Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:


Slavery was also an unwritten right since time immemorial (Ex. Bible) that predates guns themselves too. People were extremely protective of it. Didnt make it right.

Your idea of human rights is very strange indeed then, as the endemic property of all fundamental rights is that they must be non hypocritical. If I may speak freely, then so may you, If I may own firearms, then so may you. ect

Some people fall into a pattern where "I may be free, but I deny you your freedom" "I may speak freely, but no platform for you, guns for the group I want to have them, but not for you" and for some reason think its still a human right.

As a rule, even in history, its always been very small group of people, excising their disproportionate power over others that results in slavery. Which is why in throughout all recorded history, those with swords enslaved those without, and the same is true of firearms.

Hence the saying "only slaves are barred from owning swords"(paraphrasing)

Again, the first and second amendments are written down forms of the most basic fundamental human rights we have that protect themselves and the other rights that spring from them.

That you equate "some guy wrote a law saying we can own slaves" to natural unalienable HUMAN rights is almost as scary as your attitude towards engaging your countrymen in civil war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:
You guys wanna get off this off topic slavery nonsense?

Well, i guess the thread is about an event, which is a topic long passed over as it inevitably leads into a gun control debate.


One thing about any of these events, no matter if they used a bomb, car, gun, knife, gas, whatever.

I hate seeing people focus so much on HOW these people did it rather then WHY.

Its always going to be treating the symptom, rather then the disease, its always reactionary rather then proactive.

What I want to know is why these people get to a place where they can even consider doing what they do.

You're assuming an awful lot about what I think about human rights (no i'm not pro slavery, no i'm not take away all the guns)

Only pointing out about the parallels between the two in context to US society.

Anyways, last time talking about that.

So he had that "Bump stock" that the news has been talking about. What is it exactly?

Boy, out of all the times we've seen this thread topic get locked, "a refusal to stop an off-topic tangent about slavery" might be a new one.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
You're assuming an awful lot about what I think about human rights (no i'm not pro slavery, no i'm not take away all the guns)

Only pointing out about the parallels between the two in context to US society.

There are no similarities. Gun ownership doesn't have any of the negative aspects of slavery and slavery has none of the positive attributes of gun ownership. No one is claiming that the 2nd amendment couldn't be repealed it's just incredibly unlikely to happen and there are many more obstacles to reducing gun ownership in the US than the 2nd amendment.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

So he had that "Bump stock" that the news has been talking about. What is it exactly?

It's a device to simulate full-auto fire. It replaces the stock and allows the firearm to "bump" back and forth under recoil and user-applied forward pressure.

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

So he had that "Bump stock" that the news has been talking about. What is it exactly?

It's a device to simulate full-auto fire. It replaces the stock and allows the firearm to "bump" back and forth under recoil and user-applied forward pressure.

How close to fully automatic does it get a weapon compared to the actual fully automatic version of it? we talking within 100's of rounds per minute or 10's?

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

So he had that "Bump stock" that the news has been talking about. What is it exactly?

It's a device to simulate full-auto fire. It replaces the stock and allows the firearm to "bump" back and forth under recoil and user-applied forward pressure.

How close to fully automatic does it get a weapon compared to the actual fully automatic version of it? we talking within 100's of rounds per minute or 10's?

I have no experience with them, so I'll leave it to someone else to answer rate of fire technicalities. I am lead to believe that it can be erratic, however, depending on the ability of the user.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

So he had that "Bump stock" that the news has been talking about. What is it exactly?

It's a device to simulate full-auto fire. It replaces the stock and allows the firearm to "bump" back and forth under recoil and user-applied forward pressure.

How close to fully automatic does it get a weapon compared to the actual fully automatic version of it? we talking within 100's of rounds per minute or 10's?

