MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Galway Eagle on October 02, 2017, 07:24:48 AM
-
Prayers for all those effected. Truly a horrible horrible thing.
-
Prayers for all those effected. Truly a horrible horrible thing.
Completely madness. There are some sick and evil people in the world. Thoughts and prayers for Las Vegas.
-
So unbelievable and senseless. Prayers for all the victims.
-
Prayers for the injured. Prayers for the families and loved ones of the victims. Prayers for the first responders and ER personnel who, in the not too distant future, are going to come out of the moment and start processing the carnage and tragedy they just worked to manage.
-
Sad day here in Las Vegas. Thoughts and prayers for all affected. I'm going to donate blood later today.
-
Nothing makes sense anymore.
-
What the fook is wrong with people?
-
I just don't understand - what the he!! is happening in this world?
-
We were in Vegas with the kids 9 months ago .. this morning, my 9 year old was in the room when I flipped on the TV.
Turned it off after 30 seconds. Horrible.
-
I just don't understand - what the he!! is happening in this world?
So many things. But most can be boiled down to this. Too many are failing to heed the words 'love your neighbor has yourself.' And in the modern age, people are finding ways to act out their hatred of 'the other.'
-
Sad day here in Las Vegas. Thoughts and prayers for all affected. I'm going to donate blood later today.
Good move Vegas. Prayers for our adopted home town. This is just horrible.
-
Just one report, who knows if it is fake news?
Islamic State Claims Responsibility For Vegas Attack; Says Paddock "Converted To Islam Months ago"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-02/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-vegas-attack-says-paddock-converted-islam-months
In a bizarre development, the Islamic State's news agency Amaq has claimed responsibility for the Las Vegas concert attack, alleging that Stephen Paddock is one of its "soldiers" and that he converted to Islam "months ago".
To be sure, there is no evidence for these claims, and the statement comes after the Las Vegas police stated earlier that there is no link to international terrorism.
-
Just one report, who knows if it is fake news?
Islamic State Claims Responsibility For Vegas Attack; Says Paddock "Converted To Islam Months ago"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-02/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-vegas-attack-says-paddock-converted-islam-months
In a bizarre development, the Islamic State's news agency Amaq has claimed responsibility for the Las Vegas concert attack, alleging that Stephen Paddock is one of its "soldiers" and that he converted to Islam "months ago".
To be sure, there is no evidence for these claims, and the statement comes after the Las Vegas police stated earlier that there is no link to international terrorism.
They've claimed before without evidence. Too early to know anything.
-
We have mass shootings take place every single day in this country. They're as American as apple pie.
-
Just one report, who knows if it is fake news?
Islamic State Claims Responsibility For Vegas Attack; Says Paddock "Converted To Islam Months ago"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-02/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-vegas-attack-says-paddock-converted-islam-months
In a bizarre development, the Islamic State's news agency Amaq has claimed responsibility for the Las Vegas concert attack, alleging that Stephen Paddock is one of its "soldiers" and that he converted to Islam "months ago".
To be sure, there is no evidence for these claims, and the statement comes after the Las Vegas police stated earlier that there is no link to international terrorism.
Certainly possible. Seems like ISIS claims credit for everything.
-
Certainly possible. Seems like ISIS claims credit for everything.
No matter the motivation it is a terrorist attack
-
We have mass shootings take place every single day in this country. They're as American as apple pie.
(http://iloveepoetry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/noway-565x300.png)
-
Certainly possible. Seems like ISIS claims credit for everything.
Wouldn't they be dumb not to? Regardless of their scope of influence, if no one else comes forward immediately, why not claim it was part of a "grand plan"?
-
We all offer sympathy and prayers........ over and over again.
Yet we make no attempt to do anything about it. It will happen again tomorrow and the tomorrow's after that. And we will not do anything then, either.
But business is great for the gun sellers and those that they bribe to continue selling their wares.
-
I hear you, Jockey, and I agree with you, but I guess I take a more philosophical bent. Man has been wrestling with the issue of free will and evil for as nearly as long as he has been self aware. If God created man with free will, as Catholicism teaches, then we are free to love God or not, free to love our neighbor as ourselves as Jesus tells us to or not. Free to sin, or not. America is based on the notion of individual freedom. Theoretically working for the common good. But, since there is freedom, there is also freedom to abuse it and act out in a selfish, hateful way. In Nevada, part of that freedom is the freedom FROM restrictive gun laws. Last night's shooter acted within his freedom to purchase an abundance of them. He chose to use them to slaughter dozens and injure 100's.
He now gets to face his God with that sin upon him. And he used his free will and freedom to inflict death, pain, and suffering on the rest of us.
Is it worth these daily mass shootings to insure that Americans still have the freedom to purchase guns?
-
Certainly possible. Seems like ISIS claims credit for everything.
Wouldn't they be dumb not to? Regardless of their scope of influence, if no one else comes forward immediately, why not claim it was part of a "grand plan"?
Again, not saying this guy was ISIS ... but listening to the TV they say ISIS rarely takes credit for things they have nothing to do with. Terrorism experts say ISIS understands they have a credibility issue for taking credit for things they don't do.
In fact, terrorism experts are saying that ISIS specifically created its news agency, Amaq, so they can "set the record straight on such issues. And it is ISIS official news agency Amaq that is making this claim.
Again, this might have nothing to do with ISIS but to assume ISIS "always does this" is not a correct assumption according to terrorism experts.
-
Is it worth these daily mass shootings to insure that Americans still have the freedom to purchase guns?
It doesn't have to come down to this choice. We can still allow Americans the freedom to purchase guns while also banning weapons and accessories that serve no legitimate civilian purpose. I mean, we have laws against people owning bombs and hand grenades, and no one opposes that, but suggest it's maybe not such a good idea to make AR-10s with extended clips available to the public, and (some) people freak out.
-
Again, not saying this guy was ISIS ... but listening to the TV they say ISIS rarely takes credit for things they have nothing to do with. Terrorism experts say ISIS understands they have a credibility issue for taking credit for things they don't do.
In fact, terrorism experts are saying that ISIS specifically created its news agency, Amaq, so they can "set the record straight on such issues. And it is ISIS official news agency Amaq that is making this claim.
Again, this might have nothing to do with ISIS but to assume ISIS "always does this" is not a correct assumption according to terrorism experts.
FBI says no.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/isis-claims-vegas-shooting-without-any-evidence
-
Again, not saying this guy was ISIS ... but listening to the TV they say ISIS rarely takes credit for things they have nothing to do with. Terrorism experts say ISIS understands they have a credibility issue for taking credit for things they don't do.
In fact, terrorism experts are saying that ISIS specifically created its news agency, Amaq, so they can "set the record straight on such issues. And it is ISIS official news agency Amaq that is making this claim.
Again, this might have nothing to do with ISIS but to assume ISIS "always does this" is not a correct assumption according to terrorism experts.
FBI says no.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/isis-claims-vegas-shooting-without-any-evidence
To summarize: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.
I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.
-
It doesn't have to come down to this choice. We can still allow Americans the freedom to purchase guns while also banning weapons and accessories that serve no legitimate civilian purpose. I mean, we have laws against people owning bombs and hand grenades, and no one opposes that, but suggest it's maybe not such a good idea to make AR-10s with extended clips available to the public, and (some) people freak out.
Should we limit cars to 40 horsepower and a top speed of 55 MPH?
How about a ban on tobacco and alcohol? (Yes we tried this 80 years ago and it failed but let's give it another shot).
How about a total and absolute ban on porn? Sex under 18?
Sugar and fatty foods?
Mandatory annual physical exams?
How about Body Mass Index (BMI) in the obese range?
All of the above do more to damage society than mass shootings. Can we use the same logic here?
-
If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.
I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.
What type of weapons are you referring to?
-
Scoop Theorem of Diminishing Returns:
Where both post count and frequency increase while simultaneously the number of users posting on a thread decreases, the odds of that thread containing a valuable discussion approaches zero.
-
Should we limit cars to 40 horsepower and a top speed of 55 MPH?
How about a ban on tobacco and alcohol? (Yes we tried this 80 years ago and it failed but let's give it another shot).
How about a total and absolute ban on porn? Sex under 18?
Sugar and fatty foods?
Mandatory annual physical exams?
How about Body Mass Index (BMI) in the obese range?
All of the above do more to damage society than mass shootings. Can we use the same logic here?
Hang on...You think that people who don't take care of themselves are as dangerous to society as a person who fires an assault rifle into a crowd?
-
Should we limit cars to 40 horsepower and a top speed of 55 MPH?
How about a ban on tobacco and alcohol? (Yes we tried this 80 years ago and it failed but let's give it another shot).
How about a total and absolute ban on porn? Sex under 18?
Sugar and fatty foods?
Mandatory annual physical exams?
How about Body Mass Index (BMI) in the obese range?
All of the above do more to damage society than mass shootings. Can we use the same logic here?
Well, no, because this juvenile argument offers no logic.
All of the things you cite above (cars, food, sex, tobacco and even porn) offers some purpose beyond killing human beings.
Though I'd love to hear how porn and teenage sex kill more people than mass shootings.
-
The shooter is Steve Paddock. His father was Ben Paddock, was a bank robber on the FBI’s most wanted list in 1960. The description listed him as a psychopath that carries firearms. He escaped prison in 1969 and was the subject of a nationwide manhunt.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stephen-paddock-father-bank-robber-wanted-fbi-article-1.3536478
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLJJVyoXoAAvGfl?format=jpg&name=large)
-
If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.
I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.
In Connecticut, we passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country after Sandy Hook.
I was at a supplier in Connecticut last week babysitting one of our customer's from backwoods Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania guy wanted to know how close Sturm Ruger was because he owned their product and wanted to visit their home office (or something like that). The Connecticut guy started bitching about the recent restrictive gun laws and proudly peddling his gun humping and blah, blah, blah, non-gun owners don't understand. I asked him if he can he still purchase a gun and after his "Yes" he had no answer for "so what's the problem?"
I guess his only problem was that he can't purchase a semi-automatic AR-15 anymore.
It just disgusts me.........I'm venting after today's tragedy.
-
If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.
I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.
I thought automatic weapons cannot be sold and are already banned, but we do not know how he obtained these weapons or if he retrofitted these weapons.
-
I thought automatic weapons cannot be sold and are already banned, but we do not know how he obtained these weapons or if he retrofitted these weapons.
Automatic weapons have been banned since 1933, 84 years ago. So this was put in place before many of your grandparents were born (it was a reaction the St. Valentine Day massacre in 1929).
To be clear, you can still own one as a "collector" but this license is few, hard and expensive. It also subjects you to a yearly unannounced law enforcement inspection. Further, you still cannot buy any automatic weapon made after 1986.
In the 84 years since they started issuing collector's licenses, not a single automatic weapon owned in this manner has been used in any sort of crime.
-
In Connecticut, we passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country after Sandy Hook.
I was at a supplier in Connecticut last week babysitting one of our customer's from backwoods Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania guy wanted to know how close Sturm Ruger was because he owned their product and wanted to visit their home office (or something like that). The Connecticut guy started bitching about the recent restrictive gun laws and proudly peddling his gun humping and blah, blah, blah, non-gun owners don't understand. I asked him if he can he still purchase a gun and after his "Yes" he had no answer for "so what's the problem?"
I guess his only problem was that he can't purchase a semi-automatic AR-15 anymore.
It just disgusts me.........I'm venting after today's tragedy.
The vast vast majority of guns in the united states are semi-automatic. Virtually every pistol is semi-automatic and has been for generations. The semi-automatic gun was invented in the 19th century.
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US. Over 5 million are currently in circulation. It is also the most popular hunting rifle in the US (after shotguns).
The AR-15 shoots a .223 bullet. The same bullet 22 squirrel guns shoot.
-
Automatic weapons have been banned since 1933, 84 years ago. So this was put in place before many of your grandparents were born (it was a reaction the St. Valentine Day massacre in 1929).
To be clear, you can still own one as a "collector" but this license is few, hard and expensive. It also subjects you to a yearly unannounced law enforcement inspection. Further, you still cannot buy any automatic weapon made after 1986.
In the 84 years since they started issuing collector's licenses, not a single automatic weapon owned in this manner has been used in any sort of crime.
Nope.
The fusillade emanating from the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas Sunday night sounded to many as if it came from one or more automatic rifles, which fire continuously so long as the trigger is held down. Such guns are legal, so long as they were made before May 1986 and are registered with the federal government.
If an automatic weapon, also called a machine gun, was made or imported after 1986, it may be legally owned only by licensed dealers, police and the military.
Congress began regulating such weapons under the National Firearms Act in 1934, in response to criminals having greater firepower than the police. Owners of automatic weapons were required to pay a $200 tax, a large amount at the time, as well as provide fingerprints and a photograph, undergo a background check and obtain approval from the chief law enforcement officer in the area. Except for the local police approval, those requirements remain in place today, and the $200 charge has not changed.
Semi-automatic guns, which fire only once for each trigger pull, may not be legally modified to automatic. And anyone who wants to buy an automatic weapon must undergo the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms background check and registration process. But there are plenty of automatic weapons available for sale on the Internet. Guns made before 1986 may be owned by anyone who passes a background check and registers the gun. A letter from the ATF to the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association last year indicated that there were 490,664 automatic weapons in the ATF’s National Firearms Registration Transfer Record System.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/10/02/some-automatic-weapons-as-used-in-las-vegas-shooting-are-legal-but-heavily-regulated/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.b911e380cfbb
-
Nope.
The fusillade emanating from the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas Sunday night sounded to many as if it came from one or more automatic rifles, which fire continuously so long as the trigger is held down. Such guns are legal, so long as they were made before May 1986 and are registered with the federal government.
If an automatic weapon, also called a machine gun, was made or imported after 1986, it may be legally owned only by licensed dealers, police and the military.
Congress began regulating such weapons under the National Firearms Act in 1934, in response to criminals having greater firepower than the police. Owners of automatic weapons were required to pay a $200 tax, a large amount at the time, as well as provide fingerprints and a photograph, undergo a background check and obtain approval from the chief law enforcement officer in the area. Except for the local police approval, those requirements remain in place today, and the $200 charge has not changed.
Semi-automatic guns, which fire only once for each trigger pull, may not be legally modified to automatic. And anyone who wants to buy an automatic weapon must undergo the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms background check and registration process. But there are plenty of automatic weapons available for sale on the Internet. Guns made before 1986 may be owned by anyone who passes a background check and registers the gun. A letter from the ATF to the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association last year indicated that there were 490,664 automatic weapons in the ATF’s National Firearms Registration Transfer Record System.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/10/02/some-automatic-weapons-as-used-in-las-vegas-shooting-are-legal-but-heavily-regulated/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.b911e380cfbb
Are we sure he used an automatic weapon? If so, how was it obtained?
