Yeah i've been watching this on the news for a little bit now. Not a lot is really known at this point. Possible terrorist attack? Seems like a possibility right now.
As sad as it sounds, i'm surprised it took this long for an attack like this to occur at Vegas. Having been there myself and having family there and seeing how many people there are/crowds etc, how unguarded the strip is and how easy it is to access places and get around. IMO it was only a matter of time before something like this happened in Vegas. I'm surprised it happened tonight, but not surprised it happened at all. I have a thing now where I don't like to be where people gather in number. As more footage comes in it looks like pure chaos.
There are reports that they got one of them, was firing from the 32nd. Suspect is deceased. 2 dead, one of which is apparently an office who was wounded in the neck. 26 wounded, 12 in critical condition. There's supposed to be a police press conference in the next 30 minutes.
20 dead, more then a 100 wounded so far. I guess there was group of off-duty officers in attendance, and they got hit. Reports that several of them are dead, others are wounded.
A ton of speculation to be had so far, maybe it was targeted at them? Maybe a general jihadist terrorism thing? Maybe someone just finally gone off their rocker. They've got the shooter, killed him it sounds like. Won't release his name. They're looking for a woman that they called his "partner". Anglo sounding name, but she was described as asian.
Solid reporting it was automatic gunfire, so can't wait for this to turn into a gun control thread, even though it was clearly done with the use of an illegal weapon.
Pol is saying Geary Danley is possibly the vegas shooter. Police have confirmed the dead perp is a local resident. Likely an m4, bursts were in 30 round intervals, 6-7 bursts over 4 minutes. Accurate methodical fire. If the shooter is the guy pol is saying it is, it would appear his politics are rather left leaning.
Facebook has taken Marilou's profile down (the woman being sought).
I've seen several sites jump on his name, but I'm definitely going to wait before I get on the politics train. It's still way to early to be throwing accusations at random people. Case in point, one of the websites is pointing to a facebook profile of a man who lives in Arkansas, but all reports is the shooter is from Vegas.
djones520 wrote: Facebook has taken Marilou's profile down (the woman being sought).
I've seen several sites jump on his name, but I'm definitely going to wait before I get on the politics train. It's still way to early to be throwing accusations at random people.
Yah it's just pol, no one else has confirmed anything. And the FB says arkansas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Deceased is 64 year old caucasian male Stephen C Paddock.
Yeah... this is why the internet annoys me sometimes. People shooting from the hip, and now some dude who was completely innocent has been drug through the mud.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Latest report, 50 dead, 200 wounded...
So updated news. A SWAT team engaged and killed him. There were numerous firearms in his room. The women they were searching for has been apprehended. Police are planning to search his home shortly.
A witness reported seeing two people at the concert 45 minutes before the incident walking around telling everyone that they were going to die, descriptions given of the individual don't really match these two.
This has officially become the deadliest mass shooting in our nations history.
For what it's worth, thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families...
Let's hope Vegas can bounce back.
I was looking at the graphics of where the shooter was, and where the victims were, and I'm wondering what kind of weapon was used here? Clearly something you can't buy from your average gun shop.
Given the shooter's location, elevation, and distance, the shooter had to have had some training.
There is a lot of unanswered questions that need answered.
djones520 wrote: Facebook has taken Marilou's profile down (the woman being sought).
I've seen several sites jump on his name, but I'm definitely going to wait before I get on the politics train. It's still way to early to be throwing accusations at random people.
Yah it's just pol, no one else has confirmed anything. And the FB says arkansas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Deceased is 64 year old caucasian male Stephen C Paddock.
Spoiler:
Not the guy in the pic then. Seeing as that Charles C Paddock is 48, and the nutter in question is 62.
Many of the dead are likely due to the scale of the attack as well. 250 casualties, first responders just don't have the ability to cope with that in a necessary window. Many likely.died waiting for assistance.
And as pointed out, it was a mass crowd, the gunman fired off hundreds of rounds, doesn't take a well trained marksman to pull that off.
Some info is starting to trickle in about him. Apparently middle class man, owned a home in the $350k price range. I consider myself firmly middle class, and that's way out of my price range, *shrugs*.
Reported that local police knew of him prior to the incident, but nothing passed along as to why, yet at least.
Paddock, 64, was a resident of Mesquite, Nevada, a retirement and golf community of about 20,000 people, a police spokesman confirmed.
“We don’t have a lot on Mr Paddock,” Mesquite police spokesman Quinn Averett said. Mesquite PD records held no report of any contact with Paddock, Averett said. No calls for service, no arrests, not even a record of a traffic stop.
Mesquite is just minutes away from Bunkerville, California, the site of an armed standoff at the Bundy Ranch between federal agents and a ranch family and the citizen militia members who came to support them.
Mesquite typically sees about one murder a year, Averett said.
Public records listed previous addresses for Stephen Paddock in Texas and California, as well as a 2010 license to hunt and fish in Alaska.
Based on the very limited info we have so far, nothing about why this happened makes any sense whatsoever. I'd be very surprised if this was linked to the Bundys, but you never know.
djones520 wrote: Grasping at straws there, but honestly its as good a theory as anyone has right now.
For want of a better word, the shooter seems so 'average.'
Of course, it's foolish to jump to conclusions at such an early stage, but like I say, it's very strange.
Anyway, let's hope the wounded make a full recovery.
If anything, it's the choice of venue that makes it hard to make any initial guesses as to the motivations behind the attack. Had this been a political or some other obviously polarizing event, it would be easier to rationalize, but "He didn't like country music" is not a very strong argument to explain shooting at people. It's the lack of an obvious rationale that makes this harder to accept, although " accept" is by no means the right word for it.
djones520 wrote: Grasping at straws there, but honestly its as good a theory as anyone has right now.
For want of a better word, the shooter seems so 'average.'
Of course, it's foolish to jump to conclusions at such an early stage, but like I say, it's very strange.
Anyway, let's hope the wounded make a full recovery.
If anything, it's the choice of venue that makes it hard to make any initial guesses as to the motivations behind the attack. Had this been a political or some other obviously polarizing event, it would be easier to rationalize, but "He didn't like country music" is not a very strong argument to explain shooting at people. It's the lack of an obvious rationale that makes this harder to accept, although " accept" is by no means the right word for it.
It's all speculation on my part, but perhaps Vegas itself was the 'problem?' He may have been a religious fundamentalist who regarded the activities at Vegas (gambling, smoking, drinking etc etc ) to be immoral?
Maybe he had enough with the noise and his mind snapped with the anger. Maybe he just grabbed one of his guns and decided to shoot, since he had lots of them with him.
It doesn't have to be political. You go crazy, you have a gun, you shoot. Given the weapon he used, he really didn't need a big reason to make such a slaughter. The weapon he used is designed to kill a lot of people in a short length of time, after all.
Ten rifles in a hotel room, one of them capable of fully automatic fire (FYI we have very stringent rules about such weapons in the US) - seems pre-meditated.
This took time and at least some planning on the shooter's part. Like most of this type, he took the coward's way out so we may not know why unless he left some sort of note behind.
Sarouan wrote: Maybe he had enough with the noise and his mind snapped with the anger. Maybe he just grabbed one of his guns and decided to shoot, since he had lots of them with him.
It doesn't have to be political. You go crazy, you have a gun, you shoot. Given the weapon he used, he really didn't need a big reason to make such a slaughter. The weapon he used is designed to kill a lot of people with decent accuracy in a short length of time, after all.
Nah, this was premeditated. He had thousands of rounds with him, all loaded in magazines. Would have been impossible to load on the spot as quickly as he was firing. He rented a room with a perfect vantage point of a well publicized event. He had been planning this for some time.
This is not a case of a dude just snapping and going on a spree. This is a case of a man who had a plan, spent time preparing for it, and coldly executed it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Ten rifles in a hotel room, one of them capable of fully automatic fire (FYI we have very stringent rules about such weapons in the US) - seems pre-meditated.
I don't know if it is true or not, but I've read some folks thinking it wasn't fully automatic, but bump firing, as the rate of fire was irregular.
I thought americans like to travel with their guns, just in case. If he is a gun freak, ten may be just his number. We definitely need to know more about what truly happened. If it is for political reasons, at least that's something we can explain, even if it never excuses such a horrible act. If not...well, the human mind can be pretty gakked up.
Manchu wrote: Ten rifles in a hotel room, one of them capable of fully automatic fire (FYI we have very stringent rules about such weapons in the US) - seems pre-meditated.
I thought americans like to travel with their guns, just in case. If he is a gun freak, ten may be just his number. We definitely need to know more about what truly happened. If it is for political reasons, at least that's something we can explain, even if it never excuses such a horrible act. If not...well, the human mind can be pretty gakked up.
No... that is not what American's are like. We don't just randomly travel with freaking arsenals.
He also fraudulently used his roomate's ID to check into the room.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: I thought americans like to travel with their guns, just in case.
There are legal implications to carrying firearms across state lines. There are also legal implications of carrying around firing arms, period. I'm not saying it isn't done. But at the same time, it is hardly a case of "Americans like to travel with their guns."
Sorry about that. I know your culture is widely different from mine, so I thought maybe it wasn't that "abnormal" to have that many guns with him while traveling. Thanks for the precisions.
Well, seems like more signs pointed towards premeditation. That means we can explain it, but I wonder if we will really like the answer. Doesn't look like the typical guy recruited by Isis, here...
Manchu wrote: Ten rifles in a hotel room, one of them capable of fully automatic fire (FYI we have very stringent rules about such weapons in the US) - seems pre-meditated.
I thought americans like to travel with their guns, just in case. If he is a gun freak, ten may be just his number. We definitely need to know more about what truly happened. If it is for political reasons, at least that's something we can explain, even if it never excuses such a horrible act. If not...well, the human mind can be pretty gakked up.
No... that is not what American's are like. We don't just randomly travel with freaking arsenals.
Sarouan wrote: I thought maybe it wasn't that "abnormal" to have that many guns with him while traveling.
I'm having trouble thinking of a legitimate reason why a single person would be in a hotel room with ten rifles. Best I can come up with, other than some sort of trade convention, is some kind of guided hunt vacation scenario or competitive shooting event. If there was a trade show in Las Vegas (Shot Show is no longer there IIRC) or a major competition, I would bet the news coverage would have picked up on that. Therefore, it stands to reason the guy brought 10+ rifles to that hotel room with the intent to use them in a crime.
Just FYI a single person traveling with 10+ firearms is definitely way out of the ordinary by American standards. I say that as someone who has grown up around firearms, in terms of hunting, competitive shooting, gunsmithing, collecting, and sales.
I'm betting he had an AK-47 with a 60/100 mag drum. Cheapest and easiest firearm (to illegally) acquire with a high rate of fire. 7.62 will do a lot of damage. It'll be interesting to see what prompted this. I know people are freaking out over the casualties. I've seen 50+ killed, 400+ wounded listed now.
I've been saying for years that a prepared gunman can do far more damage than anything we've seen before. Looks like it finally happened.
Thanks for the precisions, Manchu. Honestly, that's what I would have thought at first, but I wasn't sure if this was really out of proportions or not. I mean, here in Belgium, just having one weapon is already suspicious of wanting to commit a crime.
I read the links reds8n gave. Seems like there are a lot of "fake news" going around on this story. Really despicable to use this tragedy to mislead people...
No problem, Sarouan. I think this kind of tragic event, and especially the inevitably editorialized news coverage, creates a warped, exploitative, and sensational view of America and Americans outside of the US. The truth is so much more mundane. Having been around firearms for my entire life, to me they are just boring objects. But I do know quite a few people even here in the US that have fetishized firearms to the point that they get nervous or anxious even being in the same room as one. It's no wonder, given an event like this - a mass murder - is the only time many, many people (including Americans) even think about firearms, outside of the realm of entertainment.
trexmeyer wrote: I've been saying for years that a prepared gunman can do far more damage than anything we've seen before.
A big packed crowd would make for a lot of casualties even with less firepower. It's not that long since the Orlando (was it?) night club shooting where a guy with handguns killed 49 people, after all. But he had ISIS sympathies and the club was known to have a large gay community so we can in some way understand the motives.
The mystery here is why a retired white middle class man would go on a rampage in Las Vegas? Hating country music doesn't quite cut it. Maybe he managed to gamble himself into debt and, when faced with losing his house (and guns!) to pay it off, went mad? Though in that case he'd surely attack the evil casino first...
It's possible that someone was trying to prove the 'good guy with a gun' myth as such Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
skyth wrote: It's possible that someone was trying to prove the 'good guy with a gun' myth as such Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
Good luck locating a rifleman in those lighting conditions that is hidden in a hotel room, especially if you aren't trained to pick up on a muzzle flash, and there are a thousand people screaming their heads off around you. Any premeditated attack such as this will always yield a large amount of casualties. Numerous targets, good vantage point, and relatively hidden as well.
Imagine if he had just two other people working with him (located at other buildings) to cover escape routes and pin people down. We'd see 4x the casualties, easily.
This is basically impossible to prevent short of hotels/businesses searching all luggage.
Forgive me for not believing that one bit... he doesn't fit that profile and this smacks of opportunitism by ISIS.
I'll wait for what the investigator comes up with.
Yeah, I find it a bit far-fetched as well, but if the guy lived relatively isolated he could have become obsessed with islam and radicalised without anyone knowing. And unlike some other groups ISIS does not really have a history of simply claiming any attack that gets made. Still, the guy does seem to be rather old for radicalisation. Usually old people are too set in their ways to make such a radical religious shift.
Smart tactic by ISIS to capitalize on the huge thirst for info about Paddock. They have no credibility to risk by lying. As/when their claim is disproven, some people will remain misinformed and others will nonetheless retain the impression that ISIS is radicalizing random white folks in America.
skyth wrote: It's possible that someone was trying to prove the 'good guy with a gun' myth as such Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
Good luck locating a rifleman in those lighting conditions that is hidden in a hotel room, especially if you aren't trained to pick up on a muzzle flash, and there are a thousand people screaming their heads off around you. Any premeditated attack such as this will always yield a large amount of casualties. Numerous targets, good vantage point, and relatively hidden as well.
Imagine if he had just two other people working with him (located at other buildings) to cover escape routes and pin people down. We'd see 4x the casualties, easily.
This is basically impossible to prevent short of hotels/businesses searching all luggage.
Yeah, if you want freedom to gather and such, that provides opportunities for people to take advantage of that. There's no good solution. Even banning guns (Which won't happen regardless) wouldn't help. Too many out there already.
It's possible the concert was just a target of opportunity for him. I was in Vegas five years ago, and I doubt the strip has changed much since then in just how packed with cars and people it can get in the evenings.
Maybe planned that he would do it, but the actual target maybe wasn't. The planning might have amounted to that the strip is always busy with tons of people.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I'll believe it was ISIS after an exhaustive investigation by the authorities with his home, computer, friends and relatives is conducted and points it to being ISIS.
ISIS will claim literally anything so we can frankly ignore them as a source.
trexmeyer wrote: I'm betting he had an AK-47 with a 60/100 mag drum. Cheapest and easiest firearm (to illegally) acquire with a high rate of fire. 7.62 will do a lot of damage.
Yeah whatever the firearm, it definitely was a drum. I own a (lawful) AK with a bump fire stock, and the strings in the video are not 30 round mags, they're probably 75 round drums.
Frazzled wrote: On gun threads, after listening to the video there is some argument that he was potentially using a bumpfire of some sort.
That seems unlikely. pretty hard to shoot straight with that kind of mechanism - were talking about 300-400 yard shooting here. They make digital triggers that can basically double your ROF per trigger pull and they have no weight - so probably about tripple ROF compared to a stock trigger. Those are expensive - I couldn't see anyone modifying more than 1 rifle this way.. It's really not that hard to rig a fully automatic AK-47 or AR-15 ether. I think we will find that of the 10 guns he had in the room on a few of them were used. To me it sounds like AK-47 firing.
Xenomancers wrote: That seems unlikely. pretty hard to shoot straight with that kind of mechanism - were talking about 300-400 yard shooting here.
FWIW on google maps it is exactly 400 yards / 377 meters. While bumpfire is indeed inaccurate I'm not sure what level of accuracy is required to hit an enormous mass of people. Of course no one knows yet so this is all just speculation.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
No way they could return fire from the event. Not with pistols anyways. It's possible he was hiding his muzzle flash too. I don't see any flashes in any of the videos (though they wern't good quality). Something as simple as wrapping wet towel around the muzzle will take away most of the muzzle flash. They only found him because of a fire alarm from what is being reported.
Something that will probably become standard for events like this is a tech invented by the army. It uses the sound of the gunshot to locate an enemy sniper quickly. I don't know how many lives could have been saved if they had it but just knowing what direction the shooting was coming from would have been very useful in helping people escape and where to hide.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
The off duty police who were present were armed, but they had hand guns. The shooter, being a quarter mile away, those things were useless. The only way to have engaged him from the site of the concert would have been with a high powered rifle, and given that risk of causing civcas given where he was firing from, they probably wouldn't have engaged even then. This man picked his site for the attack very intelligently. It enabled him maximum time to get off as many rounds as possible.
Xenomancers wrote: That seems unlikely. pretty hard to shoot straight with that kind of mechanism - were talking about 300-400 yard shooting here.
FWIW on google maps it is exactly 400 yards / 377 meters. While bumpfire is indeed inaccurate I'm not sure what level of accuracy is required to hit an enormous mass of people.
The target if you can call it that was a blob of people probably at least 200 yards wide anyway. "In the general direction" was enough.
Unless those concert attendees had rifles (and scopes) of their own, there's really nothing they could have done.
As for locating the shooter, my guess is that other people in the hotel were on the phone to the police once the shooting started. The thing about rifles is that they're really loud. I'm thinking that the SWAT team that went to the gunman's room didn't even know about the concert or what was happening over there.
Breotan wrote: As for locating the shooter, my guess is that other people in the hotel were on the phone to the police once the shooting started.
His weapons fire set off smoke alarms in his room, which is how the SWAT team was able to find find him out of the 3000+ rooms in the Mandalay Bay. It took about 20 minutes and he was already dead when they breached the door.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
Right. From my understanding concert goers were not allowed to carry guns in with them.
Even if someone managed to sneak a gun in to the concert, it would probably be a hand gun. There would have been no way someone with a handgun would have been able to hit from that distance away and that high up while in a sea of panicked people.
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
Edit: Friend passed along to me when I said concert goers might not have been able to have firearms in the concert.
http://www.nevadacarry.org/
Spoiler:
Weapon laws (NRS Ch. 202)
Concealed weapon permits (CCW) are-shall issue and open carry is legal without a permit. Nevada does not ban 'assault weapons' and there is no magazine capacity limit. There are no purchase permits, gun registration, or gun-owner licensing. Blue cards are no longer required. There is no waiting period mandated for firearm purchases and private gun sales are okay. Local gun laws are prohibited. You do not have to "register" a gun to someone else.
Government Buildings
You cannot carry in the secure area of airports (past TSA checkpoints) and concealed carry only is prohibited in public buildings where 'no guns' signs are posted or metal detectors are present at each public entrance. (NRS 202.3673). Open carry is not regulated in any non-school public building.
