many of the same arguments those against gun control tend to make.
https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This (https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This)
He posted another article today with a proposed solution.

Basically he talks about extending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to extend to rifles with regards to multiple purchases.  Handguns have been under this since 1968 without issue.  Might be worth a read for those who are interested.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 05, 2017, 04:03:09 PM
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. I flinched like hell. I woke up, grabbed my coffee, sat down to catch up on the news, and as soon as I read this a sudden uncontrolled sadness came over me. Just an FYI you might want to choose your words more carefully. You seem to be insinuating that this tragedy had absolutely no affect on you at all. Like you weren't even sad about it.

I follow this officers Facebook page (and he has a blog). He is pro 2nd amendment and pro sensible gun control. Much of what he writes and speaks about is quite frankly common sense. He often addresses many of the same arguments those against gun control tend to make.
https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This (https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This)
He posted another article today with a proposed solution.

Basically he talks about extending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to extend to rifles with regards to multiple purchases.  Handguns have been under this since 1968 without issue.  Might be worth a read for those who are interested.

I literally just read that. He has some very good viable solutions. 

https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/05/A-Simple-Solution-For-Both-Sides (https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/05/A-Simple-Solution-For-Both-Sides)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 05, 2017, 04:35:23 PM
Noodling on this further, here are some random thoughts I have on this topic:

1. The focus should be on mass shooting prevention, and crowd security.  It seems gun free zones should be better protected (which may be impractical), or eliminated.  Perhaps have trusted zones where only people who have gone through background checks / severe vetting can carry guns in those places.  This means people like ex-law enforcement, private security guards (who are allowed to carry guns in the course of their jobs), people with government security clearances, etc., can carry guns in places like concerts, schools, etc.  That means there are more potential lawful defenders of innocent people against someone who is crazy or evil enough to attack innocent people.     

...

I could very much get behind a federal level (issued by states but reciprocal between all states) "Advanced License To Carry" that includes in depth background checks, annualized automatic background checks and possibly even mental health evaluations that would then allow the A-LTC holder to carry anywhere.  This would permit school admins or principals to carry on campus (a common request around Tx), off-duty police or military to worry much less about crossing state lines, and would open up security/personal defense options.

You get the best of both worlds that those with expanded rights have the restrictions of evaluations and stringent background checks, but with the expanded rights that allow carrying in certain areas.

Not a bad idea considering it could be implemented above and beyond state-level license to carry that currently exists and works with the current system of federal gun free zones.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on October 05, 2017, 05:43:09 PM
I think comparisons between guns and cars are very useful. Guns and cars kill aproximately the same number of people (cars a little more than guns). More gun deaths are intentional, but also about 2/3 of them are suicide, so far more inocent people are (unintentionally) killed by the choices of drivers than are intentionally killed by people with guns.

I've been reading Happy City and find it full of convincing arguments that cars have been detrimental to the happiness of our cities by eliminating the kinds of spaces that support covinial public life. I wonder how much of our mental illness problems (which occasionally lead to mass shootings) are influenced by the problems in city life we have created by prioritizing the private car over other means of transportation.

I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

Restricting weapon types and magazine size, requiring registration, etc. can be interpreted as infringing the right to keep and bare arms if you interprete the 2nd ammendment as a right to the means of defending yourself from a tyranical government. While this is a valid ideological argument, it is not a pragmatic one; I'm not 100% sure where I stand on this type of gun control.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 05, 2017, 06:02:52 PM
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 05, 2017, 08:38:21 PM
I said I didn't flinch.  Literally, I did not have a sudden, instinctive, uncontrolled reaction to the shooting.  You put words in my mouth by saying I don't care, which was disingenuous of you and counterproductive to the conversation.

I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant something else. I flinched like hell. I woke up, grabbed my coffee, sat down to catch up on the news, and as soon as I read this a sudden uncontrolled sadness came over me. Just an FYI you might want to choose your words more carefully. You seem to be insinuating that this tragedy had absolutely no affect on you at all. Like you weren't even sad about it.

I follow this officers Facebook page (and he has a blog). He is pro 2nd amendment and pro sensible gun control. Much of what he writes and speaks about is quite frankly common sense. He often addresses many of the same arguments those against gun control tend to make.
https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This (https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/04/Dont-See-A-Problem-With-Our-Gun-Laws-Ok-Read-This)
He posted another article today with a proposed solution.

Basically he talks about extending the Gun Control Act of 1968 to extend to rifles with regards to multiple purchases.  Handguns have been under this since 1968 without issue.  Might be worth a read for those who are interested.

I literally just read that. He has some very good viable solutions. 

https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/05/A-Simple-Solution-For-Both-Sides (https://www.lttimmcmillan.com/single-post/2017/10/05/A-Simple-Solution-For-Both-Sides)
I'd be very interested in those on the side of "propose something that would make a difference and is not infringing on my gun rights" to read Officer McMillan's proposal and comment here.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Heywood57 on October 05, 2017, 10:48:25 PM
Additional disccussion

https://www.quora.com/Which-countries-other-than-the-US-have-very-little-gun-control
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 06, 2017, 05:18:57 AM
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.

Driving itself is a privilege, but that has nothing to do with why specialized training is required.  We aren't born with the knowledge of the rules of the road. If the right to drive suddenly became an amendment, drivers ed wouldn't suddenly disappear. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 06, 2017, 05:56:48 AM
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
I think this analogy falls apart on it's own.

The Constitution also has the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  While they are rights, you are not given them, you still need to do things to maintain them.  If I commit a crime, I lose my right of liberty, and if the crime is egregious enough I lose my right of life because I will be executed.  Therefore trying to argue that you cannot put rules into place that boil down to someone not giving you permission to exercise a Constitutional right is patently absurd.  Those laws that remove my right to life and liberty and not in the Constitution, they are in the criminal code.  Having rules for guns codified in other legislation is the exact same thing and does not permit anything different than the other example I cited that we do not have a societal uproar about.  No one if saying "you can pry my liberty from my cold dead hands" and submit themselves to the rule of law when they rob the mini mart and get put in jail.  But yet guns are magically different even though they are not.  Both rights are in the Constitution.  We need to stop thinking the Second Amendment is somehow not subject to the same restrictions and is automatically unassailable.

I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on Officer McMillan's proposal to make small changes to already accepted legislation that puts us on better footing and more importantly answers the question "how could this have stopped Las Vegas?"
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 06, 2017, 06:29:10 AM
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
I think this analogy falls apart on it's own.

The Constitution also has the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  While they are rights, you are not given them, you still need to do things to maintain them.  If I commit a crime, I lose my right of liberty, and if the crime is egregious enough I lose my right of life because I will be executed.  Therefore trying to argue that you cannot put rules into place that boil down to someone not giving you permission to exercise a Constitutional right is patently absurd.  Those laws that remove my right to life and liberty and not in the Constitution, they are in the criminal code.  Having rules for guns codified in other legislation is the exact same thing and does not permit anything different than the other example I cited that we do not have a societal uproar about.  No one if saying "you can pry my liberty from my cold dead hands" and submit themselves to the rule of law when they rob the mini mart and get put in jail.  But yet guns are magically different even though they are not.  Both rights are in the Constitution.  We need to stop thinking the Second Amendment is somehow not subject to the same restrictions and is automatically unassailable.

I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on Officer McMillan's proposal to make small changes to already accepted legislation that puts us on better footing and more importantly answers the question "how could this have stopped Las Vegas?"

I'm guessing the answer is going to be a flat refusal, given that McMillan's proposal includes allowing the digitization of the current records system, which people in this thread have already vehemently refused.
OK, but they've refused it for a reason he addresses as well.  Read the other Business Insider article on page 3 of this thread about  how a gun trace works.  Even without digitization they still can get traces done in a hour with paper records.  And digitizing the records does not provide anything the other method does not because he's not proposing adding names to the records in the computer.  The entire process to tie a gun to a name would still require a warrant. 

Point being if they read the proposal closely without skimming it and seeing the word "computer" and throwing up their hands and yelling "no computer" then I think it would a good discussion to have.  The writer is a pro-gun advocate.  He's not some nut out to kill that off.  He's also a police officer that has to deal with the mess of things like Las Vegas or the Pulse club that he uses as the latest examples of how to simple changes could possibly, in a real way, have prevented the two incidents.  The tie to Mateen or Paddock still could not have happened with all the protections of the legal system the NRA stands behind.  All the digitization of the records would have flagged more easily is that a purchase of a gun and an assault rifle were made together or that 30 assault rifles were bought at one time.  The investigator still needs to convince a judge to issue a warrant to get the name, and if they can't prove their case that the search is warranted, they get nothing.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: AdrianC on October 06, 2017, 06:45:35 AM
A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).
Agreed.

Our high rate of gun ownership results in our high gun related death rate and high murder rate.

This the price we pay for our right to own guns.

No sane, law-abiding person wants any of these things to happen, the murders, mass shootings, suicides, accidental killings when a kid picks up an unsecured gun. They are the sacrifices we as a nation are willing to make for our freedom and right to own a gun. Let’s just say it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on October 06, 2017, 08:37:47 AM
The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws.
That's why I only support "shall issue" permit laws, not "may issue" permit laws. In "may issue" juristictions, the issuer can deny the application on a whim, in "shall issue" juristictions they are legally required to issue the permit unless there is a specific reason the permit must be denied. Sure a clerk not doing their job right might mean a few applicants are denied and need to persue correction of the error with the clerk's management and/or the court system. This is an unfair inconvienience to the applicant and may involve extra upfront costs; however, ultimately the extra financial burden would fall apon the issuing agency.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Peter Parker on October 06, 2017, 09:10:58 AM
This guy sums up my feeling about gun control.  It's hilarious if you haven't seen it...

https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0

and

https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on October 06, 2017, 09:17:32 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to weigh in on Officer McMillan's proposal to make small changes to already accepted legislation that puts us on better footing and more importantly answers the question "how could this have stopped Las Vegas?"
I like his proposal to expand multiple purchase notification to cover both handguns and rifles (other than non-automatic .22's). This would have triggered a notification of gun purchases for both the shooter in the Florida nightclub and the shooter in Las Vegas.

I think is proposal to computerize sales records (with data identifying persons requiring a warrant) also sounds reasonable. If the fear is that the government might decide to confiscate all guns, it is not important if the records are computerized on on microfilm - someone will read the records and dispatch LEOs to pick up the guns either way (perhaps slightly less efficiently if the records are not computerized). From and ideological standpoint, I understand gun rights arguments against the records to be kept but I don't see the argument against computerizing the records.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 06, 2017, 09:51:40 AM
I'm in favor of "shall issue" type gun permits with testing requirements and costs no more onerous than required to get a driver's license (I'd be OK with making it a bit harder to get a driver's license). I also don't think reasonable waiting periods are a bad idea. I have not heard any compelling arguments of such laws being an infringment on the right to keep and bare arms.

The legal argument boils down to "a random clerk behind a desk saying you don't have their permission to exercise a Constitutional right."  Similar arguments have been used recently to try to convince state governments to relax conceal-carry laws. We have the training and licensing requirements for driving because driving is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a gun is a commandment etched in stone, to borrow someone's earlier analogy.
I think this analogy falls apart on it's own.

The Constitution also has the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  While they are rights, you are not given them, you still need to do things to maintain them.  If I commit a crime, I lose my right of liberty, and if the crime is egregious enough I lose my right of life because I will be executed.  Therefore trying to argue that you cannot put rules into place that boil down to someone not giving you permission to exercise a Constitutional right is patently absurd.  Those laws that remove my right to life and liberty and not in the Constitution, they are in the criminal code.  Having rules for guns codified in other legislation is the exact same thing and does not permit anything different than the other example I cited that we do not have a societal uproar about.  No one if saying "you can pry my liberty from my cold dead hands" and submit themselves to the rule of law when they rob the mini mart and get put in jail.  But yet guns are magically different even though they are not.  Both rights are in the Constitution.  We need to stop thinking the Second Amendment is somehow not subject to the same restrictions and is automatically unassailable.

I wonder if anyone has argued before the courts about going to jail or executions contradicting those phrases in the Constitution?  I imagine someone has done the former if for no other reason than to be a troll in front of a judge.  Death penalty opponents constantly argue about "cruel and unusual punishment," but I haven't heard of a case where violating "life and liberty" are the pretense.  We've managed to place caveats on most of the Bill of Rights for arguably good reasons, but the way our legal system works the arguments you stated above don't "count" unless someone has gone to the courts to challenge them. 

Just to clarify, the argument I made earlier wasn't mine, I was just answering the question thrown out there.  I'm not opposed to electronically searchable (with warrant) database of owners. I think it's a criminal waste of resources to have a little office out there somewhere that must catalog and keep millions of paper records in a deliberate effort to stymy the reason they were created to begin with.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dandarc on October 06, 2017, 10:16:46 AM
I mean, I suppose you could try to appeal a jail or death sentence because they're depriving you of life or liberty, but you'd lose.  See 5th and 14th amendments.  So smart lawyers find other arguments such as "cruel and unusual punishment" or "was due process of law followed in this case?".
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 06, 2017, 11:12:58 AM
There are a ton of Republicans in California, but they're not the ones making the majority of the decisions for the state (hence why it's called "blue.")

Thank you so much. I couldn't have made that clear for myself without your assistance.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay on October 06, 2017, 11:17:32 AM
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 06, 2017, 11:39:06 AM
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.
Gun people would see that as tyranny. Hypothetical: a sufficient number of people successfully petition to repeal the 13th Amendment. This would be seen as tyranny.

On the other hand, the government would still have popular support in both situations. So if you want to resist the government, you'd probably get crushed.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Peter Parker on October 06, 2017, 12:02:59 PM
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.

We tend to think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  And we think the Supreme Court Justices all look at the Constitution the same way.  But they don’t.  They are human, come to the bench with bias and prejudices, and read our founding father’s work differently.

The 2nd Amendment states:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this mean? For me (and some legal scholars) the second part (....”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is solely for the purpose of having the first part (having a “well-regulated militia”  for the “security of a free state.”)

If you read it this way too, then you have to ask yourself, what is a “militia?” According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a militia is “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for the discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.”   Further, “enrolled” according to Black’s means “registered; recorded” and “emergencies” according to Black’s is a “sudden unexpected happening, an unforeseen occurrence or condition.”
 
So, it seems to me that people who wish to be part of a militia should register to do so. They should act as a "military force" rather than a bunch of individuals garnishing weapons.   The type of arms they wish to obtain should be regulated for necessity of securing “a free state.”  Further, these arms should only be employed during “emergencies.”

If you read the 2nd Amendment’s phrase that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual right that shall not be infringed (and not limited to the notions of a “militia”) then you also have to believe that right would be unfettered by regulation, thus allowing individuals to “bear any arms they wish…”  Automatic rifles?  Fine.  Grenades?  Fine.  Tank?  Fine.  To me this makes no sense.
 
I come down on the side that the right to bear arms is limited to the sole purpose of a controlled, regulated, militia which is needed only for emergencies.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 06, 2017, 12:15:37 PM
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.


If you're trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices who all think in a similar way on one issue you could literally have to wait decades.  You'd have to win numerous presidential elections in a row hoping to catch several retiring at the right time, hope the Senate has the majority you need that is willing to approve them, and then bring a case before the court that applies to this scenario.  That's a lot of stars that have to align.  It would be far easier to amend the Constitution.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Peter Parker on October 06, 2017, 12:30:13 PM
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.


If you're trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices who all think in a similar way on one issue you could literally have to wait decades.  You'd have to win numerous presidential elections in a row hoping to catch several retiring at the right time, hope the Senate has the majority you need that is willing to approve them, and then bring a case before the court that applies to this scenario.  That's a lot of stars that have to align.  It would be far easier to amend the Constitution.

It takes 2/3 vote in senate and house to amend the constitution. Good luck with that.

In the last significant gun control case  (District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008) it was a 5-4 decision overturning a handgun ban.  It doesn't take much to change the balance of power.  What is considered "constitutional" when it comes to the Supreme Court can be changed with ONE Supreme Court Justice.  I think you have a better chance of getting a majority in the Supreme Court who views the 2nd Amendment differently  than the current majority than you do amending the constitution....

If people care about gun control, it would help to vote for your president accordingly.  Gun control was one (of many) reasons I voted the way I did.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 06, 2017, 12:36:38 PM
Do you think this applies to the states, and not to individuals?:
Quote
the right of the people peaceably to assemble

This doesn't even make sense. The states have the right to assemble amongst themselves?

what about this one:
Quote
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
So, again, any cop can enter my house, at any time, for any reason, sans warrant. After all, the right to be secure applies to the state of Illinois, not the residence of ADBG.

Obviously both these interpretations are nonsense.

So why do you think this means:

Quote
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
I can't have a gun, only the state of Illinois can have guns?


I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2017, 12:50:18 PM
I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.

Nothing to quibble about.  The language is quite clear.  It's the right of the people to own any arms.  Nukes, tanks, mortars, land-mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, bio-weapons, etc.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 06, 2017, 01:00:35 PM
Hypothetical: Say we mustered the intestinal fortitude as a nation to change the second Amendment and gun ownership rights legally with due process and the vast majority of states agreeing that this a rational sound way to reduce our gun problems in this country. Would gun people accept that, or would they see that as tyranny?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

As I have said before, we don't need to change the 2nd Amendment to deal with guns.  We need a Supreme Court that interprets the 2nd Amendment the way some scholars do and overturn poor case law.  This is why elections matter.


If you're trying to stack the Supreme Court with justices who all think in a similar way on one issue you could literally have to wait decades.  You'd have to win numerous presidential elections in a row hoping to catch several retiring at the right time, hope the Senate has the majority you need that is willing to approve them, and then bring a case before the court that applies to this scenario.  That's a lot of stars that have to align.  It would be far easier to amend the Constitution.

It takes 2/3 vote in senate and house to amend the constitution. Good luck with that.

In the last significant gun control case  (District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008) it was a 5-4 decision overturning a handgun ban.  It doesn't take much to change the balance of power.  What is considered "constitutional" when it comes to the Supreme Court can be changed with ONE Supreme Court Justice.  I think you have a better chance of getting a majority in the Supreme Court who views the 2nd Amendment differently  than the current majority than you do amending the constitution....

If people care about gun control, it would help to vote for your president accordingly.  Gun control was one (of many) reasons I voted the way I did.

Or 3/4s of the states.

I imagine a case that redefines the actual verbiage of the Amendment would be a little different than overturning an obvious ban.  There are degrees to how "pro-gun" people are getting a judge to reinterpret case law on gun rights is probably more difficult.  Those feelings apply to Congressional and Presidential elections as well.  While a lot of people are single-issue voters, not everybody is which muddies the waters on who they want representing them.  They might have an opinion on guns, but not as strongly as they have an opinion on education or taxes.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 06, 2017, 01:19:51 PM
I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.

Nothing to quibble about.  The language is quite clear.  It's the right of the people to own any arms.  Nukes, tanks, mortars, land-mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, bio-weapons, etc.
Unfortunately or fortunately, Miller and Heller both say that certain classes of weapons can be banned if they meet certain conditions. Heller's crazy logic is that a weapon in common use cannot be regulated. So, if machine guns were not banned, and everyone had machine guns, then machine guns couldn't be regulated. (at least that's how I am reading it).

That's why handguns cannot be banned, though bumpfire stocks might be.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 06, 2017, 01:30:03 PM
I suppose we can quibble over the definition of "Arms." It obviously should include 16 ft pikes, for one thing.

Nothing to quibble about.  The language is quite clear.  It's the right of the people to own any arms.  Nukes, tanks, mortars, land-mines, grenades, missiles, bombs, bio-weapons, etc.
Unfortunately or fortunately, Miller and Heller both say that certain classes of weapons can be banned if they meet certain conditions. Heller's crazy logic is that a weapon in common use cannot be regulated. So, if machine guns were not banned, and everyone had machine guns, then machine guns couldn't be regulated. (at least that's how I am reading it).

That's why handguns cannot be banned, though bumpfire stocks might be.

What defines common use?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on October 06, 2017, 02:31:16 PM
I have given up on trying to get gun control in the United States. It's simply not going to happen. No matter how many people get murdered. These days, I just do my best to avoid public places. Less chance of getting shot.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: scottish on October 06, 2017, 03:33:45 PM
I have given up on trying to get gun control in the United States. It's simply not going to happen. No matter how many people get murdered. These days, I just do my best to avoid public places. Less chance of getting shot.

:-)    I'm doing my best to avoid the United States!
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Glenstache on October 06, 2017, 04:50:17 PM
In general, I think this is also an issue where people have emotionally-based opinions and then use the arguments that fit their opinion. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. It is interesting in this case because of: the complexity surrounding a rather simply worked constitutional amendment, the abundant statistics both showing ties between gun availability and violence and confounding social factors, the symbolic role of the firearm in the ethos and identity of much of America, the racists and classist overtones of parts of the debate (this applies to arguments to black on black crime and perception of redneck affinity for guns, respectively), the actual practical uses of firearms in hunting and (some would argue) protection/policing, and the grisly impacts of the crimes committed with the firearms. The grisly impact is important because events that are statistical outliers within the broader sobering numbers of gun-deaths have disproportionate social impact due to the broadly shared nature of the experience.

The ultimate problem is that nobody really seems able to change their mind. Thus we remain at a contentious  impasse.

I personally think that, from a safety perspective, training should be a requirement to get a license to buy a gun. Having taken hunter safety courses, there were a lot of people in that room that I would not want to be within miles of if they were also out with a loaded weapon based on their ability to grasp exceptionally simple safety concepts. It was frankly terrifying to think about. And they passed the hunter safety course. Thinking of people with similar or less training attempting to use a gun for home protection or any other purpose is similarly terrifying. And that is before we even get to the issue of what weapons are available for them to purchase relatively easily. I can think of an ex who kept a 44 magnum in a nightstand drawer for home protection in an apartment building. When I asked her if she had thought about how many of the wood-framed walls that bullet would pass through before it stopped and if that was really the best choice for that situation, it drew a blank stare (and not a friendly one).

I think there is plenty of room to point out lack of knowledge about guns in the anti-gun crowd. I have also found shocking lack of care and knowledge on the pro-gun side... and that bothers me a hell of a lot more. ETA: I have also known a lot of people with deep care and proficiency on both sides. This is not intended to paint with too broad a brush. As is often pointed out, those people are not really the problem.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on October 06, 2017, 06:32:32 PM
2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.
#2. Why do we need a national concealed carry permit? What's the point of that? Why not just make federal gun laws/background check database to apply across the land. Kinda stupid that you have to check laws when taking firearms across state boarders as it is now. However, I am down with an in depth weapons course every firearms owner should have to complete. While we're at it, why have "voluntary" registration? Should be mandatory along with that firearms course. Once you take the course and pass the federal background check, then you can register the firearm of your choice.

#7. I think alcohol vs weapons is a pretty faulty comparison.

Edit to add...I don't really see that 99% good stopping the 1% evil with all the weapons we already have. One large subset of killers in the US is....toddlers.

First of all, long time reader but my first post. No intention of posting my first post just to stir things up. I’m only posting because I’ve had significant discussions with a friend of mine who has an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard fully fleshed out before. For clarification, he does not drink or own firearms, and I drink, in small amounts and am a supporter of firearms.

Your comment lead to me posting this, because you commented that the alcohol/firearms comparison is not a good one. I wanted to respond, because as I’ve mulled over my friend’s perspective, I’ve actually not been able to think of a better analogy out there (not saying there aren’t any, just that this seems immensely applicable and has shed light on things for me).

The point of view is that alcohol and firearms have a great deal in common but aren't treated remotely similarly.

Alcohol and firearms – Both have ties to significant loss of life, physical harm not directly leading to death, and emotional scarring (fear aspect). The CDC estimates 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year - https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D, and the number is around 33,000 per year for gun related deaths - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/. Both of these include many “self-inflicted” deaths – alcohol consumption hurting the person doing it and suicides via guns, so that part should be remotely comparable. As you can see, alcohol has a greater impact on roughly the order of 2.5 times as many deaths. There are also numerous intangibles (which admittedly, there are with guns as well). These intangibles for alcohol tie into huge issues, such as generational poverty.

The problems if were to ban them. Here, the analogy is slightly different, because we’ve seen how attempting to ban alcohol did not work well but have yet to see how challenging it would be if we were to ban guns (all or a significant subset of guns or guns for a significant subset of people) in America. It would certainly be a tremendous challenge to effectively ban all firearms, as well, so it seems an applicable analogy.

Regulations. This is also a great link between the two to begin to highlight the differences in the ways they are treated. The discussion around guns (with the exception of background checks to see if felonies have been committed and the like) is very much tied into this. People with guns are saying (and rightly so), that they have done nothing wrong and yet restrictions are being placed on them for their guns “for the general good” even though they haven’t done anything in their past to merit being singled out and just because the same generic restrictions will impact some people who do end up using them for ill. This perspective isn’t even remotely taken in regards to alcohol. The only regulations that we have for alcohol are underage, driving, and public intoxication (where they’ve already, to an extent, “abused” it). There are certainly no restrictions on people drinking before they’ve done anything wrong. Even after they have been caught at something (say drunk driving or public intoxication), there are no regulations where they are required not to drink. If they drink and drive, their license to drive may be revoked, but that would not affect the vast majority of the deaths caused by alcohol (roughly 10k out of the 88k). The ability to drink alcohol with the associated death toll tied to it is never curtailed.

The: “I’m a good guy; I don’t hurt anyone.” This is another aspect of both. I can attest that to the best of my knowledge, my drinking has never hurt anyone. I’ve never been intoxicated, never woken up hung over in the morning and thus have not had any of the accompanying problems that are tied to alcohol (drinking and driving, abuse tied to intoxication, etc.). Tons of people drink and never or very rarely hurt others as a result of it (maybe the same can’t be said for themselves). The parallels to guns are obvious. I have never hurt anyone with a firearm as have the vast, vast, number of people who have ever shot a gun much less owned it.

The purpose of each. Firearms are often singled out when compared to other things because “their purpose is to kill.” While this could be debated, the purpose is certainly to cause harm to the thing that you’re shooting at. In “better” circumstances, it’s a deer to eat, a paper target, or someone who breaks into your house intending on harming your family, and of course, it kills innocent people in worse circumstances. Alcohol also has a purpose. The purpose is to be mind altering, as are all drugs. In “better” circumstances, it relaxes you after a hard day with a beer and you enjoy yourself, and of course, it is slow suicide or inhibiting control leading to abuse on the other end. Neither's purpose is really a great thing. Both can and are used in the vast majority of times in a “better” circumstance. Neither is essential for life or happiness.

What are the differences between firearms and alcohol? Well, the percentage of people who use alcohol is substantial higher than those that have firearms. That certainly has an impact, as it's easier to decry something you are not a part of. Additionally, firearm atrocities are given much more attention in the news, which of course is at least in part because it can affect a larger number of people at once (with the possible exception of drunk drivers). Are these reasons why people don’t take a similar approach to the two? If I were guessing, I’d say the first one plays a very large part in it, but that, of course, is purely speculation.

In summary, I saw a Facebook post saying something like “are you not willing to sacrifice your right to have guns if it saved the life of one child.” Although I did not respond to it, I had quite a few thoughts about such an intentionally emotionally charged question in light of the perspective taken by almost everyone on other issues, and the alcohol issue provided a great focal point for the difference in perspective people take. Of course this perspective, even if wholly accepted, does not mean that there should be no gun regulation. The goal is just to compare two things that, from my perspective are treated totally different despite numerous similarities. It is hard to not see this as a very inconsistent perspective.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Roland of Gilead on October 06, 2017, 06:42:30 PM
I am rather in favor of some gun control but you could do a lot of damage with other things that I don't see how we can ban.

This same guy could have rented a really big truck (even a semi, he was a multi millionaire) and killed 59 people quite easily.

We need nut control and I do not know how to do that.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Hotstreak on October 06, 2017, 08:04:41 PM
A controlling plurality of Americans think this result was the lesser of two evils. Life goes on (for most of us anyway).
Agreed.

Our high rate of gun ownership results in our high gun related death rate and high murder rate.

This the price we pay for our right to own guns.

No sane, law-abiding person wants any of these things to happen, the murders, mass shootings, suicides, accidental killings when a kid picks up an unsecured gun. They are the sacrifices we as a nation are willing to make for our freedom and right to own a gun. Let’s just say it.


Look, we do this all the time.  There are huge numbers of regulations that are basically a balancing act between protecting as many people as possible, and unduly burdening others.  As has been pointed out over and over, far more innocent people are killed by drunk drivers than by mass murderers.  Why don't we all have to blow in to a breathalyzer before starting our cars?  Because 10,000 annual deaths is the sacrifice we as a nation are willing to make to avoid the cost and inconvenience of those devices.


Some folks just get so emotional about gun deaths in a way they don't get emotional about other kinds of deaths.  Many gun owners see that as uninformed irrationality, like how an atheist might look at a devout evangelical and just assume they're a crazy religious nut.  I think we can do better than that level of discourse, but it needs to come from all sides - there are good people on all sides.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 07, 2017, 02:06:45 AM

We need nut control and I do not know how to do that.
Castration.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Leisured on October 07, 2017, 05:13:44 AM

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.



Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 07, 2017, 07:54:23 AM
I have given up on trying to get gun control in the United States. It's simply not going to happen. No matter how many people get murdered. These days, I just do my best to avoid public places. Less chance of getting shot.

:-)    I'm doing my best to avoid the United States!

The US is a particularly awesome place to be wealthy, and I mean "wealthy" by MMM standards, not Warren Buffet standards. I've never experienced any mugging, any stranger offering me free candy, any gun violence (hell, I barely even see guns), any personal threats to my life or assault (outside of public schools that is!), any quick-sand (for some reason I got the impression this might be a big problem when I was younger).

Now, I've seen many, many relatives get sick or die from their poor diets and lack of exercise. And I've almost been run by over cars numerous times, or seen friends almost get run over by cars.

So those are definitely your biggest risks here.

Also, some people might be getting the impression that the US is just the Wild West, but that's just not the case. The US is a heterogeneous place with many different cultures. So, I have lived all my life in the North Suburbs of the Chicago. Think Ferris Bueller's Day Off, or Mean Girls for a more modern example. Few people here own guns, and those that do generally own few weapons (no 20-rifle arsenals). In fact, the only guy I know who ever had more than 10 guns was a hardcore redneck from Tennessee, who also happened to be an extreme (D). He just loved guns (probably because he grew up in TN), and has no sense of fear (he was a trained forward observer in the Fulda Gap during the 80s, so his life expectancy was about 15 minutes if the balloon went up. He loved it).