-
Though I'd love to hear how porn and teenage sex kill more people than mass shootings.
I believe I said "damage to society" but you moved the goal posts to "kill people."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-porn-addiction/201408/how-porn-really-affects-relationships
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170926-is-porn-harmful-the-evidence-the-myths-and-the-unknowns
But don't worry, I support your daily addiction to pornhub.com
-
The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.
Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional. In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago. I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.
That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose. If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far). There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.
There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.
-
I believe I said "damage to society" but you moved the goal posts to "kill people."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-porn-addiction/201408/how-porn-really-affects-relationships
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170926-is-porn-harmful-the-evidence-the-myths-and-the-unknowns
But don't worry, I support your daily addiction to pornhub.com
So, in your mind, "porn addiction" does more damage to society than mass murder?
OK.
-
The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.
Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional. In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago. I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.
That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose. If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far). There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.
There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.
You're right ... making these weapons more difficult, if not impossible, to come by won't eliminate mass shootings. But how many more people survive last night's shooting unscathed had the killer been armed with a standard hunting rifle instead?
I suspect dozens.
-
You're right ... making these weapons more difficult, if not impossible, to come by won't eliminate mass shootings. But how many more people survive last night's shooting unscathed had the killer been armed with a standard hunting rifle instead?
I suspect dozens.
Exactly.
-
The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.
Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional. In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago. I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.
That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose. If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far). There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.
There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.
I loathe this line of thinking. You can absolutely diminish the magnitude of the carnage.
-
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-las-vegas-shooting-20171002-story.html
-
I loathe this line of thinking. You can absolutely diminish the magnitude of the carnage.
I didn't think my post was exactly a tldr. But if you're going to cherry pick an argument, you'll be much more effective if you don't quote it in its entirety.
-
The vast vast majority of guns in the united states are semi-automatic. Virtually every pistol is semi-automatic and has been for generations. The semi-automatic gun was invented in the 19th century.
The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US. Over 5 million are currently in circulation. It is also the most popular hunting rifle in the US (after shotguns).
The AR-15 shoots a .223 bullet. The same bullet 22 squirrel guns shoot.
not true oh great ignorant one
.22 LR vs. .223 Rem.
The target is a 16-gauge metal pipe. Notice that the pipe is visibly deformed at point of entry (left), and there is no exit point. The .22LR bullet did not pierce the metal pipe. A penny is used for reference.
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_post-tm-tfb.jpg)
Now compare that to the same exact 16-gauge metal pipe shot with a .223 bullet. There is a well defined entry point, and the bullet’s copper jacket peeled off upon entry and stuck. Not only did the .223 bullet have enough energy to pierce the front side of the pipe, it easily pierced the back side of the pipe as well. A penny is used for reference.
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/223_post-tm-tfb.jpg)
The .22LR cartridge on the left, and the .223 cartridge on the right. A penny is used for reference.
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/22_penny_223-tm-tfb.jpg)
-
The moment I see draft language of a Constitutional Amendment repealing or modifying the 2nd Amendment being advanced for ratification in blue states, then I'll take people seriously when they say things like "Congress should get of its a** and do something."
There's a mechanism to advance gun control, but I haven't seen anyone actually start the process of moving it forward after any of these tragedies.
I'd be happy to consider and support well-drafted amendment language... but I haven't even heard of any being proposed in deep blue states.
-
I didn't think my post was exactly a tldr. But if you're going to cherry pick an argument, you'll be much more effective if you don't quote it in its entirety.
Thanks for the advice. I read the entire post and agreed with some of your points.
When you referred to "incidents of this nature" I was taking the amount of casualties/injuries into account. So I strongly disagree that anyone who thinks gun control will stop incidents of this natures from happening is ignorant or delusional. Maybe it's semantics or maybe I misunderstood that particular point.
-
Thanks for the advice. I read the entire post and agreed with some of your points.
When you referred to "incidents of this nature" I was taking the amount of casualties/injuries into account. So I strongly disagree that anyone who thinks gun control will stop incidents of this natures from happening is ignorant or delusional. Maybe it's semantics or maybe I misunderstood that particular point.
Semantics. My "incidents of this nature" was referring to a person indiscriminately targeting a large group of people with lethal means without regard for numbers of injuries/fatalities. Again, I agree that you can mitigate the severity of these attacks (i.e. reduce the numbers of injuries/fatalities), but you're not going to stop them completely. The problem is that the left wants complete "elimination" and the right wants complete "freedom" (neither of which are realistic), and of course, this being a hot-button political issue, a solution that would save more lives (but not all) just isn't going to happen.
That's what a turn-out based politic environment is all about... don't give up the ship, and never compromise.
-
The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.
Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional. In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago. I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.
That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose. If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far). There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.
There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.
Hard jail time for anyone selling these "illegal" weapons might help.
-
Semantics. My "incidents of this nature" was referring to a person indiscriminately targeting a large group of people with lethal means without regard for numbers of injuries/fatalities. Again, I agree that you can mitigate the severity of these attacks (i.e. reduce the numbers of injuries/fatalities), but you're not going to stop them completely. The problem is that the left wants complete "elimination" and the right wants complete "freedom" (neither of which are realistic), and of course, this being a hot-button political issue, a solution that would save more lives (but not all) just isn't going to happen.
That's what a turn-out based politic environment is all about... don't give up the ship, and never compromise.
Got it - thanks for the clarification.
-
The moment I see draft language of a Constitutional Amendment repealing or modifying the 2nd Amendment being advanced for ratification in blue states, then I'll take people seriously when they say things like "Congress should get of its a** and do something."
There's a mechanism to advance gun control, but I haven't seen anyone actually start the process of moving it forward after any of these tragedies.
I'd be happy to consider and support well-drafted amendment language... but I haven't even heard of any being proposed in deep blue states.
Ha, you've got this seriously mixed up amigo. The 2nd amendment is not the mechanism to advance gun control. There's nothing in the Constitution or in Supreme Court precedent that says the right to bear arms includes the right to bear any weapon, including assault weapons (those didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights were drafted). Gun control legislation absolutely can be -- and has been! -- passed without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. What you meant to say was that the 2nd amendment would be the mechanism to advance gun prohibition, but not gun control.
-
A week or two after Sandy Hook, there were a couple of polls showing something like 80-90% of Americans wanted these kinds of weapons made illegal. When do that many Americans agree on ANYTHING? I think it was 70-80% of GUN OWNERS agreeing, too.
And yet nothing got done, so I agree with those who say the ship has sailed.
Some would argue it wouldn't do any good anyway. But what if you save just one life with a well-crafted law? Don't the abortion opponents argue all the time about the value of every, single life?
Again, I'm not holding my breath. Just not gonna happen. So we'll be the Wild Wild West the rest of our lives, and our kids lives and our grandkids lives ... if all of us are lucky enough to survive.
But here's an idea: Let's ban travel from a bunch of Muslim countries! Because they're bigger threats than ... well ... just about nobody.
It's a frustrating time. I really don't have solutions to offer. There probably aren't any. Damn.
-
Semantics. My "incidents of this nature" was referring to a person indiscriminately targeting a large group of people with lethal means without regard for numbers of injuries/fatalities. Again, I agree that you can mitigate the severity of these attacks (i.e. reduce the numbers of injuries/fatalities), but you're not going to stop them completely. The problem is that the left wants complete "elimination" and the right wants complete "freedom" (neither of which are realistic), and of course, this being a hot-button political issue, a solution that would save more lives (but not all) just isn't going to happen.
That's what a turn-out based politic environment is all about... don't give up the ship, and never compromise.
You're pretty spot on but I need to fix part of your statement:
The problem is that the right wants everyone to believe that the left wants complete "elimination" and the right wants complete "freedom".........
I think there's a middle ground to be found, but the right is so in bed with the NRA the only position they will take is complete "freedom".
-
Meh. At this point, there is not going to be a serious discussion about gun control. The NRA has won and too many politicians live in fear of them to have substantive debate. We can keep arguing about it on message boards, but for now, the point is moot.
-
Meh. At this point, there is not going to be a serious discussion about gun control. The NRA has won and too many politicians live in fear of them to have substantive debate. We can keep arguing about it on message boards, but for now, the point is moot.
Serious discussion???
This board is a microcosm of 'merica ... two groups that think they are correct yelling at the other group (and I'm as guilty as everyone else here). This is essentially every topic in the Superbar. The point is moot in every thread here.
There will be no "discussion" or "common ground." Instead, both sides are looking to "win" and "defeat" the other side.
Eventually, we will split up into at least two countries (if not more) and we can all pick the one we want to live in, like the Facebook feed we subscribe to.
-
Fair point. There is not going to be a serious discussion IN WASHINGTON about gun control. And I agree that this board is a microcosm of America, without the gender or ethnic diversity. With a few exceptions, we are a bunch of white guys with an alma mater in common. But I haven't given up hope.
-
reports now that he might not have used automatic weapons but a trigger crank or bump stock, both of which are legal
-
Semantics. My "incidents of this nature" was referring to a person indiscriminately targeting a large group of people with lethal means without regard for numbers of injuries/fatalities. Again, I agree that you can mitigate the severity of these attacks (i.e. reduce the numbers of injuries/fatalities), but you're not going to stop them completely. The problem is that the left wants complete "elimination" and the right wants complete "freedom" (neither of which are realistic), and of course, this being a hot-button political issue, a solution that would save more lives (but not all) just isn't going to happen.
That's what a turn-out based politic environment is all about... don't give up the ship, and never compromise.
I don't agree, Benny. You know I am about as far left as possible and I have no problem with people owning a handgun for protection or owning hunting rifles. I know of very few lefties who want to eliminate guns. Almost all lefties want elimination of large clips and assault rifles.
Your point is part of the problem by locking everyone into an all-or-nothing group. Most people don't think that way. There are many things that can be done to fight the constant mass shootings. Even YOU say that steps can be taken to "mitigate" the problem.
Sadly, people like you are the problem (not meant as a personal attack). I say that because it is ONLY when people on the right like you stand up and say something has to be done, that it will happen. We have tried on the left, but every time there is a mass shooting, those on the right say more guns is the answer. Until YOU guys stand up and say that life has value, nothing will be done.
-
reports now that he might not have used automatic weapons but a trigger crank or bump stock, both of which are legal
Wall Street Journal says there was at least one automatic rifle:
The gunman who authorities said killed at least 58 people at a Las Vegas music festival appears to have used at least one fully automatic rifle and had more than a dozen other firearms in his hotel room, a law-enforcement official said.
Investigators found 18 to 20 firearms, some fully automatic, in a room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, the law enforcement official said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/las-vegas-suspect-likely-used-automatic-rifle-in-massacre-1506966716
-
reports now that he might not have used automatic weapons but a trigger crank or bump stock, both of which are legal
OK, cool. I don't mind all of the dead people if that is the case. :'(
-
Meh. At this point, there is not going to be a serious discussion about gun control. The NRA has won and too many politicians live in fear of them to have substantive debate. We can keep arguing about it on message boards, but for now, the point is moot.
While you may be right isn't this a defeatist attitude?
-
Fair point. There is not going to be a serious discussion IN WASHINGTON about gun control. And I agree that this board is a microcosm of America, without the gender or ethnic diversity. With a few exceptions, we are a bunch of white guys with an alma mater in common. But I haven't given up hope.
The problem with guns is they are cultural for a lot of people. They are the very representation of free will. They will have another civil war than giving them up, even their AR-15s with 30 round magazines. For every state in the south and east of the Mississippi, except CA, OR and WA, over half the population owns at least 1 gun.
For others, they represent a disgusting symbol of what is wrong with 'merica.
About now, people like MU82 and other likeminded are gearing up a post with references to banjos, hee-haw and missing teeth. Jockey already beat him to it two posts below. Again a microcosm of 'merica, winning and feeling superior is more important than a rational conversation. And we act surprised both sides are so dug in it is impossible to find common ground.
So how do we bridge the gap? We don't ... Eventually, we split up into multiple countries. See Catalonia in Spain this weekend, coming in 'merica in the next several years.
-
The NRA cares about money - not human life. Look at impact of the shooting on stocks, etc. already.
http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-mass-shooting-gun-stocks/
-
Actually, we should all just shut up. The White House has told us this is not the time to discuss this.
-
So how do we bridge the gap? We don't ... Eventually, we split up into multiple countries. See Catalonia in Spain this weekend, coming in 'merica in the next several years.
This prediction is even worse than your thoughts on AAPL.
-
The NRA cares about money - not human life. Look at impact of the shooting on stocks, etc. already.
http://fortune.com/2017/10/02/las-vegas-mass-shooting-gun-stocks/
Tower, I repeat, you want to have a rational conversation when people make this kind of statements.
Everyone dig in as the war is just beginning.
PS
Gun stocks always rally when these type of events happen, it is fear that you have to rush and uy an AR before they are made illegal. And the NRA is so powerful not because of its money but because of the feverant support single issue gun owners will give them when voting. They are the "traditional" equivalent of minorities that vote democrat no matter what.
I'll make you a deal, I'll stop calling black lives matter a terrorist organization if you stop thinking the NRA actually wants mass shootings.
-
About now, people like MU82 and other likeminded are gearing up a post with references to banjos, hee-haw and missing teeth. Jockey already beat him to it two posts below.
I don't know why I respond to someone like you, but what the h*ll are you talking about?
People get upset that I call chicas a liar; well, sorry, you are also a liar. Show me the quote where I (or 82) referenced "banjos, hee-haw and missing teeth".
If you can't do it then get the h*ll off the board!!
-
I don't agree, Benny. You know I am about as far left as possible and I have no problem with people owning a handgun for protection or owning hunting rifles. I know of very few lefties who want to eliminate guns. Almost all lefties want elimination of large clips and assault rifles.
Care to articulate what the difference is between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle?
Extended mags make no sense unless you are a wanna be warrior, and I'd be all for banning anything over 15 shot mags(hell I don't really know what the number should be but 15 sounds like a totally reasonable number that no gun nut should be able to quibble with)
However, even without extended mags, if you've got a fully automatic weapon its going to do a lot of damage. The mag switch would add about 10 seconds of non-fire time vs the extend mags. That's not nothing and likely means more people alive now(assuming he didn't home make his mag extensions) but in a pragmatic sense it means very little in these types of cases. And automatic weapons are very illegal and no legal ones have been used in a crime ever(that I'm aware of).
One of the issues is that we only have "serious talks" when serious events occur which allows the opposite side of the political spectrum to cry "they're politicizing this event, shame!" which derails any practical serious talk.
-
Tower, I repeat, you want to have a rational conversation when people make this kind of statements.
Everyone dig in as the war is just beginning.
PS
Gun stocks always rally when these type of events happen, it is fear that you have to rush and uy an AR before they are made illegal. And the NRA is so powerful not because of its money but because of the feverant support single issue gun owners will give them when voting. They are the "traditional" equivalent of minorities that vote democrat no matter what.