No guns signs
Signs do not have the force of law on private property. In public buildings, only concealed carry is banned where 'no guns' signs are posted or metal detectors are present at each public entrance (NRS 202.3673).
Bar carry
It is legal to carry concealed or openly in a bar or restaurant, even while consuming alcohol. One cannot possess a firearm if their blood alcohol content is more than .10 BAC (NRS 202.257).
Casino carry
It is legal to carry openly or concealed inside a casino, on the Las Vegas Strip, or at the Fremont Street Experience. Most casinos will ask you to leave or disarm if they observe you carrying firearms, but it is not a crime unless you refuse to leave or comply (only trespassing).
School carry
Firearms are prohibited on K-12 school property, including child care facilities. This includes parking lots. Written permission from the principal is the only exemption, which is seldom granted (NRS 202.265).
Campus carry (colleges/universities)
Firearms are prohibited on college/university property, including in parking lots, except with written permission, which is seldom granted (NRS 202.265).
Car carry
It is legal to have a loaded handgun anywhere in your vehicle, including in the glove box, as long the weapon is not concealed on your body without a permit. Rifles and shotguns cannot have a round in the chamber (NRS 503.165).
Home carry
You cannot carry concealed without a permit at home or on your own private property. Concealed carry requires a permit anywhere in the state. Technically, a firearm, loaded or unloaded, carried in bag or case is illegal without a permit.
Where can I shoot?
Laws vary by county and city. Check your local ordinances. Click the map for a list of shooting spots near Las Vegas.
Gun Safety
1. Treat all guns as if they were loaded. 2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. 3. Never point at a gun at anything you are not willing to shoot. 4. Know your target and what lies beyond. 5. Keep weapons locked away from children.
I smoke marijuana. Is it legal for me to own/buy a gun?
No. Under federal law, you are an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld this rule. Marijuana in any form is illegal under federal law. Users of marijuana are prohibited persons. Checking 'no' on question 11(e) on the Form 4473 would be a lie if you use marijuana. See this ATF letter on the topic.
Blue cards
Effective June 2, 2016, Clark County's handgun registration system, 'blue cards' was eliminated by changes to state law. Blue cards are not required nor issued. You do not have to keep your blue cards. There is no gun registration in Nevada at all. All records have been destroyed. Ballot Question 1 did not create registration.
Xenomancers wrote: That seems unlikely. pretty hard to shoot straight with that kind of mechanism - were talking about 300-400 yard shooting here.
FWIW on google maps it is exactly 400 yards / 377 meters. While bumpfire is indeed inaccurate I'm not sure what level of accuracy is required to hit an enormous mass of people.
The target if you can call it that was a blob of people probably at least 200 yards wide anyway. "In the general direction" was enough.
Well - from a standard battle rifle firing in full auto is already "in the general direction" in terms of accuracy. A bumbfire mechanism would be worse than that. Not saying it couldn't have worked but for someone that planned this as much as the shooter did - I'd think he would use something more reliable.
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
It's why the 'good guy with a gun would have stopped that' is a myth.
Do you have enough self control to keep your biased personal opinion out of this, at least for a little while. Don't worry, plenty of gun bashing will take place shortly for you to jump in on.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
Right. From my understanding concert goers were not allowed to carry guns in with them.
Even if someone managed to sneak a gun in to the concert, it would probably be a hand gun. There would have been no way someone with a handgun would have been able to hit from that distance away and that high up while in a sea of panicked people.
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
Edit: Friend passed along to me when I said concert goers might not have been able to have firearms in the concert.
http://www.nevadacarry.org/
Spoiler:
Weapon laws (NRS Ch. 202)
Concealed weapon permits (CCW) are-shall issue and open carry is legal without a permit. Nevada does not ban 'assault weapons' and there is no magazine capacity limit. There are no purchase permits, gun registration, or gun-owner licensing. Blue cards are no longer required. There is no waiting period mandated for firearm purchases and private gun sales are okay. Local gun laws are prohibited. You do not have to "register" a gun to someone else.
Government Buildings
You cannot carry in the secure area of airports (past TSA checkpoints) and concealed carry only is prohibited in public buildings where 'no guns' signs are posted or metal detectors are present at each public entrance. (NRS 202.3673). Open carry is not regulated in any non-school public building.
No guns signs
Signs do not have the force of law on private property. In public buildings, only concealed carry is banned where 'no guns' signs are posted or metal detectors are present at each public entrance (NRS 202.3673).
Bar carry
It is legal to carry concealed or openly in a bar or restaurant, even while consuming alcohol. One cannot possess a firearm if their blood alcohol content is more than .10 BAC (NRS 202.257).
Casino carry
It is legal to carry openly or concealed inside a casino, on the Las Vegas Strip, or at the Fremont Street Experience. Most casinos will ask you to leave or disarm if they observe you carrying firearms, but it is not a crime unless you refuse to leave or comply (only trespassing).
School carry
Firearms are prohibited on K-12 school property, including child care facilities. This includes parking lots. Written permission from the principal is the only exemption, which is seldom granted (NRS 202.265).
Campus carry (colleges/universities)
Firearms are prohibited on college/university property, including in parking lots, except with written permission, which is seldom granted (NRS 202.265).
Car carry
It is legal to have a loaded handgun anywhere in your vehicle, including in the glove box, as long the weapon is not concealed on your body without a permit. Rifles and shotguns cannot have a round in the chamber (NRS 503.165).
Home carry
You cannot carry concealed without a permit at home or on your own private property. Concealed carry requires a permit anywhere in the state. Technically, a firearm, loaded or unloaded, carried in bag or case is illegal without a permit.
Where can I shoot?
Laws vary by county and city. Check your local ordinances. Click the map for a list of shooting spots near Las Vegas.
Gun Safety
1. Treat all guns as if they were loaded. 2. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot. 3. Never point at a gun at anything you are not willing to shoot. 4. Know your target and what lies beyond. 5. Keep weapons locked away from children.
I smoke marijuana. Is it legal for me to own/buy a gun?
No. Under federal law, you are an unlawful user of a controlled substance. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld this rule. Marijuana in any form is illegal under federal law. Users of marijuana are prohibited persons. Checking 'no' on question 11(e) on the Form 4473 would be a lie if you use marijuana. See this ATF letter on the topic.
Blue cards
Effective June 2, 2016, Clark County's handgun registration system, 'blue cards' was eliminated by changes to state law. Blue cards are not required nor issued. You do not have to keep your blue cards. There is no gun registration in Nevada at all. All records have been destroyed. Ballot Question 1 did not create registration.
California will pass an extra three gun control laws just to be safe.
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
It's why the 'good guy with a gun would have stopped that' is a myth.
Do you have enough self control to keep your biased personal opinion out of this, at least for a little while. Don't worry, plenty of gun bashing will take place shortly for you to jump in on.
Not bashing guns. Just would-be Rambos that spout nonsense.
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
It's why the 'good guy with a gun would have stopped that' is a myth.
Do you have enough self control to keep your biased personal opinion out of this, at least for a little while. Don't worry, plenty of gun bashing will take place shortly for you to jump in on.
What are we supposed to be talking about here? I'm not being flippant, it's an honest, actual question. Are we supposed to just spout mindless platitudes about "thoughts and prayers" because "it's too soon to politicize this tragedy"?
It turned out to be a old white guy, so we can't talk about radical islam or the culture of violence in black culture, and the heckler's veto has successfully destroyed any discussion of politics on this forum, so I'm a bit lost, to be honest, about where this is supposed to go except the usual pivot to talking about mental illness (which turns political) and gun control (which turns political) for 3 or 4 pages until the usual lock and repeat in 90 days.
Again, I am truly and honestly asking where this thread is supposed to be going. Is there some acceptable avenue I missed?
Every time somebody slips on a banana skin, Islamic State claims responsibility for it, so I would not read too much into that claim.
An expert on the news was saying it was more likely due to a crisis event: his wife left him, or the taxman took 50,000 pounds off him etc etc, the kinda thing that would push somebody over the edge.
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
It's why the 'good guy with a gun would have stopped that' is a myth.
Do you have enough self control to keep your biased personal opinion out of this, at least for a little while. Don't worry, plenty of gun bashing will take place shortly for you to jump in on.
Not bashing guns. Just would-be Rambos that spout nonsense.
It's not nonsense in most shooter situations. Most shootings are done at short range with pistols(but even when long arms are used they're usually still short ranged). This is really a freak occurrence in terms of how it was executed.
A good guy with a gun couldn't have stopped this very specific incident, it's true. Doesn't mean they don't stop other incidents(they do with good regularity).
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
Right. From my understanding concert goers were not allowed to carry guns in with them.
Even if someone managed to sneak a gun in to the concert, it would probably be a hand gun. There would have been no way someone with a handgun would have been able to hit from that distance away and that high up while in a sea of panicked people.
I go to a lot of concerts at all kinds of different venues and will drive across states sometimes even for a show, and I've been in quite a few where they're obviously taking security seriously and would have found a razor blade if I had one, and I've been to a bunch where I probably could have walked in with a handgun in a pocket without getting noticed. I don't actually do either, but I'm mindful of how much security they're doing at a place, because I worry about the crowds getting rough. It's kind of a crapshoot.
I can't imagine any of them would have ever let someone just walk in with something like this though. Regardless of the setting, that's just asking for trouble.
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
It's why the 'good guy with a gun would have stopped that' is a myth.
Do you have enough self control to keep your biased personal opinion out of this, at least for a little while. Don't worry, plenty of gun bashing will take place shortly for you to jump in on.
Not bashing guns. Just would-be Rambos that spout nonsense.
But nobody was saying anything about Rambo action. You were just slipping in a anti-gun jab. As far as what to talk about, I would think the incident. Give platitudes if it makes you feel better. I'm just hoping I can get some more info on what happened before this turns into another gun debate. That's all.
The only piece of good news to come of this is that this massacre had nothing to do with any Muslim affiliated individual with everything going on.
A sad event.
I assume like a lot of these lone wolf killers they'll discover a manifesto of sorts? Has there been any info on his political or deranged insanity message?
This guy planned it so that he would cause confusion and disorient people making harder to find him.
It's why the 'good guy with a gun would have stopped that' is a myth.
Do you have enough self control to keep your biased personal opinion out of this, at least for a little while. Don't worry, plenty of gun bashing will take place shortly for you to jump in on.
Not bashing guns. Just would-be Rambos that spout nonsense.
To be fair if someone in a room adjacent to the shooter was armed and heard the gunshots they would have been the best chance at preventing this from getting as bad as it did. It took the police 20 minutes to find this guy. That's not what I am advocating here - I'm just saying it would have been the best chance at stopping this if someone was in the right place at the right time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stevefamine wrote: The only piece of good news to come of this is that this massacre had nothing to do with any Muslim affiliated individual with everything going on.
A sad event.
I assume like a lot of these lone wolf killers they'll discover a manifesto of sorts? Has there been any info on his political or deranged insanity message?
How is that good news? I'd much rather this be a known terrorist affiliate than just - random 64 year old dude decided to go on a rampage. Something can be done about one of those things - the other? The other is just - these things happen - lets move on.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
No way they could return fire from the event. Not with pistols anyways. It's possible he was hiding his muzzle flash too. I don't see any flashes in any of the videos (though they wern't good quality). Something as simple as wrapping wet towel around the muzzle will take away most of the muzzle flash. They only found him because of a fire alarm from what is being reported.
Something that will probably become standard for events like this is a tech invented by the army. It uses the sound of the gunshot to locate an enemy sniper quickly. I don't know how many lives could have been saved if they had it but just knowing what direction the shooting was coming from would have been very useful in helping people escape and where to hide.
because these tragedies just aren't tragic enough.
Spoiler:
Democrats are voicing opposition to a Republican measure that would ease restrictions on the purchase of gun silencers.
The measure from Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) is in a broad sportsmen’s bill, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, aimed at broadening public access to federal lands for hunting and fishing.
But the bill also contains some gun provisions, including Duncan’s, which would make it easier to buy silencers for firearms, a process which currently requires registration and a background check under the National Firearms Act.
Under Duncan's measure, silencers, also known as suppressors, would be removed from the National Firearms Act. Purchasers would need to only undergo a less extensive, instant background check.
At a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing on the bill Tuesday, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said silencers muffle the distinctive sounds of a gun and make it more difficult to identify where shots are coming from.
“It is for this reason that silencers are so heavily regulated and why so dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands,” he said. “We should not make it easier for anyone to obtain these weapons of war.”
Gomez expressed dismay that the measure was tied to a hunting and fishing bill.
“It is deeply concerning that our committee is taking up valuable time and resources on a bill loaded with provisions that will weaken gun safety laws instead of a clean bill that could potentially earn all of our support,” he said.
But Republicans defended the measure, saying silencers were used primarily by sportsmen to prevent hearing loss.
Duncan’s measure is dubbed the Hearing Protection Act and has the backing of the National Rifle Association, the country’s most powerful gun rights group.
"Right now we are in a situation where it seems … that sportsmen have to choose between damaging their hearing and being able to hunt, shoot, target practice,” said Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).
Democrats invited David Chipman, senior policy adviser of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a pro-gun control group to testify. Chipman, a 25-year veteran of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said making silencers easier to obtain would endanger police officers and the public.
Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) asked Chipman if the legislation would make active shooter situations more dangerous.
“Anytime an active shooter situation takes longer to recognize as an actual shooting causes more injury and death,” he said.
Referencing last year’s mass shootings at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla., and the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., McEachin asked Chipman if the bill would lead to more deadly weapons ending up in the hands of the kinds of people who commit these atrocities.
“This bill in particular would make silencers more readily available to criminals because for the first time in 80 years private parties could sell these guns without background checks on the internet and in gun shows and this has never been the case before,” Chipman said.
“One of the reason we have not seen silencers out there in tons of crimes is the fact that we have a regulatory structure that makes it very difficult to get these.”
Chipman said there would have been more casualties at the congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., where House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and wounded if the gunman had used a silencer.
“Since silencers today are legal, there can be no possible benefit other than a negative undercutting of public safety by making them unregulated,” Chipman said.
Democrats also raised concerns that other gun provisions in the sportsmen’s bill could make it easier to import more firearms into the U.S.
Cheney asked Stephen Halbrook, who has sued on behalf of the NRA, whether additional access to suppressors will result in an increase in gun violence.
“It’s easy to make a suppressor. If you want to make one now you can do it and a person who would not be dissuaded from committing a murder by capital punishment potentially is not going to worry about a National Firearms Act conviction for non-registration of a suppressor,” Halbrook said.
“The fact is we’ve heard a parade of horribles of issues that would apply to criminals and we have criminal misuse of weapons now,” he continued. “This bill would simply make it easier for law abiding people to protect their hearing.”
After the hearing, Democrats held an event to draw more attention to the measure.
Rep. Raúl Grivalja (D-Ariz.) called the gun provisions “poison pills” and said it was “cowardly” and “arrogant” to attach them to “otherwise good legislation.”
“What happened today was a kowtowing to the NRA, to gun manufacturers, their agenda, and now to what they hope is a new industry that expands: silencer manufacturers,” Grivalja told reporters.
Democrats said they did not expect to be able to block the silencer provision in the House.
“Hopefully the Senate will provide a little adult supervision on these issues,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.).
This story was last updated at 5:44 p.m.
Really a horrific event, not sure what would possess someone to do sometbing like this, especially with that kind of hardware, and I expect this will...drive changes, particularly due to the big dollar/high profile location.
From the audio, it sure sounded like a legit full auto weapon, none of the irregular cadence of a bump fire stock or binary trigger. It will be interesting to see what ultimately turns up in that regard.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
No way they could return fire from the event. Not with pistols anyways. It's possible he was hiding his muzzle flash too. I don't see any flashes in any of the videos (though they wern't good quality). Something as simple as wrapping wet towel around the muzzle will take away most of the muzzle flash. They only found him because of a fire alarm from what is being reported.
Something that will probably become standard for events like this is a tech invented by the army. It uses the sound of the gunshot to locate an enemy sniper quickly. I don't know how many lives could have been saved if they had it but just knowing what direction the shooting was coming from would have been very useful in helping people escape and where to hide.
must be why congress is passing laws to allow every one to have silencers. The hearing of the shooter is more important than the lives lost.
A suppressor being present or not wasnt going to save or take any additional lives. Firing supersonic rifle ammunition from an elevated window position on full auto isnt something a suppressor is going to have much of an impact on, the rounds going downrange are still breaking the sound barrier and leaving a sonic wake like a jet engine.
Despite what Hollywood tells you, suppressors (not silencers) in the civilian world are mostly used to avoid hearing damage, not annoy neighbours when you're shooting and during hunts.
Rival teams of assassins conducting john-woo style bullet operas are an atypical usage of suppressors.
Nostromodamus wrote: Despite what Hollywood tells you, suppressors (not silencers) in the civilian world are mostly used to avoid hearing damage, not annoy neighbours when you're shooting and during hunts.
Rival teams of assassins conducting john-woo style bullet operas are an atypical usage of suppressors.
Yeah. And they're not good at that either.
A suppressor doesn't make a gunshot stop sounding like a gunshot. It just makes it no longer loud enough to damage your hearing. It's still quite loud and can be heard from a good distance away.
Xenomancers wrote: That seems unlikely. pretty hard to shoot straight with that kind of mechanism - were talking about 300-400 yard shooting here.
FWIW on google maps it is exactly 400 yards / 377 meters. While bumpfire is indeed inaccurate I'm not sure what level of accuracy is required to hit an enormous mass of people.
The target if you can call it that was a blob of people probably at least 200 yards wide anyway. "In the general direction" was enough.
Well - from a standard battle rifle firing in full auto is already "in the general direction" in terms of accuracy. A bumbfire mechanism would be worse than that. Not saying it couldn't have worked but for someone that planned this as much as the shooter did - I'd think he would use something more reliable.
Some things were done intelligently some others not so much so it wouldn't surprise me if he used a bumpfire stock instead of a modified trigger or spending the time and money to go through the NFA registry. He had 10 guns and thousands of rounds in his hotel room so he knew he's be firing off a considerable number of rounds in a confined space but didn't bother covering up the smoke alarms in the hotel room (something all my friends figured out to do every time they got high in college). For all the time and effort he invested in planning and carrying out the attack he had no escape plan even though escape would have been possible, instead he chose to kill himself before the police even breached his room. Obviously this guy had his wires crossed up enough to want to commit mass murder against strangers and follow it up by taking his own life but he's clearly not some wild deranged lunatic and the fact that he was able to plan some aspects of his attack doesn't mean that he was using logic and reasoning in the normal sense. It doesn't take much to create somebody that's off by just enough to go down a road that leads to some dark and terrible thoughts/actions and whatever caused that person's view of the world to get skewed into a dangerous perspective is often times difficult or impossible to see from the outside looking in. There's really nothing that can be done to prevent some people from having an abnormal mental state that allows them to commit or try to commit mass murder, we can only take solace in the fact that such people are extremely rare and the amount of death and destruction they can cause isn't an existential threat to civil society.
Vaktathi wrote: Really a horrific event, not sure what would possess someone to do sometbing like this, especially with that kind of hardware, and I expect this will...drive changes, particularly due to the big dollar/high profile location.
