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.
2017/10/04 16:01:10
Subject: Re:Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Which is only a thing to point out if you're wilfully ignoring the Southern Strategy and the political shift of the 60's like people always do. It's dishonest as hell, and you should know better.
People that bring up the "Southern Strategy" are also dishonest. Yes, a couple Republicans did that, but it wasn't the whole of the party. The South started to turn Republican in 1955, ten years before Republicans rammed the Civil Rights act through against Democratic opposition. That was because more industry was being introduced, not because of an appeal to racists. Also, the South didn't become a Republican majority until 1991, and I doubt it took racists 30 years to notice "racist appeal". Also, only two former democrats turned republican, so that kind of shoots down that theory.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 16:01:35
2017/10/04 16:07:33
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
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,
I'm going to take some issue with this part of your statement, mainly for the fact that those technical details often are not necessarily irrelevant. Having the wrong kind of grip or a pinhole drilled in the wrong place or a sear that slips too easily or a barrel that's a half inch too short is the difference between being perfectly legal and a 10 year stint in club fed. You get the technical detail arguments because they matter. The technical details are a legal minefield, putting a vertical foregrip on a large pistol makes it an NFA controlled item, but an angled foregrip does not and is perfectly fine, the ATF has, in the past, issued official letters declaring pieces of string to constitute a machinegun as a result of technical details. Want to know if a rifle is legal in California? Better start learning your technical details. If the arguments sound like they're getting into weird technical details, it's because they have very real effects in law that people have to be aware of and deal with constantly.
The bizarrely specific nature of these examples is exactly why it is irrelevant, though. No one longing for gun control actually cares whether you have a vertical or angled grip but that's the kind of stuff you end up with when every attempt at altering gun regulation at all is deliberately burried in technical minutiae to avoid the intentions of the legislation. The gun lobby playing RAW rather than RAI, basically.
So Sebster is quite right, much of the debate simply revolves around one side shouting 'we must ban X tomorrow!' without really knowing what X is (usually because that's what TV called it) and the other side looking down their nose and sniffing 'actually, that's already illegal because it is technically defined by this extremely specific detail, you dullards!'. In real terms, one side knows it doesn't know what it's talking about but wants to use the scary sounding terms people know from tv and films and associate with extreme violence or the military whilst the other side knows these technicalities aren't relevant other than to pedants.
Nope. You're both still wrong. Vaktathi correctly pointed out that these specifics are the content of the gun control laws that gun control advocating politicians pass. They're the law. You can't deal with gun control and gun control laws by refusing to acknowledge the content of the gun control laws that are passed. It wasn't the gun lobby that decided that barrel shrouds are a key feature to "assault weapons" it was the Senators and Representatives that wanted the gun control legislation passed that chose that specific language. If the gun lobby had control over the Assault Weapons Ban it wouldn't have been passed at all. The gun lobby didn't write California's restrictions on firearms, California politicians that want gun control did and they did a horrible job of it but that's the law in CA and it's typical of what gets passed by "gun control advocates." You can't blame the gun lobby for gun control advocates being woefully ignorant of the subject they seek to address. If gun control advocates want "common sense gun laws" then they need the gun control measures they've passed and proposed to actually make common sense. It wasn't the gun lobby that told the American people that rifles that have both barrel shrouds AND bayonet lugs are too dangerous to be privately owned. You want better discussions and more progress then you need to convince the side that keeps proposing overtly ignorant laws to offer smarter legislation.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2017/10/04 16:12:30
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
The bizarrely specific nature of these examples is exactly why it is irrelevant, though.
Theyre not all bizzarely specific. Check out the CA AWB flowchart for example, a major minefield to navigate.
No one longing for gun control actually cares whether you have a vertical or angled grip but that's the kind of stuff you end up with when every attempt at altering gun regulation at all is deliberately burried in technical minutiae to avoid the intentions of the legislation. The gun lobby playing RAW rather than RAI, basically.
grips of different angles have been a thing for centuries, thats not the gun industry playing coy, its an artefact of poorly thought out legislation resulting in awkward outcomes, and yes, the ATF does care.