I'll make you a deal, I'll stop calling black lives matter a terrorist organization if you stop thinking the NRA actually wants mass shootings.
The NRA is not so powerful because of it's money? Wow......
-
The problem with guns is they are cultural for a lot of people. They are the very representation of free will. They will have another civil war than giving them up, even their AR-15s with 30 round magazines. For every state in the south and east of the Mississippi, except CA, OR and WA, over half the population owns at least 1 gun.
You'd be surprised how much gun ownership there is in OR and WA....they have some of the strongest "militias" in the country and for every hippie in Portland there is a least one gun nut in Bend.
Larger point is correct, and what Benny was saying as well....gun ownership has been embedded in segments of this country for over 200 years. Any challenge to that, perceived or otherwise, is a non-starter....especially when taken in the aftermath of a tragedy where hyperbole is rampant.
-
I don't know why I respond to someone like you, but what the h*ll are you talking about?
People get upset that I call chicas a liar; well, sorry, you are also a liar. Show me the quote where I (or 82) referenced "banjos, hee-haw and missing teeth".
If you can't do it then get the h*ll off the board!!
82 yesterday in the now locked NFL thread about NASCAR fans
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54575.msg950195#msg950195
Good bye!!
Again, I'll admit what you or Pakuni cannot ... We just yell at each other trying to be morally superior, there is no actual discussion here about anything.
In the locked NFL threat, we could not even agree if the NFL was seeing a decline, let alone the causes of that decline (if it was happening). Here we started yelling about gun control before we knew anything.
If we get french type gun control, crazies rent a truck and run over people, the carnage is about the same. So shouldn't we talk about stopping suicidal maniacs because no matter what we do with guns they will find a way to inflict mass casualties? (if Paddock rented a large truck and mowed down 58 people leaving the concert, does that make it better?)
-
The problem with guns is they are cultural for a lot of people. They are the very representation of free will. They will have another civil war than giving them up, even their AR-15s with 30 round magazines. For every state in the south and east of the Mississippi, except CA, OR and WA, over half the population owns at least 1 gun.
For others, they represent a disgusting symbol of what is wrong with 'merica.
About now, people like MU82 and other likeminded are gearing up a post with references to banjos, hee-haw and missing teeth. Jockey already beat him to it two posts below. Again a microcosm of 'merica, winning and feeling superior is more important than a rational conversation. And we act surprised both sides are so dug in it is impossible to find common ground.
So how do we bridge the gap? We don't ... Eventually, we split up into multiple countries. See Catalonia in Spain this weekend, coming in 'merica in the next several years.
As much as I agree the states should be broken up I doubt we will ever see that happen. We have wayyy too much psycho national pride on both sides to split up without a massive change of landscape or invasion.
-
Satire from the Onion that is all too true.
http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-unfortunate-price-pro-57094
FAIRFAX, VA—In the aftermath of a shooting in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead and more than 500 wounded, National Rifle Association officials said Monday that mass shootings are just the unfortunate price of protecting people’s freedom to commit mass shootings. “What happened in Las Vegas is a horrific tragedy, but it’s sadly the inevitable cost of safeguarding the rights of Americans to perpetrate such horrific tragedies,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, adding that defending the constitutional right to commit mass murder meant accepting that mass murders were occasionally going to happen. “As saddened as we are today, we must always remember that preserving our sacred liberty to go on violent rampages is far more important than any one violent rampage.” LaPierre went on to say that legislation like recent state laws permitting guns on college campuses and an upcoming House bill that would relax restrictions on the purchase of gun silencers were vital to ensuring people had more freedom to commit much deadlier massacres, even if they sometimes lead to much deadlier massacres.
-
The NRA is not so powerful because of it's money? Wow......
Where does the money come from and why do they get it? Becuase owning guns is cultural and there are a lot of people that take the threat of them going away seriously.
Trump election should have proven that money does not matter. Hillary outspent him more than any other race in history and lost. What matters is the NRA has millions and millions of people that will vote however the NRA tells them to vote. The money is not that important.
-
As much as I agree the states should be broken up I doubt we will ever see that happen. We have wayyy too much psycho national pride on both sides to split up without a massive change of landscape or invasion.
The states aren't breaking up, and it would be a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea.
-
Okay, I am absolutely a conservative and generally a reasonable 'gun rights' advocate but this is ridiculous. I guess my view is that if someone can outgun the police on our city streets, then it's bad, very bad. I 'get' the 'well armed militia' thing but there has to be some limit with the carnage possible using modern weapons. Of course people should have the right to own firearms. You know, things like duck hunting shotguns and deer rifles. Even reasonable handguns. But not this. It should be as hard as possible to get ahold of this crap. I will watch with interest to see if his weapons were legal. If they were I've got a big problem with that. And even then, isn't it reasonable to at least have some kind of database? This guy purchases 20 weapons and a zillion rounds shouldn't he at least have to answer some questions? Hell, my credit card goes crazy when I buy gas at a station I've never been to before.
Anyway, I'll spend the rest of my time praying for the victims and thanking the brave first responders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jif4Wo0LDX8
-
Satire from the Onion that is all too true.
http://www.theonion.com/article/nra-says-mass-shootings-just-unfortunate-price-pro-57094
FAIRFAX, VA—In the aftermath of a shooting in Las Vegas that left at least 58 people dead and more than 500 wounded, National Rifle Association officials said Monday that mass shootings are just the unfortunate price of protecting people’s freedom to commit mass shootings. “What happened in Las Vegas is a horrific tragedy, but it’s sadly the inevitable cost of safeguarding the rights of Americans to perpetrate such horrific tragedies,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, adding that defending the constitutional right to commit mass murder meant accepting that mass murders were occasionally going to happen. “As saddened as we are today, we must always remember that preserving our sacred liberty to go on violent rampages is far more important than any one violent rampage.” LaPierre went on to say that legislation like recent state laws permitting guns on college campuses and an upcoming House bill that would relax restrictions on the purchase of gun silencers were vital to ensuring people had more freedom to commit much deadlier massacres, even if they sometimes lead to much deadlier massacres.
You do realize that the mayor of London, Kahn, actually said this about terrorist attacks in big Europe cities. That is the subtly you are missing.
-
Betcha Harry Froling would have some good ideas on how to get the conversation going.
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie...
-
Again, I'll admit what you or Pakuni cannot ... We just yell at each other trying to be morally superior, there is no actual discussion here about anything.
Some of us don't have to try.
If we get french type gun control, crazies rent a truck and run over people, the carnage is about the same. So shouldn't we talk about stopping suicidal maniacs because no matter what we do with guns they will find a way to inflict mass casualties? (if Paddock rented a large truck and mowed down 58 people leaving the concert, does that make it better?)
We can't prevent every murder, so why prevent any.
#logic
-
Okay, I am absolutely a conservative and generally a reasonable 'gun rights' advocate but this is ridiculous. I guess my view is that if someone can outgun the police on our city streets, then it's bad, very bad. I 'get' the 'well armed militia' thing but there has to be some limit with the carnage possible using modern weapons. Of course people should have the right to own firearms. You know, things like duck hunting shotguns and deer rifles. Even reasonable handguns. But not this. It should be as hard as possible to get ahold of this crap. I will watch with interest to see if his weapons were legal. If they were I've got a big problem with that. And even then, isn't it reasonable to at least have some kind of database? This guy purchases 20 weapons and a zillion rounds shouldn't he at least have to answer some questions? Hell, my credit card goes crazy when I buy gas at a station I've never been to before.
Anyway, I'll spend the rest of my time praying for the victims and thanking the brave first responders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jif4Wo0LDX8
Glow, what if we find out, like so many of these mass shootings, that he broke the law and illegally obtained the guns?
The right wants EXISTING laws enforced properly. The left wants NEW laws. That is the argument.
-
Glow, what if we find out, like so many of these mass shootings, that he broke the law and illegally obtained the guns?
The right wants EXISTING laws enforced properly. The left wants NEW laws. That is the argument.
I don't disagree with that. But I had never heard of that trigger crank thingy and in my view that should be 100% illegal.
-
Glow, what if we find out, like so many of these mass shootings, that he broke the law and illegally obtained the guns?
The right wants EXISTING laws enforced properly. The left wants NEW laws. That is the argument.
The large majority of guns used in mass shootings were obtained legally.
According to a database maintained by Mother Jones, there have been at least 90 mass shootings in the United States since 1982, and most of the shooters got their guns legally. The database focuses on what the publication calls "indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker," and excludes shootings stemming from more conventional crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence.
Of the 143 guns wielded by killers in mass shootings, more than three quarters were obtained legally, including dozens of assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns with high-capacity magazines, according to Mother Jones.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/guns-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-including-congressional-baseball/story?id=48055331
-
I don't disagree with that. But I had never heard of that trigger crank thingy and in my view that should be 100% illegal.
The problem is guns are 19th-century technology. I agree a trigger bump should be illegal. But anyone that passed high school shop walking the aisles of home depot can make one without too much trouble.
Same thing with a 30 round magazine. I had (no longer have it) a 50 round magazine a friend made in his basement about 20 years ago. Not hard to get a spring and bend some metal.
You can even download the instructions to make one with a 3D printer.
-
Where does the money come from and why do they get it? Becuase owning guns is cultural and there are a lot of people that take the threat of them going away seriously.
Trump election should have proven that money does not matter. Hillary outspent him more than any other race in history and lost. What matters is the NRA has millions and millions of people that will vote however the NRA tells them to vote. The money is not that important.
So you're saying the gun lobby and it's massive amount of money has no impact in Congress and on lawmakers, where common sense gun control must begin and can't even make any progress?
It's fear mongering and the pushing the untrue narrative that the left wants to take all the guns away, each and every one of them.
That Hillary outspent Trump and lost has nothing to do with this discussion.
-
The problem is guns are 19th-century technology. I agree a trigger bump should be illegal. But anyone that passed high school shop walking the aisles of home depot can make one without too much trouble.
Same thing with a 30 round magazine. I had (no longer have it) a 50 round magazine a friend made in his basement about 20 years ago. Not hard to get a spring and bend some metal.
You can even download the instructions to make one with a 3D printer.
I get all that and I support 'good guys' having weapons to defend against 'bad guys' and I acknowledge that 'bad guys' don't care about the laws. But like most things today, seems like everyone is having trouble listening and is just trying to score points with their base.
Not to change the subject but do you all think for a moment I didn't take that San Juan mayor's comments personally? You bet I did.
-
Serious discussion???
This board is a microcosm of 'merica ... two groups that think they are correct yelling at the other group (and I'm as guilty as everyone else here). This is essentially every topic in the Superbar. The point is moot in every thread here.
There will be no "discussion" or "common ground." Instead, both sides are looking to "win" and "defeat" the other side.
Eventually, we will split up into at least two countries (if not more) and we can all pick the one we want to live in, like the Facebook feed we subscribe to.
The amazing thing to me is that the same people line up on the same side every time. How is that possible? I lean to the right's way of thinking on some of these issues and to the left's way of thinking on others and am almost always somewhere in the middle of the extremes of each party. I think most Americans are that way. But all of our politicians and networks all move to the extreme of one side or the other. I just don't get it. I try to avoid these discussions like the plague because there is no reasonable dialog and it is just one side trying to out-yell the other using the same tactics, like sarcasm, knowingly exaggerating or taking out of context the other side's point trying to get gotcha moments rather than trying to understand where they are coming from, misinterpreting purposely polls or reports or articles, etc. Microcosm of how everything works these days.
In my younger days there were liberal republicans and conservative democrats. The politicians disagreed but could be friendly with one another outside of house debates. Of course they weren't perfect and were likely too white, but at least they did try to work together to a degree. Now it seems both sides legitimately hate each other and are more concerned with thwarting the other parties agenda than they are in finding common ground and working together or getting their own agenda accomplished. Frankly, it works out better for them that way, because if you actually do something, you have a record that can be attacked.
The important thing to remember is that neither side is really evil or stupid, as much as you may think anyone who disagrees with you is evil or stupid. they just have different ideas on how government should work and the country should be run.
-
So you're saying the gun lobby and it's massive amount of money has no impact in Congress and on lawmakers, where common sense gun control must begin and can't even make any progress?
It's fear mongering and the pushing the untrue narrative that the left wants to take all the guns away, each and every one of them.
That Hillary outspent Trump and lost has nothing to do with this discussion.
Ok you want to believe that the only thing that matters is money. And a handful of gun makers can shower money on Congress and get them to go against the will of the people, nevermind that the anti-gun lobby, led by Michael Bloomberg, has nearly as much money.
The cultural attachment that people in the south and west have to guns plays no role in this. And the decade after decade of congressman that voted for gun control losing their seats in the next election plays no role.
So, go ahead and start with the banjo and hee-haw insults now because you have no interest in a discussion. You decided it is money and nothing else because it makes you feel better.
-
Ok you want to believe that the only thing that matters is money. And a handful of gun makers can shower money on Congress and get them to go against the will of the people, nevermind that the anti-gun lobby, led by Michael Bloomberg, has nearly as much money.
The cultural attachment that people in the south and west have to guns plays no role in this. And the decade after decade of congressman that voted for gun control losing their seats in the next election plays no role.
So, go ahead and start with the banjo and hee-haw insults now because you have no interest in a discussion. You decided it is money and nothing else because it makes you feel better.
I never said money was the only thing that mattered or the only factor. I do think it is the largest factor in terms of making progress on any legislation.
I'm having a discussion - it seems you're the one that is not interested in one based on this post.
-
I never said money was the only thing that mattered or the only factor. I do think it is the largest factor in terms of making progress on any legislation.
I'm having a discussion - it seems you're the one that is not interested in one based on this post.
But I'm telling you that passion of voters matters more. The gun culture and the passionate supporters of the NRA is where they derive their influence and power, not from a handful of corporations writing checks.
That is what makes this debate so difficult.
-
But I'm telling you that passion of voters matters more. The gun culture and the passionate supporters of the NRA is where they derive their influence and power, not from a handful of corporations writing checks.
That is what makes this debate so difficult.
The gun culture absolutely has an impact. But after Sandy Hook, when such a high percentage of people were in support of more gun control, the NRA still fought it. Why? Money could be one answer.
Or am I not remembering correctly?
I think there is blood on the NRA's figurative hands and a lot of it. Just my opinion.
-
Let's dispel the notion that there's some deep national divide over gun control (much less one that's going to lead to secession).
Middle-of-the-road restrictions are favored by a large majority of Americans. These won't prevent every mass shooting, of course, but if it stops a few, or even reduces the body count, it's worth it.