From the audio, it sure sounded like a legit full auto weapon, none of the irregular cadence of a bump fire stock or binary trigger. It will be interesting to see what ultimately turns up in that regard.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
No way they could return fire from the event. Not with pistols anyways. It's possible he was hiding his muzzle flash too. I don't see any flashes in any of the videos (though they wern't good quality). Something as simple as wrapping wet towel around the muzzle will take away most of the muzzle flash. They only found him because of a fire alarm from what is being reported.
Something that will probably become standard for events like this is a tech invented by the army. It uses the sound of the gunshot to locate an enemy sniper quickly. I don't know how many lives could have been saved if they had it but just knowing what direction the shooting was coming from would have been very useful in helping people escape and where to hide.
must be why congress is passing laws to allow every one to have silencers. The hearing of the shooter is more important than the lives lost.
A suppressor being present or not wasnt going to save or take any additional lives. Firing supersonic rifle ammunition from an elevated window position on full auto isnt something a suppressor is going to have much of an impact on, the rounds going downrange are still breaking the sound barrier and leaving a sonic wake like a jet engine.
I agree, it wouldn't have changed anything in this situation, but we have the upcoming school shootings to consider.
Because of course they have. That's what they're reduced to. Lying.
Did you wake up and stub your toe? If it makes the news, IS will claim responsibility.
Run out of bog paper? If it makes the news, IS will claim responsibility.
Local lunatic done something horrific? IS will claim responsibility.
I get what you are saying, and agree to some extent, but until a clear motive is established, IS involvement carries the same weight as affiliation with any other extremist group or any other kind of motivating factor such as a breakdown, homicidal wish fulfillment, twisted revenge, etc..
Police and other authorities will explore all options with an open mind. Its best to not speculate authoritatively one way or the other until the motive is known.
Manchu wrote: Smart tactic by ISIS to capitalize on the huge thirst for info about Paddock. They have no credibility to risk by lying. As/when their claim is disproven, some people will remain misinformed and others will nonetheless retain the impression that ISIS is radicalizing random white folks in America.
As far as I've seen, the only place with the initial ISIS claim has been Russian media and there has been, as Reds8n posted, a distinct attempt by a certain political element here in the US to push the narrative that the shooter was an Antifa/Democrat/US Communist Party member and the woman with him was a Muslim of Filipino descent.
It might have been picked up elsewhere but until I see a timestamped news story from a source that isn't Russian state media...I'll file it under propaganda driven nonsense hand in hand with Alt-Right narrative drives.
It's terrible what happened but it's important to remember that this is going to be a highly politicized event one way or another. It doesn't help though that this comes at the same time as there's legislation on the docket about suppressors/silencers.
Vaktathi wrote: Really a horrific event, not sure what would possess someone to do sometbing like this, especially with that kind of hardware, and I expect this will...drive changes, particularly due to the big dollar/high profile location.
From the audio, it sure sounded like a legit full auto weapon, none of the irregular cadence of a bump fire stock or binary trigger. It will be interesting to see what ultimately turns up in that regard.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
No way they could return fire from the event. Not with pistols anyways. It's possible he was hiding his muzzle flash too. I don't see any flashes in any of the videos (though they wern't good quality). Something as simple as wrapping wet towel around the muzzle will take away most of the muzzle flash. They only found him because of a fire alarm from what is being reported.
Something that will probably become standard for events like this is a tech invented by the army. It uses the sound of the gunshot to locate an enemy sniper quickly. I don't know how many lives could have been saved if they had it but just knowing what direction the shooting was coming from would have been very useful in helping people escape and where to hide.
must be why congress is passing laws to allow every one to have silencers. The hearing of the shooter is more important than the lives lost.
A suppressor being present or not wasnt going to save or take any additional lives. Firing supersonic rifle ammunition from an elevated window position on full auto isnt something a suppressor is going to have much of an impact on, the rounds going downrange are still breaking the sound barrier and leaving a sonic wake like a jet engine.
I agree, it wouldn't have changed anything in this situation, but we have the upcoming school shootings to consider.
Suppressors would have no discernable effect on any kind of mass shooting. They don't make gunshots quiet, they merely make them quieter. Nobody is going to hear gunshots from a suppressed weapon and not recognize that they are gunshots. Suppressors make it easier to protect your hearing while shooting because they make hearing protection more effective and minimize the damage of gunshots heard without hearing protection. I hear dozens of gunshots every weekend because plenty of people around my neighborhood have enough property to shoot on and making suppressors easier to get would make that noise a lot more bearable and the weekends more pleasant. Suppressors can be had legally without much hassle at all, the biggest issue is the ATF being extremely slow with sending approvals but anyone with $200 and willing to wait 6-8 months can have a suppressor, millions of NFA items are bought by people every year: short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors and fully automatic weapons. It's not even difficult to make your own suppressors we just decided to make it a federal offense for some reason. Your fear mongering of this issue is being driven by ignorance of the subject matter.
Wow! I just found out that a high school friend was at the event.
Im safe, wasn't shot but a lady next to me was, made it out of the restaurant and fled with 100 others as people were being shot...a nightmare.
Spent the night on the sidewalk with others that fled and the national guard kept us in a safe area as they trapped the shooter on the 32nd floor and breached that room. They moved us to the UNLV arena for shelter, foods, medics.
520 injured, 58 killed...crazy as gak. Just got back to the hotel, its open now except for the 32nd floor. I just went and donated blood so now i need to get food take a nap.
The whole time we were all out in the cold dark waiting, las vegas citizens were dropping us water, food, and blankets, what a rally.
This whole suppressor tangent is total garbage. All suppressors do is reduce the volume of the rounds from "instant, permanent hearing loss" to "loud".
But why tell you when we can just show you:
There are ways to reduce the volume a little more, like subsonic rounds, but it's still nothing like depicted in the movies, where it's a little pfft, pfft. You can get a 22LR to be that quiet and that's about it.
Because of course they have. That's what they're reduced to. Lying.
Did you wake up and stub your toe? If it makes the news, IS will claim responsibility.
Run out of bog paper? If it makes the news, IS will claim responsibility.
Local lunatic done something horrific? IS will claim responsibility.
I get what you are saying, and agree to some extent, but until a clear motive is established, IS involvement carries the same weight as affiliation with any other extremist group or any other kind of motivating factor such as a breakdown, homicidal wish fulfillment, twisted revenge, etc..
Police and other authorities will explore all options with an open mind. Its best to not speculate authoritatively one way or the other until the motive is known.
US authorities have already discounted it, according to the BBC.
Seriously, this is how IS operate. It's pretty much the same as the local wannabe hardman claiming they're secretly involved in all sorts of crime, despite just being a saddo propping up the bar. They do it to maintain that rather than a rather select bunch of lunatics, they're genuinely a globe spanning operation.
But they're not. At all. And haven't been for a long time, as such things can be measured.
Stevefamine wrote: The only piece of good news to come of this is that this massacre had nothing to do with any Muslim affiliated individual with everything going on.
A sad event.
I assume like a lot of these lone wolf killers they'll discover a manifesto of sorts? Has there been any info on his political or deranged insanity message?
How is that good news? I'd much rather this be a known terrorist affiliate than just - random 64 year old dude decided to go on a rampage. Something can be done about one of those things - the other? The other is just - these things happen - lets move on.
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
Vaktathi wrote: Really a horrific event, not sure what would possess someone to do sometbing like this, especially with that kind of hardware, and I expect this will...drive changes, particularly due to the big dollar/high profile location.
From the audio, it sure sounded like a legit full auto weapon, none of the irregular cadence of a bump fire stock or binary trigger. It will be interesting to see what ultimately turns up in that regard.
If you load the clip into Audacity, you'll see that the ROF ramps up and down. I'm going with Gat Crank or bumpfire stock.
Also (not a reply to you, but rather to the thread in general): a suppressor would not have changed the acoustic signature of that weapon meaningfully. The sound you're hearing in most of the videos is ballistic crack of the rounds, not the muzzle blast of the weapon.
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership. The people who say that this kind of thing is an unavoidable tragedy and rage at others "politicising a tragedy" are themselves politicising it.
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership.
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
Prestor Jon wrote: Suppressors would have no discernable effect on any kind of mass shooting. They don't make gunshots quiet, they merely make them quieter. Nobody is going to hear gunshots from a suppressed weapon and not recognize that they are gunshots. Suppressors make it easier to protect your hearing while shooting because they make hearing protection more effective and minimize the damage of gunshots heard without hearing protection. Suppressors can be had legally without much hassle at all, the biggest issue is the ATF being extremely slow with sending approvals but anyone with $200 and willing to wait 6-8 months can have a suppressor.
Aye, anyone thinking owning a suppressor makes you an automatic assassin/criminal is just being silly or more likely has only seen the stuff in movies where they often make high-powered pistols and even rifles say "pfft" when fired. It doesn't work like that, even my .22LR rifle with suppressor and subsonic ammo still makes enough noise that someone in realistic shooting range should recognize it as a gunshot. And that was suppressor over the counter with the rifle, no questions asked because it's perfectly legal here - the rifle even had the threads straight from the factory. Great thing for sports shooters who shoot a lot and hunters who might need one ear for the radio on a moose team etc.
Besides, someone wanting to go hitman is more likely to use a cheap, common and reliable handgun that he can throw away while keeping as much profit as possible (real hitmen don't get paid as much as Jason Statham anyway). Tricking out a pistol or rifle with all the nice stuff costs thousands of dollars, and there's a lot of parts with numbers stamped on that could eventually be tracked to you. Taking a contract on some El Presidente, maybe, but then he's worth more money too.
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership.
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
Vaktathi wrote: Really a horrific event, not sure what would possess someone to do sometbing like this, especially with that kind of hardware, and I expect this will...drive changes, particularly due to the big dollar/high profile location.
From the audio, it sure sounded like a legit full auto weapon, none of the irregular cadence of a bump fire stock or binary trigger. It will be interesting to see what ultimately turns up in that regard.
If you load the clip into Audacity, you'll see that the ROF ramps up and down. I'm going with Gat Crank or bumpfire stock.
Also (not a reply to you, but rather to the thread in general): a suppressor would not have changed the acoustic signature of that weapon meaningfully. The sound you're hearing in most of the videos is ballistic crack of the rounds, not the muzzle blast of the weapon.
It's possible - BUT - I think any sort of cranking up you a hearing is simply the effect hearing the echo over the continuous fire.
The answer about what can actually be done about stuff like that has been discussed in every other already locked gun thread on here, and no new answers will come from this incident.
We just need to accept that we, as a nation, have decided that we are okay with stuff like this happening. Anybody can kill people with or without guns, and guns just make it easier to kill more people and to kill them quicker. That's why people carry concealed guns rather than killing concealed hammers, even though one of the popular arguments is "if someone wants to kill you they will just use a hammer and not a gun, so a gun makes no difference." From everything we have read the shooter was a legal gun owner, right until the moment he decided to murder a lot of people. The Orlando shooter was a legal gun owner, right until the moment he decided to murder a lot of people.
I can walk into a school tomorrow and choke students to death or hit them in the head with a hammer to kill them, but I wouldn't be able to take out that many kids before someone stops me. If I use my guns I could take out quite a few kids before someone can stop me. My weapons are all legal, I can carry them legally, my ammo is all legal, and the only thing keeping me from being the next mass-shooter is the simple fact that I have no urge to go around killing people. The weapons I legally own make it easy for me to commit a horrific crime if I wanted to, and we decided long ago that our rights to own these weapons are important enough to accept the consequence that having all these weapons make it easy for anybody, even legal gun owners, to use them for horrific purposes.
There are things we can do to improve it, but we won't do them. For the next week it will be "it's to early to talk about it", then someone will tweet about unpatriotic people not loving our flag and we will move on and be angry about something else. Then the next shooting will happen. Rinse, repeat.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
skyth wrote: Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
Just spit balling here.
I highly doubt any concert would allow attendees to carry firearms, regardless of genre or any perceived political leanings.
I was in TN for a music festival and I saw undercover police and what one guy said being retired carry side-arms.
However, not sure what they could've done as the LV shooter was on the 32nd floor shooting THREE football fields away... (edit, seeing Ouze's post, make that FOUR football fields)
No way they could return fire from the event. Not with pistols anyways. It's possible he was hiding his muzzle flash too. I don't see any flashes in any of the videos (though they wern't good quality). Something as simple as wrapping wet towel around the muzzle will take away most of the muzzle flash. They only found him because of a fire alarm from what is being reported.
Something that will probably become standard for events like this is a tech invented by the army. It uses the sound of the gunshot to locate an enemy sniper quickly. I don't know how many lives could have been saved if they had it but just knowing what direction the shooting was coming from would have been very useful in helping people escape and where to hide.
because these tragedies just aren't tragic enough.
Spoiler:
Democrats are voicing opposition to a Republican measure that would ease restrictions on the purchase of gun silencers.
The measure from Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) is in a broad sportsmen’s bill, the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act, aimed at broadening public access to federal lands for hunting and fishing.
But the bill also contains some gun provisions, including Duncan’s, which would make it easier to buy silencers for firearms, a process which currently requires registration and a background check under the National Firearms Act.
Under Duncan's measure, silencers, also known as suppressors, would be removed from the National Firearms Act. Purchasers would need to only undergo a less extensive, instant background check.
At a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands hearing on the bill Tuesday, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said silencers muffle the distinctive sounds of a gun and make it more difficult to identify where shots are coming from.
“It is for this reason that silencers are so heavily regulated and why so dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands,” he said. “We should not make it easier for anyone to obtain these weapons of war.”
Gomez expressed dismay that the measure was tied to a hunting and fishing bill.
“It is deeply concerning that our committee is taking up valuable time and resources on a bill loaded with provisions that will weaken gun safety laws instead of a clean bill that could potentially earn all of our support,” he said.
But Republicans defended the measure, saying silencers were used primarily by sportsmen to prevent hearing loss.
Duncan’s measure is dubbed the Hearing Protection Act and has the backing of the National Rifle Association, the country’s most powerful gun rights group.
"Right now we are in a situation where it seems … that sportsmen have to choose between damaging their hearing and being able to hunt, shoot, target practice,” said Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).
Democrats invited David Chipman, senior policy adviser of Americans for Responsible Solutions, a pro-gun control group to testify. Chipman, a 25-year veteran of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said making silencers easier to obtain would endanger police officers and the public.
Rep. Donald McEachin (D-Va.) asked Chipman if the legislation would make active shooter situations more dangerous.
“Anytime an active shooter situation takes longer to recognize as an actual shooting causes more injury and death,” he said.
Referencing last year’s mass shootings at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, Fla., and the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., McEachin asked Chipman if the bill would lead to more deadly weapons ending up in the hands of the kinds of people who commit these atrocities.
“This bill in particular would make silencers more readily available to criminals because for the first time in 80 years private parties could sell these guns without background checks on the internet and in gun shows and this has never been the case before,” Chipman said.
“One of the reason we have not seen silencers out there in tons of crimes is the fact that we have a regulatory structure that makes it very difficult to get these.”
Chipman said there would have been more casualties at the congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va., where House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and wounded if the gunman had used a silencer.
“Since silencers today are legal, there can be no possible benefit other than a negative undercutting of public safety by making them unregulated,” Chipman said.
Democrats also raised concerns that other gun provisions in the sportsmen’s bill could make it easier to import more firearms into the U.S.
Cheney asked Stephen Halbrook, who has sued on behalf of the NRA, whether additional access to suppressors will result in an increase in gun violence.
“It’s easy to make a suppressor. If you want to make one now you can do it and a person who would not be dissuaded from committing a murder by capital punishment potentially is not going to worry about a National Firearms Act conviction for non-registration of a suppressor,” Halbrook said.
“The fact is we’ve heard a parade of horribles of issues that would apply to criminals and we have criminal misuse of weapons now,” he continued. “This bill would simply make it easier for law abiding people to protect their hearing.”
After the hearing, Democrats held an event to draw more attention to the measure.
Rep. Raúl Grivalja (D-Ariz.) called the gun provisions “poison pills” and said it was “cowardly” and “arrogant” to attach them to “otherwise good legislation.”
“What happened today was a kowtowing to the NRA, to gun manufacturers, their agenda, and now to what they hope is a new industry that expands: silencer manufacturers,” Grivalja told reporters.
Democrats said they did not expect to be able to block the silencer provision in the House.
“Hopefully the Senate will provide a little adult supervision on these issues,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.).
This story was last updated at 5:44 p.m.
What does a silencer have to do with a full auto weapon?
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership.
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?
I just realized that I had been doing some writing last night/yesterday. I think it's kind of eerie that this happened around the same time...especially now that D-USA just said we can't really do anything to stop such events.
so let's pop bottles, stay ignorant, this is bliss or isn't it?
well I can't change the incidents so it's best to stay indifferent
until the circumstances flip and it's you facing a bananna clip
in the hand of man with a camel lit clap the chest like an anvil hits keeping on squeezing till the piece goes click barely breathing what is this
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment does.
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership.
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
Not sure what additional laws would've stopped this... but, we don't have the full story so I'd wait a few days before figuring out which gun control laws are needed.
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership.
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)
Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.
There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Whenever I hear gunfire I am always slightly alarmed by how innocuous the sound actually appears.
Its almost disturbing in a way. 'Firecrackers' is always something that I hear gunfire compared to. This event was no different.
Anyway. The media is being its usual vile self. the desperation from some reporters in trying to find an angle is particularly reprehensible.
I feel for the victims but also the brother and family of the shooter. being hounded so soon after the event.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment does.
"A well regulated militia," check
there's no drafts anymore, so no civilians will need their own guns to form a militia.
A background check and waiting periods are great places to start.
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment does.
"A well regulated militia," check
Our Supreme Court decided that militia actually means "everybody that can own guns".
d-usa wrote: The answer about what can actually be done about stuff like that has been discussed in every other already locked gun thread on here, and no new answers will come from this incident.
We just need to accept that we, as a nation, have decided that we are okay with stuff like this happening. Anybody can kill people with or without guns, and guns just make it easier to kill more people and to kill them quicker. That's why people carry concealed guns rather than killing concealed hammers, even though one of the popular arguments is "if someone wants to kill you they will just use a hammer and not a gun, so a gun makes no difference." From everything we have read the shooter was a legal gun owner, right until the moment he decided to murder a lot of people. The Orlando shooter was a legal gun owner, right until the moment he decided to murder a lot of people.
I can walk into a school tomorrow and choke students to death or hit them in the head with a hammer to kill them, but I wouldn't be able to take out that many kids before someone stops me. If I use my guns I could take out quite a few kids before someone can stop me. My weapons are all legal, I can carry them legally, my ammo is all legal, and the only thing keeping me from being the next mass-shooter is the simple fact that I have no urge to go around killing people. The weapons I legally own make it easy for me to commit a horrific crime if I wanted to, and we decided long ago that our rights to own these weapons are important enough to accept the consequence that having all these weapons make it easy for anybody, even legal gun owners, to use them for horrific purposes.