You can increase the rate of fire to be hundreds of rounds per minute but that is dependent on the ability of the user. A person would need to practice a bit to get the hang of it and get the maximum effect. The ATF has ruled that bump fire stocks are perfectly legally mainly because they have determined that:

Two of the main manufacturers of bump stocks—Bump Fire Systems and Slide Fire—have posted letters from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which declare these devices as legal in large part because they "[have] no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and [perform] no automatic function when installed."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/news/a28479/vegas-shooter-bump-stock/

For the record, you don't need a special stock to bump fire in some poorly controlled shooting positions. The bumpfire stocks allow the weapon to be shouldered during shooting but many folks can bumpfire from the hip

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

So he had that "Bump stock" that the news has been talking about. What is it exactly?

It's a device to simulate full-auto fire. It replaces the stock and allows the firearm to "bump" back and forth under recoil and user-applied forward pressure.

How close to fully automatic does it get a weapon compared to the actual fully automatic version of it? we talking within 100's of rounds per minute or 10's?

You can get rates of fire that meet and exceed the actual full auto versions, but basically you're pushing forward while the gun recoils backward into a sled housing in the stock and bumping the trigger every time it does so, as a result, while you can get very high rates of fire, it's often erratic and difficult to wield and prone to malfunctions.

But, as noted, you don't *need* a stock like this to get the effect, get a light trigger and the right grip at the hip and there's a lot of guns that'll bump fire straight through a magazine quite happily. The stock just makes it work better.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
For the record, you don't need a special stock to bump fire in some poorly controlled shooting positions. The bumpfire stocks allow the weapon to be shouldered during shooting but many folks can bumpfire from the hip

You can bump fire with a belt loop and your thumb.

its dumb for many reasons. fun once but meh

I've hesitated to post in this section. I'm a pro-gun gun nut that owns dozens of weapons created over the course of 130 years.

I hold my right to bear arms very closely, yet I am open to some forms of weapons laws. What I find to be silly is the "Common Sense" laws many get behind. Honestly, after every major incident these "common sense" laws are brought up, and in reality they wouldn't do jack to prevent the tragedy that just happened. They are simply feel-good laws for non gun owners and total pains in the butt for those of us that do own guns.

Banning pistol grip rifles, pistols with magazines outside the grip, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, .50 rifles, etc. are NOT doing anything. Literally nothing at all. Stop asking for this, it simply makes you look stupid. The only thing that might work (notice the might part) are magazine size restrictions and background checks. The magazine capacity is seriously debatable.

I keep saying it over and over and over again. If you want people to do more background checks, make it free and easily accessible. Do you know how many gun owners would willingly get on board with background checks if they could simply whip out their smart phone and do it for free in 2 minutes? The only reason to limit it to FFL dealers is so that the process for transferring a weapon is too big of a hassle and makes it cost prohibitive. I honestly think that this was intentional to make owning a gun as unattractive as possible. All this does is promote hidden sales.

As a caveat to background checks, I would only be OK with them if no record was kept of the transaction. It should simply be a comparison vs a database of known criminals. No data regarding who was compared vs the list, what they purchased, frequency of purchases, etc...

I don't want anybody, especially the government, keeping records of the fact I own weapons, what kind of weapons those may be, etc...

Mario wrote:
This video (7 minutes) might be useful in the debate: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/914844996016250880

I find that that video uses A LOT of misleading and actually contradictory statements. For instance they keep going back and forth to whether or not they are counting acts of terrorism and gang crimes. Let's not beat around the bush, San Bernadino was a terrorist act, despite this video implying it wasn't.

Also, their chart that displayed homicide rate to gun ownership rates was just wrong on so many levels. I went back and double checked using actual crime statistics. The chart I made shows two outliers, Washington DC with low guns, high murder and Louisiana with high guns, high murder. The other states are strange. The trend starts in the lower left with Hawaii, with murders rising along with gun ownership rates, but then sharply falls down (Iowa at the low end), then goes back up again (Alaska is high). It looks like there is a sweet spot for gun ownership that somehow disrupts violence without hitting some sort of critical mass for gun violence.