According to a recent poll (link below):
- 87 percent support a ban on sales to those with a mental illness history
- 86 percent support universal background checks
- 82 percent support child-proof locks
- 80 percent support all sales being reported to the federal government
- 78 percent support mandatory licensing
- 77 percent support a mandatory waiting period
- 72 percent support mandatory fingerprinting
- 70 percent support a national registry
- 68 percent want guns banned from college campuses
- 67 percent support an assault weapons ban
- 67 percent support a limit on purchase frequency
- 64 percent support limits on ammo purchases
- 63 percent support a ban on high-capacity clips
- 63 percent support a ban on semi-automatic guns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e9de1cf4ea1
-
So, go ahead and start with the banjo and hee-haw insults now because you have no interest in a discussion. You decided it is money and nothing else because it makes you feel better.
Is this your new gig, Smuggles? Pre-insulting?
You won't even wait for the comment. You'll just predict what insults others might hurl?
You are an all-timer, man.
-
Let's dispel the notion that there's some deep national divide over gun control (much less one that's going to lead to secession).
Middle-of-the-road restrictions are favored by a large majority of Americans. These won't prevent every mass shooting, of course, but if it stops a few, or even reduces the body count, it's worth it.
According to a recent poll (link below):
- 87 percent support a ban on sales to those with a mental illness history
- 86 percent support universal background checks
- 82 percent support child-proof locks
- 80 percent support all sales being reported to the federal government
- 78 percent support mandatory licensing
- 77 percent support a mandatory waiting period
- 72 percent support mandatory fingerprinting
- 70 percent support a national registry
- 68 percent want guns banned from college campuses
- 67 percent support an assault weapons ban
- 67 percent support a limit on purchase frequency
- 64 percent support limits on ammo purchases
- 63 percent support a ban on high-capacity clips
- 63 percent support a ban on semi-automatic guns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e9de1cf4ea1
See this is interesting. Let's admit that we probably disagree on many issues. Fair? But I support the vast majority of those notions with the exception of any kind of 'gun free zone' that I personally think makes a target soft. I'm a firm believer in appropriate concealed carry. Even last night an off duty cop asked a citizen for his legally carried weapon when he didn't have his own.
-
Where does the money come from and why do they get it? Becuase owning guns is cultural and there are a lot of people that take the threat of them going away seriously.
Sad but true. The fact that everybody knows exactly what you mean when you say "gun culture" tells me that mass shootings are the new normal in this messed up place. :(
Probably the biggest mistake our Founding Fathers made....
-
Here's my question, because I honestly don't know the answer. When was the last time, if ever, someone with concealed carry has ever stopped a shooting massacre, let alone one person.
On the flip side take a look at the last two terrorsit attacks in London, the attack on Parliament and the one by London bridge. In both incidents the attackers (terrorists) only had access to knives and casualties weren't nearly as damaging as they were in Las Vegas and Orlando.
Obviously nobody can quantify the potential impact of there were guns but I would guess that most would agree there would have been more casualties if there were firearms involved, automatic or not.
And citizens didn't have the option to "protect themselves" with concealed carry.
-
Sad but true. The fact that everybody knows exactly what you mean when you say "gun culture" tells me that mass shootings are the new normal in this messed up place. :(
Probably the biggest mistake our Founding Fathers made....
Of course weapons held one bullet when the second amendment was written almost 230 years ago. Strange how things change over that much time.
-
Of course weapons held one bullet when the second amendment was written almost 230 years ago. Strange how things change over that much time.
And back then an experienced marksman got off a single shot every 15-20 seconds.
Today, a goof with an AR-15 can get off 50 to 60 shots in that time.
-
The amazing thing to me is that the same people line up on the same side every time. How is that possible?
Except they don't. Glow is a conservative; I am a liberal.
I agree 100% with his statements in his earlier post.
-
Let's dispel the notion that there's some deep national divide over gun control (much less one that's going to lead to secession).
Middle-of-the-road restrictions are favored by a large majority of Americans. These won't prevent every mass shooting, of course, but if it stops a few, or even reduces the body count, it's worth it.
According to a recent poll (link below):
- 87 percent support a ban on sales to those with a mental illness history
- 86 percent support universal background checks
- 82 percent support child-proof locks
- 80 percent support all sales being reported to the federal government
- 78 percent support mandatory licensing
- 77 percent support a mandatory waiting period
- 72 percent support mandatory fingerprinting
- 70 percent support a national registry
- 68 percent want guns banned from college campuses
- 67 percent support an assault weapons ban
- 67 percent support a limit on purchase frequency
- 64 percent support limits on ammo purchases
- 63 percent support a ban on high-capacity clips
- 63 percent support a ban on semi-automatic guns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e9de1cf4ea1
Consider me usually drifting a bit right on things but there absolutely needs to be more done with this. In addition to some of the things listed here and already mentioned previously in this thread, I think there are two items that can help that I'm drawing from the auto industry on:
- Just like before you can legally drive a car, require those who want to purchase a gun to go through training classes, including how to properly use guns and gun safety. A license to own the gun cannot be obtained without appropriate training and gun education
- Some form of "gun insurance". Each gun has its own unique ID, force that to be registered and if that gun is then used in a violent crime, the registered owner faces some sort of consequence (there would obviously be other items to consider such as reporting a stolen gun, etc.). But this could help crack down on illegal sales. Whether its people selling illegally completely on purpose, or those selling illegally just because its much easier to do and less hassle.
-
Consider me usually drifting a bit right on things but there absolutely needs to be more done with this. In addition to some of the things listed here and already mentioned previously in this thread, I think there are two items that can help that I'm drawing from the auto industry on:
- Just like before you can legally drive a car, require those who want to purchase a gun to go through training classes, including how to properly use guns and gun safety. A license to own the gun cannot be obtained without appropriate training and gun education
- Some form of "gun insurance". Each gun has its own unique ID, force that to be registered and if that gun is then used in a violent crime, the registered owner faces some sort of consequence (there would obviously be other items to consider such as reporting a stolen gun, etc.). But this could help crack down on illegal sales. Whether its people selling illegally completely on purpose, or those selling illegally just because its much easier to do and less hassle.
Two more good reasonable examples that the huge majority of this country would support. Neither will happen.
Until we send a message that we will no longer elect these same appeasers to the NRA, we will solve nothing.
-
I agree with jiggie regarding the passionate nature of gun lovers as single issue voters. I have had a couple of dozen coworkers say some version of..... I know republicans don't like public employees, want to gut collective bargaining and take away my pension and make me work longer hours for less. But guns and babies.
And they are unshakeable.
-
Let's dispel the notion that there's some deep national divide over gun control (much less one that's going to lead to secession).
Middle-of-the-road restrictions are favored by a large majority of Americans. These won't prevent every mass shooting, of course, but if it stops a few, or even reduces the body count, it's worth it.
According to a recent poll (link below):
- 87 percent support a ban on sales to those with a mental illness history
- 86 percent support universal background checks
- 82 percent support child-proof locks
- 80 percent support all sales being reported to the federal government
- 78 percent support mandatory licensing
- 77 percent support a mandatory waiting period
- 72 percent support mandatory fingerprinting
- 70 percent support a national registry
- 68 percent want guns banned from college campuses
- 67 percent support an assault weapons ban
- 67 percent support a limit on purchase frequency
- 64 percent support limits on ammo purchases
- 63 percent support a ban on high-capacity clips
- 63 percent support a ban on semi-automatic guns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e9de1cf4ea1
Here's the sad fact of where we stand and why things won't change: support does not equal advocacy.
Those who are most passionate win in this country and the gun advocates are infinitely more passionate about limiting control of the government than the common person is in support of reasonable gun control measures
-
Ha, you've got this seriously mixed up amigo. The 2nd amendment is not the mechanism to advance gun control. There's nothing in the Constitution or in Supreme Court precedent that says the right to bear arms includes the right to bear any weapon, including assault weapons (those didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights were drafted). Gun control legislation absolutely can be -- and has been! -- passed without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. What you meant to say was that the 2nd amendment would be the mechanism to advance gun prohibition, but not gun control.
I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").
The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.
Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).
Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.
-
For more than a year, I have had exactly two photos on display in my office. One is of my entire family on Marquette's campus the day of Glow jr.'s graduation, and the other is of Chick jr. and me proudly wearing finishing medals from our first half-marathon. It was taken three years ago, in the exact spot where the Las Vegas victims were shot down.
If we only focus on getting rid of the weapons, we will fail. If you take away one type, they will move to another. It has already been reported on the news that this shooter had Timothy McVeigh-type explosives as well. Are we going to make fertilizer illegal, too? What we have to do is get rid of the murderers. Somehow we have to figure out what prompts people to act in such an evil manner and address that. Anything else is simply mopping the floor when it rains instead of fixing the hole in the roof.
I don't claim to have the easy way to do that, but the discussion needs to start.
-
For more than a year, I have had exactly two photos on display in my office. One is of my entire family on Marquette's campus the day of Glow jr.'s graduation, and the other is of Chick jr. and me proudly wearing finishing medals from our first half-marathon. It was taken three years ago, in the exact spot where the Las Vegas victims were shot down.
If we only focus on getting rid of the weapons, we will fail. If you take away one type, they will move to another. It has already been reported on the news that this shooter had Timothy McVeigh-type explosives as well. Are we going to make fertilizer illegal, too? What we have to do is get rid of the murderers. Somehow we have to figure out what prompts people to act in such an evil manner and address that. Anything else is simply mopping the floor when it rains instead of fixing the hole in the roof.
I don't claim to have the easy way to do that, but the discussion needs to start.
If we only focus on that, we will fail too.
-
I truly believe that if all guns were banned, our gun culture would disappear in 20-30 years. The generation above mine and my generation would hang on to it, but they wouldn't teach it to their kids. I'm not saying that's right or what should happen, but I do think gun culture doesn't have to be a permanent piece of our country.
-
For more than a year, I have had exactly two photos on display in my office. One is of my entire family on Marquette's campus the day of Glow jr.'s graduation, and the other is of Chick jr. and me proudly wearing finishing medals from our first half-marathon. It was taken three years ago, in the exact spot where the Las Vegas victims were shot down.
If we only focus on getting rid of the weapons, we will fail. If you take away one type, they will move to another. It has already been reported on the news that this shooter had Timothy McVeigh-type explosives as well. Are we going to make fertilizer illegal, too? What we have to do is get rid of the murderers. Somehow we have to figure out what prompts people to act in such an evil manner and address that. Anything else is simply mopping the floor when it rains instead of fixing the hole in the roof.
I don't claim to have the easy way to do that, but the discussion needs to start.
This sounds an awful lot like everyone's favorite old line, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It certainly helps us all move past this without taking any action, which is great depending on your bent. We can obsess about it for a week and then move on to the next big story.
It's almost as if every time this happens, we completely forget that this has happened many times previously.
The guy shot over 500 people in a matter of a few minutes from a distance of what, 400 yards. If he has a saturday night special he might be about to go on a rampage and shoot a few before he's taken down or simply run away from. Difference of what, give or take 500? They're both news stories and awful, but the same level of crazy is only able to inflict a small fraction of the suffering. That seems like an easier step to take in the interim before we're able to tackle a massive upheaval in our society.
-
Of course weapons held one bullet when the second amendment was written almost 230 years ago. Strange how things change over that much time.
Agree completely.
Unfortunately, the document was meant to live forever, so the Supreme Court has to interpret the old language in a world of new realities. In this case, I wish they had determined that the Amendment permits only single-shot weapons, but alas, they didn't.
-
I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").
The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.
Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).
Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.
Do you believe that a national gun registry, a prohibition on the mentally ill, or a background check system would survive the Court?
-
"Here's my question, because I honestly don't know the answer. When was the last time, if ever, someone with concealed carry has ever stopped a shooting massacre, let alone one person."
i haven't looked this up yet, but before i do, i will tell you that many of the the mass shootings occur in "GUN FREE ZONES" note, i said many...so law abiding concealed carry people heed the laws and don't carry where firearms are not permitted. many times i had been walking in to a building with a sign posted-no firearms allowed, or gun -back to the car i went, regardless of how far away i parked. ok, i found this one, but i'm sure some here will be quick to criticize the source. i'm sure if we look hard enough, we will find reasons to support both sides however. but this makes a lot of sense.
there have been many instances where lives have been saved by concealed carry permit holders, but mass shootings...see above
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/02/09/john-lott-gun-free-zones-easy-targets-would--killers/97645622/
-
Let's dispel the notion that there's some deep national divide over gun control (much less one that's going to lead to secession).
Middle-of-the-road restrictions are favored by a large majority of Americans. These won't prevent every mass shooting, of course, but if it stops a few, or even reduces the body count, it's worth it.
According to a recent poll (link below):
- 87 percent support a ban on sales to those with a mental illness history
- 86 percent support universal background checks
- 82 percent support child-proof locks
- 80 percent support all sales being reported to the federal government
- 78 percent support mandatory licensing
- 77 percent support a mandatory waiting period
- 72 percent support mandatory fingerprinting
- 70 percent support a national registry
- 68 percent want guns banned from college campuses
- 67 percent support an assault weapons ban
- 67 percent support a limit on purchase frequency
- 64 percent support limits on ammo purchases
- 63 percent support a ban on high-capacity clips
- 63 percent support a ban on semi-automatic guns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e9de1cf4ea1
Yeah, this falls apart when they see "Crooked Hillary" on the ballot and those that would otherwise support these measures sacrifice their morals to vote against the Dems.
As a result, these otherwise well meaning people vote for people in bed with the NRA and perpetuate the mass murders.
-
"Here's my question, because I honestly don't know the answer. When was the last time, if ever, someone with concealed carry has ever stopped a shooting massacre, let alone one person."
i haven't looked this up yet, but before i do, i will tell you that many of the the mass shootings occur in "GUN FREE ZONES" note, i said many...so law abiding concealed carry people heed the laws and don't carry where firearms are not permitted. many times i had been walking in to a building with a sign posted-no firearms allowed, or gun -back to the car i went, regardless of how far away i parked. ok, i found this one, but i'm sure some here will be quick to criticize the source. i'm sure if we look hard enough, we will find reasons to support both sides however. but this makes a lot of sense.
there have been many instances where lives have been saved by concealed carry permit holders, but mass shootings...see above
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/02/09/john-lott-gun-free-zones-easy-targets-would--killers/97645622/
Well in this moment, this is a completely moot point...like Sandy Hook...like in a dark club with alcohol like Pulse. This one is especially moot because the shots came from the 32nd floor.
-
I truly believe that if all guns were banned, our gun culture would disappear in 20-30 years. The generation above mine and my generation would hang on to it, but they wouldn't teach it to their kids. I'm not saying that's right or what should happen, but I do think gun culture doesn't have to be a permanent piece of our country.
yes, but first you have to get rid of 300 million guns. good luck. oh, and one more thing-guess who will always have guns? the bad guys and the government. how many times have you heard of a bad guy leaving his gun home because he was going to a gun free zone
-
I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").
The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.
Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).
Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.