There are things we can do to improve it, but we won't do them. For the next week it will be "it's to early to talk about it", then someone will tweet about unpatriotic people not loving our flag and we will move on and be angry about something else. Then the next shooting will happen. Rinse, repeat.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Your argument is easily defeated by coming up with easier ways to kill lots of people than buying a gun - which the list is endless. The issue here is not how easy it is to kill lots of people though. The issue is why to people want to kill lots of people. Until you can answer that and fix that problem - things like this will happen. The fascination killers seem to have with killing with guns is likely because it's more personal as it makes them feel like the device of destruction rather than...the bomb- or the poison- or the fire. I could be wrong but I am assuming that people that want to kill lots of people will just pick whatever method is most personal to them and use it. Not even to mention that obtaining a weapon in a society that bans guns but has 300 million unregistered guns floating around will be exceptionally easy.
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment does.
"A well regulated militia," check
there's no drafts anymore, so no civilians will need their own guns to form a militia.
A background check and waiting periods are great places to start.
When you are drafted, you arent in a Militia, you're in the active military. Draftees in the modern era don't bring their own weapons, they are issued them by the government. A Militia, is on the simplest level and banding together of Civilians for use in military functions, they would need to provide their own firearms.
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership.
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
Not sure what additional laws would've stopped this... but, we don't have the full story so I'd wait a few days before figuring out which gun control laws are needed.
What is going to happen in a few days that will change the argument?
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
Xenomancers wrote: Your argument is easily defeated by coming up with easier ways to kill lots of people than buying a gun - which the list is endless. The issue here is not how easy it is to kill lots of people though. The issue is why to people want to kill lots of people. Until you can answer that and fix that problem - things like this will happen. The fascination killers seem to have with killing with guns is likely because it's more personal as it makes them feel like the device of destruction rather than...the bomb- or the poison- or the fire. I could be wrong but I am assuming that people that want to kill lots of people will just pick whatever method is most personal to them and use it. Not even to mention that obtaining a weapon in a society that bans guns but has 300 million unregistered guns floating around will be exceptionally easy.
I know I have my concealed carry bomb, and my concealed carry fire, and my concealed carry poison on me in case I want another easy substitute for self defense when I feel that my concealed carry gun just isn't interesting enough that day.
People use guns to kill because they are cheap, plentiful, and easy. People use guns to commit crimes for the same reason people carry guns to protect themselves. Yet, people who carry guns for self defense because it's super easy to make people dead with them, which is why I carry them, have a strange aversion to admitting that guns make it so much easier to kill people.
Vaktathi wrote: How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)
Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.
There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.
You just stop selling the guns & bullets to civilians, so as the guns break, or get confiscated as evidence, they're removed from the pool. 300 million is chump change really, they found 800 million to increase the militaries industrial complex budget. Then take away the cost of these emergency responses and the militarization of the police and the cost is nothing and that's buying them back at your suggested price. You could probably buy them back at 1/2 current value.
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Holy slippery slopes batman. I forgot that Australia has these incidents happen on the daily over there, now that they have very tight gun restrictions. I bet they are hating it!
Isn't that pretty mucht he nature of all of these types of events? We all just move-on and think "There was nothing we could do. These things happen". The question always left in my mind.... is there really nothing we can do? Do thee things really "just happen?"
I really don't know.
You actually can do something about all the mass shootings in the US: crack down on guns and gun ownership.
How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
Not sure what additional laws would've stopped this... but, we don't have the full story so I'd wait a few days before figuring out which gun control laws are needed.
What is going to happen in a few days that will change the argument?
Honestly?
I don't know...
Just like we don't know much why this donkey-cave shot up a music concert...
Keep in mind that this hotel was a "Guns Free Zone" and that at least one weapon may have been a fully automatic weapon (unconfirmed though). Besides the flat out murder, this guy went well out of his way to plan this breaking multiple laws in the process.
Vaktathi wrote: How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)
Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.
There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.
You just stop selling the guns & bullets to civilians, so as the guns break, or get confiscated as evidence, they're removed from the pool 300 million is chump change really, they found 800 million to increase the militaries industrial complex budget. Then take away the cost of these emergency responses and the militarization of the police and the cost is nothing and that's buying them back at your suggested price. You could probably buy them back at 1/2 current value.
So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.
Vaktathi wrote: How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)
Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.
There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.
You just stop selling the guns & bullets to civilians, so as the guns break, or get confiscated as evidence, they're removed from the pool 300 million is chump change really, they found 800 million to increase the militaries industrial complex budget. Then take away the cost of these emergency responses and the militarization of the police and the cost is nothing and that's buying them back at your suggested price. You could probably buy them back at 1/2 current value.
So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.
well if that's all it takes to turn "responsible law abiding gun owners" into violent criminals. then we can conclude they're already violent gun owners, and as such they should not be allowed near weapons of any kind.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
So? Doesn't make it less valid.
We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Second Amendment does.
"A well regulated militia," check
there's no drafts anymore, so no civilians will need their own guns to form a militia.
A background check and waiting periods are great places to start.
We already have background checks.
Also according to U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 12 › § 246 the militia consists of every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 who is a US citizen or has declared his intent to become a US citizen. There is also the organized militia which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia but US law does not limit the militia to only being members of the National Guard.
A majority of the 50 states also have gun rights in their state constitutions which would still allow for widespread gun ownership in those states regardless of the status or interpretation of the 2nd amendment of the federal constitution. You're not going to get rid of guns in the US although doing so would save lives as suicides make up the majority of annual gun deaths.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
The constitution didn't mention guns at all when drafted and was ratified without any protections about gun ownership.
The 2nd Amendment was ratified 3 years after the constitution, hence why it's an "Amendment".
The way it works when the Constitution was drafted was that people can decide to add Amendments like the 2nd, which was done, and people can repeal the 2nd if they wanted to. And the way the Constitution was drafted also means that the SCOTUS judges get to decide what the Constitution actually means.
Vaktathi wrote: How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)
Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.
There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.
You just stop selling the guns & bullets to civilians, so as the guns break, or get confiscated as evidence, they're removed from the pool 300 million is chump change really, they found 800 million to increase the militaries industrial complex budget. Then take away the cost of these emergency responses and the militarization of the police and the cost is nothing and that's buying them back at your suggested price. You could probably buy them back at 1/2 current value.
So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.
well if that's all it takes to turn "responsible law abiding gun owners" into violent criminals. then we can conclude they're already violent gun owners, and as such they should not be allowed near weapons of any kind.
Its not going to turn them all into that, but it will increase the likely hood, by destroying their lively hood. Depressed people are more likely to make poor decisions. Who gets depressed and desperate? People with out the means to provide for their families.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
So? Doesn't make it less valid.
We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.
No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.
Simple question, simple answer.
You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.
Simple question, simple answer.
You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.
Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.
So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.
"We can't regulate guns, because gun manufacturers will be out of work and kill everyone with the guns they now can't sell" may be the weirdest argument I have heard in all our gun threads to date.
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.
Simple question, simple answer.
You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.
Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.
come on now, gun owners support the #bluelivesmatter and preach obey the cops at all times. Surely the would never raise their guns to an officer, because they know that's what gets you killed.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
So? Doesn't make it less valid.
We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.
No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?
What "progress" are you specifically clamoring for... especially in relation to how it may prevent last night shooting?
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.
Simple question, simple answer.
You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.
Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.
Well, of those people love the constitution like they say they do they would surely honor any constitutional amendment that repealed the 2nd.
But yeah, it comes back to the observation that many gun deaths are caused by legally owned guns. The two deadliest mass shootings, both committed in the past two years, were conducted by legal gun owners who decided one day that they were going to break the law that day.
So now instead of turning 300 million people into criminals you want to force people who produce the guns and ammo, sell the guns and ammo out of work? Increasing the number of disgruntled people in the populace who would have the means to carry out shootings. Either way, you're increasing the likely hood of violence.
"We can't regulate guns, because gun manufacturers will be out of work and kill everyone with the guns they now can't sell" may be the weirdest argument I have heard in all our gun threads to date.
Its strange to you because you're only reading part of the conversation, which is typical for this kind of debate.
I wasn't saying they couldnt be regulated, I was saying the sale could not be ceased all together. Nor was I saying they'd all turn and murder people. Good try though.
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.
Simple question, simple answer.
You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.
Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.
come on now, gun owners support the #bluelivesmatter and preach obey the cops at all times. Surely the would never raise their guns to an officer, because they know that's what gets you killed.
Except that's a mass generalization, which seems to be all you're good at.
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.
Simple question, simple answer.
You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.
Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.
Well, of those people love the constitution like they say they do they would surely honor any constitutional amendment that repealed the 2nd.
But yeah, it comes back to the observation that many gun deaths are caused by legally owned guns. The two deadliest mass shootings, both committed in the past two years, were conducted by legal gun owners who decided one day that they were going to break the law that day.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
So? Doesn't make it less valid.
We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.
No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.
Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
yes it's hard, it's harder when nothing is done to even try because way to many accept the violence. Heck we can't even an awareness campaign, "shoot yourself, not other"
vehicle homicides though are proof regulations save lives. mandatory seat belts, crumple zones, and other safety features will prevent the death of anyone in the car.
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
I think that's what makes this such a hard debate. It's just not that "nice" to say "well, that's sad, but it's what we get with the laws we got, so not much we can do other than #PrayForLasVegas".
But events like that are no different than the daily car crashes in Oklahoma City because we decided that legal car ownership and driving is worth the risk, and that swimming is worth the risk.
And really, more people will die from car crashes this year than events like this.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
So? Doesn't make it less valid.
We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.
No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
But yet there are laws requiring life guards to be on duty at public swimming pools. There are laws that heavily punish drunk drivers and seek to find them by traffic stops on busy roadways. Laws that require bartenders to cut off patrons and supply them with coffee and food if they need it. Laws that require cabs to be called if a driver is too far gone.
It is sad that is your argument. Gun tragedies will not happen because not enough people in Congress share my opinion. It isn't about what the public thinks, it is about what their representatives think. Representatives who really do a piss poor job of following the opinions of their people.
Just remember, Trump lost the Popular vote and he is now representing the US, while the majority of people disagree with him. But yet he won. That alone shows your argument holds no water.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, the wackjobs will always be there.
And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.
Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>
not so much, no one who studies gun crimes get's federal funding. the CDC was even asked to look into it by Obama, because it is a public health hazard, but nothing as of yet from them.
What is known, when you have a gun in your house, it is far more likely to be used against someone in your house than used to prevent any sort of crime.
Mr. Burning wrote: Whenever I hear gunfire I am always slightly alarmed by how innocuous the sound actually appears.
Its almost disturbing in a way. 'Firecrackers' is always something that I hear gunfire compared to. This event was no different.
Anyway. The media is being its usual vile self. the desperation from some reporters in trying to find an angle is particularly reprehensible.
I feel for the victims but also the brother and family of the shooter. being hounded so soon after the event.
A full auto rifle is LOUD, and definitely will sound different in real person. I can stand right behind a shooter running a stage without ear protection and carry on a conversation, etc. A rifle, no way. (of course I'm a bit deaf from steam forge hammers. My boy does plasma physics as a summer job and I had to forge jet turbine blades....)
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
yes it's hard, it's harder when nothing is done to even try because way to many accept the violence. Heck we can't even an awareness campaign, "shoot yourself, not other"
vehicle homicides though are proof regulations save lives. mandatory seat belts, crumple zones, and other safety features will prevent the death of anyone in the car.
They will reduce the risk, but they won't prevent.
But there are fewer constitutional protections for cars than there are or guns, so there's that as well. And cars as a whole kill more people than guns, so the drive to regulate is stronger there. Last year 8,000 people died from gun homicide, but 40,000 from car accidents.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, the wackjobs will always be there.
And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.
Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>
not so much, no one who studies gun crimes get's federal funding. the CDC was even asked to look into it by Obama, because it is a public health hazard, but nothing as of yet from them.
What is known, when you have a gun in your house, it is far more likely to be used against someone in your house than used to prevent any sort of crime.
True, which is why I made the earlier argument that a reduction in legal guns would result in fewer deaths.
The nation would have to decide if that trade is worth the legislative and judicial fight.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And to clarify: I'm not calling for any new gun laws.
I'm just arguing random observations about our gun laws, our gun culture, and the impact of guns on society. And I am a legal gun owner who carries concealed on a pretty regular basis.
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
yes it's hard, it's harder when nothing is done to even try because way to many accept the violence. Heck we can't even an awareness campaign, "shoot yourself, not other"
vehicle homicides though are proof regulations save lives. mandatory seat belts, crumple zones, and other safety features will prevent the death of anyone in the car.
They will reduce the risk, but they won't prevent.
But there are fewer constitutional protections for cars than there are or guns, so there's that as well. And cars as a whole kill more people than guns, so the drive to regulate is stronger there. Last year 8,000 people died from gun homicide, but 40,000 from car accidents.
Sure if you just want to only count homicides, do you think the toddler who shot up his preschool was considered a homicide? 2014 had 33,500 gun deaths. and the gun deaths are on the rise, I wonder how that number looks with accidents and wounding's from guns.
Because you compared deaths to accidents? really. but deaths from cars have been declining since the regulations started.
Are those numbers worth it, that's the other question. But let's not pretend that reducing the number of firearms wouldn't have any impact on the number of gun deaths.
Edit: aside from the issue of "how do you enforce a reduction in guns in circulation"...
Does this all happen before or after the next 30-40 waco and ruby ridge events followed by a possible civil war?
Would fewer guns in circulation result in fewer gun deaths? Yes.
Simple question, simple answer.
You can add random scenarios to get whatever pretend result you want, but the simple truth is that fewer guns will result in fewer deaths.
Unless the wack jobs put their money where their mouth is and start open conflict with the law enforcement officers coming to confiscate weapons, then you have an up turn in the number of deaths, until ultimately they teeter out.
come on now, gun owners support the #bluelivesmatter and preach obey the cops at all times. Surely the would never raise their guns to an officer, because they know that's what gets you killed.
Do you want another US civil war with spillover into Canada? Because thats how you get a second civil war.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
So? Doesn't make it less valid.
We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.
No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
But yet there are laws requiring life guards to be on duty at public swimming pools. There are laws that heavily punish drunk drivers and seek to find them by traffic stops on busy roadways. Laws that require bartenders to cut off patrons and supply them with coffee and food if they need it. Laws that require cabs to be called if a driver is too far gone.
It is sad that is your argument. Gun tragedies will not happen because not enough people in Congress share my opinion. It isn't about what the public thinks, it is about what their representatives think. Representatives who really do a piss poor job of following the opinions of their people.
Just remember, Trump lost the Popular vote and he is now representing the US, while the majority of people disagree with him. But yet he won. That alone shows your argument holds no water.
Murdering people with a firearm is already illegal. There is a whole host of laws governing the responsible use of firearms. What law do you think we could pass that would actually prohibit people from murdering people with firearms? There are limits as to the power of Congress and there are already numerous federal and state laws that protect private gun ownership.
People seem to want less gun control laws not more as over the past few decades more states have made it easier to own and carry firearms not more difficult and federal courts have upheld those laws along with the federally guaranteed right to gun ownership. The groundswell of public opinion against gun ownership that you seem to think exists has yet to manifest itself on a widespread local, state or national level in the US. Every metric shows an increase in guns purchased and permits issued.
Vaktathi wrote: How would you do this under a legal framework where the right to possess firearms and weapons is a fundamental civil right, one which has been affirmed by the supreme court as an individual right at both the federal and state levels? Particularly when there are 9 digits worth of weapons in circulation and essentially no record of who owns what?
the second part is easy, enforce the whole amendment, not just 1/2 a sentence. If you're not in the national guard, nor in the military, turn in your guns. Tell those activist judges to read the whole amendment.
thats not not so easy. The court has made its decisions and precedent has been set and incorporated to the states. You would need a new case on the subject that makes its way to the SC, the SC would have to agree to hear it (which they generally do not) and then vote to overturn that precedent. Not impossible, but practically so, and thats not getting into the value/weight/meaning/legal value of the preceding militia qualification and what purpose the amendment serves in that form (why would the federal govt need an amendment for its own ability to keep and bear arms?)
Even if you do that however, how do you collect 300 million guns when you have no idea where they are, what kind they are, who has them, etc? How much compensation do you provide for turning over that expensive property? If you do a flat $1k per gun as a general average, you're looking at over $300 billion on just that alone, to say nothing of enforcement/administration costs, or likely resistancr and noncooperation from elements of the population and local level law enforcement, etc. Even the most stringent bans have always grandfathered in existing weapons. The MG ban doesnt apply to pre-86 weapons for example, "assault weapons" owned prior to the enactment of bans have always been grandfathered in, etc. Theres lots of US law that basically says the government cant ban something and apply it post facto, and that would be an issue as well.
There's lots of interlocking and overlapping legal hurdles to overcome there, very little of it simple or easy.
You just stop selling the guns & bullets to civilians, so as the guns break, or get confiscated as evidence, they're removed from the pool. 300 million is chump change really, they found 800 million to increase the militaries industrial complex budget. Then take away the cost of these emergency responses and the militarization of the police and the cost is nothing and that's buying them back at your suggested price. You could probably buy them back at 1/2 current value.
thats $300 Billion, with a B, again, not getting into enforcement and administration costs which would double or triple that. Devote those same funds to healthcare and transportation infrastructure and youd save a whole lot more lives.
Also, guns are durable goods. I can hop on gunbroker.com and find hundreds of weapons for sale that survived the trenches of the first world war and still function just fine today. Guns are generally very durable goods. Ammo too, ive got surplus .308 ammo that I bought last month that was made in the 1960's that works just fine. With 300 million guns and uncountable billions of rounds in circulation, youd kill the recreational aspect but not stifle anyone seriously looking to do harm without active confiscation.
d-usa wrote: Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control
IIRC when guns are discounted the USA is still a very violent country. You have more gun crimes because, duh, more guns, but you also have more violence in any case. It just happens to involve more guns because people have them.
Ofc, one thing that no one seems to have any stats on is how many crimes are stopped without shots fired when a legal gunowner displays or threatens to use a gun. It's just not listed because no shots were fired. But statistics is a funny business anways and not made easier by having a Federal govt and 50 states that all collect only whatever data they feel is relevant and publishing it in whatever form fits their agenda. Even getting a picture of actual police firearm use is difficult because some count "threaten", some count warning shots, some count total shots fired and some count only hits. Or a combo suiting their needs.
Well, I used homicides because it's the homicides that drive the call for more regulations.
People ignore the fact that suicides are by far the biggest cause of gun deaths, and that the vast majority of those are done with legally owned guns. But you don't hear people call for reform because another veteran blew a hole in his head, you hear it because someone shot up a night club, a school, or an outdoor concert.
So honestly that was my reason for using homicides for that number, because it's the homicides that are driving that conversation.
And yes, legal gun reduction would not make much impact (at least initially) on homicides committed with illegal guns. But they would reduce the deaths from suicides and accidents involving legally owned guns.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, the wackjobs will always be there.
And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.
Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>
not so much, no one who studies gun crimes get's federal funding. the CDC was even asked to look into it by Obama, because it is a public health hazard, but nothing as of yet from them.
What is known, when you have a gun in your house, it is far more likely to be used against someone in your house than used to prevent any sort of crime.