So you can likely find pockets of the US were people have almost entirely your own views. The only difference is that your employer will pay your healthcare premiums and your taxes will be lower. The other things you might notice that are different are IMO endearing, like the extreme amount of patriotism. Like, even the Republicans in this area are of the "lower my taxes" kind. You can look up "Mark Kirk" for an idea of how the few (R)s here tend to be. I'm relatively right-wing for this area, and my attitude on gun control would probably get me a D or F rating from the NRA.

We also have a substantially better sports scene in the US. That boring sport where people kick a ball around has no currency, and we have multiple overlapping seasons for sports. Like, Thursday night was the start of the NHL for the Blackhawks (10-1 win), last night was Game 1 of the Baseball playoffs for the Cubs (3-0 win), today is college football day, tomorrow is football Sunday, and Monday Night has the Bears facing off against the Vikings (new QB premiering!). There's always a reason to have a few guy friends over, eat some wings, and drink some beers.


So, you might quite like living here. :P

We do absolutely suck at public transit. That is extremely frustrating.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ncornilsen on October 09, 2017, 08:04:22 AM

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.


Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Rightflyer on October 09, 2017, 11:13:14 AM

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.

Interesting. If what you say is true, that could sway me in at least some of the argument.

Can you point me to the evidence backing your claims?

Thanks
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 09, 2017, 11:51:06 AM

GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.

Interesting. If what you say is true, that could sway me in at least some of the argument.

Can you point me to the evidence backing your claims?

Thanks

Rightflyer, here is the summary of the Heller decision from 2008.  In this decision's majority opinion, "militia" is any able-bodied male capable of providing for the common defense.  This goes back to a 1939 Court decision backed by laws and interpretations as early as 1811.  He also goes into detail that the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment and a few other places in the Constitution make it clear that those laws are directed at individual rights and nothing requiring a collective of people.  He cited an 1825 Court case where the majority opinion equated that a person is responsible for abuses of the 1st Amendment in the same way he is responsible for abuses of the 2nd Amendment.  The implication there is that you can't be individually responsible for abusing a right unless it's an individual right to begin with.  He admits the wording of the Amendment is a bit odd, but grammatically it would be the same as to say "the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed so that we can have a well-regulated militia."  The militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms, but rather a benefit of that right.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 10, 2017, 06:14:03 AM
I have noticed this about current SC state law. Every male over the age of 18 is considered part of the militia.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: partgypsy on October 10, 2017, 09:08:35 AM
2. Have a voluntary registry of gun owners who are willing to take extensive background checks, register their firearms, take extended safety classes.  These gun owners are allowed to have national concealed carry permit capability, and only they are allowed to carry firearms in most places in the US without legal hassle or worry.  99.99% of these gun owners will most likely be one of the good guys, who will be able to stop an evil person from doing harm or defend themselves if need be.  For everyone else, they will still be subject to the existing patchwork of laws in each jurisdiction, for good or bad.

7.  Look at how well prohibition of alcohol and drugs have worked. Banning guns or severely restricting them may not lead to the panacea many people are so attracted to.  There needs to be better ways to manage gun ownership than just banning evil features or guns.  A gun is merely a tool, that can be used for good or evil.  99.99% of people are good. Give them the chance to use the tools for good, against the 0.01% that is evil.
#2. Why do we need a national concealed carry permit? What's the point of that? Why not just make federal gun laws/background check database to apply across the land. Kinda stupid that you have to check laws when taking firearms across state boarders as it is now. However, I am down with an in depth weapons course every firearms owner should have to complete. While we're at it, why have "voluntary" registration? Should be mandatory along with that firearms course. Once you take the course and pass the federal background check, then you can register the firearm of your choice.

#7. I think alcohol vs weapons is a pretty faulty comparison.

Edit to add...I don't really see that 99% good stopping the 1% evil with all the weapons we already have. One large subset of killers in the US is....toddlers.

First of all, long time reader but my first post. No intention of posting my first post just to stir things up. I’m only posting because I’ve had significant discussions with a friend of mine who has an interesting perspective that I’ve never heard fully fleshed out before. For clarification, he does not drink or own firearms, and I drink, in small amounts and am a supporter of firearms.

Your comment lead to me posting this, because you commented that the alcohol/firearms comparison is not a good one. I wanted to respond, because as I’ve mulled over my friend’s perspective, I’ve actually not been able to think of a better analogy out there (not saying there aren’t any, just that this seems immensely applicable and has shed light on things for me).

The point of view is that alcohol and firearms have a great deal in common but aren't treated remotely similarly.

Alcohol and firearms – Both have ties to significant loss of life, physical harm not directly leading to death, and emotional scarring (fear aspect). The CDC estimates 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year - https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/Default/Report.aspx?T=AAM&P=f6d7eda7-036e-4553-9968-9b17ffad620e&R=d7a9b303-48e9-4440-bf47-070a4827e1fd&M=8E1C5233-5640-4EE8-9247-1ECA7DA325B9&F=&D, and the number is around 33,000 per year for gun related deaths - https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/. Both of these include many “self-inflicted” deaths – alcohol consumption hurting the person doing it and suicides via guns, so that part should be remotely comparable. As you can see, alcohol has a greater impact on roughly the order of 2.5 times as many deaths. There are also numerous intangibles (which admittedly, there are with guns as well). These intangibles for alcohol tie into huge issues, such as generational poverty.

The problems if were to ban them. Here, the analogy is slightly different, because we’ve seen how attempting to ban alcohol did not work well but have yet to see how challenging it would be if we were to ban guns (all or a significant subset of guns or guns for a significant subset of people) in America. It would certainly be a tremendous challenge to effectively ban all firearms, as well, so it seems an applicable analogy.

Regulations. This is also a great link between the two to begin to highlight the differences in the ways they are treated. The discussion around guns (with the exception of background checks to see if felonies have been committed and the like) is very much tied into this. People with guns are saying (and rightly so), that they have done nothing wrong and yet restrictions are being placed on them for their guns “for the general good” even though they haven’t done anything in their past to merit being singled out and just because the same generic restrictions will impact some people who do end up using them for ill. This perspective isn’t even remotely taken in regards to alcohol. The only regulations that we have for alcohol are underage, driving, and public intoxication (where they’ve already, to an extent, “abused” it). There are certainly no restrictions on people drinking before they’ve done anything wrong. Even after they have been caught at something (say drunk driving or public intoxication), there are no regulations where they are required not to drink. If they drink and drive, their license to drive may be revoked, but that would not affect the vast majority of the deaths caused by alcohol (roughly 10k out of the 88k). The ability to drink alcohol with the associated death toll tied to it is never curtailed.

The: “I’m a good guy; I don’t hurt anyone.” This is another aspect of both. I can attest that to the best of my knowledge, my drinking has never hurt anyone. I’ve never been intoxicated, never woken up hung over in the morning and thus have not had any of the accompanying problems that are tied to alcohol (drinking and driving, abuse tied to intoxication, etc.). Tons of people drink and never or very rarely hurt others as a result of it (maybe the same can’t be said for themselves). The parallels to guns are obvious. I have never hurt anyone with a firearm as have the vast, vast, number of people who have ever shot a gun much less owned it.

The purpose of each. Firearms are often singled out when compared to other things because “their purpose is to kill.” While this could be debated, the purpose is certainly to cause harm to the thing that you’re shooting at. In “better” circumstances, it’s a deer to eat, a paper target, or someone who breaks into your house intending on harming your family, and of course, it kills innocent people in worse circumstances. Alcohol also has a purpose. The purpose is to be mind altering, as are all drugs. In “better” circumstances, it relaxes you after a hard day with a beer and you enjoy yourself, and of course, it is slow suicide or inhibiting control leading to abuse on the other end. Neither's purpose is really a great thing. Both can and are used in the vast majority of times in a “better” circumstance. Neither is essential for life or happiness.

What are the differences between firearms and alcohol? Well, the percentage of people who use alcohol is substantial higher than those that have firearms. That certainly has an impact, as it's easier to decry something you are not a part of. Additionally, firearm atrocities are given much more attention in the news, which of course is at least in part because it can affect a larger number of people at once (with the possible exception of drunk drivers). Are these reasons why people don’t take a similar approach to the two? If I were guessing, I’d say the first one plays a very large part in it, but that, of course, is purely speculation.

In summary, I saw a Facebook post saying something like “are you not willing to sacrifice your right to have guns if it saved the life of one child.” Although I did not respond to it, I had quite a few thoughts about such an intentionally emotionally charged question in light of the perspective taken by almost everyone on other issues, and the alcohol issue provided a great focal point for the difference in perspective people take. Of course this perspective, even if wholly accepted, does not mean that there should be no gun regulation. The goal is just to compare two things that, from my perspective are treated totally different despite numerous similarities. It is hard to not see this as a very inconsistent perspective.

Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.   
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 10, 2017, 09:28:54 AM
Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.

I'm just gonna bold that statement and see if it sticks out to you.

That is in a controlled environment.  Also note, in Texas the law is that a minor CAN drink at a restaurant (or anywhere except a bar that limits entry to age 21+) if they are with their parent guardian.

I'll leave the rest of your comparisons moot because I really don't see how the analogy plays out in any manner except age.  (IE-  What does drunk driving relate to in gun terms, or are you just making the point about regulation?...)

As far as regulation is concerned...  See attached.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2017, 09:37:10 AM
Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.

I'm just gonna bold that statement and see if it sticks out to you.

That is in a controlled environment.  Also note, in Texas the law is that a minor CAN drink at a restaurant (or anywhere except a bar that limits entry to age 21+) if they are with their parent guardian.

I'll leave the rest of your comparisons moot because I really don't see how the analogy plays out in any manner except age.  (IE-  What does drunk driving relate to in gun terms, or are you just making the point about regulation?...)

As far as regulation is concerned...  See attached.

The second picture is... kind of ridiculous.

You could apply that to almost any regulation. One chooses a number on a continuum to establish a limit.

BAC of .04? Still legal. BAC of .05? Driving while impaired. (Depending on the state. Which addresses another aspect of that picture. I'm totally fine with national laws about gun control. I'm guessing you are not, though.)

Seventeen years old? A minor. Eighteen? An adult.

Twenty years old and 364 days and drinking a beer? Illegal! Twenty-one years old? Legal.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Roland of Gilead on October 10, 2017, 09:57:27 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2017, 10:00:06 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 10, 2017, 10:09:11 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2017, 10:12:29 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 10, 2017, 10:42:07 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2017, 10:52:13 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.

Levels of intoxication are tricky to quantify.  You don't go from sober to drunk at the flip of a switch, you lose sobriety bit by bit and it's very hard to quantify exactly where the line should be drawn.  I guess I'm wondering why someone would feel the need to drive at all after drinking though.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on October 10, 2017, 11:04:38 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.

Levels of intoxication are tricky to quantify.  You don't go from sober to drunk at the flip of a switch, you lose sobriety bit by bit and it's very hard to quantify exactly where the line should be drawn.  I guess I'm wondering why someone would feel the need to drive at all after drinking though.

I occasionally go to dinner and have a beer (2 at most).  The risk/reward on the equation is acceptable to me and the law.  In my particular state, you don't have to be over the limit to be charged "if" you are impaired.  Being over the limit is proof you "are" impaired.

Similar to gun laws, I think we should do a risk/reward assessment passing new laws/limits.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Hotstreak on October 10, 2017, 07:13:17 PM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit? 

Don't ask me.  We can drink at 19 . . . and are currently debating if the legal age to buy weed should be 18.  :P

Our activist population got the drinking age raised to 21 and the BAC lowered to .08 and moved on to gun control.

You think BAC should be higher than .08?

Frankly, I don't believe there's ever a need to drink and drive and would be happy to see it at .00 .  :P

Ours was .10 and reduced to .08.  There was little if any evidence produced that the change improved public safety materially.  I'm sure it has resulted in more DUI's and revenue however.

I don't drive autos after more than 2 beers or equivalents.  I also choose my routes accordingly (avoid the interstate) if having a drink.  I despise drunk drivers.  I'm just not convinced .08/.09 is a "drunk" driver.

Levels of intoxication are tricky to quantify.  You don't go from sober to drunk at the flip of a switch, you lose sobriety bit by bit and it's very hard to quantify exactly where the line should be drawn.  I guess I'm wondering why someone would feel the need to drive at all after drinking though.


.08 isn't more dangerous than other factors that produce a similar level of impairment, such as fatigue, in-car distractions, etc.  People drive after small amounts of drinking because they recognize it as an acceptable level of risk.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 11, 2017, 09:55:57 AM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 11, 2017, 10:11:55 AM
The really fun one I like is that at 18 years old you can gun down an entire village on orders from your commanding officer but if you were then to celebrate with a drink, it would be illegal because you are not mature enough to handle alcohol for another three years.

Who comes up with this shit?

Mothers Against Drunk Driving. States had been lowering their drinking ages, but there was a strong anti-drunk driving push in the 70s that led to the ages going back up, with the federal government making it a requirement to be 21 or else lose some road funding.

Probably a healthy development on net...people seemed to not take drunk driving very seriously back in that age.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 11, 2017, 10:16:36 AM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: acroy on October 11, 2017, 10:47:30 AM
We tend to think there is only one way to interpret the Constitution.  And we think the Supreme Court Justices all look at the Constitution the same way.  But they don’t.  They are human, come to the bench with bias and prejudices, and read our founding father’s work differently.

The 2nd Amendment states:  A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What does this mean? For me (and some legal scholars) the second part (....”the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is solely for the purpose of having the first part (having a “well-regulated militia”  for the “security of a free state.”)

If you read it this way too, then you have to ask yourself, what is a “militia?” According to Blacks Law Dictionary, a militia is “The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for the discipline as a military force, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies.”   Further, “enrolled” according to Black’s means “registered; recorded” and “emergencies” according to Black’s is a “sudden unexpected happening, an unforeseen occurrence or condition.”
 
So, it seems to me that people who wish to be part of a militia should register to do so. They should act as a "military force" rather than a bunch of individuals garnishing weapons.   The type of arms they wish to obtain should be regulated for necessity of securing “a free state.”  Further, these arms should only be employed during “emergencies.”

If you read the 2nd Amendment’s phrase that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” creates an individual right that shall not be infringed (and not limited to the notions of a “militia”) then you also have to believe that right would be unfettered by regulation, thus allowing individuals to “bear any arms they wish…”  Automatic rifles?  Fine.  Grenades?  Fine.  Tank?  Fine.  To me this makes no sense.
 
I come down on the side that the right to bear arms is limited to the sole purpose of a controlled, regulated, militia which is needed only for emergencies.

Read federalist papers especially #84
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84

The Constitution is a set of limits on the government. If you read the Constitution with a mind to limit/disparage the rights of individuals, you can do so and will arrive at erroneous conclusions - as above, where you have talked yourself into limiting rights.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 11, 2017, 11:00:21 AM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.


Short range cell phone signal jammers should also be standard equipment on running automobiles.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 11, 2017, 01:37:28 PM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.


Short range cell phone signal jammers should also be standard equipment on running automobiles.

I was actually referring to a government/police controlled "shut down button" of any automobile, similar to what was discussed in length above regarding guns.

Is that acceptable?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 11, 2017, 01:38:15 PM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 11, 2017, 01:42:59 PM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.


Short range cell phone signal jammers should also be standard equipment on running automobiles.

I was actually referring to a government/police controlled "shut down button" of any automobile, similar to what was discussed in length above regarding guns.

Is that acceptable?

Sure, why not?  Police already have the power to stop and arrest you when you break the law.  Giving them a chance to disable a car rather than risk many lives in a high speed chase seems pretty reasonable.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dandarc on October 11, 2017, 01:49:55 PM
Y'all have a lot of faith in the computers . . .
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 11, 2017, 02:11:38 PM
Y'all have a lot of faith in the computers . . .

Do you keep all of your money in a pillowcase, or put your faith in a combination of bank accounts (fully computerized) and the market (fully computerized)?  Have you flown in a large passenger aircraft in the past 20 years?  You've put your faith in a fully comptuerized autopilot that did everything on the trip other than land.  Ever used energy from a grid connected to a nuclear reactor?  Yep, they're fully computerized too.  Nearly everything in the modern fighter jets that the US military flies are computerized (I used to work on them).  I worked with a team responsible for automating large scale train control systems around the world . . . because the computers we were replacing the drivers have an exponentially better safety record.

I have a lot of faith in computers because it's not the 1950s any more.  Reliable, fail-safe, and dependable computing isn't just theoretically possible . . . it's the norm.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 11, 2017, 02:18:19 PM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?

That wasn't the question you asked.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dandarc on October 11, 2017, 02:29:31 PM
Y'all have a lot of faith in the computers . . .

Do you keep all of your money in a pillowcase, or put your faith in a combination of bank accounts (fully computerized) and the market (fully computerized)?  Have you flown in a large passenger aircraft in the past 20 years?  You've put your faith in a fully comptuerized autopilot that did everything on the trip other than land.  Ever used energy from a grid connected to a nuclear reactor?  Yep, they're fully computerized too.  Nearly everything in the modern fighter jets that the US military flies are computerized (I used to work on them).  I worked with a team responsible for automating large scale train control systems around the world . . . because the computers we were replacing the drivers have an exponentially better safety record.

I have a lot of faith in computers because it's not the 1950s any more.  Reliable, fail-safe, and dependable computing isn't just theoretically possible . . . it's the norm.
I mean, I am a programmer - I know all of this.  I'm also working on a problem today at one of our vendors that was fixed a year ago and has suddenly reappeared, so I'm in the thick of a "not reliable or fail-safe computing" situation.  And yes, I know this is not a failing of the computers per-se - it is a failing of the people charged with designing and implementing the systems that the computers run.

As a life-critical system, I'd hope the necessary resources would go into developing the "disable the car via police remote control" feature, but is that really just a given?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 11, 2017, 02:58:22 PM
So back to the main discussion.....

Any particular reason we don't have government mandated breathalyzers, government-accessible 'Shut downs' systems and tracking devices in all of our cars?

Cars do kill more people in this country than guns after all, and we seem to all be ok with that.

The beverage lobby and the automobile lobby. Both of which rely on the same kinds of fallacious "slippery slope" arguments that the NRA does. Because, profits.

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1907493,00.html

"Opponents of the MADD push for stricter laws warn that a federal interlock requirement would serve as a Trojan horse, opening the way for even more sophisticated interlock technology that would be required on every car sold in the U.S., according to Sarah Longwell, managing director of the American Beverage Institute, which lobbies on behalf of taverns and restaurants. "If you go to the ball game and happen to have a beer you wouldn't be able drive home," she says."

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?

That wasn't the question you asked.

Fair enough.

So are you OK with or not OK with having interlocks on all cars?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on October 11, 2017, 05:49:43 PM
Hmm. There are regulations on alcohol. It is illegal to drink or purchase it before a certain age (21 in most states). You have to show your ID to purchase. Cannot give to children. Most places, cannot drink in public or at work. You cannot drink and drive, both cars and a number of vehicles, even bicycles. I'm not going into all the laws and regulations say if you were caught drinking and driving, even before getting into an accident. A 12 year old can be taken to a shooting range and shoot a machine gun, while a 15 year old cannot have a glass of wine with their family.
I think the main thing to remember, is that totally banning guns, as totally banning alcohol is not feasible. But it is entirely feasible to have enforced restrictions on the use of that item. I think perfect is the enemy of good in this situation. In the same way, less restrictions are on some drugs, while thers is an outright ban on other drugs which are harmful and have no medical benefit. In the same way some types of guns can be legal and restricted, while other types of weapons are banned and not allowed for consumer use.

Partgypsy, thanks for your response. You bring up several different situations, where alcohol is regulated, all of which were captured by my initial post on the comparison. The only thing I failed to mention was having an ID to verify age. However, they all can be captured by the three categories of age, public drunkenness, and drunk driving. On age, we're paralleled with guns at least partially. There are age restrictions for both alcohol and guns (although, as you mentioned, guns can be done with supervision  while younger). Still, I feel it is a rough comparison. For public drunkenness, you've already abused it, so that's different than a restriction before any wrong has been done. For drunk driving, the same. It's not causing the accident that's the root of the issue. The root is being drunk and driving (the wrong).

So overall, for alcohol, we have only three types of restrictions. One based on age - the only one without any probable cause, and the other two based on actually doing something wrong.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the regulations on alcohol and guns are completely different. If regulations on alcohol were the same as what are on guns or certainly if they are like the regulations proposed by almost every gun control proponent here, then there would be regulations like the following:

Why are you buying so much alcohol at once? Do you really need a bottle of gin, whiskey, and tequila? Why are you buying higher proof alcohol? No one has need for that except to get totally drunk, which is dangerous. These would be done before you have even done anything wrong. Just an "in general", you can't need more than one six pack at a time or the like.

Beyond this, if you were ever abusive to someone while drunk or were ever to drink and drive, forget a breathalyzer on a car. You would be restricted from drinking period. These are comparable requirements. Both preemptively targeting people who buy a lot or certain types or whatever and a total restriction given certain circumstances, but of course, alcohol restrictions are nothing like this.

This is more than comparable, because, after all, removing the ability to drive after drunk driving is great and all, but it would only remove roughly 10k of the deaths due to alcohol (again, ~85k). While this would be a big proportion if we were talking about gun deaths (about 1/3 of the total including suicides), in the scope of alcohol it still leaves ~75k deaths a year, still over twice what is caused by all gun deaths. And yet, none of these restrictions are ever bandied about.

My goal is to post here because this is a group of much more intelligent people than the average message board. My hope is to convey the other side of the gun control equation with this analogy.

I would request that others either poke holes in my comparison or hopefully develop empathy for the side of gun supporters.

Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol? (again, not the only example of a difference in how freedoms are pitted against safety but an apt analogy IMO) If not, I say that the arguments are inconsistent. Guns are an easy thing to demonize and yet the data and analogy, again IMO, show that guns are hardly an isolated risk. We all have to decide how we balance freedoms against safety. I'd personally rather be in a place with more rights and more risks than the reverse, but if people want some other balance on the continuum, that's fine. I'd just like consistency with other things or feedback as to how my analogy is flawed.
 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 11, 2017, 07:26:03 PM
Just a random, but related thought - breathalyzer trigger locks.  My cousin was given a fine and probation for drunkenly firing a gun into the air.  A couple years later he accidently killed himself cleaning a firearm while drunk.  Such a device imposed on him after his first offense (maybe for the duration of his probation?) sounds perfectly reasonable and would have saved his life.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 11, 2017, 08:15:27 PM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?

100% OK with requiring a licence to buy booze that gets suspended after a DUI or drunken brawling.  That's a great idea.

In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Banning buying lots of booze at once is maybe slightly tricky . . . I mean, purchasers for restaurants and bars would obviously need an exemption for this.  I can think of pretty common occasions (large parties, self-hosted weddings, bat-mizvahs, etc.) where buying a large amount of booze is pretty common/innocuous.  Given that you can mix a single drink with an over the counter antihistamine to get super wasted if you wanted to, I'm not entirely sure how effective this would be in preventing intoxication anyway . . . but I'm certainly open to hearing your reasoning on it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 12, 2017, 07:15:56 AM
Bringing this somewhat back to the OP...

http://deadline.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-no-motive-gunman-shot-hotel-security-guard-first-1202185098/

the security guard was the first to get shot.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 12, 2017, 07:57:58 AM
Bringing this somewhat back to the OP...

http://deadline.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooting-no-motive-gunman-shot-hotel-security-guard-first-1202185098/

the security guard was the first to get shot.

Which raises more questions, since the working theory was that the security guard distracted Paddock by being in the hallway and then led to his suicide.  So there's no real explanation as to why he stopped and killed himself since it took the police an hour (or more?) to enter his room.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 12, 2017, 09:22:33 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 12, 2017, 09:37:07 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just out of curiosity, why are those conversations not happening?

GuitarStv has already posted his views on allowing regulation / breathalyzes in cars / etc regarding the potential for regulating and preventing drunk driving accidents (and I will admit his views are impressively consistent, and I respect his opinion). 

My presumption is that many here will admit they would not accept breathalyzers being put in all cars, some wound not accept 'black boxes' in cars that have government control and tracking (whether it be local - state - or federal level), and some might not even be accepting of government tracking (without the ability to shut off) cars.

While one can state they believe breathalyzers should be on all guns and it seems a 'reasonable' suggestion, installing breathalyzes on all cars seems outlandish and invasive.  I think Wolfpack makes some very valid points and I am very curious as to whether many in this thread will bother to answer the question:

Are you OK with having breathalyzers in all cars?  Why or why not?


My assumptions-

 ~ There are a similar number of alcohol related car deaths to gun deaths, especially if you exclude suicides.
 ~ There is a similarly small cost to installing breathalyzers as other regulations on guns proposed.
 ~ If the 'people dying in the streets' mentality is true regarding guns, and total gun deaths or deaths per 100,000 is trotted out so often, why are gun deaths important and car deaths not important?  The loss of life is similar enough that both should be equally important.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 12, 2017, 09:39:39 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839 (https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839)

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 12, 2017, 09:49:08 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just out of curiosity, why are those conversations not happening?

GuitarStv has already posted his views on allowing regulation / breathalyzes in cars / etc regarding the potential for regulating and preventing drunk driving accidents (and I will admit his views are impressively consistent, and I respect his opinion). 

My presumption is that many here will admit they would not accept breathalyzers being put in all cars, some wound not accept 'black boxes' in cars that have government control and tracking (whether it be local - state - or federal level), and some might not even be accepting of government tracking (without the ability to shut off) cars.

While one can state they believe breathalyzers should be on all guns and it seems a 'reasonable' suggestion, installing breathalyzes on all cars seems outlandish and invasive.  I think Wolfpack makes some very valid points and I am very curious as to whether many in this thread will bother to answer the question:

Are you OK with having breathalyzers in all cars?  Why or why not?


My assumptions-

 ~ There are a similar number of alcohol related car deaths to gun deaths, especially if you exclude suicides.
 ~ There is a similarly small cost to installing breathalyzers as other regulations on guns proposed.
 ~ If the 'people dying in the streets' mentality is true regarding guns, and total gun deaths or deaths per 100,000 is trotted out so often, why are gun deaths important and car deaths not important?  The loss of life is similar enough that both should be equally important.

I'd be fine with it.

And like I said before, the reason these conversations are not happening is because of the beverage industry lobby and the automobile lobby. The lobbies control the conversations. Just as we see with the gun lobby and the NRA. When you see how much their propaganda has taken over the narrative on the right -- to the extent that their talking points come out of gun advocates' mouths like they're Stepford wives -- it's pretty clear why actual conversations don't have a chance to happen.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 12, 2017, 09:58:00 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839 (https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839)

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

Huh.  I stand corrected.  This must just be an Ontario thing.


Wait, is Quebec still part of Canada?  :P
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 12, 2017, 09:58:46 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839 (https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839)

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

But that is the suggestion or recommendation on guns.  There are several upthread openly emphasizing tracking devices and remote-controlled shut-offs for all guns.  And subsequently all gun owners.  You are suggesting only on those who have abused their privilege/rights.  After you have committed a crime of a certain level, you are barred from owning, procuring or possessing guns.  The equivalency you recommend is already in place! (Actually even more so because you can lose your right to a gun for non-violent crimes as well (see here:  http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html (http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html))). 

That, by nature, is a double standard.  You want breathalyzers only in cars of those who committed crimes already, but many advocate for similar restrictions on gun owners who have committed no crimes, ever.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 12, 2017, 10:00:35 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just out of curiosity, why are those conversations not happening?

GuitarStv has already posted his views on allowing regulation / breathalyzes in cars / etc regarding the potential for regulating and preventing drunk driving accidents (and I will admit his views are impressively consistent, and I respect his opinion). 

My presumption is that many here will admit they would not accept breathalyzers being put in all cars, some wound not accept 'black boxes' in cars that have government control and tracking (whether it be local - state - or federal level), and some might not even be accepting of government tracking (without the ability to shut off) cars.

While one can state they believe breathalyzers should be on all guns and it seems a 'reasonable' suggestion, installing breathalyzes on all cars seems outlandish and invasive.  I think Wolfpack makes some very valid points and I am very curious as to whether many in this thread will bother to answer the question:

Are you OK with having breathalyzers in all cars?  Why or why not?


My assumptions-

 ~ There are a similar number of alcohol related car deaths to gun deaths, especially if you exclude suicides.
 ~ There is a similarly small cost to installing breathalyzers as other regulations on guns proposed.
 ~ If the 'people dying in the streets' mentality is true regarding guns, and total gun deaths or deaths per 100,000 is trotted out so often, why are gun deaths important and car deaths not important?  The loss of life is similar enough that both should be equally important.



Perfectly fine with it. It's not like the data has to be uploaded to a server for the government to record. Yes, "friends" could still blow in it for you and let you drive home. Again, no regulation is perfect. But it would save a ton of people from being killed by drunk drivers, and the "cost" of freedom is 5 seconds of blowing. They could probably even come up with faster breathalyzer tech if people were that concerned. After reading stories of kids who were sleeping in the backseat, and getting decapitated by the seatbelt because a drunk driver hit them so hard, it's difficult not to dream of a world where drunk drivers are forced to walk home or call a ride.

For the record, I also would be ok with much tougher penalties for drunk drivers than we currently have.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 12, 2017, 02:35:49 PM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
In Canada it's already illegal to sell booze higher than 40%, so  . . . yeah, I'm totally OK with that too.

Alcohol is a provincial area and you are in Ontario.  You can buy 94% in Quebec.  Great for punch.
https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839 (https://www.saq.com/page/en/saqcom/alcohol/global-94-/12209012?selectedIndex=2&searchContextId=-100212113622839)

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

But that is the suggestion or recommendation on guns.  There are several upthread openly emphasizing tracking devices and remote-controlled shut-offs for all guns.  And subsequently all gun owners.  You are suggesting only on those who have abused their privilege/rights.  After you have committed a crime of a certain level, you are barred from owning, procuring or possessing guns.  The equivalency you recommend is already in place! (Actually even more so because you can lose your right to a gun for non-violent crimes as well (see here:  http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html (http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html))). 

That, by nature, is a double standard.  You want breathalyzers only in cars of those who committed crimes already, but many advocate for similar restrictions on gun owners who have committed no crimes, ever.

Are you confusing me with GuitarStv? 