Sure, sometimes the gun industry does finagle with stuff an play RAW with it, absolutely, but this is hardly the case in all instances.
So Sebster is quite right, much of the debate simply revolves around one side shouting 'we must ban X tomorrow!' without really knowing what X is (usually because that's what TV called it) and the other side looking down their nose and sniffing 'actually, that's already illegal because it is technically defined by this extremely specific detail, you dullards!'. In real terms, one side knows it doesn't know what it's talking about but wants to use the scary sounding terms people know from tv and films and associate with extreme violence or the military whilst the other side knows these technicalities aren't relevant other than to pedants.
the technicalities are relevant because they make the distinction between legal and 10 years in club fed. When we move away from them, we either get into legal jeapordy, or we get into definitions so broad as to be impractical. When you try to define "assault rifle" beyond the commonly accepted "pedantic" definition, we get stuff like the Assault Weapons bans that quickly turn into checklists of irrelevant features in an attempt at redefinition.
Yes, there is an element of pedantry to it, but that pedantry is learned and expressed because it is necessary. A hole being drilled in the wrong place can turn a legal semi auto gun into a machinegun, IWI got in trouble for this relatively recently. They imported Galil receivers with the autosear pin hole drilled. There was no auto sear, the internals would not function to provide full auto fire with an autosear even if it existed, but just having the pinhole drilled meant they had to be recalled and destroyed as illegal machineguns. That pedantry is learned because swapping commonly available parts on lego-like AR15's has different legal consequences depending on what configuration you originally bought it in despite the end products being identical. That pedantry comes out because the number of parts of a weapon that are made in the US or not if it has certain features matters, such that simply swapping a US made magazine for an Italian or Spanish or German magazine can make it illegal.
The pedantry is a product of the legal environment that can have life altering consequences for *not* being pedantic, often for things with no meaningful safety value.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/10/04 16:16:29
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Your own link places the US at number 32 and Sweden at 38, depending on sources. Comparisons between countries in this sort of statistic is always really tricky
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2017/10/04 16:34:57
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Your own link places the US at number 32 and Sweden at 38, depending on sources. Comparisons between countries in this sort of statistic is always really tricky
I didn't even see that second list but that is an average from 1985 to 2017. The first list is 2015-2017. The US 12.6 did not change during that period but the 2015-2017 number for Sweden increased by .7 in that time period. So no very significant change.
What is important here when looking at these numbers is - gun availability does not seem to increase rate of suicide. These ofc are numbers about completed suicide. It would be interesting to see attempted suicide rate by country but I can't find the statistics.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/10/04 16:41:49
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
and considering cost & reward why have a police department if they don't stop crimes? why have a fire department if they don't stop fires?
I'd argue that it's a common misperception that it is the role of the police and fire departments to prevent those things in the first place. That's a good part of the problem. If you think they do, then you should attack someone or set something on fire and see what happens.
why have the military fighting terrorists if they can't stop terrorist attacks? billions spent every day for a statistically meaningless number. magnitudes less than homicides.
Frankly, I agree with you here. My only conclusion is that the purpose of the exercise is something other than preventing terrorist attacks.
It's odd the mental gymnastics people go through to discount the loss of lives so they can keep their guns. arguments that are so weird, they seem utterly ridiculous when applied anywhere else.
There's 20,000 reasonable solutions right now for gun violence, and many more reasonable ones that could be added.
and considering cost & reward why have a police department if they don't stop crimes? why have a fire department if they don't stop fires?
I'd argue that it's a common misperception that it is the role of the police and fire departments to prevent those things in the first place. That's a good part of the problem. If you think they do, then you should attack someone or set something on fire and see what happens.