That statistic is true because two thirds of annual gun deaths are suicides. The most likely person to be killed by the gun you own is yourself and the most likely person pulling the trigger in that instance is yourself. Given the tens of millions of people in the US who combine to own hundreds of millions of guns the fact that about 20,000 people use guns to commit suicide each year still means that there's a very small chance that you will be one of those suicides.
d-usa wrote: Well, I used homicides because it's the homicides that drive the call for more regulations.
People ignore the fact that suicides are by far the biggest cause of gun deaths, and that the vast majority of those are done with legally owned guns. But you don't hear people call for reform because another veteran blew a hole in his head, you hear it because someone shot up a night club, a school, or an outdoor concert.
So honestly that was my reason for using homicides for that number, because it's the homicides that are driving that conversation.
And yes, legal gun reduction would not make much impact (at least initially) on homicides committed with illegal guns. But they would reduce the deaths from suicides and accidents involving legally owned guns.
I know that, I've even suggested to our vets on this site to turn in their guns for that very reason.
d-usa wrote: Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control
IIRC when guns are discounted the USA is still a very violent country. You have more gun crimes because, duh, more guns, but you also have more violence in any case. It just happens to involve more guns because people have them.
But we should have fewer break-ins and robberies if the threat of being shot influences the decision of the bad guys. At least that's what the argument for more legal guns usually involves.
Ofc, one thing that no one seems to have any stats on is how many crimes are stopped without shots fired when a legal gunowner displays or threatens to use a gun. It's just not listed because no shots were fired.
If I show a bad guy my gun and don't shoot him with it, I am actually a criminal myself in most states. The only time you are allowed to show your gun is while you are pulling the trigger in those places. I think Oklahoma made brandishing legal if it is done in order to prevent a crime last year, but I'm not 100% sure.
But statistics is a funny business anways and not made easier by having a Federal govt and 50 states that all collect only whatever data they feel is relevant and publishing it in whatever form fits their agenda. Even getting a picture of actual police firearm use is difficult because some count "threaten", some count warning shots, some count total shots fired and some count only hits. Or a combo suiting their needs.
d-usa wrote: Well, I used homicides because it's the homicides that drive the call for more regulations.
People ignore the fact that suicides are by far the biggest cause of gun deaths, and that the vast majority of those are done with legally owned guns. But you don't hear people call for reform because another veteran blew a hole in his head, you hear it because someone shot up a night club, a school, or an outdoor concert.
So honestly that was my reason for using homicides for that number, because it's the homicides that are driving that conversation.
And yes, legal gun reduction would not make much impact (at least initially) on homicides committed with illegal guns. But they would reduce the deaths from suicides and accidents involving legally owned guns.
I know that, I've even suggested to our vets on this site to turn in their guns for that very reason.
ya ya and the revolutionary war was brits against brits and the brits won.
no wonder America is such a confusing place.
No, no. See, this is still the easy part: It only counts if we win up until Vietnam. That was when it got all confusing, and in another hundred years or so, we'll have figured out why that one doesn't count, and it'll go into the easy list. We've got our top researchers on it, actively working on how we can not count it. It's only a matter of time.
d-usa wrote: Yeah, the wackjobs will always be there.
And yes, any reduction in legal gun ownership will not have an initial impact on illegal guns. It will result in a reduction down the line, as guns used in crimes are taken out of circulation, and the lack of available guns in circulation to replenish the illegal stock makes an impact.
Which also make me wonder, are there any studies to see if the large presence of legal firearms and the very real threat of a good guy shooting you actually makes an impact on our crime rates (such as burglary, robbery, assault, rape) compared to nations with tighter gun control>
There are studies that show this (Lott, although anti-gun people have criticized his methods; and others). The burglary, robbery, rape and assault rates are also much lower (as much as several times) in the U.S. than they are in many other Western nations that have restrictive gun laws, including the UK and several large EU nations. Studies that have been conducted vary pretty wildly in the numbers they produce, as there are many, many variables that can change the outcome. However, almost all research conducted shows that defensive gun uses outnumber violent gun crimes from anywhere by 2 to 1 to an order of magnitude, and that legal gun ownership at the very least does not increase violent crime rates. I encourage anyone who is interested to look at several studies conducted by different organizations and draw their own conclusions. A good starting point might be the CDC study which former President Obama ordered to be conducted near the end of his administration. The administration didn't publicize the results because they failed to draw any significant links between gun ownership and violent crime.
That being said, the availability of guns in any form obviously increases the potential for what violent crime does occur to be more lethal. Although not as much as you might think - only 1/8 people shot with a handgun are killed, and even in the case of this incident that number is something like 1/9. I am not sure which weapon(s) the shooter used, but there is no question they were either fully automatic or modified. The reports I can hear in audio from the event sound like automatic gun fire to me, echoing off the surrounding surfaces. If he fired at the rate heard in the audio for 10-15 minutes, he very easily could have expended thousands of rounds, which all would have been loaded into magazines beforehand or even belt fed.
If he was using a fully automatic weapon, I believe it would be the fourth time a murder has been perpetrated with one in 70-80 years.
Rifles of any type are used in fewer murders than fists and feet.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to the families and friends of the 22 every day, that do.
That number isn't accurate. It's actually only about a third of that and the majority of veterans committing suicide are elderly.
Media Misleads on Military Veterans Suicide Study
Vet Suicides Have Dropped While Civilian Suicides Have Increased
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently released a report titled Suicide Data Report 2012. The study's authors, Janet Kemp, RN Ph.D. and Robert Bossarte, Ph.D., used data from the VA and some 21 states to examine the issue of suicide and the military veteran. The report looked at both completed suicides and suicide attempts and the authors include many cautions about the interpretation of their data.
Suicide Data Report 2012
Study Limits
The study used data from 21 states for the 13 years from 1999 through 2011. Those states hold an estimated 40.6 percent of the U.S. population in 2012. The two states with the largest population, California and Texas, were not included in the study. In those 21 states, 23 percent of all suicides were excluded because the state's death record contained no information on the veteran's status of the deceased. The study examined 77 percent of the recorded suicides in 40.6 percent of the population.
Media Coverage
Reuters reports "The most extensive study yet by the U.S. government on suicide among military veterans shows more veterans are killing themselves than previously thought, with 22 deaths a day -- or one every 65 minutes, on average." CBS Washington states, "The results of a new study indicate that suicide rates among veterans in the United States are increasing." USA Today has this in its lede: "An estimated 22 veterans commit suicide in the United States every day."
22 Suicides per Day?
The researchers found a total of 147,763 suicides in 21 states over the 13 years examined. Veterans were identified in 22 percent of those deaths. The study says "Estimates that the number of suicides among Veterans each day has increased, are based on information provided by 21 states and may not be generalizable to the larger Veteran population. ... estimates of the number of Veterans who have died from suicide each day based on proxy report of history of U.S. military service should be interpreted with caution." The study suggests that 22 veterans commit suicide on average each day while the data above suggests an average of 2,500 suicides by veterans per year or under seven per day in the 21 states studied. The study states that there is a significant state error rate in reporting veterans status. It also reveals a wide variation in veteran suicide rates among the 21 states, ranging from 7 to 27 percent.
Other Study Findings
The study finds that the greatest number of suicides among veterans in the data they studied were in white males over age 50. The study made no attempt to determine if those veterans were retirees with 20-30 years of service, or had served the minimum time (three to five years), nor did the study examine the type of discharge (honorable, dishonorable, etc.) the deceased veterans had received. The authors also found that while suicide rates among the general population have been increasing, those among veterans in the states studied have remained constant, with the estimated daily number of suicides decreasing slightly.
Vaktathi wrote: Really a horrific event, not sure what would possess someone to do sometbing like this, especially with that kind of hardware, and I expect this will...drive changes, particularly due to the big dollar/high profile location.
From the audio, it sure sounded like a legit full auto weapon, none of the irregular cadence of a bump fire stock or binary trigger. It will be interesting to see what ultimately turns up in that regard.
If you load the clip into Audacity, you'll see that the ROF ramps up and down. I'm going with Gat Crank or bumpfire stock.
Also (not a reply to you, but rather to the thread in general): a suppressor would not have changed the acoustic signature of that weapon meaningfully. The sound you're hearing in most of the videos is ballistic crack of the rounds, not the muzzle blast of the weapon.
It's possible - BUT - I think any sort of cranking up you a hearing is simply the effect hearing the echo over the continuous fire.
I'm not referring to a crank. I'm referring to the ROF changing over time. The rate of fire changes from faster to slower to faster etc. Sorry for the confusion.
It's possible - BUT - I think any sort of cranking up you a hearing is simply the effect hearing the echo over the continuous fire.
I'm not referring to a crank. I'm referring to the ROF changing over time. The rate of fire changes.
I believe that's what he's talking about as well - and I agree. To me, the rate of fire sounds constant, accompanied by echoes off of the surrounding buildings.
The full 2nd amendment means what it means... not what you'd like it to be.
Militia is not the national guard... the militia are regular armed citizens.
To be fair, 5 people decided that the term militia means "everybody". And in the future 5 people can just as easily decide that "militia" means national guard.
Constitutional issues only mean what constitutional judges think they mean, and they can change their mind at any point if they so decide.
True... which is unfortunate because the current precedent is how it worked when the constitution was drafted.
Changing the application of the law to be something contrary to it's original interpretation is fraught with perils and something the judiciary ought to avoid... but, that's for a different thread.
It was written 200+ years ago. There were people still considered to be property at that time. We made changes to prevent that from happening. Why is it so hard to make other changes?
So? Doesn't make it less valid.
We have mechanisms to change the laws... it just never reached the necessary threshold. Which is a good thing because changes like this ought to be hard.
No, progress should not be hard at this point. We should all realize that there is one thing that is causing these situations to happen. But instead we continue to put our fingers in our ears and pretend it isn't happening. When it happens every single year, multiple times, costing the lives of innocent people. Often times children. But it should be hard to prevent those deaths?
It's extremely hard to prevent any kind of death. No laws can over ride peoples' free will and capability to commit actions that can take their life and the lives of others. It's difficult to stop kids from drowning in swimming pools or to eliminate drunk driving deaths. There is a mechanism in place to make the kind of changes you're advocating and to date there hasn't been enough support to follow through on that process and enact those changes. Currently not enough people in the US share your opinions on the matter and as long as that remains so the changes you wish to see won't happen. It is extremely unlikely that such changes will happen in your lifetime and it is extremely unlikely that tragedies involving guns will stop happening in your lifetime.
But yet there are laws requiring life guards to be on duty at public swimming pools. There are laws that heavily punish drunk drivers and seek to find them by traffic stops on busy roadways. Laws that require bartenders to cut off patrons and supply them with coffee and food if they need it. Laws that require cabs to be called if a driver is too far gone.
It is sad that is your argument. Gun tragedies will not happen because not enough people in Congress share my opinion. It isn't about what the public thinks, it is about what their representatives think. Representatives who really do a piss poor job of following the opinions of their people.
Just remember, Trump lost the Popular vote and he is now representing the US, while the majority of people disagree with him. But yet he won. That alone shows your argument holds no water.
Murdering people with a firearm is already illegal. There is a whole host of laws governing the responsible use of firearms. What law do you think we could pass that would actually prohibit people from murdering people with firearms? There are limits as to the power of Congress and there are already numerous federal and state laws that protect private gun ownership.
People seem to want less gun control laws not more as over the past few decades more states have made it easier to own and carry firearms not more difficult and federal courts have upheld those laws along with the federally guaranteed right to gun ownership. The groundswell of public opinion against gun ownership that you seem to think exists has yet to manifest itself on a widespread local, state or national level in the US. Every metric shows an increase in guns purchased and permits issued.
"Representatives act in their own interests, not those they represent."
"Oh yeah, well here is proof I am right. Even though it proves your point."
Really now. How many people are actually buying guns? Just because more guns are sold or more permits issued does not mean more people are buying them. Gun owners typically buy more guns. They also want permits to do more stuff with them, like CC. Sooooooo, where is that metric? Are more people buying more guns or is it just more guns are being sold?
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
1. ISIS has issued back-to-back claims on their Amaq News Agency claiming responsibility for the heinous violence in Las Vegas:
12:33 PM - Oct 2, 2017
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
2. The language they use suggests they see shooter as inspired by their ideology (he "responded to calls") as opposed to directed by them
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
3. But given what we know already about the shooter, I'm wondering if this is 1 of their major misses
12:35 PM - Oct 2, 2017
18 18 Replies 154 154 Retweets 242 242 likes
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
4. Shooter has been identified as a man who is in his 60s. That's not the demographic that tends to fall under ISIS' sway. pic.twitter.com/BXaxLlPype
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
5. People who have watched my timeline know that I have long argued against the "ISIS claims everything trope." It's simply not true
12:41 PM - Oct 2, 2017
11 11 Replies 177 177 Retweets 377 377 likes
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
6. For ex, just this weekend a man placed an ISIS flag on his dashboard & used the car to ram into police in Canada. ISIS has *not* claimed pic.twitter.com/lY2lwmSHe4
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
7. But it's also the case that ISIS has had two major mistakes in recent months. This summer, they claimed an attack on a resort in Manila
12:46 PM - Oct 2, 2017
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
8. And weeks ago, they claimed they'd placed a bomb at CDG airport. Both claims appear to have been spurious.
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
9. As @AmarAmarasingam recently pointed out, perhaps they are getting sloppier as a result of the heavy losses they are facing.
12:47 PM - Oct 2, 2017
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
9. As @AmarAmarasingam recently pointed out, perhaps they are getting sloppier as a result of the heavy losses they are facing.
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
10. To know whether this was ISIS-inspired, I'm waiting to hear what police find on the shooter's phone. Was he on ISIS Telegram channels? pic.twitter.com/pcqIVNJAio
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi @AmarAmarasingam
11. There are 100s of ISIS-linked Telegram channels. Anyone imbibing their ideology typically has dozens of them on their phone. An ex: pic.twitter.com/PADO5BbfY9
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
12. ISIS is tripling down on its claim. The group has issued a communique where they identify shooter with nom de guerre Abu Abd El Bar pic.twitter.com/o4aYQjBWzI
One major thing that making me doubious of their claim is that he shot himself before getting arrested... that is SOP for isis-inspired attackers.... right?
It's possible - BUT - I think any sort of cranking up you a hearing is simply the effect hearing the echo over the continuous fire.
I'm not referring to a crank. I'm referring to the ROF changing over time. The rate of fire changes.
I believe that's what he's talking about as well - and I agree. To me, the rate of fire sounds constant, accompanied by echoes off of the surrounding buildings.
Load the clip into an acoustics analysis program and check it out. Reverberation has a long tail, whereas ballistic cracks are only a couple of ms vs. the longer tailed blast and reverb.
"Representatives act in their own interests, not those they represent."
"Oh yeah, well here is proof I am right. Even though it proves your point."
Really now. How many people are actually buying guns? Just because more guns are sold or more permits issued does not mean more people are buying them. Gun owners typically buy more guns. They also want permits to do more stuff with them, like CC. Sooooooo, where is that metric? Are more people buying more guns or is it just more guns are being sold?
Gun ownership, particularly among women and minorities, is rising sharply even as violent crime and murder rates plummet.
Do you want another US civil war with spillover into Canada? Because thats how you get a second civil war.
obeying the law causes a civil war? interesting.
keep it on your side of the fence though, don't make us burn down your white house again.
That was the British. Your epic moose and maple syrups have no power here... *
*Just trying to keep the thread from not getting hot.
To be fair, there were some Canadians (Shawnee indians) in the Seige of Detroit. After they took over they looked around, realized it was Detroit, and went home.
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
1. ISIS has issued back-to-back claims on their Amaq News Agency claiming responsibility for the heinous violence in Las Vegas:
12:33 PM - Oct 2, 2017
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
2. The language they use suggests they see shooter as inspired by their ideology (he "responded to calls") as opposed to directed by them
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
3. But given what we know already about the shooter, I'm wondering if this is 1 of their major misses
12:35 PM - Oct 2, 2017
18 18 Replies 154 154 Retweets 242 242 likes
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
4. Shooter has been identified as a man who is in his 60s. That's not the demographic that tends to fall under ISIS' sway. pic.twitter.com/BXaxLlPype
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
5. People who have watched my timeline know that I have long argued against the "ISIS claims everything trope." It's simply not true
12:41 PM - Oct 2, 2017
11 11 Replies 177 177 Retweets 377 377 likes
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
6. For ex, just this weekend a man placed an ISIS flag on his dashboard & used the car to ram into police in Canada. ISIS has *not* claimed pic.twitter.com/lY2lwmSHe4
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
7. But it's also the case that ISIS has had two major mistakes in recent months. This summer, they claimed an attack on a resort in Manila
12:46 PM - Oct 2, 2017
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
8. And weeks ago, they claimed they'd placed a bomb at CDG airport. Both claims appear to have been spurious.
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
9. As @AmarAmarasingam recently pointed out, perhaps they are getting sloppier as a result of the heavy losses they are facing.
12:47 PM - Oct 2, 2017
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi
9. As @AmarAmarasingam recently pointed out, perhaps they are getting sloppier as a result of the heavy losses they are facing.
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
10. To know whether this was ISIS-inspired, I'm waiting to hear what police find on the shooter's phone. Was he on ISIS Telegram channels? pic.twitter.com/pcqIVNJAio
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi
Replying to @rcallimachi @AmarAmarasingam
11. There are 100s of ISIS-linked Telegram channels. Anyone imbibing their ideology typically has dozens of them on their phone. An ex: pic.twitter.com/PADO5BbfY9
Follow
Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi
12. ISIS is tripling down on its claim. The group has issued a communique where they identify shooter with nom de guerre Abu Abd El Bar pic.twitter.com/o4aYQjBWzI
One major thing that making me doubious of their claim is that he shot himself before getting arrested... that is SOP for isis-inspired attackers.... right?
Regardless, nothing is SOP with this event.
Listen, I ate some jalepenos the other night. The next morning, they gave me a strong burning sensation on the way out. ISIS had already claimed responsibility before I could flush it. That is how desperate they are for attention.
CBS fires vice president who said Vegas victims didn't deserve sympathy because country music fans 'often are Republican'
CBS has parted ways with one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
“This individual, who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families,” a CBS spokeswoman told Fox News.
Hayley Geftman-Gold, the network's now-former vice president and senior counsel, took to Facebook after a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, killing at least 58 people and sending more than 500 others to hospitals.
“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs [sic] will ever do the right thing,” Geftman-Gold wrote in a now-deleted message that was first reported and captured by The Daily Caller.
Geftman-Gold continued: “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic].”
Geftman-Gold is presumably referring to Sandy Hook, which occurred in Newtown, Conn. back in 2012. A 20-year-old gunman, Adam Lanza, killed 20 children and six adults during the tragic event that sparked intense political debates regarding gun control.
Geftman-Gold did not work directly with the network’s news division. According to her LinkedIn bio, Geftman-Gold worked at CBS since September 2016 and graduated from the prestigious Columbia University law school in 2000.
Anyone know if ISIS has claimed credit for this yet?
Oh look, a lefty making sweeping generalizations saying the victims got what was coming to them, and trying to sound morally superior while doing so. Colour me unsurprised.