Actually I have no problem with having a "double standard", because it is not a double standard.  The main function of motor vehicles is transportation, so licensing of drivers and vehicles fulfills the needs to assure basic competency in public.  Only a small % of drivers will be driving on their own private land, and most of the vehicles they are driving will be farm vehicles or ATVs, so different requirements. I still want a licensed driver when that big tractor or combine is on a public road.  Only when drivers abuse it (reckless driving of any sort, including DUI) do we need to go further.

The primary function of firearms is to pt a potentially deadly projectile through something - target, animal, human, the design does not change.  So the primary assurance of competency also needs to be different.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 12, 2017, 03:08:47 PM

Re cars and breathalyzers, it would help a lot for the repeat DUI offenders - so yes require it after the first offense.

But that is the suggestion or recommendation on guns.  There are several upthread openly emphasizing tracking devices and remote-controlled shut-offs for all guns.  And subsequently all gun owners.  You are suggesting only on those who have abused their privilege/rights.  After you have committed a crime of a certain level, you are barred from owning, procuring or possessing guns.  The equivalency you recommend is already in place! (Actually even more so because you can lose your right to a gun for non-violent crimes as well (see here:  http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html (http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html))). 

That, by nature, is a double standard.  You want breathalyzers only in cars of those who committed crimes already, but many advocate for similar restrictions on gun owners who have committed no crimes, ever.

Are you confusing me with GuitarStv?

Actually I have no problem with having a "double standard", because it is not a double standard.  The main function of motor vehicles is transportation, so licensing of drivers and vehicles fulfills the needs to assure basic competency in public.  Only a small % of drivers will be driving on their own private land, and most of the vehicles they are driving will be farm vehicles or ATVs, so different requirements. I still want a licensed driver when that big tractor or combine is on a public road.  Only when drivers abuse it (reckless driving of any sort, including DUI) do we need to go further.

The primary function of firearms is to pt a potentially deadly projectile through something - target, animal, human, the design does not change.  So the primary assurance of competency also needs to be different.

I wasn't confusing you, just responding to your statement regarding cars and breathalyzers.

The specific question is- are you OK with breathalyzers on all cars?

There are a similar number of deaths from drunk driving and guns, therefore, those in this thread disturbed by the number of deaths from guns should be equally disturbed by drunk driving- and willing to make the same level of regulation or compromise on guns as cars.  The primary example being installing breathalyzers on all cars.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 13, 2017, 03:54:06 AM
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 13, 2017, 06:55:26 AM
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 13, 2017, 09:50:49 AM
I 100% agree that we need much tougher penalties for drunk drivers - I'd be happy if they were never allowed to drive again.

Regarding breathalyzers in cars, I'd be perfectly happy to have them in every car, so that your car cannot start if you're drunk.  The device doesn't have to be connected to a network or database or anything, it can be closed circuit and local to the car.  Drunk driving is a huge problem that is not getting enough attention in this country, because people view their right to drive as sacred - though of course not quite as much as the right to own a gun :)  I'd rate getting drunk drivers off the roads as much more important than gun control reform, frankly, but as others have mentioned it's very difficult to get it passed due to lobbyists.  Car deaths are just as important as gun deaths, but harder to fix, because the vast majority of car deaths are accidental, whereas a large percentage of gun deaths are intentional, even more so if we include suicides.

Me too. A person who can't be responsible with a car by at least being sober ought to lose their privilege to drive. Include in that a detection method for pot and other kinds of drugs. Repeat offenders get a system attached wirelessly to a network that logs their attempts to drive when they clearly aren't able i.e. you tried to drive drunk. Extend their sentence. Not necessarily eager for them to go to jail if they haven't hurt anyone but I am eager for them to be very regulated until they can get their life in order. If they hurt other people with their car while impaired then throw the book at 'em.

Want to drive after repeatedly driving drunk? You get to walk or ride a bicycle (ebike okay) and later a scooter. And then a heavily speed limited vehicle with a tiny engine (35 mph tops?).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 13, 2017, 10:45:41 AM
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.

The sort of regulations and technology updates that are very upsetting to gun people.  I guess it's something I'll never understand.  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 13, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.

The sort of regulations and technology updates that are very upsetting to gun people.  I guess it's something I'll never understand.  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?

Because the last thing you want in a well regulated militia is any information.  Or regulation.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 13, 2017, 10:54:02 AM
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png

Driving has actually gotten a lot safer in the U.S. as technology has advanced, crackdown on DUIs & distracted driving, regulation of airbags, seatbelts, etc.

The sort of regulations and technology updates that are very upsetting to gun people.  I guess it's something I'll never understand.  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?

Because political propaganda from the right and from the gun lobby has created the narrative they believe: voter registration is meant to keep "other" people (dog whistle: groups who tend to vote Democratic) from electing people they don't like and "stealing" elections, even though there's no evidence of any real voter fraud (and indeed, the voter fraud that exists is of a completely different type, but those same people don't care about that at all because the right wants them focused on the "others" since it keeps people in fear). And gun registration is mean to keep "good people" (they themselves) from exercising their rights.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: RetiredAt63 on October 13, 2017, 11:25:52 AM

The specific question is- are you OK with breathalyzers on all cars?

There are a similar number of deaths from drunk driving and guns, therefore, those in this thread disturbed by the number of deaths from guns should be equally disturbed by drunk driving- and willing to make the same level of regulation or compromise on guns as cars.  The primary example being installing breathalyzers on all cars.

Cars keep adding safety features - turn signals, windshield defrosters, rear window defrosters, wipers, etc.  All cars have seat belts.  They didn't when I was a kid.  All cars now have air bags.  They didn't when I was a kid.  In both cases they showed up first in high end cars and then became standard.  If all cars had to have breathalyzers the incentive to improve the technology and lower the price would be there.

I am too lazy today to look it up, but I would guess in Canada deaths due to traffic accidents are far higher than deaths due to fire arms.  But given that it would be expensive if only Canada had this (i.e. the US is so much larger a market force) I doubt we will see it any time soon.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: acroy on October 13, 2017, 11:49:21 AM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 13, 2017, 12:57:09 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 13, 2017, 01:11:36 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence.

I see nowhere that he claimed to be quoting the DoI?...

And the original quote (from which the DoI quoted) was in fact Life, Liberty and Property in John Locke's letter preceding the declaration.  It was also restated as "Life, Liberty and Property" in the US Constitution.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 13, 2017, 01:26:28 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks! 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 13, 2017, 01:45:04 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html


Sounds great in theory.  Very chest thumping, cockles of the heart warming, feel-good talk.  It seems to hit some obstacles when you introduce it to real life though because we exist in a very interconnected society.  The actions of one don't happen in a vacuum, they impact us all.

For example, how do you handle the obvious paradoxes?  Take cars for example.  Cars produce air pollution.  Air pollution that kills other people (lots of other people http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 (http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829))!  Do you infringe upon the right to property and liberty by banning cars, or do you infringe upon the right to life by allowing them to be driven?

How do you handle the obvious conflicts?  I want to blast loud music at night, you want to sleep.  My liberty to blast music conflicts with your liberty to sleep comfortably.  They cannot coexist.

Life, liberty, property often exist in conflict with one another.  Where do you assign priority in these cases . . . and why?  Since you have to violate some rights to preserve others, how do you avoid being (in your own words) "evil"?



I feel like your group has not read the definition of what a pragmatist actually is . . . they're following a philosophy that only works in the world of pure ideals.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 13, 2017, 01:52:58 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 13, 2017, 01:57:06 PM
For example, how do you handle the obvious paradoxes?  Take cars for example.  Cars produce air pollution.  Air pollution that kills other people (lots of other people http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829 (http://news.mit.edu/2013/study-air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-us-0829))!  Do you infringe upon the right to property and liberty by banning cars, or do you infringe upon the right to life by allowing them to be driven?
Simple. You find 1 scientist who disagrees with all the others and say, "Death by air pollution isn't proven, the science is far from settled"
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Glenstache on October 13, 2017, 01:57:46 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

Wait a second... you aren't going sovereign individual are you?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 13, 2017, 01:59:01 PM
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 13, 2017, 02:05:53 PM
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 13, 2017, 02:27:27 PM
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.

Uh-I think that our constitutional democracy does indeed allow me (and others!) to complain about whatever we want to. And assemble about it, too. This ain't North Korea.  And I don't really see how preferring democracy to anarchy means any of whatever the hell that is, either. (Martians?  You guys need to get new news sources on "the left."). Yeah-I get to complain about Trump.  He sucks and, in fact, if he triggers a nuclear war with North Korea, our democracy could really be in danger.  See how that works?  I love constitutional democracy. I don't always agree with the laws and what the judicial branch decides, and I can work to better the system so it more closely adheres to its founding documents.  And that's not whining, btw.  Unless whatever the hell the right was doing for the last 8 years was also whining. (OBUMMER HATES THE CONSTITUTION.  SHARIA!!!1!!)

Just because democracy is great doesn't mean it's not under pressures, from within and without.  Its greatness does not mean invulnerability.   One of things that weakens it: corruption.  Another: authoritarianism.  Gosh-I wonder why I'm worried about those things.  Now, you might worry about other things.  Like, how if you can't have 56 guns around you at all times, it's a fast slide into the gulag. 


 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 13, 2017, 02:37:54 PM
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
If I'm missing something here somebody please let me know but what I read is that Wexler doesn't feel disenfranchised based on the fact that he can't have personal nuclear weapons. Clearly anyone who isn't insane would agree with that statement in a standalone way.

You are ignoring what he said to turn this into yet another argument about liberals. Why?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 13, 2017, 02:41:48 PM
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
You said this. No one else said it, only you.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 13, 2017, 02:46:09 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence.

I see nowhere that he claimed to be quoting the DoI?...

And the original quote (from which the DoI quoted) was in fact Life, Liberty and Property in John Locke's letter preceding the declaration.  It was also restated as "Life, Liberty and Property" in the US Constitution.

The 5th amendment pertains to due process, not "god" and no mention of unalienable rights. I know what John Locke's original statements were. But statements /= actual rights. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 13, 2017, 02:56:08 PM
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
If I'm missing something here somebody please let me know but what I read is that Wexler doesn't feel disenfranchised based on the fact that he can't have personal nuclear weapons. Clearly anyone who isn't insane would agree with that statement in a standalone way.

You are ignoring what he said to turn this into yet another argument about liberals. Why?
The statement wasn't a stand alone statement, it was issued with an entire paragraph along with it, with the obvious implication that constitutional democracy is totally fine as is and enough to justify our freedoms.

His additional post totally lines up with that.

This is a statement in support of the Empire:
Quote
We have an emperor and he's been there for centuries. I do not feel unsafe just because I do not have nuclear weapons. I trust the imperial throne
It would be quite odd to state this in as the Vandals sacked Rome for the umpteenth time in 455. It obviously implies you are safe, and everything is hunky dory. This isn't a logic class, we can read between the lines.

But, yeah, if I thought Trump was a dictator about to unleash his Nazi death cults at the behest of his Goldman Sachs masters, you're goddam right I would want someone on my side to have some nukes. Maybe I'd want them held by Governor Rauner, but I certainly wouldn't trust going into a fight with the US government unarmed. This is the same reason I want the US itself to have nuclear weapons, because I sure as hell do not trust Vladimir Putin having the world's sole world-ending nuclear arsenal.


Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 13, 2017, 03:22:38 PM
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 13, 2017, 03:30:20 PM
So I can own a nuclear weapon and anthrax?  Those are property, right?  We've already got a constitution, a government, and centuries of jurisprudence on interpretation of laws, and I don't feel disenfranchised because I can't set defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard.  I am going to stick with constitutional democracy instead of pragmatic anarchy-but thanks!
You don't feel disenfranchised? So I am assuming you are not one of the types that goes on and on about how the corporations rule America and all the GOP are tyrants and saying police systemically target a huge fraction of the nation with abusive treatment.
Read the whole sentence
Read. You cannot simultaneously claim constitutional democracy is a great system and everyone should be happy with it and then whine like the Left in the US whines today about how democracy is under attack and only moments away from failing due to corporations/Trump/global warming/Martians.

These are not consistent positions.
If I'm missing something here somebody please let me know but what I read is that Wexler doesn't feel disenfranchised based on the fact that he can't have personal nuclear weapons. Clearly anyone who isn't insane would agree with that statement in a standalone way.

You are ignoring what he said to turn this into yet another argument about liberals. Why?
The statement wasn't a stand alone statement, it was issued with an entire paragraph along with it, with the obvious implication that constitutional democracy is totally fine as is and enough to justify our freedoms.

His additional post totally lines up with that.

This is a statement in support of the Empire:
Quote
We have an emperor and he's been there for centuries. I do not feel unsafe just because I do not have nuclear weapons. I trust the imperial throne
It would be quite odd to state this in as the Vandals sacked Rome for the umpteenth time in 455. It obviously implies you are safe, and everything is hunky dory. This isn't a logic class, we can read between the lines.

But, yeah, if I thought Trump was a dictator about to unleash his Nazi death cults at the behest of his Goldman Sachs masters, you're goddam right I would want someone on my side to have some nukes. Maybe I'd want them held by Governor Rauner, but I certainly wouldn't trust going into a fight with the US government unarmed. This is the same reason I want the US itself to have nuclear weapons, because I sure as hell do not trust Vladimir Putin having the world's sole world-ending nuclear arsenal.
Yes it was.

Nope :)

ETA: And what Wexler said. Mine is th TL;DR version
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 13, 2017, 03:32:41 PM
  Like, why is a voter registration list not a problem for them, but a gun registration list is.  Why is it constitutional to keep track of voters but not gun owners?
Faulty analogy. You imply the 2 are similar, but the 2 are different.

You have God-given 'unalienable' rights to life, liberty, and property. Including owning guns. Independent of governing system.

You do not have an unalienable right to vote. Or to democracy. Or any form of government, at all. You have rights to life, liberty, and property; that's it. And everyone around you has the corollary obligation not to violate those. You can defend your life, liberty, and property from those who would take them. Obligated actually, because violation of your rights is evil.

Join the clan of pragmatic anarchists. We're a fun group.

read here by a smart guy
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

The Declaration of Independence says nothing of property. It actually states "pursuit of happiness." Not good when you butcher the Declaration of Independence.

I see nowhere that he claimed to be quoting the DoI?...

And the original quote (from which the DoI quoted) was in fact Life, Liberty and Property in John Locke's letter preceding the declaration.  It was also restated as "Life, Liberty and Property" in the US Constitution.

The 5th amendment pertains to due process, not "god" and no mention of unalienable rights. I know what John Locke's original statements were. But statements /= actual rights.

If you feel there are no such thing an inalienable rights, more power to you, but know that such a view is entirely inconsistent with the foundational core of our government.

I was just pointing out that he did not claim to be quoting the Declaration and you made that assertion, attempting to de-legitimatize his view by asserting he misquoted something he never even claimed to quote.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Hotstreak on October 13, 2017, 09:43:06 PM
Yes, I'd be happy with the breathalyser in all cars.  Hopefully in the future one can be made to detect unsafe levels of prescription and illegal drugs as well as alcohol.

Speed limiters should also be a thing.  They are on all lorries in the UK, no reason why they shouldn't be on cars too.

Although I suspect that self-driving cars (or at least ones with collision avoidance) will start solving many accident issues within the next few years.


I hope you're right about that last part.  High quality self driving cars should be able to get drunks home without them needing to touch the wheel.  Shit, I'd love it, the 4 hour drive for holiday visits would be a lot easier if I spent the whole time napping, or playing cards with friends, or whatever.


Guns are much harder for a lot of reasons.  The right to bear arms is a part of the US Constitution, which is very hard to change.  Furthermore, any changes would take centuries to ripple through the entire gun stock since many firearms can last hundreds of years with basic safe storage techniques.  What's left is preventing high risk people from committing murders or mass murders.  This won't be a realistic solution until people voluntarily submit for assistance.. and I don't see that happening as long as the huge stigma exists, rights will likely be taken away immediately, and the person is subject to financial ruin.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 16, 2017, 05:59:25 AM

If you feel there are no such thing an inalienable rights, more power to you, but know that such a view is entirely inconsistent with the foundational core of our government.

I only commented on the quote, not my feeling in any such rights. Stick to the point. Leaps of straw-man fallacies only muddy the conversation.

Quote
I was just pointing out that he did not claim to be quoting the Declaration and you made that assertion, attempting to de-legitimatize his view by asserting he misquoted something he never even claimed to quote.

How do you know what/who he was quoting? You don't and admittedly neither do I. Which is why I pointed out actual words written into documents that pertain to the founding of our nation don't match his. And quoting a person means jack squat. So claiming that we have some sort of inalienable right, which is not actually written in any documents, is incorrect.

But by all means if you feel that we have inalienable right to property, stake claim to a slave and see how that goes for you. Even the founders, despite owning slaves themselves, knew "personal property" ownership (ie. slave trade) would likely harm their revolutionary movement.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 16, 2017, 07:24:17 AM
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.
Who said anything that you can't criticize a government? If you think everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket because GM controls the Supreme Court, you should be angling to loosen up gun laws, not trusting Goldman Sachs with a monopoly on violence.

This isn't hard. If you say I should trust my government enough to give up weapons, you lose all credibility in saying corporations have taken over our government/the government is fascist/etc. It doesn't matter whether you even think the militia has an honest ability to actually overthrow a tyrannical government, it doesn't make sense to demand other people entirely disarm themselves in the presence of a corrupt government.

I am not saying you love the Roman Emperor. Though why shouldn't you? We had the empire for centuries, it's certainly not going anywhere. Pay no mind to Alaric and his Gothic horde coming over the border, Rome has stood for nearly a millennium! :)


Quote
But by all means if you feel that we have inalienable right to property, stake claim to a slave and see how that goes for you. Even the founders, despite owning slaves themselves, knew "personal property" ownership (ie. slave trade) would likely harm their revolutionary movement.
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part. The US as a whole has moved way past those original  Enlightenment thinkers (it was 2 centuries ago that it had its hey-day), but Classical Liberals (IE libertarians) don't think the successor movements offer anything.

Slavery was not a part of the Enlightenment movement. Locke was specifically against it, and it's why slavery was so contentious in the US even at our founding. Slavery was a product of circumstance in the New World. Colonies wanted a slave system. Easy labor. Cheap labor. So the colonies amped up their slave codes in the 17th and 18th centuries to create a permanent labor class. It's regrettable, but it's not part of the Enlightenment and it's not part of the national DNA the way that gun ownership has been.

Obviously, the Constitution provides revocation of any right, including rights to free speech, property, whatever. But it wouldn't be hard to say that the US had undergone a major shift if it repealed any of these, and isn't the same nation anymore.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 16, 2017, 08:08:14 AM
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.
Who said anything that you can't criticize a government? If you think everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket because GM controls the Supreme Court, you should be angling to loosen up gun laws, not trusting Goldman Sachs with a monopoly on violence.

This isn't hard. If you say I should trust my government enough to give up weapons, you lose all credibility in saying corporations have taken over our government/the government is fascist/etc. It doesn't matter whether you even think the militia has an honest ability to actually overthrow a tyrannical government, it doesn't make sense to demand other people entirely disarm themselves in the presence of a corrupt government.

I am not saying you love the Roman Emperor. Though why shouldn't you? We had the empire for centuries, it's certainly not going anywhere. Pay no mind to Alaric and his Gothic horde coming over the border, Rome has stood for nearly a millennium! :)
This If/Then statement doesn't make any sense to me. If one is for gun control then they aren't allowed to complain about the government? If this isn't what you meant, please clarify.

Not to mention there's no reason it has to be one extreme or the other. As far as I can tell you've equated "I can't defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard" to "Give up weapons".

And then some sarcastic remarks which I assume are suggesting that people are too complacent with the stability of our nation? I think you're having a conversation with your own assumptions at this point.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 16, 2017, 08:16:09 AM
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all. But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Malloy on October 16, 2017, 09:18:11 AM
Wait-what does this have to do with an emperor? I didn't say anything about that.  Acroy argued that we have inalienable personal property rights. I disagreed, and said that not having a personal nukes didn't unduly infringe my personal property rights.  If a belief system that allows unfettered access to backyard nukes is anarchy, sign me up for constitutional democracy.  Then, you took my preference for constitutional democracy over anarchy as license to decide that I don't get to criticize Trump or the government in any way. That's...not how any of this works. And then you said some stuff about Martians that I guess meant that liberals believe kooky stuff (not me-I'm the no yoga but science is real kind of liberal, and I'm pretty sure that alien conspiracy theories are bipartisan).  And then you made a truly bizarre leap to the fact that I'm a blind sheep who follows the Empire?  What?  I kind of got lost. 

The fact that I like one kind of established government does not mean I like or endorse all kinds of governments or even all actions by my preferred government.  And, I don't want my fellow citizens to have nukes.  That's crazy, dude. It's bad enough that Donald Trump has access to them.

But, to bring it back: we have restrictions on gun rights.  They are already there.  You can't have a nuke in the US-it's an interpretation of the 2nd that I feel would stand up in court, though I don't think it's been challenged.  Maybe I shouldn't have pointed that out to the gun people on this forum, because now they are going to be super mad that someone is treading on them and not letting them have a nuke.
Who said anything that you can't criticize a government? If you think everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket because GM controls the Supreme Court, you should be angling to loosen up gun laws, not trusting Goldman Sachs with a monopoly on violence.

This isn't hard. If you say I should trust my government enough to give up weapons, you lose all credibility in saying corporations have taken over our government/the government is fascist/etc. It doesn't matter whether you even think the militia has an honest ability to actually overthrow a tyrannical government, it doesn't make sense to demand other people entirely disarm themselves in the presence of a corrupt government.

I am not saying you love the Roman Emperor. Though why shouldn't you? We had the empire for centuries, it's certainly not going anywhere. Pay no mind to Alaric and his Gothic horde coming over the border, Rome has stood for nearly a millennium! :)
This If/Then statement doesn't make any sense to me. If one is for gun control then they aren't allowed to complain about the government? If this isn't what you meant, please clarify.

Not to mention there's no reason it has to be one extreme or the other. As far as I can tell you've equated "I can't defend against tyranny with a nuke in my backyard" to "Give up weapons".

And then some sarcastic remarks which I assume are suggesting that people are too complacent with the stability of our nation? I think you're having a conversation with your own assumptions at this point.

That's my impression as well.  I think that the assumptions here are along the lines of:  0.1=1,000,000 because both are numbers.  There are a lot of assumptions being made about people thinking the government is fascist, believing x means relinquishing all right to having opinions about y, GM, Martians, empire, Romans that no one brought up but that somehow we are responsible for rebutting.

I really do want someone on the other side to tell me why keeping track of voters is OK but keeping track of guns isn't.  Acroy said it's because of a larger set of fundamental rights beyond the constitution involving property rights (implying that guns are property, but not a special kind of property), but that doesn't explain why people are OK with the government keeping track of many kinds of property (houses, cars), just not guns.

Looking at the constitution, guns are set forth as an explicit right, but the Supreme Court also has set aside voting as an explicit right. And there's nothing in the constitution that says we can't figure out who owns guns, just like we know who votes.  That's right! The government not only keeps track of your registration, but it also keeps track of if and when you vote.  I'd say that keeping a gun owner list would seem to support the well-regulated militia.  How are you going to regulate it well if you don't know who to call on?  Keeping a list (like voting!) doesn't infringe on the right to own them.

Now if you believe that 0.1 is 1,000,000, then keeping a list of gun registrations is the equivalent of grabbing all guns.  I don't believe that, but I'm guessing that is the opposing argument.  But I am not sure it's an argument that is supported by the constitution.  And, if so, then why aren't people equally angry about voter registration databases?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on October 16, 2017, 10:13:08 PM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 17, 2017, 02:09:10 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?

You seem to be making the assumption that having a gun = freedom.  I don't believe not having a gun makes me less free, in fact not having a gun frees me from all sorts of things, such as the expense, the need to keep it safe, and the worry that it would be used against me, would be involved in an accident or would be used to commit suicide. 

Would the right to have a gun make me more free?  I don't believe that either, in fact it would make me less free because everyone else would have that right, a large number of them would exercise it, and I would be less free for instance to knock at someone's door without worrying about getting shot through it or be at risk of someone at my place of work going postal.

Gun = Freedom is not an unquestionable rule.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 17, 2017, 06:14:24 AM
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all.
But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.
Even if you are an atheist, I think you can still logically accept some type of "god' given rights. Just accepting that there is something else out there other than ourselves. Otherwise something is the 'right thing to do' because a majority of politicians says so, and a subsequent majority do not rescinding the law seems pretty silly; I don't get my morality from politicians, ever.

All rights are 'god given' it is just that laws are a recognition of those rights. We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2017, 07:48:33 AM
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 17, 2017, 08:47:37 AM
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2017, 09:26:38 AM
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.

Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: MasterStache on October 17, 2017, 01:13:39 PM
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all.
But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.
Even if you are an atheist, I think you can still logically accept some type of "god' given rights. Just accepting that there is something else out there other than ourselves. Otherwise something is the 'right thing to do' because a majority of politicians says so, and a subsequent majority do not rescinding the law seems pretty silly; I don't get my morality from politicians, ever.

All rights are 'god given' it is just that laws are a recognition of those rights. We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I cannot logically accept that which is illogical. We as a society act and behave within certain rules, based on what we deem to be good. But those rules and that which we deem "good" is constantly evolving. For instance it's not really good to burn "witches" at the stake. But it used to be. Tribes of the Amazon still kill each other over things we would deem mere trivial. Just a couple examples out of numerous where certain behaviors are acceptable in certain societies. A "god given right" to whom? Only Christian Americans? If God allegedly gave us these rights, then at some point we never had them. How does that make sense? And who's God? I mean there are countless Gods out there. If God gave us the right to own weapons who's only purpose is to kill then how does that fit in with the right to life? Seems like a contradiction. Perhaps the Vegas shooter was just exercising his "god given right" to own guns.

I don't need politicians nor some sort of invisible sky person to dictate right vs wrong. Society does that along with evolution. It's fine if you believe all your "rights" are God given. I'll go with the more practical society angle with the understanding that there will always be flaws in the system and the system will constantly evolve. I don't see Australia turning into a country in complete chaos thinking they infringed on some sort of "God given right." They just deemed the right to life to be vastly more important than guns.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 17, 2017, 03:56:27 PM
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.

Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?

Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 17, 2017, 06:49:08 PM
We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I like the idea that you have a right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  But getting back to a question that I asked earlier on . . .  Do we have the right to defend ourselves from someone driving a vehicle that burns fossil fuels?  (Remember that thousands are killed by the emissions from these vehicles every year, and many more develop breathing problems from the pollution.)

If no, why not and how is this different from defending yourself from a mugger?

If yes, how would you recommend that someone defend themselves in this situation?

You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.

Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?

Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?

Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 18, 2017, 06:40:21 AM
You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.
Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?
Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?
Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.
Moving to the country isn't a cure to pollution because a) air quality may improve, but not 100% b) it's not an option for everyone c) by this logic I could also argue that one could move into a bunker with heavy security to avoid the need for a gun.

Also, murder rate is only relevant per capita. If you live in a small town, .5 annual could be high. I assume it's not that small, just sayin'
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on October 18, 2017, 07:11:02 AM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?
So I'll share my viewpoint on your thoughts here Wolf.

For me, the issue here comes down to that I view the inherent purpose of guns and what I hear the vast majority of people who argue to own them with as few restrictions as possible to be heavily based on what I view as bad reasons.  Very few people argue the hunting angle when I talk with them.  The argue some variation of "I need a gun to protect myself from bad hombres and the apocalypse", so that clearly means that their primary driver for owning a gun is ton inflict harm or to threaten to inflict harm on someone else.  I do understand that this is couched in the fact that they are not going to take that step except out of self defense, or at least we assume that.  However, when you boil it down, the driver to own the gun can in no way be shaped as something we would all smile at as wonderful, joyful and fun.  It is instead wrapped in fear, anxiety and paranoia.

So therefore when guns are lined up against something else, like alcohol, car exhaust or something else, that is not engaged in or desired from a mainly negative perspective it just does not resonate with me.  It becomes a false equivalency because the disconnect on what drives most partakers in the other thing being compared to a gun overrides everything else.  Most people who like alcohol enjoy the camaraderie of meeting their friends at a bar, the taste of the drink, the way it helps them relax.  Most people who want a car, want it as others have already pointed out for transportation, to be able to see parts of the country they live in that that could not easily bike or walk to and to avoid the expense of air or rail travel and have more freedom of movement.  Far fewer people are drawn to alcohol primarily as a means to get stone drunk as a regular means to forget bad memories or to toss into a burglars eyes to allow them to get away.  Far fewer people want a car to be able to run away from a dangerous city or to allow for escape in the event of a mugging.  Again, the primary motivator of ownership or participation of most things is positive, but for most gun owners I have spoken with it is negative.  It is protection from individuals, governments, tyranny.  Even the hunters I know have those things high on their list along with the pleasure they get from hunting. 

So because I view the primary motivator of a gun to be negative I am more comfortable restricting their freedoms than I would be for something whose purpose and desire for ownership is not to harm someone or something (even if it's just a paper target) and the assumption that I want one because one day I may need to threaten to cause that harm.  To be clear, I feel the same way about any weapon, not just guns.  I need a steak knife, but I do not need to own a ninja spear.  And for me there is a difference because of the lethality of guns versus other weapons.  As several have mentioned, 500+ people would have been a lot harder to injure with a knife or a bow and arrow.  So the magnitude of the damage that can be wreaked has to factor in to how we regulate something.  To jump on to the crazy tangent earlier, it's why it is (and should be) really hard to procure a nuclear bomb versus a firecracker or a pop rock.  Again the false equivalency that a gun is just a tool and should be regulated no more than a hammer or a drill or a screwdriver is a far reach for me.  It's a tool capable (and specifically designed) to cause far more damage.  I could beat you to death with a hammer, but it's a lot easier with a gun where I do not even need to get near you.

And as former player said, I do not feel less free because I do not own a gun, nor would I feel more free because I did.  I feel the same way about whether or not I can own my bicycle or my breakfast cereal.  It does not impact my level of freedom feeling. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Heywood57 on October 18, 2017, 08:14:52 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/national/investigations/record-gun-sales-bring-australias-firearm-arsenal-to-highest-level-since-the-port-arthur-massacre-20160427-goftbj.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4482924/Teens-using-World-War-guns.html

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 18, 2017, 08:59:35 AM
You certainly have the right to move away from population centers to the rural country where pollution from internal combustion engines is much lessened.
Is that also your solution for getting mugged, living under a tyrant, and roaming gangs of thugs?  Move away and hope that it doesn't happen to you?  In that case, why does anyone need a gun?
Nope. I own guns - BUT I pair safe places with gun ownership. My town has an annual murder rate of ~0.5?
Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.
Moving to the country isn't a cure to pollution because a) air quality may improve, but not 100% b) it's not an option for everyone c) by this logic I could also argue that one could move into a bunker with heavy security to avoid the need for a gun.