Indeed. Police and Firemen are there to deal with the aftermath of crimes and fires. At best, a policeman might get very very very lucky and catch a criminal in the act once in a blue moon while he's tooling around, but that wasn't prevention, it was fast response to a crime in progress. But Firemen certainly don't prevent fires, they just put them out once they start.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Police respond after the fact, but they also have a deterrent factor by patrolling, community interaction, and education.
Fire Departments respond after the fact, but then aspnhave a preventative factor by enforcing building codes, inspections, community interaction, and education.
2017/10/04 16:50:37
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
and considering cost & reward why have a police department if they don't stop crimes? why have a fire department if they don't stop fires?
I'd argue that it's a common misperception that it is the role of the police and fire departments to prevent those things in the first place. That's a good part of the problem. If you think they do, then you should attack someone or set something on fire and see what happens.
Indeed. Police and Firemen are there to deal with the aftermath of crimes and fires. At best, a policeman might get very very very lucky and catch a criminal in the act once in a blue moon while he's tooling around, but that wasn't prevention, it was fast response to a crime in progress. But Firemen certainly don't prevent fires, they just put them out once they start.
Police do prevent crimes though. Just by existing people decide not to commit a crime because they might get caught.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/10/04 16:54:40
Subject: Re:Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
By Leah Libresco October 3 at 3:02 PM Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don’t make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.
As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?
However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.
By the time we published our project, I didn’t believe in many of the interventions I’d heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don’t want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can’t endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.
Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.
Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.
Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans’ plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
Good peice, thanks for sharing that.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2017/10/04 17:09:32
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Nope. You're both still wrong. Vaktathi correctly pointed out that these specifics are the content of the gun control laws that gun control advocating politicians pass. They're the law. You can't deal with gun control and gun control laws by refusing to acknowledge the content of the gun control laws that are passed. It wasn't the gun lobby that decided that barrel shrouds are a key feature to "assault weapons" it was the Senators and Representatives that wanted the gun control legislation passed that chose that specific language. If the gun lobby had control over the Assault Weapons Ban it wouldn't have been passed at all. The gun lobby didn't write California's restrictions on firearms, California politicians that want gun control did and they did a horrible job of it but that's the law in CA and it's typical of what gets passed by "gun control advocates." You can't blame the gun lobby for gun control advocates being woefully ignorant of the subject they seek to address. If gun control advocates want "common sense gun laws" then they need the gun control measures they've passed and proposed to actually make common sense. It wasn't the gun lobby that told the American people that rifles that have both barrel shrouds AND bayonet lugs are too dangerous to be privately owned. You want better discussions and more progress then you need to convince the side that keeps proposing overtly ignorant laws to offer smarter legislation.
Vaktathi wrote:
Spoiler:
the technicalities are relevant because they make the distinction between legal and 10 years in club fed. When we move away from them, we either get into legal jeapordy, or we get into definitions so broad as to be impractical. When you try to define "assault rifle" beyond the commonly accepted "pedantic" definition, we get stuff like the Assault Weapons bans that quickly turn into checklists of irrelevant features in an attempt at redefinition.
Yes, there is an element of pedantry to it, but that pedantry is learned and expressed because it is necessary. A hole being drilled in the wrong place can turn a legal semi auto gun into a machinegun, IWI got in trouble for this relatively recently. They imported Galil receivers with the autosear pin hole drilled. There was no auto sear, the internals would not function to provide full auto fire with an autosear even if it existed, but just having the pinhole drilled meant they had to be recalled and destroyed as illegal machineguns. That pedantry is learned because swapping commonly available parts on lego-like AR15's has different legal consequences depending on what configuration you originally bought it in despite the end products being identical. That pedantry comes out because the number of parts of a weapon that are made in the US or not if it has certain features matters, such that simply swapping a US made magazine for an Italian or Spanish or German magazine can make it illegal.