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
Nostromodamus wrote: Oh look, a lefty making sweeping generalizations saying the victims got what was coming to them, and trying to sound morally superior while doing so. Colour me unsurprised.
...he said, while making sweeping generalizations of the left.
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
I've heard identical sentiments expressed about Islamic terrorism by Lefties on Dakka Dakka...
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
This is how you have a Civil War. When fellow citizens care more about their political identity of the victims/non-victims than the fact they are fellow citizens.
It’s possible to both have compassion for victims, and realizing that 58 deaths don’t have any impact on fatality rates in this country.
58 deaths don’t even have a statistical impact on the ~45,000 gun deaths annually. It has an impact of less than 1% on the gun homicide rate.
And “how big of a threat is it” is an important factor when deciding if you should do something about it. That’s simply the truth. Even when it comes to events that are horrific to look at like this.
You must only do one thing today. Mourn, you can have no other feelings. Do not even think about discussing the issues which may have caused this or any solutions to save future lives from such a tragedy. One train of thought today.
If this is going to be a "thoughts and prayers" thread with no meaningful discussion about solutions or ways to prevent shootings like this, then I agree. Shut it down, it serves no purpose.
Thoughts and prayers are just lip service. You can feel bad but at the end of the day that does nothing for anyone except yourself. You tell yourself that feeling sad is sufficient penance for doing nothing to stop this kind of tragedy and move on. We as a country have the power to stop this, but simply elect to let it happen, again and again.
If you insist on allowing this to happen, at least do something physical for the families. Donate money to the families that have children who lost a parent.
Dreadwinter wrote: You must only do one thing today. Mourn, you can have no other feelings. Do not even think about discussing the issues which may have caused this or any solutions to save future lives from such a tragedy. One train of thought today.
If this is going to be a "thoughts and prayers" thread with no meaningful discussion about solutions or ways to prevent shootings like this, then I agree. Shut it down, it serves no purpose.
One can only mourn so many times before one becomes desensitized or simply emotionally exhausted. This is a monthly, if not a weekly ritual and quite frankly all I can muster now is anger.
Nostromodamus wrote: Oh look, a lefty making sweeping generalizations saying the victims got what was coming to them, and trying to sound morally superior while doing so. Colour me unsurprised.
...he said, while making sweeping generalizations of the left.
Not really. I was talking about one idiotic woman.
CBS fires vice president who said Vegas victims didn't deserve sympathy because country music fans 'often are Republican'
Spoiler:
CBS has parted ways with one of the company’s top lawyers after she said she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican,” when discussing the tragic mass shooting that occurred in Las Vegas late Sunday night.
“This individual, who was with us for approximately one year, violated the standards of our company and is no longer an employee of CBS. Her views as expressed on social media are deeply unacceptable to all of us at CBS. Our hearts go out to the victims in Las Vegas and their families,” a CBS spokeswoman told Fox News.
Hayley Geftman-Gold, the network's now-former vice president and senior counsel, took to Facebook after a gunman opened fire at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival in Las Vegas, killing at least 58 people and sending more than 500 others to hospitals.
“If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs [sic] will ever do the right thing,” Geftman-Gold wrote in a now-deleted message that was first reported and captured by The Daily Caller.
Geftman-Gold continued: “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters [sic].”
Geftman-Gold is presumably referring to Sandy Hook, which occurred in Newtown, Conn. back in 2012. A 20-year-old gunman, Adam Lanza, killed 20 children and six adults during the tragic event that sparked intense political debates regarding gun control.
Geftman-Gold did not work directly with the network’s news division. According to her LinkedIn bio, Geftman-Gold worked at CBS since September 2016 and graduated from the prestigious Columbia University law school in 2000.
Anyone know if ISIS has claimed credit for this yet?
Yes. Apparently the president of CBS has just converted to Islam and has changed his name to 'Abu Jahl al-Amriki'. CBS will be rebranded to the "Al-Kaddabin Media Corporation" and will use its resources to advocate sharia for the US.
(brownie points for the first person to get the Arabic names )
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
It's possible to understand that something is regrettable, and feel compassion for victims while simultaneously recognizing that the situation that led to their misfortune is a statistical outlier.
Before I begin, let me clearly state two things. First, as I note in the title of this post, my observations are based on early reports, and early reports are often wrong. Second, do not read this post as implying any sort of conspiracy theory of any kind. I’m merely noting the facts as we currently understand them — and how they differ from recent mass shootings.
As virtually everyone has noted from the abundant video footage of the incident, it certainly sounds as if the shooter used either fully-automatic weapons or semi-automatic weapons modified (through, for example, a bump fire stock) to closely simulate automatic fire. Moreover, the police are reporting that he had “more than 10 rifles.” He apparently rented his corner room for days and may have even set up cameras to detect when police were approaching. That’s all strange enough, but it’s even more unusual when you consider that his own family apparently didn’t know that he maintained a stockpile of guns. Here’s this, from the gunman’s brother, suggesting that the gunman wasn’t an avid gun guy at all:
CBS News ✔@CBSNews “Not an avid gun guy at all...where the hell did he get automatic weapons? He has no military background,” gunman’s brother says 9:22 AM - Oct 2, 2017 423 423 Replies 3,475 3,475 Retweets 3,966 3,966 likes
Put all this together, and the shooting is flat-out bizarre. It’s significantly different from virtually any other mass shooting in U.S. history. If the weapons were fully automatic, then he likely would have spent immense sums of money to obtain them legally, jumping through extensive legal hoops. This twitter thread, from Stephen Gutowski, is very helpful:
Stephen Gutowski ✔@StephenGutowski Since this is coming up a lot, I want to give some insight into the regulation of fully-automatic firearms in the United States. 9:59 AM - Oct 2, 2017 108 108 Replies 1,701 1,701 Retweets 2,449 2,449 likes Twitter Ads info and privacy
tephen Gutowski ✔@StephenGutowski Replying to @StephenGutowski Fully-automatic firearms that were registered under the National Firearms Act before 1986 were grandfathered in & are still legal. 10:09 AM - Oct 2, 2017 7 7 Replies 210 210 Retweets 420 420 likes
Stephen Gutowski ✔@StephenGutowski Replying to @StephenGutowski However, in order to obtain a legal fully-automatic firearm you must apply to the ATF, pay a $200 tax, & register with the ATF. 10:12 AM - Oct 2, 2017
Stephen Gutowski ✔@StephenGutowski Replying to @StephenGutowski The ATF has a registry of every legally-owned full-auto firearm & informs local law enforcement of all who own them in their jurisdiction. 10:17 AM - Oct 2, 2017 9 9 Replies 213 213 Retweets 402 402 likes
Given these steps, it’s no wonder that crimes with fully-automatic weapons are extraordinarily rare. As my colleague Charlie Cooke tweeted earlier this morning, legally-owned fully-automatic weapons have been used in three crimes since 1934. So, a person who’s “not a gun guy” has either expended untold thousands of dollars to legally purchase fully-automatic weapons, somehow found them on the black market, or purchased and substantially modified multiple semi-automatic weapons — and did so with enough competence to create a sustained rate of fire.
This same person also spent substantial sums purchasing just the right hotel room to maximize casualties. I cannot think of a single other mass shooter who went to this level of expense and planning in the entire history of the United States.
And there was no real warning? His family was unaware? His brother also reported that the shooter had no meaningful political or religious affiliations. “He just hung out.” At the same time, however, there are reports that a woman told a group of concert-goers, “You’re all going to die tonight.”
I’m not ready to draw any conclusions from these reports, but it’s worth highlighting how extraordinary this attack seems to be. Given the firepower and the packed mass of people, it’s easy to see how the casualty count was so high, even firing from an extreme range (by the standards of mass shootings.) This was the University of Texas tower attack on steroids, conducted out of nowhere, with meticulous planning and at great expense, from a person who doesn’t seem to fit any normal profile of a mass shooter. There is much we have yet to learn, but for now, this is one of the most chilling and mysterious events I’ve ever seen.
UPDATE: The story just keeps getting more bizarre. First, it looks like the shooter’s father was a former bank robber who was arrested by the FBI after a wild confrontation in, you guessed it, Las Vegas. Here’s Reason with the details:
Patrick Paddock was arrested on July 28, 1960, in Las Vegas, where he had fled after the bank robbery in Phoenix. “The FBI said Paddock tried to resist arrest and attempted to run down an agent with his car,” reports a July 28, 1960, article in the Citizen. “A shot was fired and Paddock surrendered.” The FBI agents found nearly $3,000 and a loaded .38 caliber revolver in his car.
Second, ISIS had claimed responsibility for the attack — a claim I initially discounted — but it’s worth mentioning that it’s “tripling down” on the claim, even providing the shooter with a nom de guerre, Abu Abd El Bar. Here’s a tweet from the indispensable Rukmini Callimachi. Follow her thread for updates:
Rukmini Callimachi ✔ @rcallimachi Replying to @rcallimachi @AmarAmarasingam 11. There are 100s of ISIS-linked Telegram channels. Anyone imbibing their ideology typically has dozens of them on their phone. An ex: pic.twitter.com/PADO5BbfY9
Follow Rukmini Callimachi ✔@rcallimachi 12. ISIS is tripling down on its claim. The group has issued a communique where they identify shooter with nom de guerre Abu Abd El Bar pic.twitter.com/o4aYQjBWzI 1:34 PM - Oct 2, 2017
Finally, it looks like the shooter did indeed use “at least one fully automatic rifle,” which of course raises the question of how he obtained such a weapon. Purchase? Modification? Could it be a weapon his father owned? We’re only scratching the surface of a sad and horrible story.
Nostromodamus wrote: Oh look, a lefty making sweeping generalizations saying the victims got what was coming to them, and trying to sound morally superior while doing so. Colour me unsurprised.
...he said, while making sweeping generalizations of the left.
Not really. I was talking about one idiotic woman.
Why did you feel it was so important to point out that she was a lefty and that you were unsurprised? Because you were making a go at "lefties".
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
It's possible to understand that something is regrettable, and feel compassion for victims while simultaneously recognizing that the situation that led to their misfortune is a statistical outlier.
No, it's really not. How can you feel compassion or regret for anything you deem meaningless and acceptable?
It's no longer a statistical outlier, it's a daily occurrence. a mass shooting a day and a school shooting a month. Accepting this as normal is being complicit in the next one.
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
It's possible to understand that something is regrettable, and feel compassion for victims while simultaneously recognizing that the situation that led to their misfortune is a statistical outlier.
No, it's really not. How can you feel compassion or regret for anything you deem meaningless and acceptable?
When we had to put down our oldest dog I felt as though my heart would break. I very much wish we wouldn't have had to do that, but it was preferable to the alternative (letting him suffer). It is very much possible to think something is regrettable and to have sympathy for people that get caught up in awful events and still think that those events are preferrable to the other options available.
Marmatag wrote: Thoughts and prayers are just lip service. You can feel bad but at the end of the day that does nothing for anyone except yourself. You tell yourself that feeling sad is sufficient penance for doing nothing to stop this kind of tragedy and move on. We as a country have the power to stop this, but simply elect to let it happen, again and again.
If you insist on allowing this to happen, at least do something physical for the families. Donate money to the families that have children who lost a parent.
What power do we, as a nation, possess that would stop people from committing murder? What exactly do you think we could do that would stop people from shooting others? It's virtually impossible and certainly utterly impractical to remove the right to legally own firearms in the US and remove all the privately owned guns and it's completely impossible for a nation to exercise a level of control over its citizens that would be possible to physically prevent them from committing aberrant malicious acts like murder.
Marmatag wrote: Thoughts and prayers are just lip service. You can feel bad but at the end of the day that does nothing for anyone except yourself. You tell yourself that feeling sad is sufficient penance for doing nothing to stop this kind of tragedy and move on. We as a country have the power to stop this, but simply elect to let it happen, again and again.
If you insist on allowing this to happen, at least do something physical for the families. Donate money to the families that have children who lost a parent.
What power do we, as a nation, possess that would stop people from committing murder? What exactly do you think we could do that would stop people from shooting others? It's virtually impossible and certainly utterly impractical to remove the right to legally own firearms in the US and remove all the privately owned guns and it's completely impossible for a nation to exercise a level of control over its citizens that would be possible to physically prevent them from committing aberrant malicious acts like murder.
Let's just give up trying to make the world better, because it'll never be perfect.
Marmatag wrote: Thoughts and prayers are just lip service. You can feel bad but at the end of the day that does nothing for anyone except yourself. You tell yourself that feeling sad is sufficient penance for doing nothing to stop this kind of tragedy and move on. We as a country have the power to stop this, but simply elect to let it happen, again and again.
If you insist on allowing this to happen, at least do something physical for the families. Donate money to the families that have children who lost a parent.
What power do we, as a nation, possess that would stop people from committing murder? What exactly do you think we could do that would stop people from shooting others? It's virtually impossible and certainly utterly impractical to remove the right to legally own firearms in the US and remove all the privately owned guns and it's completely impossible for a nation to exercise a level of control over its citizens that would be possible to physically prevent them from committing aberrant malicious acts like murder.
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
It's possible to understand that something is regrettable, and feel compassion for victims while simultaneously recognizing that the situation that led to their misfortune is a statistical outlier.
No, it's really not. How can you feel compassion or regret for anything you deem meaningless and acceptable?
It's no longer a statistical outlier, it's a daily occurrence. a mass shooting a day and a school shooting a month. Accepting this as normal is being complicit in the next one.
In a nation of over 320 million people one person a day deciding to commit murder with a firearm is very much a statistical outlier for the rest of us. The vast majority of people in the US will never be affected by gun violence and the majority of people who will be killed with a firearm will be people committing suicide with them. That's the reality.
if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
Marmatag wrote: Thoughts and prayers are just lip service. You can feel bad but at the end of the day that does nothing for anyone except yourself. You tell yourself that feeling sad is sufficient penance for doing nothing to stop this kind of tragedy and move on. We as a country have the power to stop this, but simply elect to let it happen, again and again.
If you insist on allowing this to happen, at least do something physical for the families. Donate money to the families that have children who lost a parent.
What power do we, as a nation, possess that would stop people from committing murder? What exactly do you think we could do that would stop people from shooting others? It's virtually impossible and certainly utterly impractical to remove the right to legally own firearms in the US and remove all the privately owned guns and it's completely impossible for a nation to exercise a level of control over its citizens that would be possible to physically prevent them from committing aberrant malicious acts like murder.
Better preventative mental healthcare?
What does that look like and how would that have stopped recent mass shootings? The Sandy Hook shooter had known mental issues but his mother chose to handle that problem in a manner she that was a good idea. It resulted in her death and the deaths of over a dozen others. How does preventative mental health care force people into treatment against their will? In this most recent shooting in Las Vegas there's no sign of mental illness in the shooter, obviously mass murder is aberrant behavior but that doesn't mean he could have or would have been diagnosed with a mental health problem.
Better preventative mental healthcare certainly isn't a bad thing and would probably help a lot of people and a lot of societal issues but it wouldn't necessarily have stopped any mass shootings and there are societal issues and problems that are probably causes of mental illness and those kinds of problems can't be cured just by treating the symptoms.
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
even more insignificant is in person voter fraud, yet a lot of effort has been made to disenfranchise voters, err I mean fix the problem.
The wall will have zero effect on illegal immigration, yet that seems to be a priority as well.
This give up and surrender and not try to fix a problem because it's hard is nonsense to say the least. Incident rates of daily are magnitudes more than never.
It's possible to understand that something is regrettable, and feel compassion for victims while simultaneously recognizing that the situation that led to their misfortune is a statistical outlier.
No, it's really not. How can you feel compassion or regret for anything you deem meaningless and acceptable?
It's no longer a statistical outlier, it's a daily occurrence. a mass shooting a day and a school shooting a month. Accepting this as normal is being complicit in the next one.
That is plainly false. Numbers don't lie - events like this count for an infinitesimally small amount of deaths or murders, even when it comes to gun deaths. I don't care what your subjective experiences or feelings are; they don't somehow circumvent the value of factual evidence. I'll say it again:
Rifles of any type are responsible for fewer murders each year than fists or feet.
Hell, one more time, just in case:
Rifles of any type are responsible for fewer murders each year than fists or feet.
That being absolute fact, there is no way that people who come out of the woodwork after this kind of incident and try to project its outcome on gun ownership as a whole are not either grossly misinformed as to the actual realities of guns and violent crime, or intentionally dissembling and waving the bloody shirts of the victims in order to impose a political agenda. If you want to have a sober discussion about gun violence then we can do so while addressing facts instead of intuitions or feelings. However, since a reflection on the facts would not lead to the conclusion that ownership of any type of rifle contributes significantly to violent crime or murder, I have to assume that anyone who opportunistically makes such a claim at the time of a tragedy is only feigning outrage in order to score political points.
Third time's the charm:
Rifles of any type are responsible for fewer murders each year than fists or feet.
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
even more insignificant is in person voter fraud, yet a lot of effort has been made to disenfranchise voters, err I mean fix the problem.
The wall will have zero effect on illegal immigration, yet that seems to be a priority as well.
This give up and surrender and not try to fix a problem because it's hard is nonsense to say the least. Incident rates of daily are magnitudes more than never.
You haven’t seen me argue in favor of any of the things you listed, but it’s a good example of people using emotion instead of facts to drive issues. Kind of like what we are witnessing with you in this thread.
But as a nation we accept incidents like that not because they are hard to fix, but because they are statistically very rare. We are upset when it happens, but the nation decided that our gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay.
sirlynchmob wrote: she ain't wrong, and it's no worse than then trump & friends trying to paint the guy as a leftist or an antifa member
Which still means she's a gakhole.
not really, she's just an American, and as we've seen from others in this thread, compassion for victims is rarely a concern.
like this one.
We might be sad that this happen, but we have long ago decided that it's an acceptable consequence of our rights and freedoms. And truthfully, statistically speaking, events like this are a meaningless risk in the grand scheme of things.
Sure 58 people died and hundred were wounded, totally meaningless, it could have been worse.
It's possible to understand that something is regrettable, and feel compassion for victims while simultaneously recognizing that the situation that led to their misfortune is a statistical outlier.
No, it's really not. How can you feel compassion or regret for anything you deem meaningless and acceptable?
It's no longer a statistical outlier, it's a daily occurrence. a mass shooting a day and a school shooting a month. Accepting this as normal is being complicit in the next one.
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
even more insignificant is in person voter fraud, yet a lot of effort has been made to disenfranchise voters, err I mean fix the problem.
The wall will have zero effect on illegal immigration, yet that seems to be a priority as well.
This give up and surrender and not try to fix a problem because it's hard is nonsense to say the least. Incident rates of daily are magnitudes more than never.
You haven’t seen me argue in favor of any of the things you listed, but it’s a good example of people using emotion instead of facts to drive issues. Kind of like what we are witnessing with you in this thread.
But as a nation we accept incidents like that not because they are hard to fix, but because they are statistically very rare. We are upset when it happens, but the nation decided that our gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay.
you accept it, 58% of the nation does not. Illicit use of drugs will see 17,000 deaths this year, yet look at the considerable effort and war on drugs to try and reduce that number. Rarer things have been studied and efforts made to fix them some of them have even been solved/cured. Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
The recent Marseille knife attacker says Hi.