Also, murder rate is only relevant per capita. If you live in a small town, .5 annual could be high. I assume it's not that small, just sayin'

All true. My goal was to maximize my family's safety while living ordinary lives (not in a bunker) and I think we've done right. No need to brandish a gun about to defend our space. No need to stare down any "tough guys" during the course of our day. The risks here at tiny.

As for exhaust - its better here than southern CA and technology will continue to deliver cleaner air I THINK (hope) if we can get the GOP out of the driver's seat and prevent them from closing the EPA. Somebody needs to be pushing businesses to invest to cleaner technologies as our population continues to grow and the population increases in density.

My family is reaping the benefits of our planning from a couple of decades ago.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 18, 2017, 10:54:09 AM
Great?

But my original point still stands.  You do not have the right to defend yourself from things that will do you harm or kill you.  Example: car exhaust.

Well, I think you do have that right.

It gets a little trickier when it is not imminent(like a home invasion). Our tresspassing laws are pretty stupid. If I find a man in my back yard or teenagers wandering around for something to steal I really cannot do anything, even physically restrain them while the police are in route; even though if I am not there my kids might be running around and my wife would not be able to protect them.

I think it is all in degrees though.

 Even environmentally, say, when people died from famines and someone did something to accidentally poison a creek and people got sick and livestock died and say some elderly people died; would the community kill that person? Doubtful, if they were sure it was just a mistake and the person was a buffoon; maybe exiled them and tell them to never return. Defense, even if a little late.

In a modern sense, it would behoove communities to build more bike paths and sidewalks and restrict parking where those modes are available. Boycott a gas station in the middle of a walkable community, etc.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 18, 2017, 03:06:10 PM
Guitarstv, accolay, milkshake, etc. propose many arguments for regulating guns. Are gun control supporters ready to do the same thing for alcohol?
Sure, as long as they are reasonable and prevent a large number of alcohol related deaths (no regulation is perfect). Hell, I'm fine with regulating how often you go to McDonalds if it will help reduce a huge amount of heart disease deaths. The regulations need to make a visible percentage difference in deaths otherwise what is the point. Whether it's alcohol or obesity or guns, if regulations cause for example a 50% reduction in deaths, then I'm all for it. If a regulation only causes like a 1% reduction in deaths, then no, the freedom lost is not worth the lives saved. I don't know where the best compromise is, but somewhere there is a better compromise than our current situation.

Just curious about your response here. Again, we probably have some significant philosophical differences on things, but I appreciate your consistency. You comment on things in regards to evaluating if something is effectively reducing deaths in a very practical/numbers based perspective. I am curious where this viewpoint takes you. In general, my perspective is very much biased towards feeling that the government restricting people's freedoms to do something that impacts no one but themselves should be a last resort situation, and I don't feel that it is worth it in many cases (i.e. a person restricted in buying guns who hasn't hurt someone is having their freedoms restricted before they have done something wrong). Not trying to get into the specifics of the gun control discussion here, but I'm curious what you think, since it appears that you see things differently. You mention restricting things if they are successful at preventing deaths on a significant scale. I guess my question is, how do you draw the line on restricting freedoms in general. The cliche argument is that we could live in a 1984 environment with no privacy where crime would be significantly reduced. It's a straw man, of course, but it's not to say that it wouldn't be true. If the government completely monitored everything, general crime would almost certainly go down, but almost everyone would agree the trade-off wouldn't be worth it. Again, for me, it's a fairly easy distinction - I almost always default to more freedom even if the trade-off is more risks. What would you say would be how you look at the situation? How do you determine if the freedom is worth the risks, even if the risks are significant? Are the freedoms ever worth the risks (I'm assuming the answer to this is yes at least in some situations)?
Let me start by mentioning that I do have guns, and I exercise most of the rights that the government gives me (whether that be tax breaks or guns or Roth conversion ladders). I do not vote for tax breaks for the upper middle class, but I am not going to give the government more money in protest. Same goes for guns.

As I said, I'm not sure where the optimal compromise is between safety and freedom. For example, I think the seatbelt could be considered an infringement on your freedom, by taking time to put on and restricting your comfort as you fly down the road. However, I would say that most people agree it is a good law to have, because it saves many lives. So, we would have to see how many lives (percentage-wise) gun regulations save, and decided how much freedom is truly lost by them (is it a few seconds of work? Is it years of training? Obviously these are different). Then the courts and our flawless elected officials will have to have a reasonable, non-partisan, non-ultimatum discussion on where the best compromise lies.

So short answer, I don't know. I know I am not pleased with the current system, and would like the opportunity to observe other systems and weigh for myself if it is better or worse.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 19, 2017, 02:02:00 AM
Changing gun laws is career suicide for politicians. This is why they won't do much or anything. The citizens want guns, is the bottom line. If a politician or political party tries to take them away, or heavily restrict them, they can kiss whatever power they have goodbye. WE are the ones who are keeping current gun laws in place. The politicians are a reflection of us, here in the US, like it or not. The CITIZENS have to decide they've had enough, not the politicians. The politicians won't do much of anything without our support, and the majority of Americans don't want to give up their guns, or have them restricted, including some of the left. It's just the reality.
No, it's the reality of a populace captured by the gun lobby.  How the populace think now is not the same as what they used to think and it's not the same as how they will think in the future.  Change happens.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: radram on October 19, 2017, 06:07:41 AM
Changing gun laws is career suicide for politicians. This is why they won't do much or anything. The citizens want guns, is the bottom line. If a politician or political party tries to take them away, or heavily restrict them, they can kiss whatever power they have goodbye. WE are the ones who are keeping current gun laws in place. The politicians are a reflection of us, here in the US, like it or not. The CITIZENS have to decide they've had enough, not the politicians. The politicians won't do much of anything without our support, and the majority of Americans don't want to give up their guns, or have them restricted, including some of the left. It's just the reality.
No, it's the reality of a populace captured by the gun lobby.  How the populace think now is not the same as what they used to think and it's not the same as how they will think in the future.  Change happens.

I see both of these comments as accurate.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: radram on October 19, 2017, 07:06:26 AM
I would like to approach the gun debate from a different angle, that being the words in the amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The way I see this sentence, the government shall not infringe on a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". If you disagree with this premise, please share your rationale, because it is critical understanding for the remainder of my post.

I believe current gun laws are unconstitutional, because they are not regulated enough. Proper regulation is a REQUIREMENT to avoid infringing on this right. It doesn't say people MUST be allowed to have guns, and the government MAY regulate them. It clearly says they MUST regulate them well. Nowhere in this amendment does it state we only care about the guns that kill people or are used in crimes. It is clear to me that it refers to all guns.


Who here believes that the current state of gun laws and the proliferation of guns and their misuse meets the definition of well regulated?

I am unaware of how to keep the constitutionality of the 2nd without infringing on other rights through regulation. They seem contradictory. Certainly there is interpretation needed to say what regulation is "well".

1993 had approximately 1.5 million gun victims, 2011 had 467,000. Does this mean we did a better job of regulating since 1993?
 Probably. (https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx )

Is it good enough that 1 incident per 100 people per year meets the requirement of well regulated? I say no, while admittedly I have very few ideas as to how to make it better(while still being allowed to keep MY guns). But the bigger point is that the 2nd amendment does not allow the government to do NOTHING if the well regulated clause is not met. They MUST regulate my rights away to maintain a well regulated militia.



Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 19, 2017, 07:32:30 AM
I would like to approach the gun debate from a different angle, that being the words in the amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The way I see this sentence, the government shall not infringe on a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". If you disagree with this premise, please share your rationale, because it is critical understanding for the remainder of my post.

I believe current gun laws are unconstitutional, because they are not regulated enough. Proper regulation is a REQUIREMENT to avoid infringing on this right. It doesn't say people MUST be allowed to have guns, and the government MAY regulate them. It clearly says they MUST regulate them well. Nowhere in this amendment does it state we only care about the guns that kill people or are used in crimes. It is clear to me that it refers to all guns.


Who here believes that the current state of gun laws and the proliferation of guns and their misuse meets the definition of well regulated?

I am unaware of how to keep the constitutionality of the 2nd without infringing on other rights through regulation. They seem contradictory. Certainly there is interpretation needed to say what regulation is "well".

1993 had approximately 1.5 million gun victims, 2011 had 467,000. Does this mean we did a better job of regulating since 1993?
 Probably. (https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx )

Is it good enough that 1 incident per 100 people per year meets the requirement of well regulated? I say no, while admittedly I have very few ideas as to how to make it better(while still being allowed to keep MY guns). But the bigger point is that the 2nd amendment does not allow the government to do NOTHING if the well regulated clause is not met. They MUST regulate my rights away to maintain a well regulated militia.

See below from page 7, bolding emphasis mine:


GuitarStv makes good points about the possible results of having militias, as specified in the Second Amendment. Will all militias cooperate? Most of the problems in the Middle East are caused by militias. The Second Amendment implies that gun ownership does not mean much unless gun owners are part of a trained, disciplined militia, as opposed to an undisciplined rabble. When the US Constitution was drafted, there was no US army, and militias, usually anti British, took the place of an army. And in reverse, once the new US state had an army, why does it need militias?

The Second Amendment is a privilege, and with privilege comes responsibility. It is a two way street.

Lets stop with the revisionism. The accepted definition at the time the constitution was written was that 'militia' was the population of fighting age individuals... not specific established groups. With the correct definition of the time in mind, and supported by numerous letters and recorded discussions, it's clear the 2nd was meant to be an individuals right.

Interesting. If what you say is true, that could sway me in at least some of the argument.

Can you point me to the evidence backing your claims?

Thanks

Rightflyer, here is the summary of the Heller decision from 2008.  In this decision's majority opinion, "militia" is any able-bodied male capable of providing for the common defense.  This goes back to a 1939 Court decision backed by laws and interpretations as early as 1811.  He also goes into detail that the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment and a few other places in the Constitution make it clear that those laws are directed at individual rights and nothing requiring a collective of people.  He cited an 1825 Court case where the majority opinion equated that a person is responsible for abuses of the 1st Amendment in the same way he is responsible for abuses of the 2nd Amendment.  The implication there is that you can't be individually responsible for abusing a right unless it's an individual right to begin with.  He admits the wording of the Amendment is a bit odd, but grammatically it would be the same as to say "the individual right to bear arms shall not be infringed so that we can have a well-regulated militia."  The militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms, but rather a benefit of that right.



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO)

It's like if an amendment said "The ability to share one's ideas with the world being necessary to a great civilization, the right to free speech shall not be infringed." This doesn't mean you have to share your ideas with the entire world in order for your speech to be protected. It means your ability to speak freely is protected, at least in part so that people can share their ideas with the world.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: radram on October 19, 2017, 08:48:45 AM


Thank you for your response. Looks like I have some more reading to do:)

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on October 19, 2017, 09:01:49 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/national/investigations/record-gun-sales-bring-australias-firearm-arsenal-to-highest-level-since-the-port-arthur-massacre-20160427-goftbj.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4482924/Teens-using-World-War-guns.html
Nice reality check on the idea that the gun problem has been solved by regulation in the UK and Austrailia.

I wonder if the gun club situation in Austrialia would be considered by US gun control activists as meeting their percieved need for gun owners to be part of a "well regulated militia". I certainly think gun owners who show that they practice with the weapon regularly are more likely to use it effectively and safely in a self defence situation. They may also be less likely to be nuts who go off the hinges and kill a bunch of innocents.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on October 21, 2017, 03:07:33 PM

You seem to be making the assumption that having a gun = freedom.  I don't believe not having a gun makes me less free, in fact not having a gun frees me from all sorts of things, such as the expense, the need to keep it safe, and the worry that it would be used against me, would be involved in an accident or would be used to commit suicide. 

Would the right to have a gun make me more free?  I don't believe that either, in fact it would make me less free because everyone else would have that right, a large number of them would exercise it, and I would be less free for instance to knock at someone's door without worrying about getting shot through it or be at risk of someone at my place of work going postal.

Gun = Freedom is not an unquestionable rule.

I appreciate your perspective here. I am definitely on the same page with you that freedom has more nuance to it than I was using. I am not really with you on the extrapolations of that with guns, of course :), but I see what you're saying. What I'm getting at with my discussion on freedom is that the government using the force of law to restrict me from doing something with the penalty of jail is certainly a restriction of my freedom. We could go back and forth about a trade off of your freedom to live in a country where there are less guns and whether it's worth it or not. That would seem to be a focal point of the debate. However, the freedom to live in a country without guns is a more, hmm, I would say indirect tie into freedom. It's a freedom that requires restriction of other people's actions. The freedom to own a gun is not a restriction on someone else's action by the government. I can't think of a good analogy now, but that's more what I'm meaning. The government restricts my actions all the time, but I'm going to almost always lean on the side of there needing to be a compelling argument for them to say if you do - fill in the blank - you will go to jail.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on October 21, 2017, 03:12:20 PM

So I'll share my viewpoint on your thoughts here Wolf.

For me, the issue here comes down to that I view the inherent purpose of guns and what I hear the vast majority of people who argue to own them with as few restrictions as possible to be heavily based on what I view as bad reasons.  Very few people argue the hunting angle when I talk with them.  The argue some variation of "I need a gun to protect myself from bad hombres and the apocalypse", so that clearly means that their primary driver for owning a gun is ton inflict harm or to threaten to inflict harm on someone else.  I do understand that this is couched in the fact that they are not going to take that step except out of self defense, or at least we assume that.  However, when you boil it down, the driver to own the gun can in no way be shaped as something we would all smile at as wonderful, joyful and fun.  It is instead wrapped in fear, anxiety and paranoia.

So therefore when guns are lined up against something else, like alcohol, car exhaust or something else, that is not engaged in or desired from a mainly negative perspective it just does not resonate with me.  It becomes a false equivalency because the disconnect on what drives most partakers in the other thing being compared to a gun overrides everything else.  Most people who like alcohol enjoy the camaraderie of meeting their friends at a bar, the taste of the drink, the way it helps them relax.  Most people who want a car, want it as others have already pointed out for transportation, to be able to see parts of the country they live in that that could not easily bike or walk to and to avoid the expense of air or rail travel and have more freedom of movement.  Far fewer people are drawn to alcohol primarily as a means to get stone drunk as a regular means to forget bad memories or to toss into a burglars eyes to allow them to get away.  Far fewer people want a car to be able to run away from a dangerous city or to allow for escape in the event of a mugging.  Again, the primary motivator of ownership or participation of most things is positive, but for most gun owners I have spoken with it is negative.  It is protection from individuals, governments, tyranny.  Even the hunters I know have those things high on their list along with the pleasure they get from hunting. 

So because I view the primary motivator of a gun to be negative I am more comfortable restricting their freedoms than I would be for something whose purpose and desire for ownership is not to harm someone or something (even if it's just a paper target) and the assumption that I want one because one day I may need to threaten to cause that harm.  To be clear, I feel the same way about any weapon, not just guns.  I need a steak knife, but I do not need to own a ninja spear.  And for me there is a difference because of the lethality of guns versus other weapons.  As several have mentioned, 500+ people would have been a lot harder to injure with a knife or a bow and arrow.  So the magnitude of the damage that can be wreaked has to factor in to how we regulate something.  To jump on to the crazy tangent earlier, it's why it is (and should be) really hard to procure a nuclear bomb versus a firecracker or a pop rock.  Again the false equivalency that a gun is just a tool and should be regulated no more than a hammer or a drill or a screwdriver is a far reach for me.  It's a tool capable (and specifically designed) to cause far more damage.  I could beat you to death with a hammer, but it's a lot easier with a gun where I do not even need to get near you.

And as former player said, I do not feel less free because I do not own a gun, nor would I feel more free because I did.  I feel the same way about whether or not I can own my bicycle or my breakfast cereal.  It does not impact my level of freedom feeling.

Caracarn, thanks for your perspective on this. I can definitely see what you're saying here. I think the perspective on guns is a huge factor in people's views on them. I was talking with a friend recently, and we were discussing how the implications of the use of guns via geography is a huge factor in people's feelings on this discussion. Where I live, I hear gun shots all the time, but I have no fear of them (other than a very minor one of people potentially not knowing how far the bullet is going to go). I hear people shoot all the time, and it's just people target practicing out in the country if it's in bursts or trying to kill a deer if it's single shots. People in Chicago who hear a gun shot know someone probably got hurt or died when they heard it. Not saying this is the crux of your perspective, just that I can certainly see how the view of guns as negative versus positive has a huge impact in how we see the issue.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on October 21, 2017, 03:24:29 PM

Let me start by mentioning that I do have guns, and I exercise most of the rights that the government gives me (whether that be tax breaks or guns or Roth conversion ladders). I do not vote for tax breaks for the upper middle class, but I am not going to give the government more money in protest. Same goes for guns.

As I said, I'm not sure where the optimal compromise is between safety and freedom. For example, I think the seatbelt could be considered an infringement on your freedom, by taking time to put on and restricting your comfort as you fly down the road. However, I would say that most people agree it is a good law to have, because it saves many lives. So, we would have to see how many lives (percentage-wise) gun regulations save, and decided how much freedom is truly lost by them (is it a few seconds of work? Is it years of training? Obviously these are different). Then the courts and our flawless elected officials will have to have a reasonable, non-partisan, non-ultimatum discussion on where the best compromise lies.

So short answer, I don't know. I know I am not pleased with the current system, and would like the opportunity to observe other systems and weigh for myself if it is better or worse.

Thanks for your response, milkshake, and I see what you're saying about the balance between regulations and what actually helps. I was actually thinking more about your comments on like potentially restricting McDonald's and things depending on how it helped from a numbers standpoint saving lives. You expressed some of these ideas, but you are certainly not alone in the view that we should be able to restrict freedoms if it would help protect people from not just others but from themselves. That's a difficult concept for me to handle. I was curious about your thoughts and hoping others who are for more government restrictions than I am would explain how they, in their mind, have a dividing line of, we can do this, but THIS is certainly out of bounds. What are the bounds? We as a society collectively agree or at least don't get up in arms on some laws, like seat belt requirements for instance, because they do save lives. And people propose further restrictions all the time. Hate speech is a good example, especially in light of recent events. I hear many more people saying now more than ever in the past that we should restrict someone from being able to say something in public about this or that, and "this or that" may indeed be abhorrent, but they're proposing the government put laws to keep that from happening because it would help keep the environment from promoting hate or potential danger for certain groups or whatnot. You can argue that it's a reasonable restriction or not, but either way, it's a restriction. Please note, this is an example that I have no idea which way you would come down on, nor am I wanting to argue for or against it. It's just an example I see of people being willing to stomach or even promote restrictions in freedoms in a way I haven't seen them in the past, and my thoughts are, with changes like this, we really need to know, how and/or where would we draw the line on what's worth it or not in terms of restricting freedoms. Guns are one example of this playing out.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: AnnaGrowsAMustache on October 22, 2017, 03:39:15 PM
I'm from NZ and I don't understand the USA gun thing. We have guns here, lots of them, but they're for farmers and hunters. Why else would you want one? You need a licence to own or use one and they're quite a drama to get. There are strict rules for where and how guns and ammunition can be kept. I can't think of a single reason why an ordinary citizen would need a handgun or a semi automatic, ever. We have the odd shooting, we've even had the odd mass shooting. It's rare. Our police aren't armed. We have a specialist armed police unit that can be called out but otherwise they rely on old fashioned policing ie having relationships in the community and great people skills.

I hear americans go on about their rights regarding guns quite a lot. Well, with rights come responsibilities. There's not so much talk about that.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 23, 2017, 07:17:18 AM

Let me start by mentioning that I do have guns, and I exercise most of the rights that the government gives me (whether that be tax breaks or guns or Roth conversion ladders). I do not vote for tax breaks for the upper middle class, but I am not going to give the government more money in protest. Same goes for guns.

As I said, I'm not sure where the optimal compromise is between safety and freedom. For example, I think the seatbelt could be considered an infringement on your freedom, by taking time to put on and restricting your comfort as you fly down the road. However, I would say that most people agree it is a good law to have, because it saves many lives. So, we would have to see how many lives (percentage-wise) gun regulations save, and decided how much freedom is truly lost by them (is it a few seconds of work? Is it years of training? Obviously these are different). Then the courts and our flawless elected officials will have to have a reasonable, non-partisan, non-ultimatum discussion on where the best compromise lies.

So short answer, I don't know. I know I am not pleased with the current system, and would like the opportunity to observe other systems and weigh for myself if it is better or worse.

Thanks for your response, milkshake, and I see what you're saying about the balance between regulations and what actually helps. I was actually thinking more about your comments on like potentially restricting McDonald's and things depending on how it helped from a numbers standpoint saving lives. You expressed some of these ideas, but you are certainly not alone in the view that we should be able to restrict freedoms if it would help protect people from not just others but from themselves. That's a difficult concept for me to handle. I was curious about your thoughts and hoping others who are for more government restrictions than I am would explain how they, in their mind, have a dividing line of, we can do this, but THIS is certainly out of bounds. What are the bounds? We as a society collectively agree or at least don't get up in arms on some laws, like seat belt requirements for instance, because they do save lives. And people propose further restrictions all the time. Hate speech is a good example, especially in light of recent events. I hear many more people saying now more than ever in the past that we should restrict someone from being able to say something in public about this or that, and "this or that" may indeed be abhorrent, but they're proposing the government put laws to keep that from happening because it would help keep the environment from promoting hate or potential danger for certain groups or whatnot. You can argue that it's a reasonable restriction or not, but either way, it's a restriction. Please note, this is an example that I have no idea which way you would come down on, nor am I wanting to argue for or against it. It's just an example I see of people being willing to stomach or even promote restrictions in freedoms in a way I haven't seen them in the past, and my thoughts are, with changes like this, we really need to know, how and/or where would we draw the line on what's worth it or not in terms of restricting freedoms. Guns are one example of this playing out.

So in regards to the McDonald's comment, the CDC says 610,000 people die each year from heart disease. If someone made a regulation on fast food or sugary soda or whatever, and the number of heart disease deaths dropped to 305,000 3 years later, would you be ok with not being allowed to go to McDonald's anymore, because 305,000 lives were saved? Even though you are probably responsible with your fast food consumption, others aren't. Are almost a third of a million lives worth the cost of a little bit of freedom? I would say yes. If you say no, what if that number was all 610,000? Would you still say no? If so, what number would be enough? What if cancer deaths happened to drop as well? What if that regulation saved 2 million lives per year? Is that worth your freedom?

No one has limitless freedom on any of the constitution's rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded building because it will cause panic and harm, despite your right to free speech.

Everyone has their own determination of when an individual freedom is no longer worth having, because of the loss of other lives due to less responsible people. You said you agree with the seatbelt restriction, because it saves lives. Where is your personal cutoff for loss of individual freedom vs lives saved?

Seeing it as freedoms lost might be difficult to stomach, but we all stomach a lot of it every single day to live in a civilized society.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 23, 2017, 07:50:18 AM
So in regards to the McDonald's comment, the CDC says 610,000 people die each year from heart disease. If someone made a regulation on fast food or sugary soda or whatever, and the number of heart disease deaths dropped to 305,000 3 years later, would you be ok with not being allowed to go to McDonald's anymore, because 305,000 lives were saved? Even though you are probably responsible with your fast food consumption, others aren't. Are almost a third of a million lives worth the cost of a little bit of freedom? I would say yes. If you say no, what if that number was all 610,000? Would you still say no? If so, what number would be enough? What if cancer deaths happened to drop as well? What if that regulation saved 2 million lives per year? Is that worth your freedom?

No one has limitless freedom on any of the constitution's rights. You can't yell fire in a crowded building because it will cause panic and harm, despite your right to free speech.

Everyone has their own determination of when an individual freedom is no longer worth having, because of the loss of other lives due to less responsible people. You said you agree with the seatbelt restriction, because it saves lives. Where is your personal cutoff for loss of individual freedom vs lives saved?

Seeing it as freedoms lost might be difficult to stomach, but we all stomach a lot of it every single day to live in a civilized society.
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 23, 2017, 07:57:04 AM
I'm from NZ and I don't understand the USA gun thing. We have guns here, lots of them, but they're for farmers and hunters. Why else would you want one? You need a licence to own or use one and they're quite a drama to get. There are strict rules for where and how guns and ammunition can be kept. I can't think of a single reason why an ordinary citizen would need a handgun or a semi automatic, ever.

Have you read any of the posts in this thread?

 
Quote
We have the odd shooting, we've even had the odd mass shooting. It's rare. Our police aren't armed. We have a specialist armed police unit that can be called out but otherwise they rely on old fashioned policing ie having relationships in the community and great people skills.

I hear americans go on about their rights regarding guns quite a lot. Well, with rights come responsibilities. There's not so much talk about that.

New Zealand has 4 million people. The US has 300 million.

Assuming we had exactly the same rates of violence, we'd expect things to happen roughly 1/100 as often in New Zealand.  Using New Zealand as an example of what the US should be doing is like someone in Ponca City Oklahoma saying they just don't get why Chicago has so many problems, because Ponca City doesn't have them.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 23, 2017, 08:21:58 AM
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 23, 2017, 08:44:26 AM
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: iris lily on October 23, 2017, 08:56:42 AM
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 23, 2017, 09:04:50 AM
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?

Similar to the vein of thought on the gun discussion-

You can not have a pistol with a clip greater than 10 rounds (now defunct law, but the points the same) but you can buy 30 clips no-problem!  It is a short-sided solution that doesn't take into account both sides' point of view and is another 'step' towards restricting gun rights.

Some people are OK with excessive regulation.  I prefer to have the absolute minimum possible without the infringement of rights.

(Example Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban )
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 23, 2017, 09:30:22 AM
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?

No.  But I didn't suggest "life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint" in my post.    :P


Nutritional content can be regulated in a variety of ways.  A simple example off the top of my head:

Having more fiber in your diet is good for you.  Having more fiber in your diet brings on feeling of satiety sooner.  People will naturally feel more full and choose on their own to eat less fast food if you were to increase fiber content, with the side benefit of reduced colon cancer along with a variety of other health improvements.

You could therefore specify a restriction that for a given quantity of calories a given amount of fiber must be included in a menu item.  There are a variety of ways that restaurants could approach this regulation . . . from psyllium fiber food additives which make virtually no difference to taste/texture of processed meals and desserts, to using more whole grains, to offering more fruit/vegetables in each meal sold.  It's up to the individual restaurants how to choose to meet the requirements, but anyone eating at the restaurants will reap the benefits without being prevented from ordering food (which is a heavy handed way to regulate).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 23, 2017, 09:51:10 AM
To take us further away from gun control :) I would add that banning McDonald's sounds great to me but to actually put that into law you can't ban "McDonalds" or even "Fast Food" because then you need a definition of fast food. Fast casual generally isn't very healthy either, or pub food or really restaurant food in general. On the other hand most fast food restaurants serve salads and a few other healthy-ish things.

Then if you get into the realm of banning specific ingredients, well most ingredients aren't really unhealthy in moderation. Then you have disagreement in the nutrition community regarding what is and isn't healthy. Then you have differences in body chemistry so that something unhealthy for one person may be less so for another.

If there actually was some way to force people to be healthy to their own benefit that would be great but in my opinion the idea of banning fast food isn't really worth discussing. Limiting soft drink sizes, maybe a step in the right direction?

Of course if the purpose of the banning fast food discussion is solely to gauge how individuals in this conversation feel about limiting freedoms and if the ends justify the means then I guess - carry on.

Oh and that last line, I wish more people recognized that. I think what people really fear is change. The current limits, well those are fine but any additional limits = Unconstitutional!
You are definitely right, there is no way to ban unhealthy food because nearly everything is healthy in moderation, and unless we start rationing all food, there's no way to control that. The controlling food argument is just to illustrate the point.

Essentially, we have to place a value on life. That is difficult to do, especially depending on who's life you're talking about. My life is much more important to me than pretty much anyone else's life is. Most people think the same way, otherwise people wouldn't change their minds after they get shot by someone, or are directly affected by whatever the bad situation is.

Sure gun deaths don't kill that many people relative to other stuff, but those are real, living people with families, children, spouses and parents. They go to work, they play football at Thanksgiving. But they aren't me, they aren't you, they are just some statistic. I guess for me, a little bit of freedom and time is ok to give up, to let them be able to keep doing those things.

I think that a reasonable approach to the fast food problem would be to place restrictions on the nutritional content of food that is sold.  Then let the restaurants make and sell whatever they want that meets those restrictions.

Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?

Similar to the vein of thought on the gun discussion-

You can not have a pistol with a clip greater than 10 rounds (now defunct law, but the points the same) but you can buy 30 clips no-problem!  It is a short-sided solution that doesn't take into account both sides' point of view and is another 'step' towards restricting gun rights.

Some people are OK with excessive regulation.  I prefer to have the absolute minimum possible without the infringement of rights.

(Example Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-capacity_magazine_ban )
Restrictions of this nature wouldn't be to forcefully limit consumption but rather to influence human behavior. If people are served smaller portions they are likely to eat smaller portions. You can even give people a smaller plate to serve themselves and typically they eat less. Or making a similar food item with slightly better for your health ingredients, people would still buy 1 and eat 1. I'm not advocating this, just explaining the position the way I understand it.

What I think could be effective is disallowing increased purchase incentives like "supersizing it". Someone wants a burger, fries and a drink and they can get it for $5.99. Or they can get slightly more fries and drink for just $0.30 more. Or more than that for another $0.20. These small incremental increases look like a good deal because the next unit of fries/drink is so much cheaper than the first unit but chances are most people don't even want or enjoy the extra fries and drink, but they do eat them because they're right there on the table. And the drastically reduced price for the extras still works out for the restaurant because fries and drink cost them pennies to produce.

Still not sure making rules against it is the best route to go because I could make similar arguments for a lot of marketing tactics, just doing some brainstorming.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 23, 2017, 11:00:17 AM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?

Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 23, 2017, 11:40:34 AM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?

Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

While I get the point that you're trying to make, I think that this is an unfair question to pose.