I'll respond to these together as they misunderstand my meaning in the same way.
I did not say that the gun industry invented particular new components to dodge legislation (I'm sure it does like every other industry, but I wouldn't know specifics). I also didn't say that small technicalities* are legally irrelevant. I don't think I implied these things either, and certainly didn't mean to. Perhaps it would be clearest to say they are ideologically irrelevant. In general terms, those who want tight restrictions on guns only see 'machine guns' or 'assault weapons' or 'shotguns' or 'pistols' or whatever. Whether a forward grip on a particular firearm is angled a few degrees this way or that is in no way crucial to them. More restrictions on guns are the end goal, it doesn't really matter whether those restrictions only effect small or even irrelevant components of a given weapon, so long as there are more. Meanwhile, the gun enthusiast may well see strict and important differences between firearms umbrella terms, and feel passionately about subddivisions within those, but they're not likely to feel that these technicalities are so ideologically fundamental that legislation should rest upon them.
Ergo, we have team A demanding restrictions on things they don't fully understand, and team B obsessing over the technical definitions of those terms. Both teams know full well that the terms themselves are totally irrelevant to the intended outcomes of legislation (RAI), but you end up with actual bills (RAW) that fail to achieve what team A wants and present team B with a bunch of daft hoops to jump through.
*or that percieved to be small technicalities, at least. Some may well make massive differences in terms of function or efficiency, for example, but they appear as minute issues relevant only to pedants to the majority of onlookers, and are almost certainly such to those who desire substantial restriction on firearms availability.
2017/10/04 17:12:44
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
So apparently the girlfriend/room mate was picked up at LAX this morning
Still a weird situation, for all accounts the shooter was a rich old white guy, who regularly spent $10s of thousands of dollars gamblings and had no reported debts
Sounds like a 1%er and not a typical shooter.
3000
4000
2017/10/04 17:14:50
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Nukes are considered 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' and they are prohibited for civilians.
Just like the pressure bombs by that Boston massacre are considered to be WMDs... those are prohibited.
There is, as far as I know, actually not one single law on the books prohibiting the ownership of a thermonuclear weapon, as the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 has been amended to allow for ownership of fissile material by private entities.. There are however material handling laws on the books for many of it's components. Several people at one point or another have built their own breeder reactors, including the Boy Scouts of America (What fething merit badge is THAT?) capable of enriching radioactive materials. The only thing you have to have to own one though is a Destructive Device permit, to cover the explosives that merge the sub-critical masses of fissile material. As far as i know, the only ICBM in private hands is the scud + launcher sold as part of the Littlefield Collection a few years back, and it's warhead is conventional.
My bad, it's when you criminally *use it* that's prohibited 18 U.S.C. 2332A. <= same law that was used to prosecute the boster bombers.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2017/10/04 17:16:55
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Ergo, we have team A demanding restrictions on things they don't fully understand, and team B obsessing over the technical definitions of those terms. Both teams know full well that the terms themselves are totally irrelevant to the intended outcomes of legislation (RAI), but you end up with actual bills (RAW) that fail to achieve what team A wants and present team B with a bunch of daft hoops to jump through.
*or that percieved to be small technicalities, at least. Some may well make massive differences in terms of function or efficiency, for example, but they appear as minute issues relevant only to pedants to the majority of onlookers, and are almost certainly such to those who desire substantial restriction on firearms availability.
Sounds to me like team A Really should get their collective heads out of their caves and put some effort into research. no better way to absolutely destroy the opposition if they dont have anything to cling onto.
I’m getting pretty tired of the “guns don’t make a difference, you can kill in other ways, 9/11 didn’t use guns” posts on Facebook.
It’s the best argument in favor of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. If guns don’t make it easier to kill people, then you don’t need guns to protect yourself from s tyrannical government.
But guns make it easier to kill people, that’s why we give them to cops and soldiers. That’s why I carry a gun, to make it as easy as possible for me to kill someone if I need to protect myself or my family.