I had to google-fu that...
I was in that area/on that train from Paris to Marselille 10 years ago. O.o
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
even more insignificant is in person voter fraud, yet a lot of effort has been made to disenfranchise voters, err I mean fix the problem.
The wall will have zero effect on illegal immigration, yet that seems to be a priority as well.
This give up and surrender and not try to fix a problem because it's hard is nonsense to say the least. Incident rates of daily are magnitudes more than never.
You haven’t seen me argue in favor of any of the things you listed, but it’s a good example of people using emotion instead of facts to drive issues. Kind of like what we are witnessing with you in this thread.
But as a nation we accept incidents like that not because they are hard to fix, but because they are statistically very rare. We are upset when it happens, but the nation decided that our gun deaths are an acceptable price to pay.
you accept it, 58% of the nation does not. Illicit use of drugs will see 17,000 deaths this year, yet look at the considerable effort and war on drugs to try and reduce that number. Rarer things have been studied and efforts made to fix them some of them have even been solved/cured. Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
The recent Marseille knife attacker says Hi.
with his seven different identities in France, seems like he was a French citizen and not a refugee.
We also have 60,000 overdose deaths from drugs, then add deaths from health complications due to drug use, accidents caused by drugs, people neglected because of drugs. It’s an issue that has a higher impact than guns, and it can be fixed easier with the laws we have. The nation just looked at drugs as a criminal problem rather than a mental health problem and a disease, so we have a fethed up approach on “fixing” the problem.
sirlynchmob wrote: Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.
I feel like I keep seeing the same argument no matter what happens when bad things happen:
"A bunch of people dying is terrible, but don't take our <noun> because that would only stop a tiny fraction of the issues for the amount of lives it would impact."
Some people fill in that blank as immigrants or refugees. Other people fill in the blank with guns. Most times it seems like the venn diagram of the two has remarkably little overlap for how much they agree on the core part of the argument.
you accept it, 58% of the nation does not. Illicit use of drugs will see 17,000 deaths this year, yet look at the considerable effort and war on drugs to try and reduce that number. Rarer things have been studied and efforts made to fix them some of them have even been solved/cured. Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
Once again, your rhetoric here is transparently dishonest. Events like this, or even ALL of the murders committed with ANY type of rifle, whether it be a bolt-action .308 or a fully automatic AK variant, account for less than 1% of gun deaths. Oh, and did I mention that fists, feet, baseball bats and hammers are each individually responsible for more murders than rifles every year? Saying that we need to get rid of scary black rifles and their accessories because they contribute to some kind of epidemic of violence is an outright lie. Out of those 30,000 gun deaths each year, nearly ALL of them are committed using standard capacity, small caliber, concealable handguns. And a majority of them are committed by criminals in major urban areas that have restrictive gun laws. Again, facts. If you had an honest interest in reducing gun violence you would start there, but you don't even know about any of what you're saying. You're arguing solely from demonstrable falsehoods and emotions.
d-usa wrote: if everything is a tragedy of statistical significance, then nothing is.
You have to allocate resources based on incidence rates, not based on emotions. That’s why it’s acceptable to say that things are tragic, and statistically insignificant.
what's statistically non existent is refugee's committing any act of terrorism, yet look at all the effort the current administration has done to "fix" a non incident.
The recent Marseille knife attacker says Hi.
with his seven different identities in France, seems like he was a French citizen and not a refugee.
A naturalised French citizen who originally came from Africa. Refugees can become citizens.
daedalus wrote: I feel like I keep seeing the same argument no matter what happens when bad things happen:
"A bunch of people dying is terrible, but don't take our <noun> because that would only stop a tiny fraction of the issues for the amount of lives it would impact."
Well, part of the problem from the gun control end of it that it's usually pretty bad. If you look at gun violence as a whole, the great majority of death comes from handguns, but when politicians talk about ways to combat death from firearms it's usually poorly thought out legislation like the most recent Assault Weapons Ban, which banned stuff like bayonet lugs and flash hiders and barrel shrouds and pistol grips and other cosmetic features. It's easy to shoot down the idea of a political response when they keep bringing garbage to the table.
I think another little piece of it is that some Americans are wary of overreach, that we again will tilt our society strongly in a weird direction as an overreaction to a threat. The US moved the dial several notches towards a police state as a response to terrorism, which has killed less people in the last decade domestically than bee stings. The idea that we must now give up some more liberty doesn't play as well as it used to, and couple that with that loss of perceived liberty in service to some ineffective measures...
There is no mass shooting thread on this forum that will ever be a good thread because it's never going to be a good argument, and we've all done it so many times now. Even now, when some of the crapper posters have wandered off or been banned, it's just a difficult set of facts to work from. What is feasible politically is ineffective, and what is effective is politically infeasible.
daedalus wrote: I feel like I keep seeing the same argument no matter what happens when bad things happen:
"A bunch of people dying is terrible, but don't take our <noun> because that would only stop a tiny fraction of the issues for the amount of lives it would impact."
Well, part of the problem from the gun control end of it that it's usually pretty bad. If you look at gun violence as a whole, the great majority of death comes from handguns, but when politicians talk about ways to combat death from firearms it's usually poorly thought out legislation like the most recent Assault Weapons Ban, which banned stuff like bayonet lugs and flash hiders and barrel shrouds and pistol grips and other cosmetic features. It's easy to shoot down the idea of a political response when they keep bringing garbage to the table.
I think another little piece of it is that some Americans are wary of overreach, that we again will tilt our society strongly in a weird direction as an overreaction to a threat. The US moved the dial several notches towards a police state as a response to terrorism, which has killed less people in the last decade domestically than bee stings. The idea that we must now give up some more liberty doesn't play as well as it used to, and couple that with that loss of perceived liberty in service to some ineffective measures...
There is no mass shooting thread on this forum that will ever be a good thread because it's never going to be a good argument, and we've all done it so many times now.
I don't mind the discussions sometimes as it does seem some of us sit back and tries to re-evaluate their previous stance... most of the time though, it does seem like a rehash.
It's almost like an automated script.
Heh... I can do that in PERL.
Anyone have any new updates? Most of the news sites seem to be repeating the same thing from this afternoon...
sirlynchmob wrote: Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.
And I probably need to clarify that I do think that there are some steps to hat can be taken to address the issue, I just don’t feel like having the same conversation we always have in these kind of threads. So I’m not bothering to talk about what can be fixed. Instead I’m just talking about why things don’t get addressed. It’s not that “I’m” okay with dead kids in schools and such, it’s just that I realize that as a country “we” are okay with it as the price to pay.
federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.
repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.
background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.
No private sales unless through a government intermediary.
must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.
Then of course medicare for all which includes psychiatric help.
you accept it, 58% of the nation does not. Illicit use of drugs will see 17,000 deaths this year, yet look at the considerable effort and war on drugs to try and reduce that number. Rarer things have been studied and efforts made to fix them some of them have even been solved/cured. Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
Once again, your rhetoric here is transparently dishonest. Events like this, or even ALL of the murders committed with ANY type of rifle, whether it be a bolt-action .308 or a fully automatic AK variant, account for less than 1% of gun deaths. Oh, and did I mention that fists, feet, baseball bats and hammers are each individually responsible for more murders than rifles every year? Saying that we need to get rid of scary black rifles and their accessories because they contribute to some kind of epidemic of violence is an outright lie. Out of those 30,000 gun deaths each year, nearly ALL of them are committed using standard capacity, small caliber, concealable handguns. And a majority of them are committed by criminals in major urban areas that have restrictive gun laws. Again, facts. If you had an honest interest in reducing gun violence you would start there, but you don't even know about any of what you're saying. You're arguing solely from demonstrable falsehoods and emotions.
I'm talking all gun related deaths, I don't know why you only want to talk about 1 type of rifle.
federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.
repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.
background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.
No private sales unless through a government intermediary.
must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.
Then of course medicare for all which includes psychiatric help.
Thank you for your response.
I disagree with all except your last point. I'd be 100% onboard to expand mental health in that regard.
sirlynchmob wrote: Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.
We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.
sirlynchmob wrote: Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.
We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.
Better yet, ban all "lobbying" groups. Have representatives actually engage with the people they are there to represent and act accordingly.
sirlynchmob wrote: Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.
We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.
...we're swaying into a subject matter that shall not be named on OT...
Alas, the Republicans is all kinds of hot mess... but, if the Democrats want to make the next election over the 2nd Amendment, they won't try to stop 'em.
How 'bout we find out more in the next couple days before you start marching?
sirlynchmob wrote: Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.
We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.
Better yet, ban all "lobbying" groups. Have representatives actually engage with the people they are there to represent and act accordingly.
federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.
repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.
background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.
No private sales unless through a government intermediary.
must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.
Then of course medicare for all which includes psychiatric help.
How about no. Literally all those ideas related to gun control are complete fething trash.
If you want to talk mental health, then talk mental health. If we want to talk gun violence, then let's start in inner cities. The US is actually pretty safe outside of inner cities, and their issues are social/cultural.
In other news, Fox is reporting bump fire stocks. Not like it matters, but this lunatic may not have actually modified anything illegally.
federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago.
Right, because it works so well in those places! Brilliant!
repeal trumps bill to allow mentall ill people from buying guns.
Another falsehood. No such bill exists. Trump repealed an SSA rule that Obama put in place. That rule prevented ownership from people receiving Supplementary Security Income based on SSA’s listed mental disorders and who were appointed a “representative payee” to help them manage their benefits. That is an extremely specific group of people. And guess what, it wouldn't have any significant impact on gun violence.
background checks and a 1 year waiting period. don't tell me this is already a law for background checks unless you identify the 3 most common ways around it.
Haha, no. When the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow people to exercise a right to self-defense (against individuals or the State) with the most effective tool available, making people wait a year to obtain that tool pretty much invalidates that right.
No private sales unless through a government intermediary.
My state has exactly such a law, and gun violence went UP after it was passed.
must pass a written exam about the US, the constitution and gun laws to get a permit for prior military and peace officers. written to weed out stupid people. Fun things like, find guam on a map and what nationality are they. Is 30,000 deaths a year an acceptable price for owning a gun? anyone answering yes would be denied.
Again, it's fortunate that you don't get to mediate other people's rights based on your own prejudices, though you so clearly have a burning desire to do so. I might even agree to some kind of mandatory education or testing, but you're just so far over the top it's laughable.
I'm talking all gun related deaths, I don't know why you only want to talk about 1 type of rifle.
I'm talking about ANY type of rifle. Do I really need to go back through this thread and point out all of the times you falsely claimed that this kind of event (perpetrated with the use of rifles) is common, or implied whether directly or otherwise that allowing people to have rifles is a significant factor in ANY kind of violence?
The industry needed something like this to fix their sluggish sales. It’s hard to keep up the past 8 years of panic buying if there’s no boogie man in office.
I've never once said rifles. and the reason californing and Chicago doesn't work is because those places are not in a vacuum. What good does high gun control laws do in Chicago, when you can quickly drive to any neighboring state and get guns quickly and easily at a gun show with no background cheks. that's why all gun laws need to be at a national level.
Unlikely. Would be resisted by most states. And not just southern ones.
"federal level gun control laws mostly mimicking Cali and Chicago. "
Because those laws are clearly working in those places.
"No private sales unless through a government intermediary. "
As an employee of the US Federal Government, let me assure you this would NEVER work as intended, and would see thousands of people armed who most definitely should not be.
As an employee of the US Federal Government, let me assure you this would NEVER work as intended, and would see thousands of people armed who most definitely should not be.
sirlynchmob wrote: Until it's about guns, the people would rather clutch their guns and sacrifice 30,000 people a year and pretend nothing can be done.
I think you're missing a distinction here. I personally don't pretend nothing can be done, I understand the political will doesn't exist in this country to do anything significant to alter the current status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon. If a school full of dead children didn't change us as a country, man, nothing will.
We can start by boycotting the NRA. AS their funding tends to sway policy more than what the population wants.
Better yet, ban all "lobbying" groups. Have representatives actually engage with the people they are there to represent and act accordingly.
sirlynchmob wrote: I've never once said rifles. and the reason californing and Chicago doesn't work is because those places are not in a vacuum. What good does high gun control laws do in Chicago, when you can quickly drive to any neighboring state and get guns quickly and easily at a gun show with no background cheks. that's why all gun laws need to be at a national level.
You never explicitly mentioned rifles, but your entire reason for being here is predicated on the idea that mass shootings perpetrated with the use of rifles are a significant and preventable threat to the public at large. You wouldn't even BE here arguing if that wasn't the case. You are also constantly deflecting from the fact that such events account for a statistically insignificant portion of murders as a whole, or even gun murders. If you cared enough about this issue to inform yourself about the facts surrounding gun violence, you would be focused on different issues and solutions. But you don't care about actually solving any problems, you just want to use this event as a political bludgeon.
Secondly, the latter part of your quote above is, again, dishonest on multiple levels.
From the ATF:
The GCA does, however, prohibit nonlicensed persons from acquiring firearms
from out-of-State dealers and prohibits nonlicensees from shipping or transporting
firearms in interstate or foreign commerce.41 Nonlicensees are also prohibited from
transferring a firearm to a nonlicensed person who the transferor knows or has reasonable
cause to believe does not reside in the State in which the transferor resides.42 A
nonlicensee also may not transfer a firearm to any person knowing or having reasonable
cause to believe that the transferee is a felon or other prohibited person.43
This is such a tragic event that leaves us with a sense of anger and helplessness. But people need to think critically, not emotionally because any solution, even if there is one, will be difficult and complicated and the more extreme the solution the more chance for dire side effects.
The shooter purportedly owned two airplanes. So what if he had decided to pack one with explosives and fly it into the stands? The horror of the gun violence is secondary to what made the perpetrator do the crime in the first place.
amanita wrote: This is such a tragic event that leaves us with a sense of anger and helplessness. But people need to think critically, not emotionally because any solution, even if there is one, will be difficult and complicated and the more extreme the solution the more chance for dire side effects.
The shooter purportedly owned two airplanes. So what if he had decided to pack one with explosives and fly it into the stands? The horror of the gun violence is secondary to what made the perpetrator do the crime in the first place.
He could have packed his plane (if he actually did have one) with fuel and had a heck of a casualty count.
amanita wrote: This is such a tragic event that leaves us with a sense of anger and helplessness. But people need to think critically, not emotionally because any solution, even if there is one, will be difficult and complicated and the more extreme the solution the more chance for dire side effects.
The shooter purportedly owned two airplanes. So what if he had decided to pack one with explosives and fly it into the stands? The horror of the gun violence is secondary to what made the perpetrator do the crime in the first place.
Gotta say, it's sad when we didn't even have a total count of how many victims there were, and the politics were already in full spin.
People trying to make this about guns, has everyone ignored the fact that this man had all the makings for high explosives in his possession as well? Given that this man was a millionaire, he easily had the resources to bomb that place and cause just as much if not more havoc.
Gotta say, it's sad when we didn't even have a total count of how many victims there were, and the politics were already in full spin.
People trying to make this about guns, has everyone ignored the fact that this man had all the makings for high explosives in his possession as well? Given that this man was a millionaire, he easily had the resources to bomb that place and cause just as much if not more havoc.
He was a millionaire. He could have bought a bus and made this in to a Speed situation. OOH OOH! He could have bought a boat and done SPEED 2! Just think of all the possibilities! But not the guns. Don't think about the guns!
Luciferian wrote: Out of those 30,000 gun deaths each year, nearly ALL of them are committed using standard capacity, small caliber, concealable handguns. And a majority of them are committed by criminals in major urban areas that have restrictive gun laws. Again, facts.
You've got a few things wrong there.
The first mistake is in confusing gun deaths with homicides. Of the 30,000 gun deaths, around 20,000 are suicides. So unless you believe there's a vast, unreported suicide cult among the nation's urban crime gangs, you might want to admit you got your numbers mixed up.
The second mistake is repeating the myth that murders with firearms are mostly crime related. Going by FBI 2013 data, of 12,253 murders, the motive was known in 7,691 instances. Of that 7,691, only 2,631 were motivated by a crime or a gang affiliation. The rest, 5,060 murders, 65%, were caused by arguments, love triangles, bar room fights and all kinds of other nonsense.
So your overall picture of gun deaths in the US is way off. Urban crime is not the major story of US gun deaths. The most common gun death is a man, alone, shooting himself with his own gun. In second place, a long way behind, is an argument with a person you already knew, that escalates to a shooting. Then in third place, a long way after that, you get robberies gone bad. Then in fourth place, just behind the robberies you get family members shooting each other.
But I do agree that it isn't about rifles, pistols do most of the killing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, part of the problem from the gun control end of it that it's usually pretty bad. If you look at gun violence as a whole, the great majority of death comes from handguns, but when politicians talk about ways to combat death from firearms it's usually poorly thought out legislation like the most recent Assault Weapons Ban, which banned stuff like bayonet lugs and flash hiders and barrel shrouds and pistol grips and other cosmetic features. It's easy to shoot down the idea of a political response when they keep bringing garbage to the table.
I think one of the issues is that federal research in to gun deaths got nixxed by NRA lobbying in the mid-90s. Since then the US has been largely flying blind in terms of policies to combat gun deaths. And it's a shame, because with a better understanding of both gun use and gun deaths I think it would be possible to build policies that reduce gun deaths without infringing on the rights and enjoyment of guns by the vast majority.
Not that that's all of the perfect solution. Gun research was funded when the Assault Weapons Ban was passed, and it didn't stop that bill being so very stupid.
I think another little piece of it is that some Americans are wary of overreach, that we again will tilt our society strongly in a weird direction as an overreaction to a threat. The US moved the dial several notches towards a police state as a response to terrorism, which has killed less people in the last decade domestically than bee stings. The idea that we must now give up some more liberty doesn't play as well as it used to, and couple that with that loss of perceived liberty in service to some ineffective measures...
You just had a president win an election by reacting against the anti-police brutality movement by promising law & order and promising travel bans, so I don't think I see any kind of shift back towards civil liberties right now. I think its so much more complicated than just liberty vs safety. A large part of the issue is coloured by people wanting to feel that their people are in control of things. If they get that feeling, they get less concerned about losing liberty, because there's an assumption that my people would never take away my freedoms.
It's not the whole answer, but it helps explain why the liberal response to Obama's massive expansion of the drone strike program was so muted, and why so many conservatives happily went along with Trump's American carnage myth.
It was going to be about politics and such quickly anyway. If he would have been brown it would be all about Islam before the bodies were cold. Both sides have their talking points lined up and ready to pull the trigger.
“Do something” as a response to terrrism is the reason we have locked cockpit doors on airplanes, one good idea quickly followed by a ton of stupid ideas resulting in security theater and people letting the TSA feel their nuts because “it keeps us safe”.
The doors, and passengers now fighting back, are the only really effective things that came out of 9/11. I don’t think there has been a single Air Marshal that has actually stopped anything or do anything more than handcuff someone already subdued by passengers.