It casts people (who may be completely reasonable) on the side of gun control in a bad light.  There are always going to be a variety of issues where an acceptable number of deaths happen to accommodate freedom, and an acceptable loss of freedom happens to minimize deaths.  Implying that people on the side of gun control are heartless bastards because they differ from others on this single issue is not a productive way to move the conversation forward.  Currently we've prioritized the freedom to burn fossil fuels for personal automobile usage over the lives of the hundreds of thousands who die from the exhaust produced by cars every year.  I suspect that many of the people in favor of gun control would be unwilling to give up their ability to drive . . . even though it certainly would save lives.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: iris lily on October 23, 2017, 02:06:55 PM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 23, 2017, 02:23:19 PM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Johnez on October 23, 2017, 02:47:17 PM
What about our freedom to not have to pay for the diabetes supplies and bariatric surgeries for those Mickey Dees addicted people?  We're interconnected, even without Obamacare insurance companies have to take into account these "risk takers."

Should I have to serve a black person in my restaurant?  My freedom is being impinged upon here, is it not?  Where does freedom begin, where does it end?

I believe I have a right to not be randomly shot at by nuts with guns.  Lack of regulation and responsible practices contribute greatly this risk.  Think guns are regulated and people held responsible?  Who has the guns, how many, and what are they?  There doesn't seem to be a whole lot stopping anybody from acquiring military grade weapons and going on a shooting spree.  Should I be allowed to drive a tank to work if I'm not in the military?  Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here?  His mother sure was "responsible" keeping the gun in a safe-but at the same home her mentally unstable son lived-who had total access!  There's a point where our freedom's intersect and a compromise has to be made.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 23, 2017, 03:06:52 PM
While I get the point that you're trying to make, I think that this is an unfair question to pose.

It casts people (who may be completely reasonable) on the side of gun control in a bad light.  There are always going to be a variety of issues where an acceptable number of deaths happen to accommodate freedom, and an acceptable loss of freedom happens to minimize deaths.  Implying that people on the side of gun control are heartless bastards because they differ from others on this single issue is not a productive way to move the conversation forward.  Currently we've prioritized the freedom to burn fossil fuels for personal automobile usage over the lives of the hundreds of thousands who die from the exhaust produced by cars every year.  I suspect that many of the people in favor of gun control would be unwilling to give up their ability to drive . . . even though it certainly would save lives.

The point was that we do trade freedom for lives all the time, but at the same time we trade lives for freedom (as you've said). Thus, both freedom and lives have an intrinsic value, that is assigned by an individual, and different lives have different values to each person. I wasn't putting a bad light on gun control advocates, I was asking for iris lily's personal value of freedom.

I'm not saying we need to save every life, that isn't possible or practical.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Lol, you're kidding me right? I laughed out loud at work. So if someone shoots your family, their freedom is as priceless as yours right? They can't go to jail, that's infringing on their priceless freedom. Try robbing a bank, and let the cops know that your freedom is priceless. They'll laugh and read you your Miranda rights and slap handcuffs on.

I can't even understand your thought process for saying that. It makes no sense. Do you drive the speed limit? Do you follow any law ever made? Maybe you are trolling me?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on October 23, 2017, 03:58:45 PM
Lol, you're kidding me right? I laughed out loud at work. So if someone shoots your family, their freedom is as priceless as yours right? They can't go to jail, that's infringing on their priceless freedom. Try robbing a bank, and let the cops know that your freedom is priceless. They'll laugh and read you your Miranda rights and slap handcuffs on.

I can't even understand your thought process for saying that. It makes no sense. Do you drive the speed limit? Do you follow any law ever made? Maybe you are trolling me?
Milkshake, don't strawman Iris Lily's point of view. Iris lily never said he was against punishing people who have harmed others. He is just absolutely against restricting people before they harm others. At the other end of the spectrum from iris lily's point of view is the idealistic belief that we should do everything possible to protect everyone from harm even if it means a total lack of freedom.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: iris lily on October 23, 2017, 04:03:10 PM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 23, 2017, 05:11:44 PM
Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here? 

Civilians do not have access to armor-piercing ammunition. Just stop right there.  AR-style rifles fire .223 Remington which is similar, but not identical to the ammunition chambered for the M-16/M-4 which is 5.56mm in caliber.  The .223 was designed for the civilian market in the US before any military rifle was designed to use the 5.56mm.  If I were to take a 5.56mm military cartridge and stick it in a civilian rifle chambered for .223 it could blow up in my face from excessive pressure.  5.56mm comes in an armor-piercing variety, but it is not standard issue even to soldiers.  In 19 years in the Army I've never seen a single round of it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 24, 2017, 07:00:03 AM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 24, 2017, 07:57:39 AM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

Can you list exactly what your definition of inalienable rights is?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: iris lily on October 24, 2017, 08:35:39 AM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?

I can only respond to both the purely theoretical and the practical:

Theoretically, I dont think all actions that save lives are worth the resultantant loss of freedoms.

Practically, this isnt a viable argument for many reasons. I mean restricting calories sold a fast food joints, if that is what we are still talking about, seems unworkable.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 24, 2017, 09:19:19 AM
Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here? 

Civilians do not have access to armor-piercing ammunition. Just stop right there.  AR-style rifles fire .223 Remington which is similar, but not identical to the ammunition chambered for the M-16/M-4 which is 5.56mm in caliber.  The .223 was designed for the civilian market in the US before any military rifle was designed to use the 5.56mm.  If I were to take a 5.56mm military cartridge and stick it in a civilian rifle chambered for .223 it could blow up in my face from excessive pressure.  5.56mm comes in an armor-piercing variety, but it is not standard issue even to soldiers.  In 19 years in the Army I've never seen a single round of it.

There is no ban on armor piercing rifle ammo that I know of, although it's not often made/sold. Armor piercing pistol ammo is banned, which caused a bit of chaos when some folks tried to ban M855 rifle ammo because some people make AR pistols, especially considering it doesn't have a steel core which is what typically defines something as armor piercing.

Most civilian ARs are chambered in 5.56, which can also shoot .223. You're right if a rifle is chambered for .223 you shouldn't shoot 5.56 in it, but most ARs are 5.56, it's not some military exclusive round. Some older AR15s are chambered in .223, but it's pretty rare these days.

Rifle ammo in general is "armor piercing" at close range on typical armor. I don't think too many people walk around day to day in level IV body armor. Even then, a big/powerful enough round will beat it (and you'll already be falling down from the weight).  Most body armor is really made for pistols, not rifles. I think most police armor is level IIIA which is pistol rated.

When it comes down to it, something that can take down a hog is going to be able to beat most body armor, even if it isn't specifically designed to. In reality it's not an issue, as the vast majority of people who get shot aren't wearing body armor.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: iris lily on October 24, 2017, 09:20:56 AM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

Can you list exactly what your definition of inalienable rights is?

I won't be doing that, but thank you for the invitation.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 24, 2017, 09:43:45 AM
Seriously? You would support actual life restricting laws to limit calories that one can buy at a food joint?
Not to derail this thread further, but iris lily, if those regulations could be directly attributed to saving hundreds of thousands of lives, would you be ok with it? Millions of lives?


Obviously "directly attributed" is the operative phrase here. But that is the basis of the argument. Assuming we can prove that we can make regulations that have such grand effects, how many lives is your freedom worth? Put a value on someone else's life. That is what we are asking.

What the actual regulations are that qualify as "directly attributed" do not matter at this point in the debate, because we need to know what an acceptable amount of freedom is ok to give up to save lives.

No.

No.

No.

My freedom is prcieless, as is yours. See? It works for both of us. And any risk is for both of us.

Well, now you're just being silly.  You trade freedom for safety all the time.

You aren't free to drive on the left side of the road, or to ignore traffic lights.  You aren't free to walk into your neighbour's house and take his milk.  You're not free to joke about having a bomb at an airport.  If you try to exercise these freedoms you're liable to end up in jail.

Freedom clearly isn't priceless.

Maybe not practical, but the idea is that the freedom we are born with ( inalienable rights) doesn't have a price tag. An effective government will protext that freedom.

Where the rubber  meets the road is your "protection" vs my definition of "protection."

I dont expect to add anything meaningful to the dialog of gun control, I was answering the question directed to me personally. No, I don't think that the example of highly controlled fast food for the theoretical salvage of millions of lives is worth the trade offs. That particular legislation is a big NO for me.
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?

I can only respond to both the purely theoretical and the practical:

Theoretically, I dont think all actions that save lives are worth the resultantant loss of freedoms.

Practically, this isnt a viable argument for many reasons. I mean restricting calories sold a fast food joints, if that is what we are still talking about, seems unworkable.
OK, so this is why I asked that question. The original question asked about a purely hypothetical situation where a restriction on your dietary choices and a business's freedom to sell whatever they want would in fact save lives. The purpose of that question (I think) is not to get you to agree to any real world policy but rather to understand how you come to your conclusions about not restricting personal choice. You are not willing to answer that question, which is fair.

If you believe that our right to choose is more important than literally saving x number of lives that is a different stance than believing it is too complicated and impractical to enforce such laws. But once we know how someone comes to a conclusion we know whether it's worth discussing the practical reality or not.

In the hypothetical we could remove the actual scenario and use something more arbitrary to make this more clear. Do you think it would be reasonable to give up our right to use umbrellas if umbrellas were responsible for 1 thousand deaths per year? 1 million? 10 million?

Regarding examples of freedoms given so far, most of them have been "freedoms" that infringe upon someone else. I'd like to give some examples of laws meant to protect us from ourselves/manufacturers. Are you ok with bans on chemicals that make products dangerous for the consumer like lead paint, trans fats, asbestos, etc.? Are you ok with requiring someone to wear a seatbelt? How about mandates for manufacturers of vehicles to meet certain safety standards?

Just some things to think about, answer at your leisure.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 24, 2017, 09:55:56 AM
Why the hell is there a need to buy and sell military rifles?  The Bushmaster Adam Lanza used could pierce armor-what is the purpose here? 

Civilians do not have access to armor-piercing ammunition. Just stop right there.  AR-style rifles fire .223 Remington which is similar, but not identical to the ammunition chambered for the M-16/M-4 which is 5.56mm in caliber.  The .223 was designed for the civilian market in the US before any military rifle was designed to use the 5.56mm.  If I were to take a 5.56mm military cartridge and stick it in a civilian rifle chambered for .223 it could blow up in my face from excessive pressure.  5.56mm comes in an armor-piercing variety, but it is not standard issue even to soldiers.  In 19 years in the Army I've never seen a single round of it.

There is no ban on armor piercing rifle ammo that I know of, although it's not often made/sold. Armor piercing pistol ammo is banned, which caused a bit of chaos when some folks tried to ban M855 rifle ammo because some people make AR pistols, especially considering it doesn't have a steel core which is what typically defines something as armor piercing.

Most civilian ARs are chambered in 5.56, which can also shoot .223. You're right if a rifle is chambered for .223 you shouldn't shoot 5.56 in it, but most ARs are 5.56, it's not some military exclusive round. Some older AR15s are chambered in .223, but it's pretty rare these days.

Rifle ammo in general is "armor piercing" at close range on typical armor. I don't think too many people walk around day to day in level IV body armor. Even then, a big/powerful enough round will beat it (and you'll already be falling down from the weight).  Most body armor is really made for pistols, not rifles. I think most police armor is level IIIA which is pistol rated.

When it comes down to it, something that can take down a hog is going to be able to beat most body armor, even if it isn't specifically designed to. In reality it's not an issue, as the vast majority of people who get shot aren't wearing body armor.

You're right that 5.56x45 NATO is available on the civilian market, but that's not what Adam Lanza was shooting. YMMV on the "most ARs" are 5.56mm.  I've seen dozens of AR "style," rifles on the market chambered in everything from .22lr to 5.56mm to 9mm with the most common being .223, but an actual 5.56mm AR-15 has been rare in my experience, but I could be wrong there.  The term "armor piercing" is also rather subjective.  Are we talking body armor or vehicle?  It's rarely specified in these debates.  With a few exceptions, rifle-proof body armor is only worn by the military so damn near every rifle round is going to penetrate "armor."  It doesn't need to be some military-spec scary bullet to pull that off.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 24, 2017, 11:11:14 AM
Stuff
Stuff
Stuff
Stuff
Stuff
Remember, as the hypothetical question was posed these controls would definitively save lives, not theoretically.

Is your opinion on this based on an ideal world or are you making this determination based on current laws. I ask because as has been mentioned, if we're talking millions of lives being saved or even if those people just get healthier, that will have significant impacts on what everyone else pays for health insurance. So maybe in your ideal world we wouldn't have that interconnectedness but in the current world we do. Does that influence your opinion?

I can only respond to both the purely theoretical and the practical:

Theoretically, I dont think all actions that save lives are worth the resultantant loss of freedoms.

Practically, this isnt a viable argument for many reasons. I mean restricting calories sold a fast food joints, if that is what we are still talking about, seems unworkable.
OK, so this is why I asked that question. The original question asked about a purely hypothetical situation where a restriction on your dietary choices and a business's freedom to sell whatever they want would in fact save lives. The purpose of that question (I think) is not to get you to agree to any real world policy but rather to understand how you come to your conclusions about not restricting personal choice. You are not willing to answer that question, which is fair.

If you believe that our right to choose is more important than literally saving x number of lives that is a different stance than believing it is too complicated and impractical to enforce such laws. But once we know how someone comes to a conclusion we know whether it's worth discussing the practical reality or not.

In the hypothetical we could remove the actual scenario and use something more arbitrary to make this more clear. Do you think it would be reasonable to give up our right to use umbrellas if umbrellas were responsible for 1 thousand deaths per year? 1 million? 10 million?

Regarding examples of freedoms given so far, most of them have been "freedoms" that infringe upon someone else. I'd like to give some examples of laws meant to protect us from ourselves/manufacturers. Are you ok with bans on chemicals that make products dangerous for the consumer like lead paint, trans fats, asbestos, etc.? Are you ok with requiring someone to wear a seatbelt? How about mandates for manufacturers of vehicles to meet certain safety standards?

Just some things to think about, answer at your leisure.

Exactly, 1000%. Dabnasty hit the nail on the head here. Great explanation and questions.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 24, 2017, 11:31:22 AM
You're right that 5.56x45 NATO is available on the civilian market, but that's not what Adam Lanza was shooting. YMMV on the "most ARs" are 5.56mm.  I've seen dozens of AR "style," rifles on the market chambered in everything from .22lr to 5.56mm to 9mm with the most common being .223, but an actual 5.56mm AR-15 has been rare in my experience, but I could be wrong there.  The term "armor piercing" is also rather subjective.  Are we talking body armor or vehicle?  It's rarely specified in these debates.  With a few exceptions, rifle-proof body armor is only worn by the military so damn near every rifle round is going to penetrate "armor."  It doesn't need to be some military-spec scary bullet to pull that off.

Agreed on all points except the 5.56 being rare. Especially in the last 5 years of very fierce competition, it's quite rare to see one that's exclusively .223, even at the bargain bin level. For reference, on the cheaperthandirt website there are 633 results for 5.56NATO semi auto rifles, and 21 results for .223Rem.

Anyway we're splitting hairs really, as the rounds aren't very different. As you said, most any rifle will pierce armor that isn't specifically designed against rifle rounds (which is not common).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 24, 2017, 12:12:57 PM
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all. But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.
I'm not really on board with this. "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are themselves unclear, but the Bill of Rights were specifically added by compromise between anti-federalists and federalists to ensure liberty. They are all as close to inalienable rights as we can come up with. There is technically a legal route to eliminate things like free speech, free religion, jury trials, etc....just amend the Constitution! But we never would have had the Constitution in the first place if we did not have those guarantees in place...removing them removes the legitimacy of the government.

And not only the DC government, but basically all the state governments too, since 3/4 of the States would have to sign on such an amendment.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 25, 2017, 07:04:47 AM
The US revolution is a product of the Enlightenment and the right to property is an essential part.

Sure, I'm on board with that. But again, property itself constituted slaves which in and of itself contradicted the "all men are created equal" part as well. Jefferson and others, again while slave owners themselves, understood that including the slave trade in any documents would likely hinder their goal. It's unknown where "pursuit of happiness" actually originated from.

However, the right to own a gun doesn't fall under any unalienable rights. It falls under the 2nd amendment, which has restrictions, as it should. As others have pointed out, it's not ok for folks to own nukes and other WMDs.

This is all with the accepted understanding that we have some sort of "god given rights" which I don't believe to be true at all.
But that has nothing to do with this topic and I am not opening that can of worms.
Even if you are an atheist, I think you can still logically accept some type of "god' given rights. Just accepting that there is something else out there other than ourselves. Otherwise something is the 'right thing to do' because a majority of politicians says so, and a subsequent majority do not rescinding the law seems pretty silly; I don't get my morality from politicians, ever.

All rights are 'god given' it is just that laws are a recognition of those rights. We all have the right to defend ourselves, from a mugger or a tyrant, or a roaming gang of thugs.

I cannot logically accept that which is illogical. We as a society act and behave within certain rules, based on what we deem to be good. But those rules and that which we deem "good" is constantly evolving. For instance it's not really good to burn "witches" at the stake. But it used to be. Tribes of the Amazon still kill each other over things we would deem mere trivial. Just a couple examples out of numerous where certain behaviors are acceptable in certain societies. A "god given right" to whom? Only Christian Americans? If God allegedly gave us these rights, then at some point we never had them. How does that make sense? And who's God? I mean there are countless Gods out there. If God gave us the right to own weapons who's only purpose is to kill then how does that fit in with the right to life? Seems like a contradiction. Perhaps the Vegas shooter was just exercising his "god given right" to own guns.

I don't need politicians nor some sort of invisible sky person to dictate right vs wrong. Society does that along with evolution. It's fine if you believe all your "rights" are God given. I'll go with the more practical society angle with the understanding that there will always be flaws in the system and the system will constantly evolve. I don't see Australia turning into a country in complete chaos thinking they infringed on some sort of "God given right." They just deemed the right to life to be vastly more important than guns.

Missed this earlier.

This is not false, just invalid. This happens all the time but it is still relativism. Rules are made because politicians want to get reelected, tribal leaders want to stay in power. Conscription happens all the time, so does legalized slavery. People still have rights, if not we are just animals seeking domination; sounds pretty miserable. Like I said before, even if you don't believe in a 'higher power' you still might want to avoid the more base idea of humanity.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: golden1 on October 25, 2017, 01:54:15 PM
I am very pleased that so many of you are willing to sacrifice other peoples families and loved ones in order to maximize their own freedom.

I wonder how many of them would sacrifice their own children or parents as well? 

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 25, 2017, 02:34:12 PM
I am very pleased that so many of you are willing to sacrifice other peoples families and loved ones in order to maximize their own freedom.

I wonder how many of them would sacrifice their own children or parents as well?

I know right? Making sugar and driving over 20mph illegal is a no brainer.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 25, 2017, 03:31:07 PM
Hello, I'm coming at this from a different angle. I consider myself part of the "Maker" movement. One of the goals of the movement is to increase the common people's access to industrial manufacturing equipment.

So, the scenario I am dealing with is: what is stopping a someone from going on the dark web, getting schematics, going to the local Makerspace and building a gun?

Just throwing some stuff out there.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on October 25, 2017, 03:40:43 PM
So, the scenario I am dealing with is: what is stopping a someone from going on the dark web, getting schematics, going to the local Makerspace and building a gun?

Its already illegal and no, there is nothing actually stopping people from doing it.

Just like pretty much all other gun laws...
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: dandarc on October 25, 2017, 03:47:39 PM
So, the scenario I am dealing with is: what is stopping a someone from going on the dark web, getting schematics, going to the local Makerspace and building a gun?

Its already illegal and no, there is nothing actually stopping people from doing it.

Just like pretty much all other gun laws...
Not just gun laws - all laws.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 25, 2017, 04:03:20 PM
So, the scenario I am dealing with is: what is stopping a someone from going on the dark web, getting schematics, going to the local Makerspace and building a gun?

Its already illegal and no, there is nothing actually stopping people from doing it.

Just like pretty much all other gun laws...

It's illegal to build your own gun?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on October 25, 2017, 04:21:11 PM
It's illegal to build your own gun?
It is not illegal to make a gun that you would be allowed to buy. I live in California. My brother lives here too. He follows gun laws and has researched the legality of making his own gun. Currently you are required to get a serial number for your homemade gun from a government agency (a recent change).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: former player on October 25, 2017, 08:57:39 PM
896 people in America have been killed by guns since Las Vegas.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/900-people-dead-gun-violence-las-vegas-massacre-article-1.3586937
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 26, 2017, 07:59:42 AM
It's illegal to build your own gun?
It is not illegal to make a gun that you would be allowed to buy. I live in California. My brother lives here too. He follows gun laws and has researched the legality of making his own gun. Currently you are required to get a serial number for your homemade gun from a government agency (a recent change).
How recent is this change? As of 2015, "Under US federal law, transferring a ghost gun is a felony but owning one is allowed, assuming that no other impediments exists.[1] ATF officials characterize this as a loophole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_gun   Legality Section.

A ghost gun is a gun with no traceability like serial numbers.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 26, 2017, 08:26:28 AM
So, the scenario I am dealing with is: what is stopping a someone from going on the dark web, getting schematics, going to the local Makerspace and building a gun?

Its already illegal and no, there is nothing actually stopping people from doing it.

Just like pretty much all other gun laws...

It's illegal to build your own gun?

Is it illegal to build your own land mine?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on October 26, 2017, 09:40:43 AM
It is not illegal to make a gun that you would be allowed to buy. I live in California. My brother lives here too. He follows gun laws and has researched the legality of making his own gun. Currently you are required to get a serial number for your homemade gun from a government agency (a recent change).
How recent is this change? As of 2015, "Under US federal law, transferring a ghost gun is a felony but owning one is allowed, assuming that no other impediments exists.[1] ATF officials characterize this as a loophole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_gun   Legality Section.

A ghost gun is a gun with no traceability like serial numbers.
I'm sure it was within the past couple of years; I think it was more recent than 2015, but I'm not sure. I believe before the change you were allowed to assign your own serial number to the gun rather than having to get one from the government. Prior to the change it was legal to make your own gun and not be required to report it to anyone, now you are legally required to obtain a government issued serial number which creates a record of the gun's existance.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 26, 2017, 09:47:47 AM
It is not illegal to make a gun that you would be allowed to buy. I live in California. My brother lives here too. He follows gun laws and has researched the legality of making his own gun. Currently you are required to get a serial number for your homemade gun from a government agency (a recent change).
How recent is this change? As of 2015, "Under US federal law, transferring a ghost gun is a felony but owning one is allowed, assuming that no other impediments exists.[1] ATF officials characterize this as a loophole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_gun   Legality Section.

A ghost gun is a gun with no traceability like serial numbers.
I'm sure it was within the past couple of years; I think it was more recent than 2015, but I'm not sure. I believe before the change you were allowed to assign your own serial number to the gun rather than having to get one from the government. Prior to the change it was legal to make your own gun and not be required to report it to anyone, now you are legally required to obtain a government issued serial number which creates a record of the gun's existance.

Quote
In 2014, California attempted to enact a law to require serial numbers on unfinished receivers and all other firearms, including antique guns,[16] but it was vetoed by the governor.[17] However, in 2016, it passed a measure requiring anyone planning to build a homemade firearm to obtain a serial number from the state (de facto registration) and pass a background check.[18]

It appears to be a California law, not federal, and was passed last year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_gun
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 26, 2017, 10:00:24 AM
Hello, I'm coming at this from a different angle. I consider myself part of the "Maker" movement. One of the goals of the movement is to increase the common people's access to industrial manufacturing equipment.

So, the scenario I am dealing with is: what is stopping a someone from going on the dark web, getting schematics, going to the local Makerspace and building a gun?

Just throwing some stuff out there.

You mean like this:

https://grabcad.com/library?utf8=✓&query=ar15

Add this for $20K and you're in business:

https://www.tormach.com/store/index.php?app=ecom&ns=catshow&ref=PCNC1100&portrelay=1

Scary huh? That's why regulations for guns won't be nearly as effective as they could have been 50 years ago. Its easy to get all the info and tools.

We're going to need a cultural shift to people who aren't so paranoid or pissed off at their fellow man. Subdue our fascination with guns and conflict some more.

I have no idea how to achieve that.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 26, 2017, 11:13:26 AM
Hello, I'm coming at this from a different angle. I consider myself part of the "Maker" movement. One of the goals of the movement is to increase the common people's access to industrial manufacturing equipment.

So, the scenario I am dealing with is: what is stopping a someone from going on the dark web, getting schematics, going to the local Makerspace and building a gun?

Just throwing some stuff out there.

You mean like this:

https://grabcad.com/library?utf8=✓&query=ar15

Add this for $20K and you're in business:

https://www.tormach.com/store/index.php?app=ecom&ns=catshow&ref=PCNC1100&portrelay=1

Scary huh? That's why regulations for guns won't be nearly as effective as they could have been 50 years ago. Its easy to get all the info and tools.

We're going to need a cultural shift to people who aren't so paranoid or pissed off at their fellow man. Subdue our fascination with guns and conflict some more.

I have no idea how to achieve that.

I'm not sure about scary. I see it as a trade off. Do you empower people and take the risk that some might abuse it? I think it's better to empower people.

But yes, our culture needs to be remade into something healthy.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 26, 2017, 02:46:21 PM
That is just a homemade gun. Federal law basically does not regulate. Only caveat; you can't sell or give it away. I have actually thought about doing this myself; for the novelty and prohibitive cost of collecting firearms.

"Ghost gun" from what I gather is just another made up spooky term like "assault rifle."
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 26, 2017, 02:54:39 PM
That is just a homemade gun. Federal law basically does not regulate. Only caveat; you can't sell or give it away. I have actually thought about doing this myself; for the novelty and prohibitive cost of collecting firearms.

"Ghost gun" from what I gather is just another made up spooky term like "assault rifle."

Assault rifle is a real term.  I have an old Army field manual from the 1970s that gives such a rifle very specific characteristics.  It's "assault weapon" that is political and extremely fluid in its meaning.  The first time I heard of "ghost gun" it was a couple years ago from Democrat Senator who held a press conference saying there are these guns out there that can beat metal detectors.  He didn't have an example, a replica, a photo, or any evidence they actually exist, but damn it we needed to be worried about them and write a law.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 26, 2017, 04:38:45 PM
Also here is Ghost Gunner, selling small CNC machines for 1,200 to machine the base of the gun.

https://ghostgunner.net
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 27, 2017, 06:40:26 AM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/sns-las-vegas-shooting-victim-death-threats-braden-matejka-story.html

Quote
Las Vegas shooting victim slammed with death threats: ‘I hope someone truly shoots you’
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 27, 2017, 07:59:30 AM
There are some truly disturbed people out there. I don't have ANY idea why some are so damn angry all the time. If they don't like their lot in life then change it for the better. Start learning to be someone else!

I say this but remember that I run into people all the time that seem to be incapable of self-teaching themselves anything so if they are a ditch digger then always a ditch digger they'll be.

I have heard SOME reasons why they are angry but none of the reasons I've heard are worth the anger and stress and the time it takes away from life.

Anyone know what the laws are on making PARTS of a gun? Would be easy for someone so politically inclined to setup a little "quilting circle" of gun manufacturing. This one makes the barrel, that one makes the receiver, etc.

I have no interest having anything to do with this sort of thing - but regulating the gun will never get any easier in this country because the tools available to the average person continue to improve and the cost comes down. Too many one man shops out there so if a person was angry about the government and so motivated...
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 27, 2017, 08:42:26 AM
There are some truly disturbed people out there. I don't have ANY idea why some are so damn angry all the time. If they don't like their lot in life then change it for the better. Start learning to be someone else!

I say this but remember that I run into people all the time that seem to be incapable of self-teaching themselves anything so if they are a ditch digger then always a ditch digger they'll be.

I have heard SOME reasons why they are angry but none of the reasons I've heard are worth the anger and stress and the time it takes away from life.

Anyone know what the laws are on making PARTS of a gun? Would be easy for someone so politically inclined to setup a little "quilting circle" of gun manufacturing. This one makes the barrel, that one makes the receiver, etc.

I have no interest having anything to do with this sort of thing - but regulating the gun will never get any easier in this country because the tools available to the average person continue to improve and the cost comes down. Too many one man shops out there so if a person was angry about the government and so motivated...

This guy gets it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 27, 2017, 08:44:35 AM
There are some truly disturbed people out there. I don't have ANY idea why some are so damn angry all the time. If they don't like their lot in life then change it for the better. Start learning to be someone else!

I say this but remember that I run into people all the time that seem to be incapable of self-teaching themselves anything so if they are a ditch digger then always a ditch digger they'll be.

I have heard SOME reasons why they are angry but none of the reasons I've heard are worth the anger and stress and the time it takes away from life.

Anyone know what the laws are on making PARTS of a gun? Would be easy for someone so politically inclined to setup a little "quilting circle" of gun manufacturing. This one makes the barrel, that one makes the receiver, etc.

I have no interest having anything to do with this sort of thing - but regulating the gun will never get any easier in this country because the tools available to the average person continue to improve and the cost comes down. Too many one man shops out there so if a person was angry about the government and so motivated...

Generally parts are just parts, although you can get busted with "intent to manufacture" in specific circumstances. For example, if you have an AR-15 lower without a tax stamp (making short barreled rifles illegal), and you have a short barreled upper in your house, you can get busted for having an illegal gun even though it wasn't actually assembled. If you have a long barreled upper you may be able to argue that it was for a future build and you planned on getting a stamp, but "parts" aren't a get out of jail free card. Granted you can order that short barreled upper no problem, it's just if you get caught with it.

The actual thing that's considered the "gun" and requires background checks and special shipping is the receiver, or the place that has the serial number. On some new pistols they've moved it to be a "trigger housing" so you can change frames easily as well. Anything except that part you can have mailed to your house with no background checks.

There are also "80% receivers" that are partially machined, but aren't usable yet so aren't classified as a gun. You use a drill press and maybe a hydraulic press to finish it out, and as far as the law is concerned it's the same as you milling it all out from scratch. No registration required. If you're a prohibited person and get caught with it you'll still be in trouble, but there's no system stopping you from buying it.

edit: And before anyone comments on how parts should be background checked as well, there's a reason they aren't.  In an AR-15 there are approximately 200 parts, many of which aren't exclusive to the firearm. Requiring a background check for a $2 roll pin, or even a $20 trigger would be incredibly hard not only to enforce, but places very significant restrictions on people who are upgrading, repairing, or modifying their firearms. You could try to narrow it down to "critical" parts, but then you have hundreds of gun designs to consider, and the sheer volume of background checks needed for that is enormous, not to mention the additional cost on relatively cheap parts.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 27, 2017, 10:40:18 AM
The regulations concerning these things sounds like it would take a bookcase of law books to define.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 27, 2017, 04:15:22 PM
There are 9 pages on this thread. Were you people just going back and forth over civil rights and no one asked about building a gun?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on October 27, 2017, 06:37:10 PM
There are 9 pages on this thread. Were you people just going back and forth over civil rights and no one asked about building a gun?