2017/10/04 17:19:45
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
d-usa wrote: I’m getting pretty tired of the “guns don’t make a difference, you can kill in other ways, 9/11 didn’t use guns” posts on Facebook.
It’s the best argument in favor of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. If guns don’t make it easier to kill people, then you don’t need guns to protect yourself from s tyrannical government.
But guns make it easier to kill people, that’s why we give them to cops and soldiers. That’s why I carry a gun, to make it as easy as possible for me to kill someone if I need to protect myself or my family.
True, I dont think the guy could have killed 59 and wounded over 500 with a knife
3000
4000
2017/10/04 17:23:08
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Maybe if the knife had a " bumpstab handle" installed?
Anyway, reports are that he had "sent away" his girlfriend before this. Was he afraid she would find out what he was up to and try to stop him? If what he wanted to do was so important for him to take all these steps, then why isn't there some letter or something from him to explain it? Unless he just wanted to troll the world, he had to have had a reason, but the whole point of doing this kind of thing is lost if you keep your reasons a secret.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 17:29:15
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2017/10/04 17:26:22
Subject: Re:Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
d-usa wrote: I’m getting pretty tired of the “guns don’t make a difference, you can kill in other ways, 9/11 didn’t use guns” posts on Facebook.
It’s the best argument in favor of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. If guns don’t make it easier to kill people, then you don’t need guns to protect yourself from s tyrannical government.
But guns make it easier to kill people, that’s why we give them to cops and soldiers. That’s why I carry a gun, to make it as easy as possible for me to kill someone if I need to protect myself or my family.
True, I dont think the guy could have killed 59 and wounded over 500 with a knife
He could have used his planes, he could have used a bomb in a car, he could have used a lot of different things. He obviously had motivation and the funding to kill people in large numbers however he desired. And I won’t deny that.
But it’s easier to get guns and rifles and ammo than any of those options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it’s just easier to handwave this event away by saying “he could have killed them any which way” than it is to admit “this is the price we pay for something that I think is really important”.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/04 17:28:47
2017/10/04 17:29:56
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
d-usa wrote: I’m getting pretty tired of the “guns don’t make a difference, you can kill in other ways, 9/11 didn’t use guns” posts on Facebook.
It’s the best argument in favor of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment. If guns don’t make it easier to kill people, then you don’t need guns to protect yourself from s tyrannical government.
But guns make it easier to kill people, that’s why we give them to cops and soldiers. That’s why I carry a gun, to make it as easy as possible for me to kill someone if I need to protect myself or my family.
True, I dont think the guy could have killed 59 and wounded over 500 with a knife
He could have used his planes, he could have used a bomb in a car, he could have used a lot of different things. He obviously had motivation and the funding to kill people in large numbers however he desired. And I won’t deny that.
But it’s easier to get guns and rifles and ammo than any of those options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think it’s just easier to handwave this event away by saying “he could have killed them any which way” than it is to admit “this is the price we pay for something that I think is really important”.
He certainly could of just driven into the crowed in some car. and car is really easy to get.
Anyway, reports are that he had "sent away" his girlfriend before this. Was he afraid she would find out what he was up to and try to stop him? If what he wanted to do was so important for him to take all these steps, then why isn't there some letter or something from him to explain it? Unless he just wanted to troll the world, he had to have had a reason, but the whole point of doing this kind of thing is lost if you keep your reasons a secret.
Apparently also wired $100,000 to the philipines/thailand (unsure which) while she was there right before the incident.
3000
4000
2017/10/04 17:34:54
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Anyway, reports are that he had "sent away" his girlfriend before this. Was he afraid she would find out what he was up to and try to stop him? If what he wanted to do was so important for him to take all these steps, then why isn't there some letter or something from him to explain it? Unless he just wanted to troll the world, he had to have had a reason, but the whole point of doing this kind of thing is lost if you keep your reasons a secret.