To say that any gun control legislation could only pass as a Constitutional amendment is simply wrong. So, your blaming of liberal states for not proposing amendments to the Constitution is not only illogical and impractical, but is built on an utterly flawed premise.
-
Yeah, this falls apart when they see "Crooked Hillary" on the ballot and those that would otherwise support these measures sacrifice their morals to vote against the Dems.
As a result, these otherwise well meaning people vote for people in bed with the NRA and perpetuate the mass murders.
I think you are way out of line with that comment sir.
And as usual, a thoughtful, well meaning discussion devolves into name calling and incredibly broad generalizations. I'm OUT. This won't be productive at all for the next 10 pages.
-
I think you are way out of line with that comment sir.
And as usual, a thoughtful, well meaning discussion devolves into name calling and incredibly broad generalizations. I'm OUT. This won't be productive at all for the next 10 pages.
It get's kinda inconvenient for you doesn't it.
-
I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is cinlear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").
The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.
Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).
Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.
So did we all just imagine Friedman v.. Highland Park?
-
I think you are way out of line with that comment sir.
And as usual, a thoughtful, well meaning discussion devolves into name calling and incredibly broad generalizations. I'm OUT. This won't be productive at all for the next 10 pages.
It's really not meant as an insult - it's the polarized landscape on every issue that leads to this. The point is that this issue is not number 1, 2 or 3 for most people when people go to the voting box. It's not for me except in this exact moment in time. So those in favor of, say, tax reform (raises hand) have to make a choice at which issues are our hot button. Do I prioritize my fiscal stance or my social one? It depends.
This is how bad policy on both ends of the poles lingers for generations.
-
Do you believe that a national gun registry, a prohibition on the mentally ill, or a background check system would survive the Court?
I don't know. With the caveat that this is not my area of practice, I'll give it a go. I'm also going to give the typical lawyer BS answer and say: It depends. So feel free to scream at me for being a bloody lawyer.
First, it depends on whether the Court applies "strict scrutiny" review (law must advance a "compelling government interest;" be "narrowly tailored to advance that interest;" and achieve it in the "least restrictive means possible." Typically, when strict scrutiny is applied, laws are found unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny is often applied in Bill of Rights related issues (free speech cases have lots of strict scrutiny). If 2A is determined a "fundamental right," and strict scrutiny is applied... it's just a tough bar to clear, but it can be done.
So, that being said the best shot is to write the laws narrowly and to define the terms clearly.
Checking yours off:
What is "mentally ill" and who or what determines if one is "mentally ill?" I think this is probably the hardest to write well enough to both pass (so much possibility for controversy in setting your definitions) and for the same reason, probably hard to clear the "least restrictive means possible" prong of strict scrutiny. I think that the fact that the restriction on felons possessing firearms exists and nobody seems to think it violates even a broadened view of 2A gives a lot of support to the idea that this could survive. FWIW, I do 100% support this restriction if we can figure out a way to define the terms in a way that isn't subject to abuse and ambiguity.
National gun registry... I honestly have no idea... probably? It probably depends a great deal on the facts and testimony about how one of these would meaningfully advance the government interest of catching violent criminals.
Background Check System, probably, assuming that whatever fail conditions are set are well-defined and narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing gun violence. The goal here would be to write your law in a way that filters out people with histories of violence, but doesn't impact Billy the MU Bro who got a drinking ticket in his 1st week at McCormick in 1981.
This is where the rubber meets the road: To survive Supreme Court review the law needs to be well-written law, not one that is shot out the door and dubbed the "Las Vegas Remembers Act" or something.
Lastly, the current make up of the Court is likely to be skeptical of laws that restrict 2A rights. There's some speculation that Kennedy may retire soon, and RBG and Breyer are no spring chickens (although they both will hold their seat til the Reaper takes them rather than give Trump the ability to nominate their replacements), so there's a chance the makeup may change and meaningfully affect how the Court is likely to follow or pull back from Heller and McDonald, both of which were 5-4 and had blistering dissents.
But, bear in mind that for whatever reason, Trump picked a well-respected Justice in Gorsuch (albeit one that probably aligns with skepticism of 2A restrictions) and not a lunatic, so there's no reason to assume that he will pick a screaming NRA defender if he gets another nomination.
Anyway, thus ends MUScoop Law's Monday evening class.
-
I don't know. With the caveat that this is not my area of practice, I'll give it a go. I'm also going to give the typical lawyer BS answer and say: It depends. So feel free to scream at me for being a bloody lawyer.
First, it depends on whether the Court applies "strict scrutiny" review (law must advance a "compelling government interest;" be "narrowly tailored to advance that interest;" and achieve it in the "least restrictive means possible." Typically, when strict scrutiny is applied, laws are found unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny is often applied in Bill of Rights related issues (free speech cases have lots of strict scrutiny). If 2A is determined a "fundamental right," and strict scrutiny is applied... it's just a tough bar to clear, but it can be done.
So, that being said the best shot is to write the laws narrowly and to define the terms clearly.
Checking yours off:
What is "mentally ill" and who or what determines if one is "mentally ill?" I think this is probably the hardest to write well enough to both pass (so much possibility for controversy in setting your definitions) and for the same reason, probably hard to clear the "least restrictive means possible" prong of strict scrutiny. I think that the fact that the restriction on felons possessing firearms exists and nobody seems to think it violates even a broadened view of 2A gives a lot of support to the idea that this could survive. FWIW, I do 100% support this restriction if we can figure out a way to define the terms in a way that isn't subject to abuse and ambiguity.
National gun registry... I honestly have no idea... probably? It probably depends a great deal on the facts and testimony about how one of these would meaningfully advance the government interest of catching violent criminals.
Background Check System, probably, assuming that whatever fail conditions are set are well-defined and narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing gun violence. The goal here would be to write your law in a way that filters out people with histories of violence, but doesn't impact Billy the MU Bro who got a drinking ticket in his 1st week at McCormick in 1981.
This is where the rubber meets the road: To survive Supreme Court review the law needs to be well-written law, not one that is shot out the door and dubbed the "Las Vegas Remembers Act" or something.
Lastly, the current make up of the Court is likely to be skeptical of laws that restrict 2A rights. There's some speculation that Kennedy may retire soon, and RBG and Breyer are no spring chickens (although they both will hold their seat til the Reaper takes them rather than give Trump the ability to nominate their replacements), so there's a chance the makeup may change and meaningfully affect how the Court is likely to follow or pull back from Heller and McDonald, both of which were 5-4 and had blistering dissents.
But, bear in mind that for whatever reason, Trump picked a well-respected Justice in Gorsuch (albeit one that probably aligns with skepticism of 2A restrictions) and not a lunatic, so there's no reason to assume that he will pick a screaming NRA defender if he gets another nomination.
Anyway, thus ends MUScoop Law's Monday evening class.
Thank you. My favorite professor at MU was Christopher Wolfe and his constitutional law classes so I love hearing people's opinions about this stuff.
-
To say that any gun control legislation could only pass as a Constitutional amendment is simply wrong. So, your blaming of liberal states for not proposing amendments to the Constitution is not only illogical and impractical, but is built on an utterly flawed premise.
I'm not blaming blue states for not passing one, although I do see how what I said could have come off that way. I think that there is a fundamental problem with 2A, it's ambiguous as all getout, and there's a way to fix that.
-
Dr Wolfe rocked. One of my favorite professors, too. He did not mind if you disagreed, but he insisted you present a reasonable argument.
-
Dr Wolfe rocked. One of my favorite professors, too. He did not mind if you disagreed, but he insisted you present a reasonable argument.
And I loved how challenging the class was. You had to read up ahead of time because he quizzed you every Friday. And his final exam usually required more than one blue book.
I think I still have that monsterous textbook we used somewhere in my basement too.
-
Thank you. My favorite professor at MU was Christopher Wolfe and his constitutional law classes so I love hearing people's opinions about this stuff.
Take it for what it's worth, I am, after all, just some guy on the internet.
I expect to see some people who know much more about these issues than I opine over the next few days. Since I keep my eyes on these kinds of things, and am happy to engage with my obvious legal betters if everyone can keep this thread from getting locked, and if I see anything good on the issue, I'll post links when/if I see them.
-
Dr Wolfe rocked. One of my favorite professors, too. He did not mind if you disagreed, but he insisted you present a reasonable argument.
Can we institute the Dr. Wolfe rule on this board?
-
Agree completely.
Unfortunately, the document was meant to live forever, so the Supreme Court has to interpret the old language in a world of new realities. In this case, I wish they had determined that the Amendment permits only single-shot weapons, but alas, they didn't.
Sure, but it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I'm not a gun person so I don't quite understand the mindset (although I've tried) that civilians should have access to weapons, clips, rounds, etc that can do such damage.
-
Can we institute the Dr. Wolfe rule on this board?
Would love it. Must present reasoned argument, cannot call names. I am in.
-
For more than a year, I have had exactly two photos on display in my office. One is of my entire family on Marquette's campus the day of Glow jr.'s graduation, and the other is of Chick jr. and me proudly wearing finishing medals from our first half-marathon. It was taken three years ago, in the exact spot where the Las Vegas victims were shot down.
If we only focus on getting rid of the weapons, we will fail. If you take away one type, they will move to another. It has already been reported on the news that this shooter had Timothy McVeigh-type explosives as well. Are we going to make fertilizer illegal, too? What we have to do is get rid of the murderers. Somehow we have to figure out what prompts people to act in such an evil manner and address that. Anything else is simply mopping the floor when it rains instead of fixing the hole in the roof.
I don't claim to have the easy way to do that, but the discussion needs to start.
This is, at best, a case of letting perfect be the enemy of good.
You're right .... no gun control law will 100 percent eliminate any chance of a mass shooting. And no go control law will prevent someone from finding another means of doing harm if they're that determined.
To which I say ... so what?
A law doesn't have to have a 100 percent success rate to be effective and worthwhile. Maybe a clip size limit doesn't prevent last night's shooting, but maybe the guy gets off a couple hundred fewer shots. How many lives does that save? And aren't those lives worth saving to you? I bet they are to their loved ones.
Nobody applies this logic to anything but gun control. When the federal government successfully pushed states to lower the DUI limit from .10 to .08, nobody thought a reasonable argument against it was "People will drink and drive anyhow, so what's the point?" When states began raising the tobacco age from 16 to 18, smart people didn't argue that kids will find ways to smoke anyhow, so why restrict the age. And yet some seem to argue that any gun control measure that doesn't prevent all gun violence isn't worthwhile. That's nonsense.
Also, you're correct that gun control alone isn't the answer. That's a big red herring, since I'm pretty sure no one here - and no reasonable person anywhere - has ever suggested that. But maybe it's a start. And maybe - and perhaps I'm overly optimistic here - the 535 members of Congress and thousands in state legislatures across the country can walk and chew gum at the same time, and address this on multiple fronts.
-
This is, at best, a case of letting perfect be the enemy of good.
You're right .... no gun control law will 100 percent eliminate any chance of a mass shooting. And no go control law will prevent someone from finding another means of doing harm by other means.
To which I say ... so what?
A law doesn't have to have a 100 percent success rate to be effective and worthwhile. Maybe a clip size limit doesn't prevent last night's shooting, but maybe the guy gets off a couple hundred fewer shots. How many lives does that save? And aren't those lives worth saving to you? I bet they are to their loved ones.
Nobody applies this logic to anything but gun control. When the federal government successfully pushed states to lower the DUI limit from .10 to .08, nobody thought a reasonable argument against it was "People will drink and drive anyhow, so what's the point?" When states began raising the tobacco age from 16 to 18, smart people didn't argue that kids will find ways to smoke anyhow, so why restrict the age. And yet some seem to argue that any gun control measure that doesn't prevent all gun violence isn't worthwhile. That's nonsense.
Also, you're correct that gun control alone isn't the answer. That's a big red herring, since I'm pretty sure no one here - and no reasonable person anywhere - has ever suggested that. But maybe it's a start. And maybe - and perhaps I'm overly optimistic here - the 535 members of Congress and thousands in state legislatures across the country can walk and chew gum at the same time, and address this on multiple fronts.
Completely agree with this.
-
I truly believe that if all guns were banned, our gun culture would disappear in 20-30 years. The generation above mine and my generation would hang on to it, but they wouldn't teach it to their kids. I'm not saying that's right or what should happen, but I do think gun culture doesn't have to be a permanent piece of our country.
Honestly, if all guns were banned it's much more likely that tens of thousands would die as the government tried to confiscate them. Talk about playing into all the fear mongering the NRA and the gun nuts advocate.
-
I don't know. With the caveat that this is not my area of practice, I'll give it a go. I'm also going to give the typical lawyer BS answer and say: It depends. So feel free to scream at me for being a bloody lawyer.
First, it depends on whether the Court applies "strict scrutiny" review (law must advance a "compelling government interest;" be "narrowly tailored to advance that interest;" and achieve it in the "least restrictive means possible." Typically, when strict scrutiny is applied, laws are found unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny is often applied in Bill of Rights related issues (free speech cases have lots of strict scrutiny). If 2A is determined a "fundamental right," and strict scrutiny is applied... it's just a tough bar to clear, but it can be done.
So, that being said the best shot is to write the laws narrowly and to define the terms clearly.
Checking yours off:
What is "mentally ill" and who or what determines if one is "mentally ill?" I think this is probably the hardest to write well enough to both pass (so much possibility for controversy in setting your definitions) and for the same reason, probably hard to clear the "least restrictive means possible" prong of strict scrutiny. I think that the fact that the restriction on felons possessing firearms exists and nobody seems to think it violates even a broadened view of 2A gives a lot of support to the idea that this could survive. FWIW, I do 100% support this restriction if we can figure out a way to define the terms in a way that isn't subject to abuse and ambiguity.
National gun registry... I honestly have no idea... probably? It probably depends a great deal on the facts and testimony about how one of these would meaningfully advance the government interest of catching violent criminals.
Background Check System, probably, assuming that whatever fail conditions are set are well-defined and narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing gun violence. The goal here would be to write your law in a way that filters out people with histories of violence, but doesn't impact Billy the MU Bro who got a drinking ticket in his 1st week at McCormick in 1981.
This is where the rubber meets the road: To survive Supreme Court review the law needs to be well-written law, not one that is shot out the door and dubbed the "Las Vegas Remembers Act" or something.
Lastly, the current make up of the Court is likely to be skeptical of laws that restrict 2A rights. There's some speculation that Kennedy may retire soon, and RBG and Breyer are no spring chickens (although they both will hold their seat til the Reaper takes them rather than give Trump the ability to nominate their replacements), so there's a chance the makeup may change and meaningfully affect how the Court is likely to follow or pull back from Heller and McDonald, both of which were 5-4 and had blistering dissents.