Not everybody knows that it is possible. Up until 3-D printers went mainstream it really wasn't a thing.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 27, 2017, 09:02:59 PM
There are 9 pages on this thread. Were you people just going back and forth over civil rights and no one asked about building a gun?

Not everybody knows that it is possible. Up until 3-D printers went mainstream it really wasn't a thing.

There isn't a machinist or gunsmith on this forum? That may be where our culture went wrong. We're too overspecialized. We don't understand each other because our experiences are so different. Every job looks easy until you actually have to do it.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 28, 2017, 03:18:41 PM
Sure. I'm a machinist, engineer and know the necessary equipment well for making guns.

I have very little interest in gun making though.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 29, 2017, 10:10:19 AM
Sure. I'm a machinist, engineer and know the necessary equipment well for making guns.

I have very little interest in gun making though.

You made an excellent point above. But good to hear.

I was just surprised that the Mr Money Mustache forum, dedicated to DIY and counter culture, nobody pointed out that guns could be built.

Now I wonder if this thread was dying or we legitimately gave gun control advocates something to mull over.

Seems to me that we would have to drastically change the American system if we wanted to prevent shootings by seizing the means of production and instituting draconian punishments.

And even that won't be enough because human ingenuity is infinite and will overcome any obstacle.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 30, 2017, 07:37:14 AM
It's legal to build your own car.  It's illegal to use that car unless it meets specific regulations and is inspected for road worthiness (typically emissions and safety regulations).  If you choose to drive your home built car without following the law then you'll be punished.  The fact that you can make something on your own certainly doesn't preclude the need for regulation of that item.

Again, I don't think that anyone has proposed 'seizing the means of production'.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Davnasty on October 30, 2017, 07:41:29 AM
Sure. I'm a machinist, engineer and know the necessary equipment well for making guns.

I have very little interest in gun making though.

You made an excellent point above. But good to hear.

I was just surprised that the Mr Money Mustache forum, dedicated to DIY and counter culture, nobody pointed out that guns could be built.

Now I wonder if this thread was dying or we legitimately gave gun control advocates something to mull over.

Seems to me that we would have to drastically change the American system if we wanted to prevent shootings by seizing the means of production and instituting draconian punishments.

And even that won't be enough because human ingenuity is infinite and will overcome any obstacle.
While building guns would be a way around gun restrictions, it would not completely nullify them. I'm not making an argument here that certain gun laws would or would not reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, but at least in theory the restrictions would reduce the number of guns out there while very determined people would still find a way to obtain them.

Similar to the nutrition restrictions discussed earlier, if there were restrictions on nutritional content people could just order 2 so it wouldn't force people to be healthier, but it would give them a little push. Obviously the day to day decision of what to eat and deciding to murder is very different, but similar principles apply. When you look at the whole population, at least some of the bad decisions (whether it's killing someone or eating too many fries) are influenced by what's available and how easy it is to obtain.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 30, 2017, 11:17:41 AM
The argument that "SOMEONE could do something to get around regulations" is not a valid argument for no regulations. Someone could choose to drink and drive and kill someone. Should we then say that drunk driving shouldn't be illegal? Or that .08 BAC should be 1.8? No.

Just because someone can and will build their own gun, doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate guns.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 30, 2017, 11:24:37 AM
It's legal to build your own car.  It's illegal to use that car unless it meets specific regulations and is inspected for road worthiness (typically emissions and safety regulations).  If you choose to drive your home built car without following the law then you'll be punished.  The fact that you can make something on your own certainly doesn't preclude the need for regulation of that item.

Again, I don't think that anyone has proposed 'seizing the means of production'.

If it reached the point where we had banned all guns by law and we still had mass shootings, what would be the next logical step?

I'm not advocating seizing the means of production. It would be impossible. Cops would be rummaging around people's barns and basements and still never find all the tools.

Laws seem to try and prevent the last tragedy and never looks forward to the next.

The argument that "SOMEONE could do something to get around regulations" is not a valid argument for no regulations. Someone could choose to drink and drive and kill someone. Should we then say that drunk driving shouldn't be illegal? Or that .08 BAC should be 1.8? No.

Just because someone can and will build their own gun, doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate guns.

If laws are ineffective then we need to rethink them. See if there is a better way of doing them.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 30, 2017, 12:27:22 PM
It's legal to build your own car.  It's illegal to use that car unless it meets specific regulations and is inspected for road worthiness (typically emissions and safety regulations).  If you choose to drive your home built car without following the law then you'll be punished.  The fact that you can make something on your own certainly doesn't preclude the need for regulation of that item.

Again, I don't think that anyone has proposed 'seizing the means of production'.

If it reached the point where we had banned all guns by law and we still had mass shootings, what would be the next logical step?

We haven't reached the point where all guns are banned by law.  It's not something that the majority of people advocating for gun control even want.


I'm not advocating seizing the means of production. It would be impossible. Cops would be rummaging around people's barns and basements and still never find all the tools.

Yep.  But nobody in this thread is advocating for it.  So why did you bring it up?


Laws seem to try and prevent the last tragedy and never looks forward to the next.

Well, yeah.  It's impossible to account for every possible future scenario and a waste of time to try.  It would create reams of oppressive law and legislation that is likely to misunderstand problems (as it's being written well before things become a problem in an attempt to proactively solve them).  We currently react to problems as they arise and try to come up with the most sensible solutions given the available facts.

What you're proposing sounds good in theory, but I suspect it would be a nightmare to live under.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 30, 2017, 03:51:32 PM
It's legal to build your own car.  It's illegal to use that car unless it meets specific regulations and is inspected for road worthiness (typically emissions and safety regulations).  If you choose to drive your home built car without following the law then you'll be punished.  The fact that you can make something on your own certainly doesn't preclude the need for regulation of that item.

Again, I don't think that anyone has proposed 'seizing the means of production'.

If it reached the point where we had banned all guns by law and we still had mass shootings, what would be the next logical step?

We haven't reached the point where all guns are banned by law.  It's not something that the majority of people advocating for gun control even want.


I'm not advocating seizing the means of production. It would be impossible. Cops would be rummaging around people's barns and basements and still never find all the tools.

Yep.  But nobody in this thread is advocating for it.  So why did you bring it up?


Laws seem to try and prevent the last tragedy and never looks forward to the next.

Well, yeah.  It's impossible to account for every possible future scenario and a waste of time to try.  It would create reams of oppressive law and legislation that is likely to misunderstand problems (as it's being written well before things become a problem in an attempt to proactively solve them).  We currently react to problems as they arise and try to come up with the most sensible solutions given the available facts.

What you're proposing sounds good in theory, but I suspect it would be a nightmare to live under.

I see it as focus creep. Gun laws expanded. Mass shooting. Laws expanded. Mass shooting. Draconian laws enacted. Mass shooting. Guns banned. Mass shooting. Well hell. What do we do now? (Commence wild speculation on solutions.)

At the end of the day, I think we need to re-build our culture into something healthy. Stop trying to be famous or needing to be remembered. Rediscover what a "good life" actually is. Move beyond this culture of death and nihilism.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 31, 2017, 07:34:53 AM
Can you roll the clock back though? Everywhere I look in pop culture its sex and violence. How do we break the fascination people have?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on October 31, 2017, 08:04:39 AM
I see it as focus creep. Gun laws expanded. Mass shooting. Laws expanded. Mass shooting. Draconian laws enacted. Mass shooting. Guns banned. Mass shooting. Well hell. What do we do now? (Commence wild speculation on solutions.)

At the end of the day, I think we need to re-build our culture into something healthy. Stop trying to be famous or needing to be remembered. Rediscover what a "good life" actually is. Move beyond this culture of death and nihilism.
You may see it that way, but it isn't true. Drunk driving deaths still happen, and no one is concerned about banning all alcohol or cars. Yet, according to NIH, increasing both preventative (no crime committed yet) and "ex-post" (punishments for the crime) regulations reduced drunk driving fatalities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823314/

Where's the evidence that gun laws would cause an opposite effect?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on October 31, 2017, 08:18:36 AM
I see it as focus creep. Gun laws expanded. Mass shooting. Laws expanded. Mass shooting. Draconian laws enacted. Mass shooting. Guns banned. Mass shooting. Well hell. What do we do now? (Commence wild speculation on solutions.)

At the end of the day, I think we need to re-build our culture into something healthy. Stop trying to be famous or needing to be remembered. Rediscover what a "good life" actually is. Move beyond this culture of death and nihilism.
You may see it that way, but it isn't true. Drunk driving deaths still happen, and no one is concerned about banning all alcohol or cars. Yet, according to NIH, increasing both preventative (no crime committed yet) and "ex-post" (punishments for the crime) regulations reduced drunk driving fatalities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823314/

Where's the evidence that gun laws would cause an opposite effect?

No evidence. Just a straight old "slippery slope" logical fallacy and appeal to emotions.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on October 31, 2017, 08:19:58 AM
I see it as focus creep. Gun laws expanded. Mass shooting. Laws expanded. Mass shooting. Draconian laws enacted. Mass shooting. Guns banned. Mass shooting. Well hell. What do we do now? (Commence wild speculation on solutions.)

At the end of the day, I think we need to re-build our culture into something healthy. Stop trying to be famous or needing to be remembered. Rediscover what a "good life" actually is. Move beyond this culture of death and nihilism.
You may see it that way, but it isn't true. Drunk driving deaths still happen, and no one is concerned about banning all alcohol or cars. Yet, according to NIH, increasing both preventative (no crime committed yet) and "ex-post" (punishments for the crime) regulations reduced drunk driving fatalities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823314/

Where's the evidence that gun laws would cause an opposite effect?

The NRA has acted to block any government funding of research regarding firearms in the US.  To be fair, hat question isn't really answerable at this time with the information available.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 31, 2017, 08:45:40 AM
Can you roll the clock back though? Everywhere I look in pop culture its sex and violence. How do we break the fascination people have?

Well, to start we fund Planned Parenthood. Hit the brakes on population growth. Give people some control over their lives.

Next educate people how money works. Freakonomics found a study that 70% of Americans are financially illiterate. I take that as meaning no amount of help will be enough for some.

I believe if we give people the chance to create things, they will. Find positive outlets for their energy.

Above all be an example of a happy, healthy life because you have discipline and limit your intake of pop culture.

Not everyone will take these suggestions but maybe we could get the bulk of people to be better.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on October 31, 2017, 08:59:59 AM
Can you roll the clock back though? Everywhere I look in pop culture its sex and violence. How do we break the fascination people have?

Well, to start we fund Planned Parenthood. Hit the brakes on population growth. Give people some control over their lives.

Next educate people how money works. Freakonomics found a study that 70% of Americans are financially illiterate. I take that as meaning no amount of help will be enough for some.

I believe if we give people the chance to create things, they will. Find positive outlets for their energy.

Above all be an example of a happy, healthy life because you have discipline and limit your intake of pop culture.

Not everyone will take these suggestions but maybe we could get the bulk of people to be better.

Enjoying a nice Saturday of making your next rifle instead of getting angry about politics or something in the culture you don't like ;)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 31, 2017, 09:46:20 AM
I see it as focus creep. Gun laws expanded. Mass shooting. Laws expanded. Mass shooting. Draconian laws enacted. Mass shooting. Guns banned. Mass shooting. Well hell. What do we do now? (Commence wild speculation on solutions.)

At the end of the day, I think we need to re-build our culture into something healthy. Stop trying to be famous or needing to be remembered. Rediscover what a "good life" actually is. Move beyond this culture of death and nihilism.
You may see it that way, but it isn't true. Drunk driving deaths still happen, and no one is concerned about banning all alcohol or cars. Yet, according to NIH, increasing both preventative (no crime committed yet) and "ex-post" (punishments for the crime) regulations reduced drunk driving fatalities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3823314/

Where's the evidence that gun laws would cause an opposite effect?

The NRA has acted to block any government funding of research regarding firearms in the US.  To be fair, hat question isn't really answerable at this time with the information available.

I would like to point out that research has not been blocked, using research funds to advocate for gun control has. This "block" was passed by congress. The reason they don't do as much research as they used to is because a good portion of the people doing it at the time said things like:

Quote
"This research is designed to, and is used to, promote a campaign to reduce lawful firearms ownership in America"

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.

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.”

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.

“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.

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?

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.


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.”

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 31, 2017, 11:03:30 AM
Can you roll the clock back though? Everywhere I look in pop culture its sex and violence. How do we break the fascination people have?

Well, to start we fund Planned Parenthood. Hit the brakes on population growth. Give people some control over their lives.

Next educate people how money works. Freakonomics found a study that 70% of Americans are financially illiterate. I take that as meaning no amount of help will be enough for some.

I believe if we give people the chance to create things, they will. Find positive outlets for their energy.

Above all be an example of a happy, healthy life because you have discipline and limit your intake of pop culture.

Not everyone will take these suggestions but maybe we could get the bulk of people to be better.

Enjoying a nice Saturday of making your next rifle instead of getting angry about politics or something in the culture you don't like ;)

For some people it is their zen moment.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 31, 2017, 11:48:44 AM
Can you roll the clock back though? Everywhere I look in pop culture its sex and violence. How do we break the fascination people have?

Well, to start we fund Planned Parenthood. Hit the brakes on population growth. Give people some control over their lives.

Next educate people how money works. Freakonomics found a study that 70% of Americans are financially illiterate. I take that as meaning no amount of help will be enough for some.

I believe if we give people the chance to create things, they will. Find positive outlets for their energy.

Above all be an example of a happy, healthy life because you have discipline and limit your intake of pop culture.

Not everyone will take these suggestions but maybe we could get the bulk of people to be better.

Again - how do we make these things happen? Remember at least half of our political leadership talks like Planned Parenthood is the Gestapo. I agree with your  points however. There seems to be an active effort in our country to keep some people distracted and ignorant.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on October 31, 2017, 01:01:29 PM
Can you roll the clock back though? Everywhere I look in pop culture its sex and violence. How do we break the fascination people have?

Well, to start we fund Planned Parenthood. Hit the brakes on population growth. Give people some control over their lives.

Next educate people how money works. Freakonomics found a study that 70% of Americans are financially illiterate. I take that as meaning no amount of help will be enough for some.

I believe if we give people the chance to create things, they will. Find positive outlets for their energy.

Above all be an example of a happy, healthy life because you have discipline and limit your intake of pop culture.

Not everyone will take these suggestions but maybe we could get the bulk of people to be better.

Again - how do we make these things happen? Remember at least half of our political leadership talks like Planned Parenthood is the Gestapo. I agree with your  points however. There seems to be an active effort in our country to keep some people distracted and ignorant.

Although in reality it doesn't usually work this way, there's nothing stopping someone from supporting social programs like Planned Parenthood AND gun rights. The problem as usual is that both parties pander to the extremes of both sides. The right has to pretend planned parenthood is terrible, and the left has to pretend guns are terrible.

After recent dealings with our healthcare system, along with some research, I'm convinced national healthcare is the way to go. I'm also convinced that peoples' right to bear arms is important. Good luck ever finding a Republican willing to publicly support national healthcare, or a Democrat concerned with protecting gun rights.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on October 31, 2017, 01:10:13 PM
Yep - once again the right path is probably moderate and right down the middle. Best ideas of the whole political spectrum and not afraid to look abroad for more new ideas.

So the trick will be to moderate the extremists of all flavors. Good luck - I'm still trying to figure out a way to moderate the opinions of people I'm close to.

The best strategy of DW and I are to distract them and change the subject.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach on October 31, 2017, 03:16:20 PM
Can you roll the clock back though? Everywhere I look in pop culture its sex and violence. How do we break the fascination people have?

Well, to start we fund Planned Parenthood. Hit the brakes on population growth. Give people some control over their lives.

Next educate people how money works. Freakonomics found a study that 70% of Americans are financially illiterate. I take that as meaning no amount of help will be enough for some.

I believe if we give people the chance to create things, they will. Find positive outlets for their energy.

Above all be an example of a happy, healthy life because you have discipline and limit your intake of pop culture.

Not everyone will take these suggestions but maybe we could get the bulk of people to be better.

Again - how do we make these things happen? Remember at least half of our political leadership talks like Planned Parenthood is the Gestapo. I agree with your  points however. There seems to be an active effort in our country to keep some people distracted and ignorant.

The best I can come up with for planned Parenthood is to privately fund it ourselves. That way it's funding is stable and it's no longer a political football.

Getting people to create would work with Makerspaces. Perhaps a class on finance in those as well?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on November 01, 2017, 09:45:47 AM
Maybe host free Saturday workshops at the local library? $5 to register and give their $5 back when they actually attend?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on November 01, 2017, 10:43:22 AM
Long Relevant Post

Is no one going to discuss or address this?...

Prime example of continuing to live within an echo chamber.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 01, 2017, 10:49:38 AM
Long Relevant Post

Is no one going to discuss or address this?...

Yes.

I didn't have time to read through the linked documents yesterday though.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: gentmach 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv 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 (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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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 (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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv 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 (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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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 (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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake 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
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay 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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake 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 (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 (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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Johnez 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.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe 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...
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy 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?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Johnez 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. 


Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ncornilsen 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Johnez 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest 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. 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy 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?

(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23132137_2102630696414564_531958267617706018_n.jpg?oh=6c581c2cc73a324752dbde19fba6a9f1&oe=5AAC8DE6)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest 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).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: BDWW 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?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ncornilsen 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caffeine 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!
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Johnez 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!"
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: accolay 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis 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 (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?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: kingxiaodi 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 (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 (http://www.google.com).

(Sorry if this isn't what you meant)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis 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 (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 (http://www.google.com).

(Sorry if this isn't what you meant)

Perfect. Thanks.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 07:41:57 AM
(http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/laura-conaway2ABFD61D-D27D-1708-BAD0-F56125CDE611.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ncornilsen on November 07, 2017, 07:55:26 AM
(http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/laura-conaway2ABFD61D-D27D-1708-BAD0-F56125CDE611.jpg)

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?





Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ncornilsen 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.)




Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd 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?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv 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.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 09:47:53 AM
(https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2015/07/55.png)

http://time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/

In terms of policy change, there are two that have nearly-100% bipartisan support:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/736/cpsprodpb/E487/production/_98130585_gun_rep_dem_640-nc.png)

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: acroy on November 07, 2017, 09:57:09 AM
I'll quote myself from a month ago.
The shooting here in TX would have been further lessened or prevented by #3 below. I was actually surprised no one in the church shot back. The baddie was chased off and stopped by a couple good guys... with guns.

The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

I used to be anti-gun. Ban 'em all, no reason to have them, etc.

WORSE, (this is embarrassing) I looked to Government for answers to problems. Then I started thinking rationally, and discovered concepts like freedom with responsibility, etc. I'm now about as libertarian as it gets. You don't mess with my life, liberty, property, I won't mess with yours. I want to be a good neighbor to you and I assume you want the same. Government is a very unfortunate parasitical necessity and the smaller the better.

Try this analysis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.aafa76fae251

Gun owners in US have hundreds of millions of guns and TRILLIONS of rounds of ammo. They are not the problem; if they were, the map would be a different color.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on November 07, 2017, 10:06:54 AM
What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2017, 10:12:28 AM
What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.

No, I agree with Acroy.  The solution is to give the mentally ill moar guns.  It's so obvious.  How else will everyone be safe?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Barbaebigode on November 07, 2017, 10:22:38 AM
I'll quote myself from a month ago.
The shooting here in TX would have been further lessened or prevented by #3 below. I was actually surprised no one in the church shot back. The baddie was chased off and stopped by a couple good guys... with guns.

The answer to gun homicide is
1) end gangs
2) stop committing suicide
3) MOAR GUNS

I used to be anti-gun. Ban 'em all, no reason to have them, etc.

WORSE, (this is embarrassing) I looked to Government for answers to problems. Then I started thinking rationally, and discovered concepts like freedom with responsibility, etc. I'm now about as libertarian as it gets. You don't mess with my life, liberty, property, I won't mess with yours. I want to be a good neighbor to you and I assume you want the same. Government is a very unfortunate parasitical necessity and the smaller the better.

Try this analysis:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.aafa76fae251

Gun owners in US have hundreds of millions of guns and TRILLIONS of rounds of ammo. They are not the problem; if they were, the map would be a different color.

So the deadliest mass shooting in Texas's history is a case of success for the "good guy with a gun"? There's optimism, but this is delusion.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on November 07, 2017, 10:36:41 AM
One factor that I think is important to keep in mind that I mentioned earlier in this thread is the effect neighbors seem to have on firearm violence. All of these euro-paradises tend to have neighbors with relatively low violence rates. As far as I know, none of them share a border with a place as violent as Mexico. Is it a coincidence that the US is somewhere between Mexico and Canada in violence? Note I'm not saying all of our problems are Mexico's fault, but this is one example of a unique issue that separates us from the usually compared countries.  Australia, the UK, France, etc all have well behaved neighbors. Is there an example of a country with a lower violence rate than the US who shares a land border with a country with a rate comparable to Mexico? http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1730562/original.jpg Notice how the shades stay relatively in the ballpark of their neighboring countries. Not many dark-light transitions.

Way before Australia's harsh gun laws, it already had way less violent crime than the US did. That gap has not widened with the laws, it's stayed consistent. Both countries have become less violent, if gun laws were really effective in Australia you'd expect the gap to widen. What is the reason for the US's difference to Australia before the gun laws there? If gun laws in the UK, Canada, and Australia changed overnight to be similar to US laws, do you all really think their murder rates would spike by a factor of 5?

I think there are many reasons for the disparity, and planting it all (or most) on guns is just looking for an easy to fix scapegoat. We have a healthcare system that causes the most bankruptcies in our country. We have the most prisoners out of any country in the world. We're literally #1 in prisoners, with more than 5x the incarceration rate as those European nations. Those prisoners are often in private prisons, who have a monetary incentive to bring the prisoners back, so reforming them is actively avoided. Judges have been caught taking bribes to send people to prison. We've got a war on drugs that literally funnels money to gangs in our very violent neighboring country.  The list goes on and on.

There are so many differences between the countries it's ridiculous. One other factor is population. We have roughly 10x the population of Australia, so assuming the two countries were exactly equal we'd expect 10x as many mass shootings in the US as there. France has 1/5 the population we do, and has had two enormous mass murders in the last two years. I get that mass shootings are a relatively small part of the problem in the US, but they are what prompts these discussions. Based purely on our population we should see "mass killing" on the news way more often than a smaller country, so it seems to be a bigger problem than it would in a small country due to news coverage.

But hey, maybe if we just take away everyone's guns, or put magazine limits or waiting periods, or only allow ones made out of wood that are single shot, we'll be just like Australia and our crime rate will drop massively. I doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

/semi-coherent rambling

I'm getting too worked up again, guess it's time for another break.

What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.

That's because the effect of these sorts of laws is that people don't seek out help for mental illness, and try to hide it so they can keep their guns/job/whatever it is. Mentally ill =/= violent. I think it's reasonable that the burden of proof rest on the government to say why they should have a constitutional right taken away. You know, due process. A quote from your article:

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Milkshake on November 07, 2017, 10:58:19 AM
/semi-coherent rambling

I agree there are lots of differences between countries, and not everything is guaranteed to work. But the system literally failed in Texas, so why are people so opposed to trying SOMETHING? Let's see if a few small changes move us in the right direction!

No one said we're taking your guns. No one. If people would stop hugging their guns like teddy bears, we could talk. Anyone says "regulate" and people act like the 1st step is kicking down the door and forcibly taking your guns followed by a slow castration.

That's because the effect of these sorts of laws is that people don't seek out help for mental illness, and try to hide it so they can keep their guns/job/whatever it is. Mentally ill =/= violent. I think it's reasonable that the burden of proof rest on the government to say why they should have a constitutional right taken away. You know, due process. A quote from your article:

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

Then why are they getting my tax money via SS?

Statistically, 100% of people who shoot people intentionally and not in self defense or in military/police service have a mental issue. Thus, I would say it's reasonable to assume that if you have certain mental issues, you don't get access to guns. The article didn't say all mental issues are affected by the law, just ones that are bad enough that these people literally can't take care of themselves without assistance.

We use stats to make preemptive decisions all the time.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 11:28:28 AM
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/06/saints-first-baptist-church-murdered-god-answering-prayers/

God was just answering those people's prayers says one pastor.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2017, 11:33:58 AM
One factor that I think is important to keep in mind that I mentioned earlier in this thread is the effect neighbors seem to have on firearm violence. All of these euro-paradises tend to have neighbors with relatively low violence rates. As far as I know, none of them share a border with a place as violent as Mexico. Is it a coincidence that the US is somewhere between Mexico and Canada in violence? Note I'm not saying all of our problems are Mexico's fault, but this is one example of a unique issue that separates us from the usually compared countries.  Australia, the UK, France, etc all have well behaved neighbors. Is there an example of a country with a lower violence rate than the US who shares a land border with a country with a rate comparable to Mexico? http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1730562/original.jpg Notice how the shades stay relatively in the ballpark of their neighboring countries. Not many dark-light transitions.

Way before Australia's harsh gun laws

Could you point out exactly what is harsh about Australia's current gun laws?


If gun laws in the UK, Canada, and Australia changed overnight to be similar to US laws, do you all really think their murder rates would spike by a factor of 5?

No, not overnight.  It would be quite surprising if over a 15 - 20 year period gun crime rates didn't significantly increase in all countries though.



I think there are many reasons for the disparity, and planting it all (or most) on guns is just looking for an easy to fix scapegoat. We have a healthcare system that causes the most bankruptcies in our country. We have the most prisoners out of any country in the world. We're literally #1 in prisoners, with more than 5x the incarceration rate as those European nations. Those prisoners are often in private prisons, who have a monetary incentive to bring the prisoners back, so reforming them is actively avoided. Judges have been caught taking bribes to send people to prison. We've got a war on drugs that literally funnels money to gangs in our very violent neighboring country.  The list goes on and on.

Agreed, gun controls and regulation are a piece of the solution - not the whole solution.



There are so many differences between the countries it's ridiculous. One other factor is population. We have roughly 10x the population of Australia, so assuming the two countries were exactly equal we'd expect 10x as many mass shootings in the US as there. France has 1/5 the population we do, and has had two enormous mass murders in the last two years. I get that mass shootings are a relatively small part of the problem in the US, but they are what prompts these discussions. Based purely on our population we should see "mass killing" on the news way more often than a smaller country, so it seems to be a bigger problem than it would in a small country due to news coverage.

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4130310/gun%20deaths%20preventable.jpg)



But hey, maybe if we just take away everyone's guns, or put magazine limits or waiting periods, or only allow ones made out of wood that are single shot, we'll be just like Australia and our crime rate will drop massively. I doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

I don't think that any single piece of legislation in the US is likely to cause crime rate to massively drop.  I don't think that anyone in this thread has made that claim.  Gun control is a small, but important part of the solution to gun violence.

What's frustrating is supposedly everyone agrees the mentally ill shouldn't have access to guns, but then this happens:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/28/517799119/trump-repeals-rule-designed-to-block-gun-sales-to-certain-mentally-ill-people

While I realize this was back in Feb, why was this regulation removed? You get benefits from SS for your illness, and you can't even manage your own finances, but you still deserve the unalienable right to a gun. This is asinine.

That's because the effect of these sorts of laws is that people don't seek out help for mental illness, and try to hide it so they can keep their guns/job/whatever it is. Mentally ill =/= violent. I think it's reasonable that the burden of proof rest on the government to say why they should have a constitutional right taken away. You know, due process. A quote from your article:

As we have reported, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, a leading supporter of the rule's repeal, has stated that "if a specific individual is likely to be violent due to the nature of their mental illness, then the government should have to prove it."

I agree with your comment, that there could be knock-on effects by banning the mentally ill from holding guns.  These are valid concerns and should be studied before implementing any legislation (although my suspicion is that the lack of public education deters far more people from seeking help for mental illness than any potential weapons prohibition).

The problem with Senator Grassley's comment is that mental illness is difficult to gauge.  Clinical psychology is a pseudo-science and asking ten different professionals will yield widely varying opinions.  Honest question for you. . . do you really believe that there is a good reason for the diagnosed mentally ill to legally own and use firearms?  Even if they don't show signs of violent intent . . . given the current suicide rate with guns I'd think that there should be significant reason to pause and consider what's best for society.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on November 07, 2017, 11:36:25 AM

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 11:51:41 AM
One factor that I think is important to keep in mind that I mentioned earlier in this thread is the effect neighbors seem to have on firearm violence. All of these euro-paradises tend to have neighbors with relatively low violence rates. As far as I know, none of them share a border with a place as violent as Mexico. Is it a coincidence that the US is somewhere between Mexico and Canada in violence? Note I'm not saying all of our problems are Mexico's fault, but this is one example of a unique issue that separates us from the usually compared countries.  Australia, the UK, France, etc all have well behaved neighbors. Is there an example of a country with a lower violence rate than the US who shares a land border with a country with a rate comparable to Mexico? http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1730562/original.jpg Notice how the shades stay relatively in the ballpark of their neighboring countries. Not many dark-light transitions.

Way before Australia's harsh gun laws, it already had way less violent crime than the US did. That gap has not widened with the laws, it's stayed consistent. Both countries have become less violent, if gun laws were really effective in Australia you'd expect the gap to widen. What is the reason for the US's difference to Australia before the gun laws there? If gun laws in the UK, Canada, and Australia changed overnight to be similar to US laws, do you all really think their murder rates would spike by a factor of 5?

I think there are many reasons for the disparity, and planting it all (or most) on guns is just looking for an easy to fix scapegoat. We have a healthcare system that causes the most bankruptcies in our country. We have the most prisoners out of any country in the world. We're literally #1 in prisoners, with more than 5x the incarceration rate as those European nations. Those prisoners are often in private prisons, who have a monetary incentive to bring the prisoners back, so reforming them is actively avoided. Judges have been caught taking bribes to send people to prison. We've got a war on drugs that literally funnels money to gangs in our very violent neighboring country.  The list goes on and on.