Is there any reason behind a bumpstock other than simulating fully auto fire? That is, in a world where people could buy fully auto weapons, would anyone ever choose a semi-auto weapon and then buy a bump stock? Or is the whole point just to bypass fully auto restrictions?

Anyhow, my quick thoughts on this. People talk about the NRA's money, but one big secret of US politics is that the NRA gives bugger all money. Last presidential cycle the NRA just a bit more than million dollars to congress critters. The reason that Republicans and a couple of Democrats will not back any gun control at all is that while an overwhelming majority support at least some limited gun reforms, almost none of them vote based on that issue. But the small minority who do oppose any new gun controls will vote on just that issue, and they will vote in primaries. It's not a money thing, it's a case of a small, motivated minority controlling an issue on the national level.

As to the greater issues - mass shootings are horrible, but they're not where the real death toll is. There's more than 10,000 gun murders every year, and another 20,000 gun suicides. If an effective control could be developed that stopped these kinds of mass shootings had been in place it might have stopped some events like Las Vegas but it wouldn't make a dent in the overall death toll from the proliferation of guns in the US. That's doesn't mean it is okay to do nothing, a law like that would have made a huge difference to 59 people in Las Vegas, but its very important to remember that the real toll is the daily shootings with pistols, not these occasional mass attacks.

As to what can be done, I don't know. No-one does. The debate on gun control is horrible on all sides. The left focuses on scary sounding weapons and challenges opponents with moral arguments 'how can you justify this awful, black gun with a bayonet stock'. The right trades in dismissive arguments based on irrelevant technical details, and spends an incredible amount of time and effort denying the simple reality that gun proliferation increases gun use, and that has fatal consequences. To move this debate forward, the left needs to come to terms with the reality that the scary looking guns are not well related to the guns that do most of the killing, and the right needs to come to terms with the reality that having so many guns in the US is a major reason that all those guns keep getting used to shoot people.

That doesn't mean there's an easy answer. But there'll never be any kind of answer or improvement until everyone involved starts to agree on the reality of the situation, and restarts the debate from there.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I keep saying it over and over and over again. If you want people to do more background checks, make it free and easily accessible. Do you know how many gun owners would willingly get on board with background checks if they could simply whip out their smart phone and do it for free in 2 minutes? The only reason to limit it to FFL dealers is so that the process for transferring a weapon is too big of a hassle and makes it cost prohibitive. I honestly think that this was intentional to make owning a gun as unattractive as possible. All this does is promote hidden sales.

The problem with background checks is the waiting period, and I understand that. I think it's a fair complaint. I think that can be offset with a pre-approval process, you fill in your form, it confirms you can lawfully get your hands on a gun, and then you just provide your registry number when you bought a gun. The gun owner could then run a quick check against a live registry when you bought a gun. Private sales would be the issue, and the big sticking point. I would think it would be okay to have private sales required to run a check, provided for free by police stations, municipal offices etc, but probably a lot of people would get really angry about that.

But even assuming the above system is workable and reliable (it will have a lot of issues with multiple jurisdictions feeding info in to the system), I'm not sure background checks will do that much. It seems people have settled on background checks just because there's broad support for the idea that something needs to be done, and broad agreement that nothing should be done that inconveniences gun owners too much. What's missing is an idea that background checks will actually do something useful. There's been more than 1,500 mass shootings in the US since Sandy Hook, how many would have been stopped by some kind of background check?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Also, their chart that displayed homicide rate to gun ownership rates was just wrong on so many levels. I went back and double checked using actual crime statistics. The chart I made shows two outliers, Washington DC with low guns, high murder and Louisiana with high guns, high murder. The other states are strange. The trend starts in the lower left with Hawaii, with murders rising along with gun ownership rates, but then sharply falls down (Iowa at the low end), then goes back up again (Alaska is high). It looks like there is a sweet spot for gun ownership that somehow disrupts violence without hitting some sort of critical mass for gun violence.

Their numbers are correct and verified.