Apparently also wired $100,000 to the philipines/thailand (unsure which) while she was there right before the incident.
Anyway, reports are that he had "sent away" his girlfriend before this. Was he afraid she would find out what he was up to and try to stop him? If what he wanted to do was so important for him to take all these steps, then why isn't there some letter or something from him to explain it? Unless he just wanted to troll the world, he had to have had a reason, but the whole point of doing this kind of thing is lost if you keep your reasons a secret.
Apparently also wired $100,000 to the philipines/thailand (unsure which) while she was there right before the incident.
Sugar daddy?
According to the brother he was a multi-millionare property investor and accountant. Guy was loaded judging by his casino history.
3000
4000
2017/10/04 17:42:47
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
If she's innocent and didn't know what he was planning, the money could have been a sort of "sorry about all the crap you're about to go through" gift.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
2017/10/04 17:55:43
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Tannhauser42 wrote: If she's innocent and didn't know what he was planning, the money could have been a sort of "sorry about all the crap you're about to go through" gift.
"so long and thanks for all the fish"?
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
2017/10/04 18:01:32
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
So he is super loaded. That is interesting. I bet his autopsy reveals some kind of terminal illness. Can't save himself will all his money so he shoots up a festival to get back at the world for doing him so wrong.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/10/04 18:05:51
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Or it will come out, he blew most of his money gambling.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2017/10/04 18:18:58
Subject: Re:Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
With regard to the argument that the 2nd amendment is needed to fight off tyrannical governments, it's an argument I'm 50/50 on to be honest.
Twice, my country tried to kill the American nation (1776, 1812) and of course the USA had a battle for national survival in 1861, so there's some merit in saying the 2nd was needed to stop that.
But on the other hand, and this is a drum I've banged many a time before, I would argue that in many respects, the tyrannical government is already here.
As far as I'm concerned, the 4th amednment is dead, buried, and we're back home having a memorial service and awkwardly sharing anecdotes about it.
The 1st amendment is under state of constant siege, and the 5th looks like it's going the way of the 4th.
And what has the American reaction been to all this? A shrug of the shoulders.
Now, my own country is going a similar way, as ancient British rights seem to be going out the window, but nobody can seriously argue that the 2nd is an effective counter against tyranny, because nobody seems to give two hoots about their rights going up in smoke.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2017/10/04 18:20:50
Subject: Active Shooter in Las Vegas Attacks Country Music Festival with Automatic Weapon
Frazzled wrote: Anti gunners are always terrified at the prospect of following the established procedures to amend the Constitution.
Why do that when they can take nibbles here and there, slowly erode the rights over time so people never really notice.
there's already 20,000 gun laws on the books, what harm would a few more to close the gun show loop holes, and mandatory waiting periods really do?
Gun show loop holes doesn't exist.
As for mandatory waiting periods... I'm ambivalent to that. It won't do what you think it would...
Not selling guns to people who need a caretaker to manage their funds and run their households seems like a no brainer. Yet trump revoked that one.
Trump restored due process in this case. You can still be adjudicated in front of a judge to determine if your mental illness should prohibit your from purchasing/own weapons.
Not selling guns to people on the terrorist watch list seems like another good idea, except to trump and the NRA.
Also ACLU and other prominent groups objected to this.
I get why some dakka members are against that idea, and that can easily be fixed by allowing people to contact the fbi and ask if they're on the list and provide a means to contest it.
The issue is simply that its still exceedingly difficult to get your name OFF the list. Some Congress critters found themselves on this list!
Now... the "no fly" list? We can talk about this... as long as there are robust procedures to review/clean this list up.
I'm the only one saying repeal the 2nd, as I don't think americans are mature enough to handle guns anymore. everyone else just wants rational gun laws so you can't walk into a store during a lunch break and buy enough weapons to shoot up your office or yourself.
3000
4000 