But, bear in mind that for whatever reason, Trump picked a well-respected Justice in Gorsuch (albeit one that probably aligns with skepticism of 2A restrictions) and not a lunatic, so there's no reason to assume that he will pick a screaming NRA defender if he gets another nomination.
Anyway, thus ends MUScoop Law's Monday evening class.
From one bloody lawyer to another...a pretty nice summary.
-
Sure, but it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I'm not a gun person so I don't quite understand the mindset (although I've tried) that civilians should have access to weapons, clips, rounds, etc that can do such damage.
thank you for your honesty, but just remember one thing-the weapons, clips, rounds, etc do no damage. it's the person behind them that does. i am all for strict laws against any person who does not use a weapon safely under the laws we have. one thing i have noted however, why does it seem when a criminal/felon in possession of a firearm have that offense thrown out so easily, time after time. if handguns are such a "bad thing" for the anti-gun people, one would think they would throw out the other chit and put 'em in jail for a long long time just based on the illegal gun possession
AND, to you mr.jficke13-well done sir-very well thought out and informative *golden nugget of the day*
-
Honestly, if all guns were banned it's much more likely that tens of thousands would die as the government tried to confiscate them. Talk about playing into all the fear mongering the NRA and the gun nuts advocate.
very well put and ya had me up to "the fear mongering..." ya see, some people view "gun nuts" as those who do wish they could ban all guns as well
-
Hoping the massacre in Vegas was not a hate crime against a group of people largely known to be Trump supporters.
-
Hoping the massacre in Vegas was not a hate crime against a group of people largely known to be Trump supporters.
well according to that CBS attorney, hayley geftman-gold, she had no sympathy toward them because of this-very sad. she's thankfully looking for another job. no room for megan amram "jokes" either. boy, if this is what humor has come to-very very sad as well.
-
Sure, but it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I'm not a gun person so I don't quite understand the mindset (although I've tried) that civilians should have access to weapons, clips, rounds, etc that can do such damage.
I agree...but we unfortunately live in a political environment that has devolved into a battle of extremes. Just look at the healthcare situation - we should be able to fine-tune the ACA into a very workable system, but it just doesn't happen.
-
Hoping the massacre in Vegas was not a hate crime against a group of people largely known to be Trump supporters.
Peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
-
thank you for your honesty, but just remember one thing-the weapons, clips, rounds, etc do no damage. it's the person behind them that does. i am all for strict laws against any person who does not use a weapon safely under the laws we have. one thing i have noted however, why does it seem when a criminal/felon in possession of a firearm have that offense thrown out so easily, time after time. if handguns are such a "bad thing" for the anti-gun people, one would think they would throw out the other chit and put 'em in jail for a long long time just based on the illegal gun possession
AND, to you mr.jficke13-well done sir-very well thought out and informative *golden nugget of the day*
Obviously a person is the one pulling the trigger. Stricter gun control laws are certainly not a panacea. But in my opinion they could make a significant difference. So while not a perfect solution shouldn't we strive for improvement wherever we can find it?
The judicial system, the sentences given, prison overcrowding, etc. I'm not an expert so I can't speak to that. It does seem there is not much consistency in terms of sentencing and lot of folks that should he behind bars continue to get slaps on the wrist and continue to repeat the same behaviors.
-
I don't agree, Benny. You know I am about as far left as possible and I have no problem with people owning a handgun for protection or owning hunting rifles. I know of very few lefties who want to eliminate guns. Almost all lefties want elimination of large clips and assault rifles.
Your point is part of the problem by locking everyone into an all-or-nothing group. Most people don't think that way. There are many things that can be done to fight the constant mass shootings. Even YOU say that steps can be taken to "mitigate" the problem.
Sadly, people like you are the problem (not meant as a personal attack). I say that because it is ONLY when people on the right like you stand up and say something has to be done, that it will happen. We have tried on the left, but every time there is a mass shooting, those on the right say more guns is the answer. Until YOU guys stand up and say that life has value, nothing will be done.
The problem lies with people like me? I guarantee that you've never met anyone like me (which means that was a personal attack). And just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm on the right. Hell, its people like you - and everyone in Washington - who wants to put everyone into one of two boxes because it's easier for mentally deficient people to win elections when they can simplify their view of the world into minimal categories... that's the real problem. Compromise doesn't exist in our society because you can't energize your base and motivate people to go to the polls when you're focused on compromise and the greater good. Nope, stick to your guns (no pun intended) and stick it to the other person... that's how you win elections in this country.
-
I agree...but we unfortunately live in a political environment that has devolved into a battle of extremes. Just look at the healthcare situation - we should be able to fine-tune the ACA into a very workable system, but it just doesn't happen.
You're right and that is a great example. Compromise is basically dead.
-
thank you for your honesty, but just remember one thing-the weapons, clips, rounds, etc do no damage. it's the person behind them that does.
Here is my problem with this typical argument. There are many useful chemicals (many of which come from natural sources) that are harmless on their own, but no completely illegal to purchase. Why? Because they can be converted to illegal drugs in fairly simple syntheses that the average person who has taken organic chemistry could perform.
Those chemicals/natural produces do not damage on their own, and are actually often beneficial. It's the person behind them that could use them for nefarious purposes, so we make it illegal to prevent possible nefarious activities.
The types of devices and weapons used in these attacks have no beneficial or practical purpose (unlike many of these chemicals), rather they only pose a grave risk to the public...but we defend their sale because it isn't the gun/device that is dangerous...just the people behind them.
And before one defends this as well 2nd amendment. We already have restrictions on bearing arms. I can't go out and buy rocket propelled grenade launchers, because there is no practical purpose for me to own it. I can't go buy C4 explosives..again because there is no practical purpose for it. We have no practical purpose for most of the weapons used in Vegas either, so there is legal precedent to ban them too.
I'm a gun owner. I believe in defending the 2nd amendment, and I believe in reasonable restrictions and bans on specific types of weapons. I bet I'm in the majority nationwide.
-
The problem lies with people like me? I guarantee that you've never met anyone like me (which means that was a personal attack). And just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm on the right. Hell, its people like you - and everyone in Washington - who wants to put everyone into one of two boxes because it's easier for mentally deficient people to win elections when they can simplify their view of the world into minimal categories... that's the real problem. Compromise doesn't exist in our society because you can't energize your base and motivate people to go to the polls when you're focused on compromise and the greater good. Nope, stick to your guns (no pun intended) and stick it to the other person... that's how you win elections in this country.
Maybe I wasn't clear. By "people like you ", I meant people on the right - not you personally. You can deny all you like, but People on the right need to stand up for human life and against the NRA in order for change to occur
-
Maybe I wasn't clear. By "people like you ", I meant people on the right - not you personally. You can deny all you like, but People on the right need to stand up for human life and against the NRA in order for change to occur
Not people on the right. Everyone.
Stop grouping people into "right" and "left." Your insistence that we can't all be on the same side is exactly why we aren't.
-
Not people on the right. Everyone.
Stop grouping people into "right" and "left." Your insistence that we can't all be on the same side is exactly why we aren't.
Again, I must not have made myself clear. I was referring to politicians on the left and right. Looking at my post, I wasn't specific when I should have been.
If all politicians on the left vote for some sort of gun control, it fails. There have to be people on the right - people like you (in Congress) - that vote for it in order for it to pass.
I try to keep my posts as short as possible so my true meaning doesn't always come through. I was not grouping people as left or right. I was grouping politicians as left or right - because they ARE left or right. And those on the right are the ones that get money from the NRA.
The last specific info I could find on NRA contributions to people running for national office was 2014. The NRA doled out $812,460 to 222 people - 211 Republicans and 11 Dems.
So, unless some who get money from the NRA vote against the NRA interests, nothing can pass.
-
Stop grouping people into "right" and "left." Your insistence that we can't all be on the same side is exactly why we aren't.
No it is not. If I were never born, people would still be on opposite sides. .
-
"Here's my question, because I honestly don't know the answer. When was the last time, if ever, someone with concealed carry has ever stopped a shooting massacre, let alone one person."
i haven't looked this up yet, but before i do, i will tell you that many of the the mass shootings occur in "GUN FREE ZONES" note, i said many...so law abiding concealed carry people heed the laws and don't carry where firearms are not permitted. many times i had been walking in to a building with a sign posted-no firearms allowed, or gun -back to the car i went, regardless of how far away i parked. ok, i found this one, but i'm sure some here will be quick to criticize the source. i'm sure if we look hard enough, we will find reasons to support both sides however. but this makes a lot of sense.
there have been many instances where lives have been saved by concealed carry permit holders, but mass shootings...see above
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/02/09/john-lott-gun-free-zones-easy-targets-would--killers/97645622/
Well there are a lot of issues with Lott's research, but I will let that be.
But the issue of whether or not this was a gun free zone is irrelevant. What "good guy with a gun" is going to stop a "bad guy with a gun" when he is shooting a modified semi-automatic weapon from 400 yards away on the 32nd story of a hotel?
I very much align with forgetful in this case. I believe in the 2nd amendment. But there is no reason to have these types of weapons in the marketplace.
-
Again, I must not have made myself clear. I was referring to politicians on the left and right. Looking at my post, I wasn't specific when I should have been.
If all politicians on the left vote for some sort of gun control, it fails. There have to be people on the right - people like you (in Congress) - that vote for it in order for it to pass.
I try to keep my posts as short as possible so my true meaning doesn't always come through. I was not grouping people as left or right. I was grouping politicians as left or right - because they ARE left or right. And those on the right are the ones that get money from the NRA.
The last specific info I could find on NRA contributions to people running for national office was 2014. The NRA doled out $812,460 to 222 people - 211 Republicans and 11 Dems.
So, unless some who get money from the NRA vote against the NRA interests, nothing can pass.
you do realize that the politicians are voted in by the people who support their ideas and/or political leanings, right? politicians are supposed to represent their constituents and unfortunately whereever the money comes from. in this case, yes the NRA which is people too, get money for their existence and use it to protect what they believe in. this goes on with special interest groups on both sides of the aisle. some issues even (gasp) that the right may not be agree with(double gasp) but you knew this as well, right? benny put it perfectly-
"little boxes on a hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky...and they all look just the same...there's a pink one and a green one...and they look just the same..." bring it on home malvina
-
Here's my question, because I honestly don't know the answer. When was the last time, if ever, someone with concealed carry has ever stopped a shooting massacre, let alone one person.
On the flip side take a look at the last two terrorsit attacks in London, the attack on Parliament and the one by London bridge. In both incidents the attackers (terrorists) only had access to knives and casualties weren't nearly as damaging as they were in Las Vegas and Orlando.
Obviously nobody can quantify the potential impact of there were guns but I would guess that most would agree there would have been more casualties if there were firearms involved, automatic or not.
And citizens didn't have the option to "protect themselves" with concealed carry.
Conceal carry shoot bad guys all the time. But how do you know their future intention? Here is one in 2015 in Logan Square in Chicago. I'm sure others will argue that was unnecessary.... because we all view these things through our political biases.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html
-
Out of curiosity, would anyone turn down the grand bargain of universal gun registration for universal voter identification? If not, why not?
-
The gun culture absolutely has an impact. But after Sandy Hook, when such a high percentage of people were in support of more gun control, the NRA still fought it. Why? Money could be one answer.
Or am I not remembering correctly?
I think there is blood on the NRA's figurative hands and a lot of it. Just my opinion.
So the NRA killed those people, not the shooter. And your response to gun rights advocates is too figurative scream murderer at them.
CT Warrior wrote this on the previous page
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54623.msg950535#msg950535
I think most Americans are that way. But all of our politicians and networks all move to the extreme of one side or the other. I just don't get it. I try to avoid these discussions like the plague because there is no reasonable dialog and it is just one side trying to out-yell the other using the same tactics, like sarcasm, knowingly exaggerating or taking out of context the other side's point trying to get gotcha moments rather than trying to understand where they are coming from, misinterpreting purposely polls or reports or articles, etc. Microcosm of how everything works these days.
Just admit you have no interest in a civil debate and prefer screaming murderer at everyone that disagrees with you, and scream it louder and louder and louder until you "win."
A perfect example of what is wrong with political discourse.
-
I truly believe that if all guns were banned, our gun culture would disappear in 20-30 years. The generation above mine and my generation would hang on to it, but they wouldn't teach it to their kids. I'm not saying that's right or what should happen, but I do think gun culture doesn't have to be a permanent piece of our country.
But if large swaths of the country disagree with this, and still believe in the gun culture, you will end of with another civil war.
How are you going to get Texans to agree with this?
-
Nope.
The fusillade emanating from the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas Sunday night sounded to many as if it came from one or more automatic rifles, which fire continuously so long as the trigger is held down. Such guns are legal, so long as they were made before May 1986 and are registered with the federal government.
If an automatic weapon, also called a machine gun, was made or imported after 1986, it may be legally owned only by licensed dealers, police and the military.
Congress began regulating such weapons under the National Firearms Act in 1934, in response to criminals having greater firepower than the police. Owners of automatic weapons were required to pay a $200 tax, a large amount at the time, as well as provide fingerprints and a photograph, undergo a background check and obtain approval from the chief law enforcement officer in the area. Except for the local police approval, those requirements remain in place today, and the $200 charge has not changed.
Semi-automatic guns, which fire only once for each trigger pull, may not be legally modified to automatic. And anyone who wants to buy an automatic weapon must undergo the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms background check and registration process. But there are plenty of automatic weapons available for sale on the Internet. Guns made before 1986 may be owned by anyone who passes a background check and registers the gun. A letter from the ATF to the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association last year indicated that there were 490,664 automatic weapons in the ATF’s National Firearms Registration Transfer Record System.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/10/02/some-automatic-weapons-as-used-in-las-vegas-shooting-are-legal-but-heavily-regulated/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.b911e380cfbb
A better explanation of current automatic weapon laws.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/
I would add that my business partner has a license and collects fully automatic weapons. He reminded me that the cheapest fully auto LEGAL machine gun he is aware of is about $10,000. Some of his fully auto machine guns (from gangster era Thompson submachine guns to WW2 50 calibers) are valued in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The story behind the gun sets the price as much as the gun itself.
He also reminded me that a registered full auto machine gun has never been used in any crime since these licenses were first issued 83 years ago.
So, I await law enforcement determination if this was the first LEGALLY owned fully automatic gun since 1934 used in the commission of a crime.
-
Peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
You seem to have the wisdom of Jobe, so what’s you’re theory, Einstein, hey?
-
You seem to have the wisdom of Jobe, so what’s you’re theory, Einstein, hey?
This is MU Scoop.
To find the discussion you're looking for, take a sharp turn right, skip past Fox News, Daily Caller and Breitbart and stop at Infowars.