And no, there's no 'sweet spot'. Over time there have been a lot of studies in to this, and they basically fall in to three camps. One camp says there's no relationship, one camp says there's no relationship but the data isn't great so maybe there's a weak underlying relationship, and the last group says 'hell yeah guns reduce crime look at this incredibly stupid data mining nonsense I just invented no I don't want to put this through peer review stop suppressing me'

 sebster wrote:
Is there any reason behind a bumpstock other than simulating fully auto fire? That is, in a world where people could buy fully auto weapons, would anyone ever choose a semi-auto weapon and then buy a bump stock? Or is the whole point just to bypass fully auto restrictions?

No, no, yes.

 sebster wrote:
That's doesn't mean it is okay to do nothing, a law like that would have made a huge difference to 59 people in Las Vegas.

Not really. Nothing at all could have stopped what happened in Vegas, at least as far as gun laws are concerned. The perpetrator had the means to bypass everything.

He was very wealthy, so making guns prohibitively expensive wouldn't have stopped him. All it would accomplish is making guns and self-defense a luxury only for the wealthy, which I'm sure anybody can see the flaw in giving that to only the powerful within society.

He had no criminal background or known mental issues which would have caused him to fail a background check.

Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:
That's doesn't mean it is okay to do nothing, a law like that would have made a huge difference to 59 people in Las Vegas.

Not really. Nothing at all could have stopped what happened in Vegas, at least as far as gun laws are concerned. The perpetrator had the means to bypass everything.

He was very wealthy, so making guns prohibitively expensive wouldn't have stopped him. All it would accomplish is making guns and self-defense a luxury only for the wealthy, which I'm sure anybody can see the flaw in giving that to only the powerful within society.

He had no criminal background or known mental issues which would have caused him to fail a background check.

Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Yeah, if he didn't have guns, he would have just been up there with his blowgun, dropping people left and right. Literally no way to stop him from having a blowgun! Check and mate, boys!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:
That's doesn't mean it is okay to do nothing, a law like that would have made a huge difference to 59 people in Las Vegas.

Not really. Nothing at all could have stopped what happened in Vegas, at least as far as gun laws are concerned. The perpetrator had the means to bypass everything.

He was very wealthy, so making guns prohibitively expensive wouldn't have stopped him. All it would accomplish is making guns and self-defense a luxury only for the wealthy, which I'm sure anybody can see the flaw in giving that to only the powerful within society.

He had no criminal background or known mental issues which would have caused him to fail a background check.

Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Yeah, if he didn't have guns, he would have just been up there with his blowgun, dropping people left and right. Literally no way to stop him from having a blowgun! Check and mate, boys!

This guy could still have acquired guns if he wanted because he was rich. Legally or illegally. $ opens doors. So does having a clean record.

Or he would have loaded up one of those private planes he owned with explosives/fuel and flown into one of the hotels. They have found bomb materials at his place of residence. This guy was going to do horrible stuff regardless of any potential legislation.

 sebster wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I keep saying it over and over and over again. If you want people to do more background checks, make it free and easily accessible. Do you know how many gun owners would willingly get on board with background checks if they could simply whip out their smart phone and do it for free in 2 minutes? The only reason to limit it to FFL dealers is so that the process for transferring a weapon is too big of a hassle and makes it cost prohibitive. I honestly think that this was intentional to make owning a gun as unattractive as possible. All this does is promote hidden sales.

The problem with background checks is the waiting period, and I understand that. I think it's a fair complaint.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Also, their chart that displayed homicide rate to gun ownership rates was just wrong on so many levels. I went back and double checked using actual crime statistics. The chart I made shows two outliers, Washington DC with low guns, high murder and Louisiana with high guns, high murder. The other states are strange. The trend starts in the lower left with Hawaii, with murders rising along with gun ownership rates, but then sharply falls down (Iowa at the low end), then goes back up again (Alaska is high). It looks like there is a sweet spot for gun ownership that somehow disrupts violence without hitting some sort of critical mass for gun violence.

Their numbers are correct and verified.