I think we as as nation should stop resorting to knee jerk responses every time a bunch of people get shot and pass half baked gun control policies that do nothing to stop the problem. I mean, really, how is forbidding a pistol grip or magazine releases on rifles going to help anything? We should start a comprehensive research program to investigate the causes of our gun violence and find a long term solution. We are likely never going to be able to prevent mass shootings but no country is 100% safe. This will likely take decades and cost billions of dollars to do but it's better than just shrugging our shoulders.
But I guess that would require compromise, sober thought and a unified course of action. We just simply can't have that in the United States.
Every time somebody slips on a banana skin, Islamic State claims responsibility for it, so I would not read too much into that claim.
Well provided slipper died on the spot. They don't take credit nearly as readily when perpetrator was left alive. Case in point: Finland where islamistic guy went on knifing spree and got caught alive. ISIS been very quiet on that front...
But here perpetrator died so ISIS is free to claim.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: We are likely never going to be able to prevent mass shootings but no country is 100% safe.
Nope. But then again America has chosen it wants to be one of the most likely western countries to get killed by crime.
Just caught up on this thread and I have two observations:
1) other than a couple of outliers this is the most civil and constructive gun control / US pol-REDACTED- thread I have seen in a long while, so good job everyone.
2) all of the discussion around gun control (here and elsewhere) focuses on the guns themselves, but I think a more practical place to start in tackling this problem would be with ammunition; simply put you can only get a mass shooting if you have hundreds of rounds to fire off. I would throw in the challenge to the legal gun owners here, if you're hunting, or defending your home from robbery or protecting your person, how much ammunition do you need? One magazine? Two? Less than a hundred rounds surely.
TheCustomLime wrote: I think we as as nation should stop resorting to knee jerk responses every time a bunch of people get shot and pass half baked gun control policies that do nothing to stop the problem...We should start a comprehensive research program to investigate the causes of our gun violence and find a long term solution.
Reasonable idea - unfortunately one side of the debate tends to paint suggestions of a such studies as knee jerk reactions in and of themselves. You'd think if they're so confident that they'd be proven right, the gun lobby would be 100% behind comprehensive, independent studies. Hell, they could fund a ton of PhDs and post docs and get the bonus throwing-money-into-education plaudits. Gun control advocates have nothing to lose and would completely back it, seems a win-win, no? Well, unless you fear that all the evidence that you've paid to have collected and studied might actually suggest part of the long-term solution to gun violence might involve having fewer guns.
Jadenim wrote: Just caught up on this thread and I have two observations:
1) other than a couple of outliers this is the most civil and constructive gun control / US pol-REDACTED- thread I have seen in a long while, so good job everyone.
2) all of the discussion around gun control (here and elsewhere) focuses on the guns themselves, but I think a more practical place to start in tackling this problem would be with ammunition; simply put you can only get a mass shooting if you have hundreds of rounds to fire off. I would throw in the challenge to the legal gun owners here, if you're hunting, or defending your home from robbery or protecting your person, how much ammunition do you need? One magazine? Two? Less than a hundred rounds surely.
I would say more than a hundred and less than 5,000, and admit that it’s not a helpful answer. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to shot a hundred rounds a month just to stay proficient. I am far from an ammo hoarder, and I have somewhere around 500 rounds in 9mm between my self defense load and my range ammo. A box of 100 rounds gets me 6 magazines worth of shooting, and a partial load at the end. For me that’s a minimum load to run through various drills at the range, and takes less than 30 minutes to burn through. If I want to really practice different drills, drawing from holsters, IWB and OWB, reload drills, malfunction drills, different distances, the number quickly goes up.
I can see the appeal of limiting ammo to prevent mass shootings, but I would then worry about an increase in accidents shootings due to gun owners who are not proficient. (That’s not to say that there are more than enough people who carry concealed on a daily basis, but who haven’t pulled that trigger since qualifying many years ago.)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If I were American, I'd be more worried about car accidents, drunk drivers, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, rather than guns.
A frequent retort, but one that is really pretty vacuous and fatuous.
A - Preventing car accidents, drunk drivers, type 2 diabetes, and obesity is the basis for very heavy regulation and/or massive federal, state, and private level awareness programmes, medical help, and research.
B - Worrying about A, B, C, and D, doesn't preclude you from also worrying about E.
C - You don't have to eradicte problem X before tackling problem Y.
It boils down to our a combination of “because we can” and “because they are fun”.
It’s a pain in the rear and expensive to own a full auto weapon, one might add.
And almost no legal 'full automatic weapons' are available on the market which is a real reason they are so expensive. You are limited to lowers made prior to 1986 I think. Even if you have ridiculous amounts of money it is difficult to find someone willing to sell one now-a-days. Which is why there have been less than a handful of crimes committed in the US with full automatic weapons in the last several decades.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If I were American, I'd be more worried about car accidents, drunk drivers, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, rather than guns.
Why not worry about all of the above? Efforts can be made to prevent all of them.
I still find it baffling that this sort of thing is so commonplace in the leader of the civilized world.
As I say often, I'm a student of American history because it's so damn interesting and fascinating.
I like America and I've met a lot of great people from there over the years, but I don't think I'll ever understand the national psyche.
The USA is so full of baffling contradictions.
A land built on liberty and freedom...but some of them were slave owners...
A land that valued individuality and individual freedom...but launched a moral crusade against alcohol and drug use by the individual
A land that sees its bill of rights as a holy text, but stood by after 9/11 as some those freedoms were taken away from them, the 4th amendment being a prime example...
and so on and so on...
In my humble opinion as a neutral observer, the 2nd debate fits the pattern of the national mood and conversation over the years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If I were American, I'd be more worried about car accidents, drunk drivers, type 2 diabetes, and obesity, rather than guns.
Why not worry about all of the above? Efforts can be made to prevent all of them.
I still find it baffling that this sort of thing is so commonplace in the leader of the civilized world.
As I say often, I'm a student of American history because it's so damn interesting and fascinating.
I like America and I've met a lot of great people from there over the years, but I don't think I'll ever understand the national psyche.
The USA is so full of baffling contradictions.
A land built on liberty and freedom...but some of them were slave owners...
A land that valued individuality and individual freedom...but launched a moral crusade against alcohol and drug use by the individual
A land that sees its bill of rights as a holy text, but stood by after 9/11 as some those freedoms were taken away from them, the 4th amendment being a prime example...
and so on and so on...
In my humble opinion as a neutral observer, the 2nd debate fits the pattern of the national mood and conversation over the years.
We as a nation do everything contradictory. A favorite quote of mine, that is aimed at our military, but I think fits our culture.
"A serious problem in planning against American doctrine is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine."
I think it's rooted in the sense that nothing about our nation is... normal? Our background springs from dozens of different cultures. Sure, we were originally British colonies, but lets be honest, so much of our population is more then just Anglo. German, French, Italian, Irish, African, Asian, etc... Throw that in with the concept that all opinions are supposed to be welcome, everyone has their say, it just runs for pure chaos. You reference the slavery thing, an issue that we shed the blood of hundreds of thousands over. We are a nation of extremes, because there is so much going on. We don't do anything middle of the road, no matter how easy that would make it.
Gun laws won't change in the USA because there is a strong, politically active minority in America who literally love guns more than their own children. They'd rather see the streets run red, with the blood of their fellow citizens, than admit to their addiction, their fetish, their muse. The pro gun rally, at heart, are scared. They're scared of government, of rapists and killers, of muggers and thieves. They're scared of immigrants, muslims and inner city gags. They're scared of urban centers and bears roaming rural retreats. They're homophobic, God fearing scaredy cats who cling to guns because they think they'll offer them some kind of protection when the boogeyman comes.
It boils down to our a combination of “because we can” and “because they are fun”.
It’s a pain in the rear and expensive to own a full auto weapon, one might add.
And almost no legal 'full automatic weapons' are available on the market which is a real reason they are so expensive. You are limited to lowers made prior to 1986 I think. Even if you have ridiculous amounts of money it is difficult to find someone willing to sell one now-a-days. Which is why there have been less than a handful of crimes committed in the US with full automatic weapons in the last several decades.
Very true. This guy seems like he might be one of the few who could have been able to afford a legal full auto. But it likely was the result of after market modification with the bump stock.
Hollow wrote: Gun laws won't change in the USA because there is a strong, politically active minority in America who literally love guns more than their own children. They'd rather see the streets run red, with the blood of their fellow citizens, than admit to their addiction, their fetish, their muse. The pro gun rally, at heart, are scared. They're scared of government, of rapists and killers, of muggers and thieves. They're scared of immigrants, muslims and inner city gags. They're scared of urban centers and bears roaming rural retreats. They're homophobic, God fearing scaredy cats who cling to guns because they think they'll offer them some kind of protection when the boogeyman comes.
Good to see such a fact based non-emotional analysis posted here.
Thanks for the info sebster. I also frequently go to the FBI UCR for my figures on homicide, although the last numbers I checked before today were the 2012 numbers. I haven't been keeping up with the issues of murder and firearm violence for the last few years.
I did check the FBI numbers for 2015, and like always they bring up a lot of questions. Here's the table of relationship between victim and offender on their main page for 2015:
The biggest category is "Unknown" at 47.8%, which while it is a minority of the total is big enough to put a significant asterisk next to any conclusions we try to draw from the UCR. It's also worth noting that when we look at the expanded tables "Other - not specified" are some of the larger categories in the table on relationship between victim and offender and the table on circumstances surrounding the crime. The “Other – not specified” categorizes are separate from “Unknown” and I interpret that to mean that the local authorities knew the circumstances surrounding the crime and/or knew that the victim and murderer knew each other, but failed to inform the FBI of those specific details and circumstances. I emailed the FBI to ask for more details on this (among other things) but I'm sure they're probably inundated with questions at the moment.
The other thing that has always driven me crazy about the UCR is the relationship category of “Acquaintance” and the circumstance category of “Other argument”. Both are the largest categories in their respective areas of the tables. Acquaintance does not at first glance appear to include anyone that the person would know well, including relationships like neighbor and employer/employee. This is what I think has lead many pro-gun people to make the argument that “Acquaintance” includes criminals known to their murderers. I don't think the rest of the table bears that out, but it depends on how the FBI defines some of their terms. (I certainly hope I'm not giving the impression that I think people engaged in illegal activity being murdered is acceptable, they are still people and it is not.)
The only clues the FBI seems to give are the footnotes:
NOTE: The relationship categories of husband and wife include both common-law and ex-spouses. The categories of mother, father, sister, brother, son, and daughter include stepparents, stepchildren, and stepsiblings. The category of acquaintance includes homosexual relationships and the composite category of other known to victim.
I included the whole footnote because the first part is significant. The reason I bolded the second part is not because I think homosexuals are crazy murderers, but rather because if they include such a significant relationship under “Acquaintance” it makes me highly suspicious that other things might be hidden behind the label of “Acquaintance”. For example, they list employer and employee, but what about coworkers? They list boyfriend and girlfriend as their own categories, and they categorize ex-husbands and ex-wives as hubsands and wives, but do they categorize ex-boyfriends and ex-girlfriends as still being boyfriends and girlfriends? What about “friends with benefits”? I would think they would go under “friend” or “boy/girfriend”, but if they consider married homosexuals to be acquaintances who knows what else is in that category. Likewise, I think the “Other arguments” category is too vague. I noticed that they don't have a category for domestic disputes, so I'm assuming they fit under that category. I don't know for sure, but it seems like there would be enough “domestic dispute” murders to warrant their own category, but maybe there is such a confusing variety of domestic disputes that they decided to lump them all under “Other arguments”? There is also a lot of potential for overlap with these categories.
I sent an email to the FBI asking about this, but I'm guessing they're swamped right now and also might requests might have been too broad.
Sorry for rambling. I also hope it doesn't seem like I'm attacking you, sebster. I don't think I even disagree with you, and I think the UCR is one of our better sources, but there are some vague parts of it that drive me crazy. It's entirely possible that the answers are right in front of my nose and I'm too dense to see them. It's also possible that details like whether or not ex-boyfriends count as boyfriends doesn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things.
My parents home has a police response time of about a half an hour, due to cutbacks and reductions in force in the state police in PA. Robberies are pretty common, and some of the local farmers have turned to some pretty extreme solutions. My father's was a 6 pounder, but an 1861 Gatling was not out of the question. Both are legal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hollow wrote: They're homophobic, God fearing scaredy cats who cling to guns because they think they'll offer them some kind of protection when the boogeyman comes.
Hardly homophobic, but I am alive right now because we had guns too. Being English, I suppose you've never had the police tell you that 'We just come to collect the bodies'.
BTW: they report having found explosives searching this guy's house, so he really was not adverse to ignoring the law altogether, so how would having tougher laws have stopped him? According to reports, the man had no signs of any past criminal activity or even mental instability. So, by what psychic power would any of the proposed suggestions have stopped him? He was, on the surface, a law abiding citizen, who would easily have passed any background checks to determine if he was a threat.
Hardly homophobic, but I am alive right now because we had guns too. Being English, I suppose you've never had the police tell you that 'We just come to collect the bodies'.
.
I'm not English. I lived in South East Asia for more than a decade. Had police create the bodies.
BaronIveagh wrote: BTW: they report having found explosives searching this guy's house, so he really was not adverse to ignoring the law altogether, so how would having tougher laws have stopped him? According to reports, the man had no signs of any past criminal activity or even mental instability. So, by what psychic power would any of the proposed suggestions have stopped him? He was, on the surface, a law abiding citizen, who would easily have passed any background checks to determine if he was a threat.
Would he have been able to have access to that many or any high rate fire weapons if one can't just buy easily without issues one?
Funny enough countries without easy access to those you see more of crimes with knives with maybe pistols neither which is nearly as deadly as dozen high rate rifles...
Or are americans just more nuts than rest of the world so availability has no effect on what kind of weapons are used so it's just unique american psyche that makes them go for high rate of fire guns? Guess that works but I'm not easily putting blame on americans as a people being worse than others so I'm banking on theory of availability affecting weapon of choice.
Do gun advocates think that everyone should be able to own a nuclear warhead? Should every/any body be able to buy a nuke from Walmart for a few hundred bucks?
Or are americans just more nuts than rest of the world so availability has no effect on what kind of weapons are used so it's just unique american psyche that makes them go for high rate of fire guns?
You know who presents that argument?
The National Rifle Association. When a person or organisation says; "Guns don't kill people. People do." they are arguing that, if there were no guns in the US, the American people would still kill each other with the same frequency and enthusiasm.
That is quite an indictment of the American people - presented by people who proclaim themselves to be patriots.
The question I've always asked myself is why is this happening now? What is it about modern American society that makes this tragic events occur with greater frequency?
America has had guns since the 1600s. And yeah, you can't compare a musket to a machine gun, and yeah, there has always been gun muders since the 1600s, but it feels different, more vicious and nacisstic these days.
I don't believe the widespread availability of guns is the main issue either, and I don't buy this national violence myth either i.e because the USA fight abroad, people at home get used to violence.
Switzerland is a prime example of an armed nation that doesn't have half the gun crime of the USA. I'd also like to remind American dakka members about the British Empire:
In the 1890s and the 1900s, British citizens could own and buy any gun they wanted when they wanted. It made Texas look like California. School kids and cadet forces were trained to use machine guns
During the infamous siege of Sydney Street, in the early 1900s, British police were so outgunned by the criminals, they had to ask passing civilians if they could borrow their new Mauser pistols from them.
And this was against backdrop of Imperial wars against the Boers and Sudan, where British victories would see church bells ringing and people celebrating in the streets.
EDIT: forgot to mention that despite this, gun crime was never a major problem in Britain. Yeah, people were killed by guns, but not on the scale of the modern USA.
To cut a long story short, this is not an American problem. I think it's a problem of human nature that needs to be solved.
Funny enough countries without easy access to those you see more of crimes with knives with maybe pistols neither which is nearly as deadly as dozen high rate rifles...
Good thinking, to leave out out bombings, which are more statistically common outside the US. And much deadlier than automatic weapons. and mortars, which are also much deadlier than automatic weapons. Imagine an IRA style mortar attack on that concert. Please tell me how that would have been less lethal.
Or are americans just more nuts than rest of the world so availability has no effect on what kind of weapons are used so it's just unique american psyche that makes them go for high rate of fire guns? Guess that works but I'm not easily putting blame on americans as a people being worse than others so I'm banking on theory of availability affecting weapon of choice.
Weapon choice actually does have roots in culture and psychology in things like this.
Steelmage99 wrote: "Guns don't kill people. People do." they are arguing that, if there were no guns in the US, the American people would still kill each other with the same frequency and enthusiasm.
That is quite an indictment of the American people - presented by people who proclaim themselves to be patriots.
Interestingly, in 1790 there were 462 gun deaths (murders, accidents, and suicides) at a time when the majority of the population had a firearm of some type. In 1800 there were 627. This ratio more or less continues as the population expands until about 1920. Then it explodes. Between 1920 and 2010 the number of gun deaths in the US tripled, despite the relative number of guns in the population decreased (ie fewer and fewer people owned guns).
My parents home has a police response time of about a half an hour, due to cutbacks and reductions in force in the state police in PA. Robberies are pretty common, and some of the local farmers have turned to some pretty extreme solutions.
Insurance is a more effective solution.
BTW: they report having found explosives searching this guy's house, so he really was not adverse to ignoring the law altogether, so how would having tougher laws have stopped him? According to reports, the man had no signs of any past criminal activity or even mental instability. So, by what psychic power would any of the proposed suggestions have stopped him? He was, on the surface, a law abiding citizen, who would easily have passed any background checks to determine if he was a threat.
Does anyone, at all, claim that tighter restrictions on guns would stop people who illegally acquire weapons from attempting to illegally acquire them? A striking strawman, that.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:The question I've always asked myself is why is this happening now? What is it about modern American society that makes this tragic events occur with greater frequency?
America has had guns since the 1600s. And yeah, you can't compare a musket to a machine gun, and yeah, there has always been gun muders since the 1600s, but it feels different, more vicious and nacisstic these days.
I don't believe the widespread availability of guns is the main issue either, and I don't buy this national violence myth either i.e because the USA fight abroad, people at home get used to violence.
Switzerland is a prime example of an armed nation that doesn't have half the gun crime of the USA. I'd also like to remind American dakka members about the British Empire:
In the 1890s and the 1900s, British citizens could own and buy any gun they wanted when they wanted. It made Texas look like California. School kids and cadet forces were trained to use machine guns
During the infamous siege of Sydney Street, in the early 1900s, British police were so outgunned by the criminals, they had to ask passing civilians if they could borrow their new Mauser pistols from them.
And this was against backdrop of Imperial wars against the Boers and Sudan, where British victories would see church bells ringing and people celebrating in the streets.
EDIT: forgot to mention that despite this, gun crime was never a major problem in Britain. Yeah, people were killed by guns, but not on the scale of the modern USA.
To cut a long story short, this is not an American problem. I think it's a problem of human nature that needs to be solved.
Basically everything you've just written says the opposite
Country music concert would appeal to a more conservative bent which increases the chance of people having guns there. If they did, it did them jack and squat...
You ever asked 300 million gun owners to turn over their guns? You think this will save lives?
*
I was in that area/on that train from Paris to Marselille 10 years ago. O.o