There are so many differences between the countries it's ridiculous. One other factor is population. We have roughly 10x the population of Australia, so assuming the two countries were exactly equal we'd expect 10x as many mass shootings in the US as there. France has 1/5 the population we do, and has had two enormous mass murders in the last two years. I get that mass shootings are a relatively small part of the problem in the US, but they are what prompts these discussions. Based purely on our population we should see "mass killing" on the news way more often than a smaller country, so it seems to be a bigger problem than it would in a small country due to news coverage.

But hey, maybe if we just take away everyone's guns, or put magazine limits or waiting periods, or only allow ones made out of wood that are single shot, we'll be just like Australia and our crime rate will drop massively. I doubt it, but I guess it's possible.

/semi-coherent rambling

Ok, going to try to dissect this.  There's 1) some sort of tacit blame on the violent neighbors to our south and their gangs?  2) News coverage is over-exploiting that we average 1 mass shooting per day in America? 3) The crime rate is to blame?

I don't know.  I'm confused.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Here are some key facts:

Quote
Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.

That's absurd.  A country with 4-4.5% of the world's population should not have nearly 1/3 of all mass shooters.

Quote
Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

So we're as good as Yemen?  What a benchmark to hit.

(https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/11/06/interpreter-guns-capita/824e02668870e6aa07f15aacb3ee9d359d3c9349/chart_totals_capita-Artboard_2.png)

Quote
Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.

Quote
If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

Quote
America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Some in this thread have suggested violent crime is the problem.  The crime rate is just too high.

Quote
But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

Quote
They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

Quote
More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

Quote
This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

I actually don't like that last line because a person still has to pull the trigger, but certainly "access to guns" can make the violence worse and more deadly.

Quote
So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

As with any crime, the underlying risk is impossible to fully erase. Any individual can snap or become entranced by a violent ideology. What is different is the likelihood that this will lead to mass murder.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

Quote
“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

The article at the points out we stand out with two other nations - Mexico and Guatemala - in our approach to guns as an inherent right.  Every other country on this planet views the right to own a gun as something that must be earned and that the people who wish to buy guns and ammo must prove they are capable of handling these killing machines in a responsible manner.

The main takeaway from the article is that easier access to guns = more deaths.  America does not have more crime than other countries, just more violent ones because of the access to guns.  America does not have more people with mental illness, we just allow those people almost no barriers to purchasing guns.

The solution is very simple - if you care at all about lowering the rate of our absurdly high gun death rate, then we must make it more difficult to purchase guns and ammo.  That is a fact that you cannot dispute.  If you're going to argue otherwise you are OK with our citizens being 25x more likely to die from a gun than any other developed nation.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 11:52:56 AM

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on November 07, 2017, 12:13:40 PM
/semi-coherent rambling

I agree there are lots of differences between countries, and not everything is guaranteed to work. But the system literally failed in Texas, so why are people so opposed to trying SOMETHING? Let's see if a few small changes move us in the right direction!

No one said we're taking your guns. No one. If people would stop hugging their guns like teddy bears, we could talk. Anyone says "regulate" and people act like the 1st step is kicking down the door and forcibly taking your guns followed by a slow castration.

And as we've said numerous times in this thread, the whole "Let's just try something" is going to end up being an endless dance. The current system failed due to a procedural error, not an error in design. No new system is going to fix that.

Quote
Then why are they getting my tax money via SS?

Statistically, 100% of people who shoot people intentionally and not in self defense or in military/police service have a mental issue. Thus, I would say it's reasonable to assume that if you have certain mental issues, you don't get access to guns. The article didn't say all mental issues are affected by the law, just ones that are bad enough that these people literally can't take care of themselves without assistance.

We use stats to make preemptive decisions all the time.

Because giving people benefits has a much lower bar set than taking away their constitutional rights. Should they also have their kids taken away? I mean, apparently they're all dangerous, so that should be a given, shouldn't it? Or should an actual trial take place on an individual basis, and due process be done?

Could you point out exactly what is harsh about Australia's current gun laws?

Whatever adjective you want to use is fine, Australia has much tougher gun laws than the US. Despite these tougher laws, the gap between the two in violent crime has remained constant. Why is it that the US has decreased at the same rate as Australia despite having much laxer gun laws?

Quote
No, not overnight.  It would be quite surprising if over a 15 - 20 year period gun crime rates didn't significantly increase in all countries though.

If gun crime is what you're concerned with, sure. If overall crime is more what you're worried about, I don't think so.

Quote
Agreed, gun controls and regulation are a piece of the solution - not the whole solution.

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4130310/gun%20deaths%20preventable.jpg)

Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

France had an incident in 2016 where 86 people were killed and over 400 were injured. Scaling for population that's the equivalent of 430 people being killed and over 2000 being injured in the US. Which one sounds worse? They had an incident in 2015 where 130 were killed and 350 were injured. In US numbers that would be 650 killed and 1750 injured. Or you could also say the US could have had 5 of those tragedies each of those years, and still be at the same level as France. Yet 5 per year sounds, well, 5 times worse than the 1 France had. The US could have had 4 tragedies of 100 deaths and 400 injured in 2016, and yet they would have been less severe on a population basis than France's 1 incident. Which country do you think the news would say is more dangerous though?

Absolute numbers matter in how people perceive things. The US is 5-10x bigger than virtually every country it's compared to, so the problem is magnified by a factor of 5-10 when they are compared using absolute numbers.

I'd also argue that defining "mass shooting" as anywhere where 4 people are injured by a gun is misleading. It's not that the info isn't valuable, but "mass shooting" conjures up a certain image in people's heads, and usually it's not a gang fight, convenience store robbery, or domestic argument.

There's also the fact that so many comparisons focus on gun violence, when we should be looking at overall violence. If one neighborhood near me has 2 gun murders in the last 10 years, and that's all, and the other neighborhood near me has 100 baseball bat murders every 6 months, I'd be inclined to take my walks in the first neighborhood, despite the infinitely higher rate of gun violence. Again, these stats are used for marketing. The US having 10000x as many gun deaths as Australia sounds way better than saying we have 5x as many homicides.

Quote
I don't think that any single piece of legislation in the US is likely to cause crime rate to massively drop.  I don't think that anyone in this thread has made that claim.  Gun control is a small, but important part of the solution to gun violence.


I agree with your comment, that there could be knock-on effects by banning the mentally ill from holding guns.  These are valid concerns and should be studied before implementing any legislation (although my suspicion is that the lack of public education deters far more people from seeking help for mental illness than any potential weapons prohibition).

The problem with Senator Grassley's comment is that mental illness is difficult to gauge.  Clinical psychology is a pseudo-science and asking ten different professionals will yield widely varying opinions.  Honest question for you. . . do you really believe that there is a good reason for the diagnosed mentally ill to legally own and use firearms?  Even if they don't show signs of violent intent . . . given the current suicide rate with guns I'd think that there should be significant reason to pause and consider what's best for society.

So clinical psychology is pseudoscience, yet we should give them veto power to constitutional rights? What?

Due process is a big deal in America. We have a court system for a reason. Letting a psychologist make a unilateral decision on someone's constitutional rights is a really big deal.

As for whether there's a good reason for them to own a gun, I'd say the same reasons as anyone else, and reason doesn't matter. If there is a good reason to deny them that right, let the court system do it, not a single pseudoscientist. Again, this doesn't get around people not seeking help for their illness because of fear either.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2017, 12:16:44 PM

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.

There are very legitimate concerns regarding the transparency and accountability of the government regarding no-fly lists.  Several serious mistakes have already been recorded with them.  I'm saying that without a hint of being a conspiracy theorist, and with the believe that guns should be better regulated.  This is not a post you want to hitch your horse on.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 12:17:49 PM
Quote

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4130310/gun%20deaths%20preventable.jpg)

Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

You...you do realize the chart says PER 100,000?  It's already factoring in population.  So your "but, but...population!" counter argument is bunk plain and simple.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on November 07, 2017, 12:26:28 PM
Ok, going to try to dissect this.  There's 1) some sort of tacit blame on the violent neighbors to our south and their gangs?  2) News coverage is over-exploiting that we average 1 mass shooting per day in America? 3) The crime rate is to blame?

I don't know.  I'm confused.

If person A lives in a neighborhood that is bordered by a slum with an insanely high crime rate, and person B lives in a neighborhood in the middle of Beverly hills bordered by 10 miles of millionaires, which person likely has a higher crime rate in their neighborhood?

The world map shows it as well. As I asked, what other country that has a homicide rate like all of these European countries borders a place with over 20 murders /100,000 people?

News in America is reporting on every thing that happens in a country of 300,000 people. News in Australia is reporting on 1/10th of that. Assuming they each report on the same amount of gun violence per population, you'd expect American news to be reporting on it 10x as often, assuming the rates were the same. (of course they are not the same, but this is to show the magnitude of the difference you get based purely on population).

Quote
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html

Here are some key facts:

Quote
Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.

That's absurd.  A country with 4-4.5% of the world's population should not have nearly 1/3 of all mass shooters.

Quote
Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

So we're as good as Yemen?  What a benchmark to hit.

[img]https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2017/11/06/interpreter-guns-capita/824e02668870e6aa07f15aacb3ee9d359d3c9349/chart_totals_capita-Artboard_2.png[img]

Quote
Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.

Quote
If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

Quote
America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Some in this thread have suggested violent crime is the problem.  The crime rate is just too high.

Quote
But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

Quote
They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

Quote
More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

Key point here being "When controlling for crime rates." Who gives a shit if the person kills you with a knife, or a gun, or their bare hands?

Quote
Quote
This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

I actually don't like that last line because a person still has to pull the trigger, but certainly "access to guns" can make the violence worse and more deadly.

See to me it suggests that guns cause GUN VIOLENCE, which is obvious. What I'm more concerned with is just plain old violence. 50 people getting chopped up by axes isn't any better to me than 50 people being shot.

Quote
Quote
So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

As with any crime, the underlying risk is impossible to fully erase. Any individual can snap or become entranced by a violent ideology. What is different is the likelihood that this will lead to mass murder.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

Quote
“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

The article at the points out we stand out with two other nations - Mexico and Guatemala - in our approach to guns as an inherent right.  Every other country on this planet views the right to own a gun as something that must be earned and that the people who wish to buy guns and ammo must prove they are capable of handling these killing machines in a responsible manner.

The main takeaway from the article is that easier access to guns = more deaths.  America does not have more crime than other countries, just more violent ones because of the access to guns.  America does not have more people with mental illness, we just allow those people almost no barriers to purchasing guns.

The solution is very simple - if you care at all about lowering the rate of our absurdly high gun death rate, then we must make it more difficult to purchase guns and ammo.  That is a fact that you cannot dispute.  If you're going to argue otherwise you are OK with our citizens being 25x more likely to die from a gun than any other developed nation.
[/quote]

The takeaway is that more guns = more gun deaths. That's a very important distinction. We have as  you said the highest firearm ownership rate in the world, but far fewer deaths than a shitload of other countries. That tells me there are likely other factors involved.

We could take away knives to reduce all knife deaths, but that doesn't mean overall deaths will decrease.

Quote

There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:

[img]https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4130310/gun%20deaths%20preventable.jpg[/mg]

Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

You...you do realize the chart says PER 100,000?  It's already factoring in population.  So your "but, but...population!" counter argument is bunk plain and simple.

Yes I'm aware of that. I never said the US didn't have a high rate. I said the disparity is artificially inflated by the population, as even in this thread absolute statistics have been used numerous times (for example, in the post I replied to with the 1 per day stat).

Let's say the US has 5x as many murders as Australia (about right). Assuming news companies love covering murders, the US would have roughly 50x as many murders covered on the news as Australia due to our population, rather than the 5x that is reflective of the actual increase. 50 is more than 5, and exaggerates the disparity.


Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.

So just to clarify, taking away constitutional rights without a trial, or any burden of proof, or transparency in how the decision was made, is totally fine? Being against that is tinfoil hat territory?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2017, 12:54:44 PM
Could you point out exactly what is harsh about Australia's current gun laws?

Whatever adjective you want to use is fine, Australia has much tougher gun laws than the US. Despite these tougher laws, the gap between the two in violent crime has remained constant. Why is it that the US has decreased at the same rate as Australia despite having much laxer gun laws?

The US has some of the most lax gun control laws in the world.

The best chart I can find comparing the US and Australia (something which you earlier argued could not be done because of differences in the countries) is here:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf/page1-1200px-Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf.jpg)

Gun deaths in the US have not decreased at the same rate as Australia.  At the same time it's unclear if the gun death rate in Australia decreased because of the gun laws or if it would have naturally fallen for other reasons.



Quote
No, not overnight.  It would be quite surprising if over a 15 - 20 year period gun crime rates didn't significantly increase in all countries though.

If gun crime is what you're concerned with, sure. If overall crime is more what you're worried about, I don't think so.

Well, we are (and have been) discussing gun deaths in this thread.  There will always be some sort of crime as long as there are people.  There is a difference between an angry man with access to several semi-automatic rifles, and an angry man with access to a knife.  Sure, tragedy is certainly possible in both cases . . . but deadliness is reduced in the latter.



Quote
There has been more than a mass shooting a day in the US for more than half a decade.  That's a lot.  Per 100,000 people . . . US numbers still seem abnormally high:

(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4130310/gun%20deaths%20preventable.jpg)

Yes the US numbers are high. My point is they are made to seem artificially higher by our population. For example your 1/day statistic. If Australia had the same rate as the US, it'd be 36/year instead of 365. 3 a month vs every day. That's a HUGE difference when it comes to perception, yet is the exact same per population.

My numbers already factor in population.  That's what 'per 100,000' means.  It is not the same in the US even when you factor in population.



I'd also argue that defining "mass shooting" as anywhere where 4 people are injured by a gun is misleading. It's not that the info isn't valuable, but "mass shooting" conjures up a certain image in people's heads, and usually it's not a gang fight, convenience store robbery, or domestic argument.

You'll have to take that up with the FBI.  I just use their definition.



There's also the fact that so many comparisons focus on gun violence, when we should be looking at overall violence. If one neighborhood near me has 2 gun murders in the last 10 years, and that's all, and the other neighborhood near me has 100 baseball bat murders every 6 months, I'd be inclined to take my walks in the first neighborhood, despite the infinitely higher rate of gun violence. Again, these stats are used for marketing. The US having 10000x as many gun deaths as Australia sounds way better than saying we have 5x as many homicides.

Agreed.  But there is a clear problem with gun deaths in the US.  They are much higher than baseball bat deaths.  They are higher than other countries even accounting for population.



Quote
I don't think that any single piece of legislation in the US is likely to cause crime rate to massively drop.  I don't think that anyone in this thread has made that claim.  Gun control is a small, but important part of the solution to gun violence.

I agree with your comment, that there could be knock-on effects by banning the mentally ill from holding guns.  These are valid concerns and should be studied before implementing any legislation (although my suspicion is that the lack of public education deters far more people from seeking help for mental illness than any potential weapons prohibition).

The problem with Senator Grassley's comment is that mental illness is difficult to gauge.  Clinical psychology is a pseudo-science and asking ten different professionals will yield widely varying opinions.  Honest question for you. . . do you really believe that there is a good reason for the diagnosed mentally ill to legally own and use firearms?  Even if they don't show signs of violent intent . . . given the current suicide rate with guns I'd think that there should be significant reason to pause and consider what's best for society.

So clinical psychology is pseudoscience, yet we should give them veto power to constitutional rights? What?

Due process is a big deal in America. We have a court system for a reason. Letting a psychologist make a unilateral decision on someone's constitutional rights is a really big deal.

I agree with you absolutely on these points.  However, this goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

At the moment, clinical psychology is the best available way to diagnose mental instability.  It is currently used to determine if someone is unfit to drive, unfit to marry, unfit to manage their finances, etc.  If we are currently trusting it to make these sweeping decisions, then I fail to understand why everything should be different regarding gun ownership.  Now, if you have a better way to diagnose (and especially treat) mental problems . . . I'm going to back you all the way and push for psychology to change.  Again though, that discussion is out of scope.



As for whether there's a good reason for them to own a gun, I'd say the same reasons as anyone else, and reason doesn't matter. If there is a good reason to deny them that right, let the court system do it, not a single pseudoscientist. Again, this doesn't get around people not seeking help for their illness because of fear either.

We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on November 07, 2017, 01:24:05 PM
The best chart I can find comparing the US and Australia (something which you earlier argued could not be done because of differences in the countries) is here:

[mg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf/page1-1200px-Gun_Deaths_by_Year%2C_Australia%2C_America.pdf.jpgimg]

Gun deaths in the US have not decreased at the same rate as Australia.  At the same time it's unclear if the gun death rate in Australia decreased because of the gun laws or if it would have naturally fallen for other reasons.

The problem is you're looking at gun death rates. Look again at just murder/homicide rates. The numbers are roughly the same, although not exact.

Quote
Well, we are (and have been) discussing gun deaths in this thread.  There will always be some sort of crime as long as there are people.  There is a difference between an angry man with access to several semi-automatic rifles, and an angry man with access to a knife.  Sure, tragedy is certainly possible in both cases . . . but deadliness is reduced in the latter.

Except there is far more than a knife available to angry people. Cars, trucks, bomb making equipment.

Quote
My numbers already factor in population.  That's what 'per 100,000' means.  It is not the same in the US even when you factor in population.

Yes I get that. See my response to the person above.


Quote
You'll have to take that up with the FBI.  I just use their definition.

If we want to split hairs the FBI defines a mass killing (3 or more killed), not mass shootings. Mass shootings are defined and data collected by a 3rd party, and include injured which the FBI does not.

My point about the perception still stands.

Quote
Agreed.  But there is a clear problem with gun deaths in the US.  They are much higher than baseball bat deaths.  They are higher than other countries even accounting for population.

Yes, but as we discussed earlier in the thread, most people who commit gun crimes commit other violent crimes first. I think attempting to prevent all of it is the way to go, but your point is taken.

Quote
I agree with you absolutely on these points.  However, this goes beyond the scope of this discussion.

At the moment, clinical psychology is the best available way to diagnose mental instability.  It is currently used to determine if someone is unfit to drive, unfit to marry, unfit to manage their finances, etc.  If we are currently trusting it to make these sweeping decisions, then I fail to understand why everything should be different regarding gun ownership.  Now, if you have a better way to diagnose (and especially treat) mental problems . . . I'm going to back you all the way and push for psychology to change.  Again though, that discussion is out of scope.

Agreed. I just get very hesitant when talking about taking away people's rights without a trial. That's a very big deal, and not something to be taken lightly.

Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 01:30:15 PM
We could take away knives to reduce all knife deaths, but that doesn't mean overall deaths will decrease.

JFC.  Of those 3 that you listed, which allows a murderer to kill the most people in the shortest amount of time?  This isn't hard.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on November 07, 2017, 01:51:54 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.
Because it's still ludicrous to not have a searchable database of all registered guns rather then requiring it to be manual because the boogeyman of "they'll come get my guns if we do that" always gets tossed up there.  I'm all for as little as possible too, but let's let the little include the blatantly obvious stupid things that are missed because of made up hysterics about what would happen if we had digital records and how the Nazis are our example of why this is bad.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on November 07, 2017, 02:04:20 PM

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

There's a take I didn't expect to read today - disbanding the no fly and terrorist watch lists.

Go back to Mommy's basement and put your tin foil hat on.
Missed my point.

No fly list is (not getting into another tangent but...) generally ok; however expanding that same list to include things like not being able to exercise other personal liberties is egregious.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on November 07, 2017, 02:09:14 PM

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

This is what never makes any sense to me.  If you've got nothing to hide who cares what list you're on?  I'm not walking around worrying about what list I get placed on.  If I've got a government that uses a list to do inappropriate things to me then it's the same arguement all the no regulation gun advocates spout off; "the criminals will break the rules".  If they use the "secret government list" to encroach on personal liberty we've already passed the point of tyrannical government and they'd be doing things to me with or without a list.  The list is not the enabler.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 07, 2017, 02:20:17 PM
Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.

Rights are not absolute.  It's a (commonly made) mistake to think of them in this way.

As a society we choose which rights people will have.  To do this we need to take into account a lot of different factors.  One of them is certainly need.  In this way, rights do work based on need.

To answer your question about police, I'd say that the need to have a home free of the violence and noise associated with a police raid is the driving force behind the laws written to prevent wanton acts by police.  It's balanced by the need of the police to raid homes where they have evidence of wrongdoing by requiring a court order.

Someone needs a swastika flag to identify themselves as a white supremacist, or more generally an asshole.  Their need is met by our current societal rules regarding free speech.  In Germany they made a different decision (perhaps understandably given their history).

The last question regarding 'talking badly about other races or religions' is kinda a tough one.  There are laws regarding hate speech, slander, and libel.  There is also a need for free discussion of ideas (if only to clearly demonstrate why holding racist attitudes is wrong).  Again, society has to choose a balance.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Midwest on November 07, 2017, 02:30:13 PM

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

This is what never makes any sense to me.  If you've got nothing to hide who cares what list you're on?  I'm not walking around worrying about what list I get placed on.  If I've got a government that uses a list to do inappropriate things to me then it's the same arguement all the no regulation gun advocates spout off; "the criminals will break the rules".  If they use the "secret government list" to encroach on personal liberty we've already passed the point of tyrannical government and they'd be doing things to me with or without a list.  The list is not the enabler.

What if you've done nothing and still end up on the list?  Good luck getting off.  This is the same list the ACLU has called unconstitutional.

https://www.cnet.com/news/theres-no-getting-off-that-no-fly-list/
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: caracarn on November 07, 2017, 02:35:36 PM

Two easy wins that almost everyone is on board with - preventing those with mental illness from purchasing a gun and preventing those on no-fly / terrorist watch lists from purchasing a gun.  Will it stop every mass shooting in the future?  No, of course not.  But if it prevents even one isn't it worth it?

Sounds great. Secret government list = loss of personal liberty; sign me up!

This is what never makes any sense to me.  If you've got nothing to hide who cares what list you're on?  I'm not walking around worrying about what list I get placed on.  If I've got a government that uses a list to do inappropriate things to me then it's the same arguement all the no regulation gun advocates spout off; "the criminals will break the rules".  If they use the "secret government list" to encroach on personal liberty we've already passed the point of tyrannical government and they'd be doing things to me with or without a list.  The list is not the enabler.

What if you've done nothing and still end up on the list?  Good luck getting off.  This is the same list the ACLU has called unconstitutional.

https://www.cnet.com/news/theres-no-getting-off-that-no-fly-list/
That is a good point.  I'm not talking about the no fly list which is clearly made for a purpose of restricting the ability to do something (fly).  My frustration is this concern with simply registering a gun and being in that list.  That list is only then intended to be used in the event a weapon is used inappropriately.  The purpose of the list is not restrictive for its existence.  So my point was if I own a gun they can put me on that list of gun owner with these guns.   
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: ooeei on November 07, 2017, 02:37:44 PM
Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.

Rights are not absolute.  It's a (commonly made) mistake to think of them in this way.

As a society we choose which rights people will have.  To do this we need to take into account a lot of different factors.  One of them is certainly need.  In this way, rights do work based on need.

To answer your question about police, I'd say that the need to have a home free of the violence and noise associated with a police raid is the driving force behind the laws written to prevent wanton acts by police.  It's balanced by the need of the police to raid homes where they have evidence of wrongdoing by requiring a court order.

Someone needs a swastika flag to identify themselves as a white supremacist, or more generally an asshole.  Their need is met by our current societal rules regarding free speech.  In Germany they made a different decision (perhaps understandably given their history).

The last question regarding 'talking badly about other races or religions' is kinda a tough one.  There are laws regarding hate speech, slander, and libel.  There is also a need for free discussion of ideas (if only to clearly demonstrate why holding racist attitudes is wrong).  Again, society has to choose a balance.

True, you make a good point, I went a bit outside of our conversation, and you're of course right that rights aren't absolute. Need is a component (although not always necessary) of considerations when discussing what rights people do/should have.

In any case, it's rare to single out groups of people who we restrict rights on without a fair trial, and holding them to a different standard of "needing" something seems out of place. If the right to bear arms is considered important and worth protecting for the general population, I think that applies to everyone until they are deemed to be unfit by a court, not because someone says "well why would they need it anyway?"

"Why would they need it?" is not a compelling argument for restricting rights from a portion of the population without fair trial.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 06:21:01 PM
https://twitter.com/repdinatitus/status/927973090201567232

Well, no need to wonder anymore - Republicans don't give a shit about reducing gun violence.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 07, 2017, 06:23:49 PM
I was actually surprised no one in the church shot back.

(If that's get me banned/suspended so be it.)

Dude. Go fuck yourself.

MOD EDIT: That doesn't help reasonable debate. If you have a problem, explain why. Thanks!
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: scottish on November 07, 2017, 08:11:56 PM
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

Self defense is perhaps the primary reason American gun enthusiasts insist on their firearms.   Why wouldn't they have them in church?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on November 07, 2017, 08:40:03 PM
Well, the conversation has turned in a very difficult direction in Texas around how to best protect a church congregation.  The consensus seems to be that metal detectors are inappropriate (although probably the most practical solution), armed security guards send the wrong message (although, sans metal detectors, you need something).  So we are back to a more organized version of having an armed congregation.  Definitely not the direction I was hoping for, so maybe worshiping at home is the best option for my family.  Certainly safer than the current alternative.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Radagast on November 07, 2017, 11:26:43 PM
So, I am kinda wondering about my suggestion from up-thread. It seems to me like it would address the stickiest issues raised by both sides. Is there a reason this would not work?

How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.

Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. Honorable military dischargees could automatically qualify, or automatically qualify for the first level. Maybe a restriction of five purchases in a trailing five-year period to discourage high volume black marketers.

This could allow all the "uninfringed" stuff and still add a modicum of de-centralized regulation, in the form of a 4-person jury that you personally select from among all the citizens of the US.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 08, 2017, 07:28:57 AM
So, I am kinda wondering about my suggestion from up-thread. It seems to me like it would address the stickiest issues raised by both sides. Is there a reason this would not work?

How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.

Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. Honorable military dischargees could automatically qualify, or automatically qualify for the first level. Maybe a restriction of five purchases in a trailing five-year period to discourage high volume black marketers.

This could allow all the "uninfringed" stuff and still add a modicum of de-centralized regulation, in the form of a 4-person jury that you personally select from among all the citizens of the US.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.

In principal this sounds like a reasonable idea to me.  My only change to the idea would be that you lose the right to recommend someone for a seven year period if anyone you recommended uses their weapon in a crime (to prevent people who think that guns should be available for everyone from offering to recommend people they don't or hardly know).













Quote
We're talking about the tradeoffs between safety and rights.  The need to own a gun certainly matters in this deliberation.

Society has decided that nobody can buy land mines (even on private property) . . . because public safety trumped the personal safety/defense that landmines offer.  Society has decided that anyone can buy and use a car on private property because private need trumped public safety issues.

There's always a tradeoff.  In this instance you're saying 'Because freedom" and then sticking your hands over your ears.  That's not a very persuasive argument.

No I'm saying our rights don't work based on a need. Why would anyone need to disallow cops from entering their home? If they've done nothing wrong they shouldn't worry, right? What is required to take that right away from someone? A court order.

Why would anyone need a swatstika flag? Why does anyone need to talk badly about other races or religions?

As above, this is out of the scope of this conversation, but oh well.

Rights are not absolute.  It's a (commonly made) mistake to think of them in this way.

As a society we choose which rights people will have.  To do this we need to take into account a lot of different factors.  One of them is certainly need.  In this way, rights do work based on need.

To answer your question about police, I'd say that the need to have a home free of the violence and noise associated with a police raid is the driving force behind the laws written to prevent wanton acts by police.  It's balanced by the need of the police to raid homes where they have evidence of wrongdoing by requiring a court order.

Someone needs a swastika flag to identify themselves as a white supremacist, or more generally an asshole.  Their need is met by our current societal rules regarding free speech.  In Germany they made a different decision (perhaps understandably given their history).

The last question regarding 'talking badly about other races or religions' is kinda a tough one.  There are laws regarding hate speech, slander, and libel.  There is also a need for free discussion of ideas (if only to clearly demonstrate why holding racist attitudes is wrong).  Again, society has to choose a balance.

True, you make a good point, I went a bit outside of our conversation, and you're of course right that rights aren't absolute. Need is a component (although not always necessary) of considerations when discussing what rights people do/should have.

In any case, it's rare to single out groups of people who we restrict rights on without a fair trial, and holding them to a different standard of "needing" something seems out of place. If the right to bear arms is considered important and worth protecting for the general population, I think that applies to everyone until they are deemed to be unfit by a court, not because someone says "well why would they need it anyway?"

"Why would they need it?" is not a compelling argument for restricting rights from a portion of the population without fair trial.

I wasn't offering 'Why would they need it?' as my argument for restricting the rights of the mentally ill to own a firearm.  I think that the very nature of many mental illnesses being combined with firearm ownership significantly increases danger to society - that's why their rights should be restricted.  I was asking why you thought that they needed this right since you were arguing that the mentally ill should be allowed to purchase firearms.  Like I've said, there are multiple factors that need to be considered when limiting rights.  There must be a need and purpose to outweigh the negative risks - otherwise there's no real debate to be had.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on November 08, 2017, 08:06:00 AM
My point to acroy wasn't about having people armed shoot back.

One of his only points made was expressing shock that people IN A PLACE OF WORSHIP didn't start shooting.  Gee, maybe that's because even in Texas people expect to be able to practice their religious freedom without fear of being shot?  Instead of expressing sorrow or condolences to the victims, he's surprised people didn't start shooting back at the lunatic.  These were families.  These were children.  It wasn't the wild west where with guns holstered on every hip.

If one of the only points you want to bring to the table is "Wow, I'm surprised the people in the church didn't shoot back" instead of addressing how a man accused of domestic violence was able to get his hands on an AR-15 in the first place...I don't have time for you.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on November 08, 2017, 09:08:12 AM
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

Self defense is perhaps the primary reason American gun enthusiasts insist on their firearms.   Why wouldn't they have them in church?

Depends on the state I suppose. I had lunch with a southern country preacher yesterday that explained that his congregation was meeting to create procedures to protect themselves. Armed church members at the front and back of the room (concealed pistols). Maybe someone watching the exterior of the church. Perhaps nobody allowed to leave and return. Also, a discussion is happening among regional churches to compare notes and ideas.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on November 08, 2017, 01:04:54 PM
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

My church has the following policy:
Quote
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as requireed by officers of the law.