'

Waiting period, what's that? Even with a background check I can walk into a gun store and leave with a weapon in under 8 minutes. I've done this on my break from work.

As for the numbers that you call "correct and verified", the devil is in the details. If lower gun ownership rates lower shootings by 10 deaths, but raise stabbing deaths by 10, is there really an improvement? That's the issue. The only real metric is if overall murders go down. Which is why their charts are flawed.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:
That's doesn't mean it is okay to do nothing, a law like that would have made a huge difference to 59 people in Las Vegas.

Not really. Nothing at all could have stopped what happened in Vegas, at least as far as gun laws are concerned. The perpetrator had the means to bypass everything.

He was very wealthy, so making guns prohibitively expensive wouldn't have stopped him. All it would accomplish is making guns and self-defense a luxury only for the wealthy, which I'm sure anybody can see the flaw in giving that to only the powerful within society.

He had no criminal background or known mental issues which would have caused him to fail a background check.

Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Yeah, if he didn't have guns, he would have just been up there with his blowgun, dropping people left and right. Literally no way to stop him from having a blowgun! Check and mate, boys!

This guy could still have acquired guns if he wanted because he was rich. Legally or illegally. $ opens doors. So does having a clean record.

Or he would have loaded up one of those private planes he owned with explosives/fuel and flown into one of the hotels. They have found bomb materials at his place of residence. This guy was going to do horrible stuff regardless of any potential legislation.

That is a pretty big assumption there. If he was looking to do something horrible, why wouldn't he just go with the bigger body count? Flying a plane in to a building would have done that. A bomb would have been capable of doing that. Why did he go with the gun?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 sebster wrote:
That's doesn't mean it is okay to do nothing, a law like that would have made a huge difference to 59 people in Las Vegas.

Not really. Nothing at all could have stopped what happened in Vegas, at least as far as gun laws are concerned. The perpetrator had the means to bypass everything.

He was very wealthy, so making guns prohibitively expensive wouldn't have stopped him. All it would accomplish is making guns and self-defense a luxury only for the wealthy, which I'm sure anybody can see the flaw in giving that to only the powerful within society.

He had no criminal background or known mental issues which would have caused him to fail a background check.

Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Yeah, if he didn't have guns, he would have just been up there with his blowgun, dropping people left and right. Literally no way to stop him from having a blowgun! Check and mate, boys!

This guy could still have acquired guns if he wanted because he was rich. Legally or illegally. $ opens doors. So does having a clean record.

Or he would have loaded up one of those private planes he owned with explosives/fuel and flown into one of the hotels. They have found bomb materials at his place of residence. This guy was going to do horrible stuff regardless of any potential legislation.

That is a pretty big assumption there. If he was looking to do something horrible, why wouldn't he just go with the bigger body count? Flying a plane in to a building would have done that. A bomb would have been capable of doing that. Why did he go with the gun?

Given that he had options, he went with the least personal one. Flying a plane into a building is a pretty personal act, since it will kill you immediately. Spraying down a crowd from a great distance is much less so.

There is somewhat of a scale of how personal a violent act is.

Most personal would have been flying a plane into a building(downside of not being able to see what you accomplished after the fact). Next most personal would be going down to the concert directly and shooting it up. Next would be what he actually did, shooting from a great distance indiscriminately. And finally the next least personal would be planting bombs.

It seems like this guy was trying to be fairly detached from the violence, but that wouldn't necessarily have prevented him from choosing more direct and personal means of attack. We also don't exactly know what his motivation was. Body count alone may not have been his goal.

Perhaps he was a left leaning whacko who wanted to attack "those damn trump supporting country music listening fascists and give them a taste of their own medicine!!!". At the very least, the level of planning he put into this attack shows that he was motivated and a setback like not having easy access to guns wouldn't have stopped him.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
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 why I prefer to use earlier reports. Over time they update those figures as suspects are identified. In 2013, the year I used, the unknown category had dropped to 36%, that's not nothing but it is enough to make the other data a lot more useful.