-
The problem lies with people like me? I guarantee that you've never met anyone like me (which means that was a personal attack). And just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm on the right. Hell, its people like you - and everyone in Washington - who wants to put everyone into one of two boxes because it's easier for mentally deficient people to win elections when they can simplify their view of the world into minimal categories... that's the real problem. Compromise doesn't exist in our society because you can't energize your base and motivate people to go to the polls when you're focused on compromise and the greater good. Nope, stick to your guns (no pun intended) and stick it to the other person... that's how you win elections in this country.
Exactly right.
If you try and make an argument that Confederate statues are part of our history, good and bad ... scream racist louder and louder until that voice is drowned out.
If you want to argue that guns are not the problem, scream murderer loud and louder until that voice is drowned out.
This board is the same, it's all about winning the argument at any cost while believing you're "in the right" and you're fighting against unreasonable people.
-
Again, I must not have made myself clear. I was referring to politicians on the left and right. Looking at my post, I wasn't specific when I should have been.
If all politicians on the left vote for some sort of gun control, it fails. There have to be people on the right - people like you (in Congress) - that vote for it in order for it to pass.
I try to keep my posts as short as possible so my true meaning doesn't always come through. I was not grouping people as left or right. I was grouping politicians as left or right - because they ARE left or right. And those on the right are the ones that get money from the NRA.
The last specific info I could find on NRA contributions to people running for national office was 2014. The NRA doled out $812,460 to 222 people - 211 Republicans and 11 Dems.
So, unless some who get money from the NRA vote against the NRA interests, nothing can pass.
Nice walkback, but I'm not buying it. You've taken a position. You've aligned yourself. You've identified with a political platform. And so you point fingers at the other side in a feigned attempt to wash your hands clean of all of the bad in society, without regard for the realization that it's in fact people on the left and right drawing lines and pointing fingers that is negatively impacting the greater good.
I on the other hand am a non-registered, card-carrying nothing. You seem to think I qualify as "right" simply because I don't agree with you, but I suppose when you're so far to the edge of the spectrum, everyone looks like they're on the other side. I'm not on anyone's side here; I'm on everyone's side, a utilitarian if you will. Which means if anyone gets to point fingers, it's me because I can point them at everyone.
Out of curiosity, would anyone turn down the grand bargain of universal gun registration for universal voter identification? If not, why not?
No, because voting should be mandatory, gun ownership should not.
-
Interesting current state of affairs on Scoop. On this thread, some posters on both sides accusing the other side of not compromising, an doing little if any themselves. On the "State of Scoop" thread, posters calling for those on the opposite side to be put in timeout.
There a lot of great, thoughtful posters here. I appreciate them more and more each day, and hope their numbers keep improving.
-
Worst mass shooting in US history. I start a thread saying thoughts and prayers. In 24hrs that thread became the politics board.
Good job guys.
-
Worst mass shooting in US history. I start a thread saying thoughts and prayers. In 24hrs that thread became the politics board.
Good job guys.
Amen
-
This board is the same, it's all about winning the argument at any cost while believing you're "in the right" and you're fighting against unreasonable people.
But its not. Sure there are several posters here that are like that, and sure there are several posters that aren't normally like that that will post as such. But what happens here (and everywhere else around the country), every time one of those arguments come up that are completely about winning, the opposite side (even if they aren't like that), give that particular view all of the spotlight, and then it becomes a shouting match.
For example, within this thread, there have been many ideas thrown out about what could be done to help. Instead of discussing whether or not those should or can be implemented, the argument has been, "well that won't stop everything".
And then you instead of responding to posts like the one quoted below, we decide to yell at each other.
Out of curiosity, would anyone turn down the grand bargain of universal gun registration for universal voter identification? If not, why not?
Not one response to this yet, very reasonable post trying to obtain opinions from both sides.
Instead we find it much more entertaining (for some super odd reason) to get all upset that there are a handful of people that disagree with us and won't budge. Then we make the whole argument about that issue.
There are a lot more people out there wanting to have a legitimate and coherent conversation, and ultimately civil argument, about this and other issues. We are often guilty of not letting that happen ourselves.
-
Exactly right.
If you try and make an argument that Confederate statues are part of our history, good and bad ... scream racist louder and louder until that voice is drowned out.
If you want to argue that guns are not the problem, scream murderer loud and louder until that voice is drowned out.
This board is the same, it's all about winning the argument at any cost while believing you're "in the right" and you're fighting against unreasonable people.
Or...
If you try to make an argument that NFL players are conducting a peaceful protest against a legitimate problem, scream that they pray for cops to be murdered and want the United States to be dismantled.
If you try to make an argument that reasonable gun control could reduce the carnage of mass shootings, scream that it will lead to a mass secession of states.
If you make an argument that those who betrayed their country and fought to preserve slavery don't deserve adulation in public places, scream about triggered PC snowflakes who hate their country.
It's remarkable that you can identify the problem, but utterly fail to recognize that you're the primary perpetrator of it.
-
Worst mass shooting in US history. I start a thread saying thoughts and prayers. In 24hrs that thread became the politics board.
Good job guys.
You had to know it would turn into that. Look at any Facebook post or other similar threads here. Not saying it's right, but it's a little naive to think it wouldn't turn into this.
-
Worst mass shooting in US history. I start a thread saying thoughts and prayers. In 24hrs that thread became the politics board.
Good job guys.
So terrible and quite unbelievable someone would choose to do this.
Until you get people to agree that this is a problem and define what they are together, nothing is going to change...including jumping to and arguing about solutions.
-
You had to know it would turn into that. Look at any Facebook post or other similar threads here. Not saying it's right, but it's a little naive to think it wouldn't turn into this.
Nobody is over on the Tom Petty thread arguing about anything
-
Worst mass shooting in US history. I start a thread saying thoughts and prayers. In 24hrs that thread became the politics board.
Good job guys.
I've thought and prayed after every one of these things. They're still happening.
There have been some really interesting posts in this discussion. I'm glad we're having it.
-
Nobody is over on the Tom Petty thread arguing about anything
What exactly are we supposed to argue about? Heart attacks are a conspiracy of the alt right?
Posting about issues that are inherently political is going to result in a political discussion. And yes, mass shootings have political implications.
-
Exactly right.
If you try and make an argument that Confederate statues are part of our history, good and bad ... scream racist louder and louder until that voice is drowned out.
If you want to argue that guns are not the problem, scream murderer loud and louder until that voice is drowned out.
This board is the same, it's all about winning the argument at any cost while believing you're "in the right" and you're fighting against unreasonable people.
Heisy, I think you are exactly right here. But if you want your point to ring truer, I would add examples of how both sides do this. Otherwise it looks you are exactly what you are criticizing, someone who has taken a side and is trying to yell the loudest that the other side is ruining everything.
-
So the NRA killed those people, not the shooter. And your response to gun rights advocates is too figurative scream murderer at them.
CT Warrior wrote this on the previous page
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54623.msg950535#msg950535
I think most Americans are that way. But all of our politicians and networks all move to the extreme of one side or the other. I just don't get it. I try to avoid these discussions like the plague because there is no reasonable dialog and it is just one side trying to out-yell the other using the same tactics, like sarcasm, knowingly exaggerating or taking out of context the other side's point trying to get gotcha moments rather than trying to understand where they are coming from, misinterpreting purposely polls or reports or articles, etc. Microcosm of how everything works these days.
Just admit you have no interest in a civil debate and prefer screaming murderer at everyone that disagrees with you, and scream it louder and louder and louder until you "win."
A perfect example of what is wrong with political discourse.
Another huge and absurd leap in logic on your part. Why so defensive?
-
No, because voting should be mandatory, gun ownership should not.
One, I don't think voting will ever be mandatory. Conceptually I get it, but I have a tough time backing it let alone thinking it'll happen in my lifetime
Second, even if it were mandatory, you could still require proper ID to make sure you had the right to vote (not a felon, illegal immigrant, etc)
-
Not one response to this yet, very reasonable post trying to obtain opinions from both sides.
Instead we find it much more entertaining (for some super odd reason) to get all upset that there are a handful of people that disagree with us and won't budge. Then we make the whole argument about that issue.
There are a lot more people out there wanting to have a legitimate and coherent conversation, and ultimately civil argument, about this and other issues. We are often guilty of not letting that happen ourselves.
To be fair Benny responded to it, so there was one good response.
One of the things I learned very early in my negotiation course when getting my MBA was to find ways to "enlarge the pie" as a means of getting around an impasse or finding a successful resolution. Additionally, by bringing theoretically unrelated concepts together you start to get an idea of what positions are important which ones are not, where a person's inconsistencies are, where their blind spots may be.
Having said all that, the lack of response other than Benny's to would you trade universal gun registration(pro-left, anti-right) for universal ID for voting(pro-right, anti-left) tells me everyone here wants to fight not find a solution, which is fine its a message board not congress. But you have to think that in some small way we get the politicians we deserve.....
-
Having said all that, the lack of response other than Benny's to would you trade universal gun registration(pro-left, anti-right) for universal ID for voting(pro-right, anti-left) tells me everyone here wants to fight not find a solution, which is fine its a message board not congress. But you have to think that in some small way we get the politicians we deserve.....
No, I would not take that bargain. If all of America were distilled down to one single principle/idea, it would be voting. Each and every question around voting should be looked at solely in the context of the health of the democratic process. Any bargain that equates voting with any goal of any particular constituency is a bad deal.
-
One, I don't think voting will ever be mandatory. Conceptually I get it, but I have a tough time backing it let alone thinking it'll happen in my lifetime
Second, even if it were mandatory, you could still require proper ID to make sure you had the right to vote (not a felon, illegal immigrant, etc)
I went to Peru several years ago, and my first weekend there, happened to include their voting day. Voting down there was done on a Sunday and was mandatory. If you don't vote, you are ticketed/fined. Also, sale of alcohol is not allowed for that whole weekend. Including at restaurants and bars.
-
Out of curiosity, would anyone turn down the grand bargain of universal gun registration for universal voter identification? If not, why not?
We can maybe talk about voter ID once there is the system--and more importantly--funding in place to guarantee that everyone could be covered at no cost ($, time, or other) to them. Not most people or almost everybody, not very little cost. There would need to be DMV's or the like in a lot of rural areas with a lot of open hours, expansive opportunities to do it by mail, concentrated efforts to include those without a steady address, etc.
-
Or...
If you try to make an argument that NFL players are conducting a peaceful protest against a legitimate problem, scream that they pray for cops to be murdered and want the United States to be dismantled.
If you try to make an argument that reasonable gun control could reduce the carnage of mass shootings, scream that it will lead to a mass secession of states.
If you make an argument that those who betrayed their country and fought to preserve slavery don't deserve adulation in public places, scream about triggered PC snowflakes who hate their country.
It's remarkable that you can identify the problem, but utterly fail to recognize that you're the primary perpetrator of it.
No, I said I was. I know I am.
The problem is you think you're the only reasonable person here fighting against everyone that dares disagree with you.
But like I said, this is a microcosm of the country as a whole. And regarding the succession argument, I suggest that neither side is going to compromise and that is the ultimate solution.
-
Worst mass shooting in US history. I start a thread saying thoughts and prayers. In 24hrs that thread became the politics board.
Good job guys.
Did you want a thread of people publicly offering thoughts and prayers? What good does that do?
-
I say we do nothing about guns because no legislation would stop 100% of these mass shootings.
While we're at it ...
Drunk driving laws haven't stopped 100% of all killings involving drunk drivers; narcotics laws haven't stopped 100% of all narcotics deaths; laws against murders haven't stopped 100% of all murders; laws against rape and incest haven't stopped 100% of all rapes and incest; laws against insider trading haven't stopped 100% of all insider trading; laws against misuse of campaign funds haven't stopped 100% of all misuse of campaign funds; etc., etc., etc.
So lets get rid of laws against drunk driving, narcotics trafficking, murder, rape, incest, insider trading, misuse of campaign funds, and, well, everything else to cover all the "etc.'s." Laws are stupid. They constrain our freedom!
OTOH, I shouldn't let my frustration push me to sarcasm.
I mean, the gun laws we have so far are working great, so why mess with success?!?!?!
Congress is considering a bill to make it easier to buy silencers because, well, sportsmen, collectors and people defending their homes - you know, the folks the NRA always refers to when discussing gun owners - desperately need silencers! The bill was supposed to come to a vote this week, but Congress is probably going to have to delay the vote in the wake of Vegas ... until the NRA throws a few bazillion more bucks at 'em. Then, as Oprah would say, "You get a silencer, you get a silencer, you get a silencer!"
Are gun-control people "using" this tragedy for political purposes? Yes they are. The NRA has smartly "gone dark" for now, but they undoubtedly will use this tragedy to push for MORE "gun freedom." Everybody packing! That's how you solve this stuff!!!
Hell, all 22,000 concert goers should have be packing. Then, once the shooting started 32 floors above them, all of them could have started indiscriminately firing their weapons. That would have made the situation much better! Lots of gun-rights advocates (including a few Scoopers IIRC) argued that folks in the Aurora incident should have been packing, because what could possibly go wrong with a bunch of people shooting in a dark movie theater? The Newton kids should have been packing, too, dammit!
And speaking of kids packing ...
Once a week somewhere in the good ol' U.S.A., a toddler shoots somebody.
Toddlers! Damn! Give them their dessert, already!!!
http://childrensfirearmsafetyalliance.com/with-2016-over-a-toddler-has-now-shot-a-person-every-week-in-the-us-for-two-years-straight
More guns! We need them, and we need them right now!
And investors are betting that we'll get them. RGR (Sturm Ruger) and AOBC (American Outdoor Brands) stock prices are up nicely today. So congrats to all the smart traders out there!
-
One, I don't think voting will ever be mandatory. Conceptually I get it, but I have a tough time backing it let alone thinking it'll happen in my lifetime
Second, even if it were mandatory, you could still require proper ID to make sure you had the right to vote (not a felon, illegal immigrant, etc)
As long as we have a two-party system, voting will never be mandatory (nothing unites Democrats and Republicans more than a common enemy: third parties).
If voting were mandatory, ID would be superfluous. Think about it... the purpose of voter ID is to prove who you are because 1) not everyone is registered or eligible to vote and 2) you don't want people voting under another registered person's name. If you think about it further, showing an ID to vote is just like showing an ID at the bar... the bar doesn't keep a list of everyone who's over 21, and not everyone who could go into the bar is actually there (i.e. someone could be impersonating someone else).
But if you made voting mandatory, you'd have to tie it to the only other mandatory American task: filing a tax return (i.e. you can't file a tax return if you didn't vote, or something like that). So you'd already have a working database of living voters (based on SSN's) to check against, and if you attempted to vote under another name, the system would red flag when someone's name appeared twice. (Ever go to the bar with the person who gave you their ID to use... what do you think the bouncer would do when he saw two different people with the exact same credentials?) And since fraud would be kept to a minimum, you could go online and vote from anywhere anytime before election day.