I think church leaders would ask someone know to be peacably carrying a weapon inside the church building to lock it up in their car. Of course some people might carry a concealed weapon without anyone noticing, but knowlege of this policy would cause most members who regularly carry a concealed weapon to choose not to bring it to church.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: scottish on November 08, 2017, 03:04:27 PM
I'm not sure - I'm surprised that Islamic extremists have not been targeting churches.   They are full of infidels worshiping their false god, after all.    If nobody is armed, then it's a very soft target by this line of reasoning.

If you're worried about terrorists and have a firearm for self defense, carrying it to church (or to school for that matter, lots of school shootings) seems like a reasonable idea.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on November 08, 2017, 03:16:24 PM
I'm not sure - I'm surprised that Islamic extremists have not been targeting churches.   They are full of infidels worshiping their false god, after all.    If nobody is armed, then it's a very soft target by this line of reasoning.

If you're worried about terrorists and have a firearm for self defense, carrying it to church (or to school for that matter, lots of school shootings) seems like a reasonable idea.

Actually, Jesus is a revered prophet in Islam, precursor and second only to Mohammed.

Not that Islamist extremists are really what most mainstream practitioners of Islam would actually call true Muslims. But still. Not sure Christianity/Jesus is their enemy.

I think the main false gods that the terrorists are aiming for are capitalism (and its attendant worship of money) and democracy (and its attendant "degradation" of open sexuality and equal rights for women).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: scottish on November 09, 2017, 04:03:54 PM
I think Islamic scholars are divided as to whether Christians are infidels or fellow travellers (people of the book).   At least that's what wikipedia says.  :-)

But Islamic extremists - their opinions are clear.   Infidels all the way.    Christianity, capitalism, women's rights, democracy are all targets for hate to get the Islamic base worked up.   Synagogues have been targets for extremist bombings for a long time.   I'm surprised that churches have not been targeted in the same way.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on November 09, 2017, 04:19:35 PM
I think Islamic scholars are divided as to whether Christians are infidels or fellow travellers (people of the book).   At least that's what wikipedia says.  :-)

But Islamic extremists - their opinions are clear.   Infidels all the way.    Christianity, capitalism, women's rights, democracy are all targets for hate to get the Islamic base worked up.   Synagogues have been targets for extremist bombings for a long time.   I'm surprised that churches have not been targeted in the same way.

Right, but I'm saying that to them, I think it's the West's lack of religious piety as far as they see it that's the problem. Synagogues are a very different situation, given the tension between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Radagast on November 09, 2017, 09:55:07 PM
So, I am kinda wondering about my suggestion from up-thread. It seems to me like it would address the stickiest issues raised by both sides. Is there a reason this would not work?

How about this for a gun control method? Anyone can own a gun if they find four people who will testify in writing that they are familiar with the character, situation, and training of the would-be gun owner, and that the person is able to responsibly own a firearm. It would be take the form of a license.

Each citizen could make one recommendation per year. People who had been convicted of a felony could not recommend firearm licensure until seven years after the end of any sentence or penalty, two years after a misdemeanor. If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction. This would force people to put some consideration into who they recommend. You would have to show your license to posses or purchase a firearm and possibly certain accessories (and maybe ammunition depending on how restrictive you wanted to be). Existing restrictions regarding felons, domestic violence, and the like would remain intact.

It sounds dumb, but it might be effective. Could the Las Vegas guy have found four people willing to testify for him? A standoffish guy with a foreign wife (only citizens would be able to recommend) who rarely talked with his family? Maybe he could have, since he could have qualified decades ago. Either way, this method could disqualify people who are obviously incompetent, impatient, unstable, or who mostly associate with criminals, without the need for psychologists, tests, or nuanced regulations. It would hold society accountable to gun owners, and gun owners accountable to society. At the same time it would be populist in nature and similar to other populist institutions, juries for example.

It could be easily made more or less strict. For example perhaps breech loaders, muzzle loaders, or bolt action guns 42 inches or longer could be excluded. Alternately, perhaps it would make sense that concealable weapons need a second license which requires a standard license, a four year trial period after receiving the standard license, plus four additional signatures from licensed gun owners (who themselves already received four signatures from any citizen) with a repeat of the same restrictions as above. Perhaps guns that have or can easily be modified to have a high and sustainable rate of fire could be treated similarly. Honorable military dischargees could automatically qualify, or automatically qualify for the first level. Maybe a restriction of five purchases in a trailing five-year period to discourage high volume black marketers.

This could allow all the "uninfringed" stuff and still add a modicum of de-centralized regulation, in the form of a 4-person jury that you personally select from among all the citizens of the US.

This is a method that many states use to license engineers.

In principal this sounds like a reasonable idea to me.  My only change to the idea would be that you lose the right to recommend someone for a seven year period if anyone you recommended uses their weapon in a crime (to prevent people who think that guns should be available for everyone from offering to recommend people they don't or hardly know).
Yup, its there: "If a person you recommended commits a crime with a gun, you may not recommend anyone else from the date they are charged until seven years after their date of conviction." I could change that to just seven years after conviction though.

Also, applied the prohibitions must be applied sequentially. If you recommend three buddies when you are 18, 19, and 20, and those three buddies use their weapons to rob a convenience store when you are 21, nobody need bother asking you for a recommendation until you are 42.

A few more additions: a firearm suicide cannot be held against a recommender. Also there would need to be a stipulation that a person who recommends someone may not themselves be held civilly or criminally liable or be discriminated against because of the recommendation that turned out poorly in retrospect (beyond the 7 year prohibition).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: farfromfire on November 10, 2017, 06:06:36 AM
This discussion about Islam is somewhat off-topic, but if I may correct a misconception:

I think Islamic scholars are divided as to whether Christians are infidels or fellow travellers (people of the book).   At least that's what wikipedia says.  :-)

But Islamic extremists - their opinions are clear.   Infidels all the way.    Christianity, capitalism, women's rights, democracy are all targets for hate to get the Islamic base worked up.   Synagogues have been targets for extremist bombings for a long time.   I'm surprised that churches have not been targeted in the same way.

Right, but I'm saying that to them, I think it's the West's lack of religious piety as far as they see it that's the problem. Synagogues are a very different situation, given the tension between Muslims and Jews in the Middle East.
As tempting as it might be to blame Muslim aggression against Jews on the "tension" in the Middle East (and by extension, partially on the Jews in the Middle East), this is simply not the case; antisemitism is deeply rooted in Islam, much more so than hatred of Christians, making synagogues much more of a target. Of course in countries that don't have Jews and synagogues, churches have to do, such as in Egypt.

Quote from: Quran 5:82
Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
Quote from: Sahih Muslim 41:6985
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
There are many anti-Christian statements in the Quran as well, but generally nothing of this level. Of course, this has not stayed in the past and mainstream Islamic scholars still hold the same stance. For example, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who denounces extremism, Salafism, Wahhabism, etc. has said:
Quote
"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers"
More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.

Originally, Muhammad thought he could convert Jews to Islam, but when he failed he got pretty pissed off and butchered inhabitants of the ancient Jewish community at Khaybar, who were later expelled by his successor. Throughout history, well before the establishment of Israel, Muslims have emulated this behavior. And even nowadays antisemitic Muslims will threaten Jews with "remember Khaybar".
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on November 10, 2017, 03:06:28 PM
A European comedy sketch that made me laugh:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/9/16448302/guns-nra-sunday-lubach
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: scottish on November 10, 2017, 05:23:32 PM

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: farfromfire on November 10, 2017, 11:22:13 PM

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.
Islam has not been reformed in any meaningful way - the mainstream beliefs still support what a modern Westerner would consider extremism (such as a command to kill all Jews), and so both Muslims and non-Muslims use the same word but with a completely different meaning, belonging to a completely different time (hence anachronistic). This leads non-Muslims to think that some beliefs have dropped out of modern practice of Islam when they have not.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Lagom on November 11, 2017, 12:30:32 AM
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

Self defense is perhaps the primary reason American gun enthusiasts insist on their firearms.   Why wouldn't they have them in church?

Depends on the state I suppose. I had lunch with a southern country preacher yesterday that explained that his congregation was meeting to create procedures to protect themselves. Armed church members at the front and back of the room (concealed pistols). Maybe someone watching the exterior of the church. Perhaps nobody allowed to leave and return. Also, a discussion is happening among regional churches to compare notes and ideas.

Wtf kind of America do you want to be living in? Because mine never has and (God willing) never will necessitate that kind of paranoia.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Lagom on November 11, 2017, 12:31:19 AM

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.
Islam has not been reformed in any meaningful way - the mainstream beliefs still support what a modern Westerner would consider extremism (such as a command to kill all Jews), and so both Muslims and non-Muslims use the same word but with a completely different meaning, belonging to a completely different time (hence anachronistic). This leads non-Muslims to think that some beliefs have dropped out of modern practice of Islam when they have not.

LMAO, seriously dude? You think most American muslims want to "kill all Jews"??? Because I would be willing to wager most mainstream American muslims support mainstream muslim beliefs, and yet somehow they are not living up to your paranoid delusions of what that means.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: farfromfire on November 11, 2017, 01:16:10 AM

More than anything, any intent to separate past and present mainstream Islam from a Western definition of extremism is highly anachronistic.


I keep trying to parse this sentence and failing.     Intent to separate (past and present) mainstream Islam from (a western definition of) extremism is (highly) anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is anachronistic.

Intent to separate Islam from extremism is belonging to a period other than that being portrayed.  ?

Could you clarify?    I know the Koran says some unpleasant things, but I don't believe modern practice of Islam is all extremism.
Islam has not been reformed in any meaningful way - the mainstream beliefs still support what a modern Westerner would consider extremism (such as a command to kill all Jews), and so both Muslims and non-Muslims use the same word but with a completely different meaning, belonging to a completely different time (hence anachronistic). This leads non-Muslims to think that some beliefs have dropped out of modern practice of Islam when they have not.

LMAO, seriously dude? You think most American muslims want to "kill all Jews"??? Because I would be willing to wager most mainstream American muslims support mainstream muslim beliefs, and yet somehow they are not living up to your paranoid delusions of what that means.
No, I did not say that. You can wager or believe what you will,   I wrote clearly about the difference between Christians and Jews in both original and current Muslim theology.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Lagom on November 11, 2017, 01:50:17 AM
No, I did not say that. You can wager or believe what you will,   I wrote clearly about the difference between Christians and Jews in both original and current Muslim theology.

OK... so can you clarify for me, do you currently fear practicing American Muslims?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: farfromfire on November 11, 2017, 01:54:03 AM
No, I did not say that. You can wager or believe what you will,   I wrote clearly about the difference between Christians and Jews in both original and current Muslim theology.

OK... so can you clarify for me, do you currently fear practicing American Muslims?
Nope.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 11, 2017, 06:29:10 AM
A couple comments here:
- I work in a city with a large practicing Muslim population.  We often have people from various religions working together at our company, including Jewish and Muslim people.  Given your analysis of the Koran commanding the death of Jews how would you explain this?
- According to the bible women are required to dress modestly and act meek/demure.  It's illegal to masturbate.  If you rape a woman, she must marry you.  The Old Testament has several instances where it condones rape of women who are married to enemies of Christians, as well as murder of children.  Yet, I'd say that very few of the Christans I've ever met believe in or practice what's listed in these extreme passages.  Do you think it's because there's a level of interpretation that modern people put on ancient religious manuscripts?  Do you believe that followers of Muslim faith are incapable of this for some reason?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: farfromfire on November 11, 2017, 09:27:16 AM
A couple comments here:
- I work in a city with a large practicing Muslim population.  We often have people from various religions working together at our company, including Jewish and Muslim people.  Given your analysis of the Koran commanding the death of Jews how would you explain this?
- According to the bible women are required to dress modestly and act meek/demure.  It's illegal to masturbate.  If you rape a woman, she must marry you.  The Old Testament has several instances where it condones rape of women who are married to enemies of Christians, as well as murder of children.  Yet, I'd say that very few of the Christans I've ever met believe in or practice what's listed in these extreme passages.  Do you think it's because there's a level of interpretation that modern people put on ancient religious manuscripts?  Do you believe that followers of Muslim faith are incapable of this for some reason?
I will answer these but that will be the end of my contribution to the topic, as this is quite OT and my original comment (which was backed up by primary sources, unlike every response) was only meant to correct a mistake by one poster and answer a question by another.

- I did not analyze the Quran in my comment above, I quoted it verbatim. I understand the quotes might be jarring to those who have practising Muslim friends or just a general liberal worldview who assume their peers are similar. Some Muslims kill, some don't. Some peform Hajj, some do not. Muslims, like any other group of humans, are not a monolith so I don't see why I would need to explain any subgroup of them behaving differently than their scripture suggests.
If you are genuinely interested, I suggest you ask your (believing) Muslim coworkers what their beliefs on the topic are. Do they think Muhammad was wrong, or that his prophecy is no longer true? Chances are, they live in a sort of cognitive dissonance on the subject.
- I don't know what version of the Old Testament you have at home, but I promise you it does not mention Christians. I do not have time to educate on the differences between descriptive/prescriptive/prophesied violence in Old Testament/New Testament/Quran, if you are genuinely interested I recommend you start here (https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Are_Judaism_and_Christianity_as_Violent_as_Islam%3F), in which most information is properly sourced.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Lagom on November 11, 2017, 12:19:26 PM
No, I did not say that. You can wager or believe what you will,   I wrote clearly about the difference between Christians and Jews in both original and current Muslim theology.

OK... so can you clarify for me, do you currently fear practicing American Muslims?
Nope.

Could have fooled me. So then you agree, just as it is with Christianity, there are things in holy texts of many religions that people might find shocking and disagreeable? Given that you ostensibly agree with that, I guess you were just being pedantic? Fair enough if so, I was just not sure what else we are supposed to take away from your comments.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: jim555 on November 11, 2017, 07:49:00 PM
Shocking lack of knowledge of Christian theology in this thread.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on November 12, 2017, 09:01:51 PM
Shocking lack of knowledge of Christian theology in this thread.

Unfortunately, previous encounters re: Christian Theology have a distinct tendency to keep those of us who are knowledgeable in the subject from speaking up...  :/

But, in general, American Christianity has neglected a proper study of theology (even overall theology, not referencing the denominational level theology) for 40+ years.  Not everyone, but most.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on November 13, 2017, 07:38:54 AM
I missed something.   Are guns not permitted in church?

Self defense is perhaps the primary reason American gun enthusiasts insist on their firearms.   Why wouldn't they have them in church?

Depends on the state I suppose. I had lunch with a southern country preacher yesterday that explained that his congregation was meeting to create procedures to protect themselves. Armed church members at the front and back of the room (concealed pistols). Maybe someone watching the exterior of the church. Perhaps nobody allowed to leave and return. Also, a discussion is happening among regional churches to compare notes and ideas.

Wtf kind of America do you want to be living in? Because mine never has and (God willing) never will necessitate that kind of paranoia.

I agree. That's not how I want to deal with the problem either. You have the understand that some of these folks were carrying concealed pistols already. Easy to include at church. Recent events validate their worries. I on the other hand have lived in this area my whole life aside from my time in the military. Never had a need for a weapon. I also don't go for a 2AM walk alone and I don't frequent rough biker bars. ;) I think for some folks a pistol is a solution looking for a problem.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 13, 2017, 08:04:06 AM
- I don't know what version of the Old Testament you have at home, but I promise you it does not mention Christians.

You're completely right.  I said 'Christian' when I guess I should have said 'Jew' since the old testament covers the period of time before the birth of Christ and therefore before Christians were a thing.  :P  Mea Culpa on that.


A couple comments here:
- I work in a city with a large practicing Muslim population.  We often have people from various religions working together at our company, including Jewish and Muslim people.  Given your analysis of the Koran commanding the death of Jews how would you explain this?
- According to the bible women are required to dress modestly and act meek/demure.  It's illegal to masturbate.  If you rape a woman, she must marry you.  The Old Testament has several instances where it condones rape of women who are married to enemies of Christians, as well as murder of children.  Yet, I'd say that very few of the Christans I've ever met believe in or practice what's listed in these extreme passages.  Do you think it's because there's a level of interpretation that modern people put on ancient religious manuscripts?  Do you believe that followers of Muslim faith are incapable of this for some reason?
I will answer these but that will be the end of my contribution to the topic, as this is quite OT and my original comment (which was backed up by primary sources, unlike every response) was only meant to correct a mistake by one poster and answer a question by another.

- I did not analyze the Quran in my comment above, I quoted it verbatim. I understand the quotes might be jarring to those who have practising Muslim friends or just a general liberal worldview who assume their peers are similar. Some Muslims kill, some don't. Some peform Hajj, some do not. Muslims, like any other group of humans, are not a monolith so I don't see why I would need to explain any subgroup of them behaving differently than their scripture suggests.

Since you seemed to have difficult finding the parts of the bible I was referring to, let me provide you with some verbatim quotations:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace.  If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor.  But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town.  When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town.  But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder.  You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father.  Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."

Deuteronomy 21:10-14
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house.  But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb.  After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife.  However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”

Judges 5:30
"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil."

Timothy 2:9
"Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire"

1 Peter 3:3   
"Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear"

Deuteronomy 22:5
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God"

1 Corinthians 11:5-10
"But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man."

1 Timothy 2:11
"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness."


Now, I did not analyze the Bible in my comment above, I quoted it verbatim. I understand the quotes might be jarring to those who have practicing Christian friends or just a general liberal worldview who assume their peers are similar. Some Christians kill, some don't. Some worship on Sundays, some do not. Christians, like any other group of humans, are not a monolith so I don't see why I would need to explain any subgroup of them behaving differently than their scripture suggests.


I do not have time to educate on the differences between descriptive/prescriptive/prophesied violence in Old Testament/New Testament/Quran, if you are genuinely interested I recommend you start here (https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Are_Judaism_and_Christianity_as_Violent_as_Islam%3F), in which most information is properly sourced.

I'm afraid I do not have time to educate you as to why the website that you linked, produced and paid for by "EX-MUSLIMS OF NORTH AMERICA" - (https://www.whois.com/whois/wikiislam.net (https://www.whois.com/whois/wikiislam.net)) is not really a fair/unbiased source of information or interpretations regarding the Islamic religion.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on November 13, 2017, 09:00:48 AM
Judges 5:30
"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil."
This passage is taken a bit out of context. In the King James Version of the Bible, Judges 5 is a praise for a particular victory with great spoils. Here's the verse quoted:

"Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?"
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 13, 2017, 09:34:45 AM
Judges 5:30
"They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil."
This passage is taken a bit out of context. In the King James Version of the Bible, Judges 5 is a praise for a particular victory with great spoils. Here's the verse quoted:

"Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?"

This was not an attack on Christianity or the bible, I was attempting to demonstrate that taking direct quotes without context or analysis from most religious manuals can yield similarly disturbing results as those brought up by farfromfire regarding the Koran.  The bible is simply the manual I've got the most experience with.  (I try to avoid using the KJ bible when discussing religion since the English used in the 1600-1700s ((depending on which version of the KJ bible you're reading from)) is difficult for most to understand.)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on November 14, 2017, 06:26:12 AM
Care to explain your point on the Bible quotes? lots of different messages there; not sure how cross dressing had anything to do with what we were discussing in the least other than the mention of the words 'man' and 'woman'.

As to the Deut. 22:28-29, pretty sure that is statutory rape. If it was violent rape, that man would instantly be beaten to death. I could be wrong, just my guess of what any villagers a few thousands years ago would do to someone who attacked one of their girls.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on November 14, 2017, 07:10:22 AM
The point is that Bible quotes taken out of context make modern Christians look bad in a manner most uncharitable, so the same might very well be true of Quran quotes.

Both religions have been around for such a long time that the actual texts are not a good way to understand the modern practices, anyways.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 14, 2017, 07:55:05 AM
The point is that Bible quotes taken out of context make modern Christians look bad in a manner most uncharitable, so the same might very well be true of Quran quotes.

Both religions have been around for such a long time that the actual texts are not a good way to understand the modern practices, anyways.

Yes, that was exactly the point.  I don't expect modern Christian women to avoid wearing pearls and gold, to be against braiding their hair, to be quiet and submissive, or constantly need to wear a hat.  I don't expect Christians to support the forced marriage and rape of women in countries they invade.  Yet, these are passages taken directly from the bible.

farfromfire was using passages taken directly from the Koran in an attempt to try to prove that there's something wrong with Islam.  He then suggests that the many Muslims who don't follow the wacky stuff in the Koran are living in some sort of "cognitive dissonance".  My argument is that there's crazy stuff in any text written hundreds of years ago.  Does anyone really believe that being a good Christian means women can't wear pearls and gold, and must constantly wear a hat?  Yet that's in the bible (the new testament even!).
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on November 14, 2017, 03:16:49 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/11/14/officials-say-at-least-3-dead-after-shooting-at-multiple-scenes-including-california-elementary-school/
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: calimom on November 14, 2017, 03:58:37 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/11/14/officials-say-at-least-3-dead-after-shooting-at-multiple-scenes-including-california-elementary-school/

This is just miles from where I live (and not terribly far from my own daughter's elementary school) so  wasn't sure how much national play this story would get on the heels of so many multiple death mass shootings. After all this one has *only* five fatalities and 10 wounded. Another mentally unbalanced person with too easy access to high powered firearms.

Just another day in America. Freedom, right?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Kris on November 14, 2017, 04:07:09 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/11/14/officials-say-at-least-3-dead-after-shooting-at-multiple-scenes-including-california-elementary-school/

This is just miles from where I live (and not terribly far from my own daughter's elementary school) so  wasn't sure how much national play this story would get on the heels of so many multiple death mass shootings. After all this one has *only* five fatalities and 10 wounded. Another mentally unbalanced person with too easy access to high powered firearms.

Just another day in America. Freedom, right?

SO much freedom. #winning
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: calimom on November 15, 2017, 10:36:52 PM
Aaaaaaaand #45 adds to the conversation by confusing last week's mass shooting with this week's mass shooting:

http://people.com/politics/trump-confuses-mass-shootings-tweeting-condolences-to-texas-hours-after-tragedy-in-california/
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Just Joe on November 16, 2017, 10:15:51 AM
That's about right. Apparently at one point Trump thought clean coal was coal that had been washed...

How about he doesn't get to make rules about things he doesn't take the time to learn about???
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Travis on November 16, 2017, 10:34:47 AM
That's about right. Apparently at one point Trump thought clean coal was coal that had been washed...

How about he doesn't get to make rules about things he doesn't take the time to learn about???

If we enacted that rule, Congress would do even less than they already are. Though that could be a drastic improvement depending on your perspective.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on November 16, 2017, 10:46:09 PM
Don't know if was mentioned yet but NorCal shooter had 2 rifles he illegally made himself and 2 there were not registered to him. He was banned from owning any firearms.

So why doesn't this happen in other countries?  Surely there are crazy people that can do this there too?

Sorry, but I really think there is a serious root cause flaw in this country around guns and not addressing it after mass killings and heinous events is just turning a blind eye to the fact it will happen again.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on November 16, 2017, 10:59:32 PM
Don't know if was mentioned yet but NorCal shooter had 2 rifles he illegally made himself and 2 there were not registered to him. He was banned from owning any firearms.

So why doesn't this happen in other countries?  Surely there are crazy people that can do this there too?

Sorry, but I really think there is a serious root cause flaw in this country around guns and not addressing it after mass killings and heinous events is just turning a blind eye to the fact it will happen again.
It doesn't?

A stupid but striking way of highlighting Brazil's murder rate (https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/929557584440422401) + this (https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/28/472157969/brazil-has-nearly-60-000-murders-and-it-may-relax-gun-laws)
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: robartsd on November 17, 2017, 08:50:48 AM
Don't know if was mentioned yet but NorCal shooter had 2 rifles he illegally made himself and 2 there were not registered to him. He was banned from owning any firearms.
So possibly tougher gun laws would have cut his weapon stache in half by preventing whomever provided the 2 guns not regsitered to him from making the transfer. He still would have had the 2 guns he made himself.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: shenlong55 on November 17, 2017, 10:20:50 AM
Not necessarily if he obtained those guns illegally (stolen) or were lent to him by a family member or friend (San Bernardino mass shooters, Sandy Hook,,etc...) who legally owned them. Caif has some of toughest gun laws in the country and have pretty  much all the restrictions many in this thread have asked for. So not sure what other restrictions can be applied or enforced that would limit these kinds of things. I'm pro gun ownership and pro gun laws and am fine with our laws in Cali and would support even more laws. However I don't really think in these kinds of situations they would make a difference.

Do you think that those family members/friends would have still given/lent the guns to them if they could be held legally responsible for the outcome of their actions?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Johnez on November 17, 2017, 10:36:59 AM
I'd also like to point out that the school was spared the horrific tragedy of dozens of dead children by locking down. Not more guns.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: GuitarStv on November 17, 2017, 11:38:52 AM
Don't know if was mentioned yet but NorCal shooter had 2 rifles he illegally made himself and 2 there were not registered to him. He was banned from owning any firearms.

So why doesn't this happen in other countries?  Surely there are crazy people that can do this there too?

Sorry, but I really think there is a serious root cause flaw in this country around guns and not addressing it after mass killings and heinous events is just turning a blind eye to the fact it will happen again.
I don't think anyone is saying to turn a blind eye to these things or the weapons used (I'm sure in other countries they discuss what they can do to limit bombings and vehicular mass killings) but I think that we focus too much on the weapons at the expenses of the persons mental illness.

You say this . . . yet your previous post focused entirely on the weapons used and his legal status of owning weapons rather than discussing anything at all about mental illness.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Rimu05 on November 19, 2017, 04:10:38 PM
Can someone explain to me why the police and paramedic/ambulance forces in America don't band together and ask for stricter gun laws?

After all, they are the first responders who have to deal with these guys face to face. They are the ones who have to summon the courage to go towards the guy with military grade assault weapons, who can mow down 30 of their colleagues in 30 seconds. They are the ones who have to patch up the wounded, the maimed, the bloodied. They are the ones who have to visit the families of the deceased.

Why is there so much silence from them? Why is there so much acceptance of "this is the way it is"?

Interesting but I was recently on a youtube video titled "Why police won't help you if you are stabbed." Turns out, the cops are not legally obligated to help you. Now, I am on the other side of gun control where I truly believe there should be gun control, but with that said. My thoughts when I watched that video and read a bit more was a true understanding of why anyone would own a gun.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: zoltani on November 20, 2017, 10:18:01 AM
Where is the evidence that mental illness leads to higher rates of gun violence? All of the literature I find actually states the opposite, that mentally ill people are no less likely to commit gun violence, and are actually more at risk of being a victim of violence than perpetrating it. It sure is a convenient narrative though. As we further stigmatize people with mental illness less people will get help for their issues, which will not be a good situation.

To bring this back to vegas. Do people here really think the shooter was mentally ill? Have you ever been in the throws of mental illness or around someone experiencing it? I find it hard to believe that someone in that state could meticulously plan an attack like this for a year, and carry it out. To me it is more terrifying that someone could rationally plan out such an attack. In a way saying that the person is mentally ill is comforting because it allows us to deny the fact that true evil exists, that someone would plan and carry out such an atrocity.

Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: shenlong55 on November 20, 2017, 11:10:42 AM
If they assumed that the person borrowing them would be using them in an appropriate manner I don't think it would be a deterrent because, at least here, that's already illegal and punishable (the guy who owned the weapons used in the San Bernardino shooting is in prison). In the Adam Lanza case it would have been labelled as stolen guns (and illegal) since they were in.a locked safe rather than given to him.

For what its worth I don't know what sololutions there are as so many laws are almost impossible to enforce at the theft and lending level. Short of Smart guns (something most gun owners who have them for self protection are highly resistant too for valid reasons) or complete banning most gun laws can be circumvented by anyone determined to do so. I think the US is perhaps a more inclined to violence overall compared to many other countries at all levels  too.

That's good to know, I didn't realize that was possible at all.  Although I don't think I personally understand the requirement that someone knows that the person borrowing their guns is up to no good in order to punish them.  I don't see any good argument for why it should be risk free to lend or give guns to people just because they are "close friends or family".  It kind of makes it really simple to get around the background check system that most Americans seem to be in favor of.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: DarkandStormy on December 06, 2017, 09:53:06 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-weighs-republican-bill-easing-gun-restrictions-080426285--politics.html

Quote
The Republican-led House is weighing a bill to make it easier for gun owners to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines, the first gun legislation in Congress since mass shootings in Nevada and Texas killed more than 80 people.
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: TexasRunner on December 06, 2017, 10:46:38 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-weighs-republican-bill-easing-gun-restrictions-080426285--politics.html

Quote
The Republican-led House is weighing a bill to make it easier for gun owners to legally carry concealed weapons across state lines, the first gun legislation in Congress since mass shootings in Nevada and Texas killed more than 80 people.

Before everybody goes nuts on this, every introduction or discussion I have seen regarding this bill has included (1) setting a base-level expectation of training or classes (despite what several news sources have already said about "lowest state wins" rules), (2) testing or competency standards and a (3) mandatory, periodically recurring background check.  Most likely anything introduced with those would also clarify who and who would not be allowed to obtain or maintain a License to Carry- excluding felons, abusers or restraining-order recipients or something similar.

Most states also currently require you obtain a License to Carry in your own home state before it will recognize the license.  It would be very likely that the Reciprocity bill would also require one to have a license in their own home state.

Sources:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171127/concealed-carry-reciprocity-is-on-the-move-your-lawmakers-need-to-hear-from-you-now# (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171127/concealed-carry-reciprocity-is-on-the-move-your-lawmakers-need-to-hear-from-you-now#)

https://judiciary.house.gov/markup/markup-november-29/ (https://judiciary.house.gov/markup/markup-november-29/)

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BILLS-115hr38ih.pdf (https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/BILLS-115hr38ih.pdf)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/house-vote-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/house-vote-concealed-carry-reciprocity-bill/index.html)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D)


Edit to add: the bill text also includes a "home state rule".
Quote
be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Spiritual_Lobotomy on December 06, 2017, 01:26:26 PM
I don't see the point of owning and assault rifle.  Should we ban and confiscate all "assault rifles"?  Should we? 
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: Spiritual_Lobotomy on December 06, 2017, 01:54:30 PM
Should the federal government institute a buy back program on assault rifles?
Title: Re: Las Vegas. I'm tired of this.
Post by: hoping2retire35 on December 07, 2017, 09:11:18 AM
I don't see the point of owning and assault rifle.  Should we ban and confiscate all "assault rifles"?  Should we?

Then you probably don't see the point of the 2nd amendment; an individual protection of the people from the federal government.