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 think it means there is a relationship, but it doesn't fit in to the categories provided. They might be part of the same barbershop quartet, for instance But then I don't know, and would like to hear the response you get. Much kudos to you for going to the FBI for clarification.

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.

Yeah, the large size of other is an issue. But anyone who takes it to mean criminals known to the victim is really, really reaching.

(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.)

Definitely, but it is an important distinction because it changes the nature of the problem. If most murders are crime related then general actions that drive down crime will reduce the murder rate. But if most murders aren't part of other criminal acts, then there is a different problem.

There is also a lot of potential for overlap with these categories.

While I would be quite interested in how 'other' breaks down in to friends with benefits, people who knew each other in college but didn't each other much after that etc, I think for the purpose of this conversation it is enough to know that the US gun murder rate isn't driven by strangers committing crimes.

But I do think you raise an interesting point about criminals known to their attackers. Drug addicts stealing from their parents is the cliche that comes to mind.

Sorry for rambling. I also hope it doesn't seem like I'm attacking you, sebster.

You're not rambling, and I haven't felt attacked. You've raised good points.

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 isn't perfect, but its pretty good as far as these resources go. Part of the vagueness is prob due to data collection limits, how many boxes can you supply for different relationship for people to choose from? But a lot of that could be improved if we were given better access to more detailed info.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Perhaps he was a left leaning whacko who wanted to attack "those damn trump supporting country music listening fascists and give them a taste of their own medicine!!!". At the very least, the level of planning he put into this attack shows that he was motivated and a setback like not having easy access to guns wouldn't have stopped him.

I am really hoping this is sarcasm.

 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.

It feels different because time provides distance, it reduces the horror that we feel when these things happen today, it makes us forget the horror people felt at the time. But reality is that murder used to be more common than it is today.

Switzerland is a prime example of an armed nation that doesn't have half the gun crime of the USA.

What guns are owned and how they are used is a big part of the issue. Swiss people have access to guns but their use and access to ammo is strictly controlled.

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.

Except the rest of the developed world has more or less 'solved'* it in their own countries. Through many different means, but they've all gotten to the point where murder, and murder with a gun is a fraction of the rate it is in the US.


*Really, controlled or significantly reduced is better. Solve implies getting to zero murders, which is an impossible standard.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Perhaps he was a left leaning whacko who wanted to attack "those damn trump supporting country music listening fascists and give them a taste of their own medicine!!!". At the very least, the level of planning he put into this attack shows that he was motivated and a setback like not having easy access to guns wouldn't have stopped him.

I am really hoping this is sarcasm.

What part?

It certainly would be silly to rule out what I mentioned as a motivation given the crazy stuff that has been going on. Of course that's politics and we can't talk about that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Something is stopping these kinds of things happening periodically elsewhere like they are happening in US. In western countries this is uniquely US problem. Other countries HAVE solved it. There's no gun massacres so periodically that reaction is "ah once more unto the breach" like in US.

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Something is stopping these kinds of things happening periodically elsewhere like they are happening in US. In western countries this is uniquely US problem. Other countries HAVE solved it. There's no gun massacres so periodically that reaction is "ah once more unto the breach" like in US.

And the civil rights loss for that is totally unacceptable.

 Grey Templar wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Something is stopping these kinds of things happening periodically elsewhere like they are happening in US. In western countries this is uniquely US problem. Other countries HAVE solved it. There's no gun massacres so periodically that reaction is "ah once more unto the breach" like in US.

And the civil rights loss for that is totally unacceptable.

So, there are literally ways to stop this? You just disagree with them.

 Grey Templar wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Literally nothing could have stopped what happened.

Something is stopping these kinds of things happening periodically elsewhere like they are happening in US. In western countries this is uniquely US problem. Other countries HAVE solved it. There's no gun massacres so periodically that reaction is "ah once more unto the breach" like in US.

And the civil rights loss for that is totally unacceptable.

"The senseless murder of children and adults is an acceptable price for the country to pay in order for me to keep my guns".