Sure, it would not be a foolproof system, but voter fraud essentially wouldn't exist without collusion. Ask anyone who's taken a criminal justice, or even a forensic accounting, class and they'll tell you that the best deterrent to crime is one that requires a co-conspirator.
Everyone gets to vote, everyone's vote counts only once, and fraud would be statistically non-existent. A simple solution that satisfies the predominant concerns of both parties (D-disenfranchisement, R-fraud), but you're right that it won't happen. So logic begs the question: Why?
Because the reality is that the predominant concern of both Democrats and Republicans as it relates to elections isn't disenfranchisement or fraud... it's making sure that one of you actually wins, and that becomes exponentially more challenging when elections are about issues rather than turn-out.
-
Worst mass shooting in US history. I start a thread saying thoughts and prayers. In 24hrs that thread became the politics board.
Good job guys.
If not after the worst mass shooting in US history, when would be the proper time to discuss issues like gun control?
-
As long as we have a two-party system, voting will never be mandatory (nothing unites Democrats and Republicans more than a common enemy: third parties).
If voting were mandatory, ID would be superfluous. Think about it... the purpose of voter ID is to prove who you are because 1) not everyone is registered or eligible to vote and 2) you don't want people voting under another registered person's name. If you think about it further, showing an ID to vote is just like showing an ID at the bar... the bar doesn't keep a list of everyone who's over 21, and not everyone who could go into the bar is actually there (i.e. someone could be impersonating someone else).
But if you made voting mandatory, you'd have to tie it to the only other mandatory American task: filing a tax return (i.e. you can't file a tax return if you didn't vote, or something like that). So you'd already have a working database of living voters (based on SSN's) to check against, and if you attempted to vote under another name, the system would red flag when someone's name appeared twice. (Ever go to the bar with the person who gave you their ID to use... what do you think the bouncer would do when he saw two different people with the exact same credentials?) And since fraud would be kept to a minimum, you could go online and vote from anywhere anytime before election day.
Sure, it would not be a foolproof system, but voter fraud essentially wouldn't exist without collusion. Ask anyone who's taken a criminal justice, or even a forensic accounting, class and they'll tell you that the best deterrent to crime is one that requires a co-conspirator.
Everyone gets to vote, everyone's vote counts only once, and fraud would be statistically non-existent. A simple solution that satisfies the predominant concerns of both parties (D-disenfranchisement, R-fraud), but you're right that it won't happen. So logic begs the question: Why?
Because the reality is that the predominant concern of both Democrats and Republicans as it relates to elections isn't disenfranchisement or fraud... it's making sure that one of you actually wins, and that becomes exponentially more challenging when elections are about issues rather than turn-out.
Hate to be debbie downer on mandatory voting, but if voting is speech (it is), and the choice not to speak is protected 1A speech (it is), then the right not to vote is enshrined by 1A (and... it is). Mandatory voting will not survive constitutional scrutiny.
That being said, I had a lovely chat with a couple Aussies a few days ago at Oktoberfest. They informed me that voting in Australia is mandatory *but* you have the option to throw your vote away or vote n/a (forgive me for not having a lot more detail or if I got the details wrong... we were a few eins, zwei, s'ouffa's into the evening).
Perhaps, perhaps, if you gave a n/a category on a compulsory voting slate it could survive 1A scrutiny... but even then I'm not sure it would.
Interesting to think about though.
-
Out of curiosity, would anyone turn down the grand bargain of universal gun registration for universal voter identification? If not, why not?
I don't see the two issues naturally pairing together.
I think wanting to protect the electoral process by insuring only legal voters participate is a worthy and valid cause.
The problem is that addressing it through mandatory voter ID laws has the proven consequence of reducing voter participation among minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote. This has been the case even in elections with Obama on the ballot, something one could probably assume would spur the minority - or at least African-American - vote.
It's no mere coincidence that the primary sponsors of such measures are GOP politicians, who have self-serving reasons to reduce the number of minority voters.
So, while I too want to see that only legal ballots are counted, I think the negative consequences of voter ID laws outweigh the potential benefits.
I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms.
-
I don't see the two issues naturally pairing together.
I think wanting to protect the electoral process by insuring only legal voters participate is a worthy and valid cause.
The problem is that addressing it through mandatory voter ID laws has the proven consequence of reducing voter participation among minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote. This has been the case even in elections with Obama on the ballot, something one could probably assume would spur the minority - or at least African-American - vote.
It's no mere coincidence that the primary sponsors of such measures are GOP politicians, who have self-serving reasons to reduce the number of minority voters.
So, while I too want to see that only legal ballots are counted, I think the negative consequences of voter ID laws outweigh the potential benefits.
I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms.
Interesting. You're basically arguing that the increase in inconvenience to voters vs. gun owners needs to be balanced with the how bad the individual actually wants to exercise their right to do something. In your example a random person's want to vote is lower than a gunowners want to own firearms, thus the decrease in voter participation will outweigh decrease in gun ownership. Would infrastructure changes that streamlined the process of gaining valid voter ID offset the chance that you would see reduced voter participation among minorities?
Actually, as I just typed this up, I had a thought - would the decrease in voter participation be acceptable if it meant there was an associated decrease in gun violence due to universal gun registration decreasing the quantity of guns in the wrong hands?
-
Did you want a thread of people publicly offering thoughts and prayers? What good does that do?
As opposed to this, which does what exactly?
-
Interesting. You're basically arguing that the increase in inconvenience to voters vs. gun owners needs to be balanced with the how bad the individual actually wants to exercise their right to do something. In your example a random person's want to vote is lower than a gunowners want to own firearms, thus the decrease in voter participation will outweigh decrease in gun ownership.
No, that's nothing like what I'm arguing and I have no idea what example you think I offered.
The problem is you're mistakenly framing voter ID as merely an "inconvenience," when in reality it's a barrier.
Would infrastructure changes that streamlined the process of gaining valid voter ID offset the chance that you would see reduced voter participation among minorities?
Maybe. I've yet to see a voter ID law paired with measures intended to make it easier to obtain valid ID.
Actually, as I just typed this up, I had a thought - would the decrease in voter participation be acceptable if it meant there was an associated decrease in gun violence due to universal gun registration decreasing the quantity of guns in the wrong hands?
Interesting hypothetical. Push comes to shove, I'd probably chose lives over votes. But it's a false dilemma because there's no reason one has to come at the expense of the other.
-
No, that's nothing like what I'm arguing and I have no idea what example you think I offered.
The problem is you're mistakenly framing voter ID as merely an "inconvenience," when in reality it's a barrier.
"I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms." - Could you explain this claim in more detail then?
Maybe. I've yet to see a voter ID law paired with measures intended to make it easier to obtain valid ID.
Interesting hypothetical. Push comes to shove, I'd probably chose lives over votes. But it's a false dilemma because there's no reason one has to come at the expense of the other.
I'm just trying to sculpt a scenario that would allow both "pro voter ID" and "pro gun registration" to come together and both say YES. The likelihood that the laws would be sculpted to completely prevent a drop in voter participation is low. The likelihood that gun registration laws will completely prevent gun violence is also low. In a scenario where voter participation falls some amount, can that be outweighed by the amount that gun violence dropped due to the gun laws that were paired with it?
-
"I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms." - Could you explain this claim in more detail then?
Sure.
Studies using election data from states where voter ID laws have been imposed indicate that they lead to lower turnout among minority and low-income voters.
I believe this is largely because it creates an additional barrier - the need to acquire a valid state photo ID - to vote.
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the creation of a universal registry imposes an additional barrier. Many states already require some sort of licensing, permitting or registration, so this would piggyback on that. Even in states without such measures, it would merely require filling out a form at the point of purchase - not unlike what exists at polling places for voters without ID.
It could end up a bureaucratic nightmare on the government's side of things, but for the typical gun owner, filling out some paperwork doesn't seem burdensome. The opposition to a registry stems from privacy concerns, not the potential barrier to ownership.
-
Sure.
Studies using election data from states where voter ID laws have been imposed indicate that they lead to lower turnout among minority and low-income voters.
I believe this is largely because it creates an additional barrier - the need to acquire a valid state photo ID - to vote.
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the creation of a universal registry imposes an additional barrier. Many states already require some sort of licensing, permitting or registration, so this would piggyback on that. Even in states without such measures, it would merely require filling out a form at the point of purchase - not unlike what exists at polling places for voters without ID.
It could end up a bureaucratic nightmare on the government's side of things, but for the typical gun owner it doesn't seem to be burdensome.
Thanks. The misunderstanding came from the fact that I took universal gun registration to be more strict than what it literally says. I understand what you mean now.
-
Had a thought about what someone said about gun culture never changing, and I think that's just untrue.
Look at LGBTQ culture in our society, sure there's a whole lot more to be done, but even within the past decade tolerance has been improved ten fold.
Think about how many pride parade are around the country, not only accepted but encouraged, completely different tune from what, even 20-30 years ago?
You're not gonna completely wipe out the super pro gun toting people, just like you're not going to wipe out the extreme Bible thumpers who want to see gays burn in hell, but culture shift is very possible.
-
Read this article a while ago. I thought it was interesting.
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12351824/gun-control-sweden-solution
-
As opposed to this, which does what exactly?
Shares ideas, discusses solutions, and hopefully motivates someone to speak up or do something in the real world.
-
Shares ideas, discusses solutions, and hopefully motivates someone to speak up or do something in the real world.
+1. And for the most part this thread has been pretty civil so far.
-
You seem to have the wisdom of Jobe, so what’s you’re theory, Einstein, hey?
I don't know what a Jobe is.
-
Why don't gun background checks really check someone's background
We have a guy who bought over 40 weapons - many high powered assault and sniper rifles.
Let's say that by the 40th purchase, couldn't the checker look and say "hey, this guy has bought 39 weapons in a short period of time including many, many assault weapons; is this normal or should I flag this somehow?"
-
Good advice from a righty senator bought and paid for by the NRA:
"I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions," he opined. "To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said -- get small."
Who knew? It's the victims here that are guilty of carelessness. It's THEIR own fault they got shot.
-
you do realize that the politicians are voted in by the people who support their ideas and/or political leanings, right?
Here in NC, "Unaffiliateds" (same as Independents elsewhere) just passed Republicans as the second-largest registered group of voters. Democrats are first. So Republicans make up less than a third of the electorate.
But the Dems here were swept out in the anti-Obama wave of 2010, giving control of both houses to the GOP. And because the GOP was in charge after 2010, they got to re-draw the voting district maps.
They have gerrymandered so blatantly that their maps have been struck down in court multiple times. The last time, the judges on the panel said the maps targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision." The districts were a bunch of squiggly lines that loaded a couple of districts with blacks and other minorities, while all but guaranteeing that Republicans would win the other districts. So you have a state that is less than a third Republican all but guaranteed to have 10 GOP representatives elected in 13 districts for an entire decade.
This afternoon, while we all were having fun debating gun control, anthem protests, etc, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a similar case involving Wisconsin. From what I just read, the line of questioning makes it appear that the four more liberal judges will vote against the gerrymandering and the four more conservative will vote for the right to gerrymander. Kennedy, as is often the case, will be the swing vote.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court/index.html
This is a huge case, a huge case. But with everything else going on, it's kind of lost in the shuffle.
I think most logical people would conclude: Why let elected officials do this at all? Why not have independent panels or boards do redistricting within states? Indeed, Iowa does it that way, and I think a few others do, too. That makes too damn much sense.
Here in NC, the Dems were in charge for years and they also gerrymandered to make it difficult for Republicans to get elected. I don't see how that should have been legal, either. We're supposed to be electing a representative government, but when a group representing one-third of the people - all of them white - can dictate the policy at the expense of blacks "with almost surgical precision," isn't that practically apartheid?
I doubt SCOTUS will hear a more important case this year, or maybe not for several years.
-
Had a thought about what someone said about gun culture never changing, and I think that's just untrue.
Look at LGBTQ culture in our society, sure there's a whole lot more to be done, but even within the past decade tolerance has been improved ten fold.
Think about how many pride parade are around the country, not only accepted but encouraged, completely different tune from what, even 20-30 years ago?
You're not gonna completely wipe out the super pro gun toting people, just like you're not going to wipe out the extreme Bible thumpers who want to see gays burn in hell, but culture shift is very possible.
Apples and space ships.
*Note: this next passage is not meant to be a value judgement or some how minimize the LBGTQ community, just me inarticulately trying to explain how the two things are very different*
Changing culture on LGBTQ is largely about the government "creating" freedom for a group of people that don't really impact the rest of the population....so in the practical sense the change in LGBTQ status doesn't "impact" the every day citizen. It's granting a right
Changing gun culture is the government almost literally reaching into people's homes and if necessary, removing guns by force. You are taking away a right.
WAY WAY WAY different.
-
Apples and space ships.
*Note: this next passage is not meant to be a value judgement or some how minimize the LBGTQ community, just me inarticulately trying to explain how the two things are very different*
Changing culture on LGBTQ is largely about the government "creating" freedom for a group of people that don't really impact the rest of the population....so in the practical sense the change in LGBTQ status doesn't "impact" the every day citizen. It's granting a right
Changing gun culture is the government almost literally reaching into people's homes and if necessary, removing guns by force. You are taking away a right.
WAY WAY WAY different.
You are right, Eng, but I would like to point out something you are missing on LGBTQ.
It has been made a part of the culture war which is a huge decision point for millions of voters. So in that way, it does affect a rather large segment of the population.
Otherwise, you point is well taken.
This does not minimize your point
-
Here in NC, "Unaffiliateds" (same as Independents elsewhere) just passed Republicans as the second-largest registered group of voters. Democrats are first. So Republicans make up less than a third of the electorate.
But the Dems here were swept out in the anti-Obama wave of 2010, giving control of both houses to the GOP. And because the GOP was in charge after 2010, they got to re-draw the voting district maps.
They have gerrymandered so blatantly that their maps have been struck down in court multiple times. The last time, the judges on the panel said the maps targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision." The districts were a bunch of squiggly lines that loaded a couple of districts with blacks and other minorities, while all but guaranteeing that Republicans would win the other districts. So you have a state that is less than a third Republican all but guaranteed to have 10 GOP representatives elected in 13 districts for an entire decade.
This afternoon, while we all were having fun debating gun control, anthem protests, etc, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a similar case involving Wisconsin. From what I just read, the line of questioning makes it appear that the four more liberal judges will vote against the gerrymandering and the four more conservative will vote for the right to gerrymander. Kennedy, as is often the case, will be the swing vote.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court/index.html
This is a huge case, a huge case. But with everything else going on, it's kind of lost in the shuffle.
I think most logical people would conclude: Why let elected officials do this at all? Why not have independent panels or boards do redistricting within states? Indeed, Iowa does it that way, and I think a few others do, too. That makes too damn much sense.
Here in NC, the Dems were in charge for years and they also gerrymandered to make it difficult for Republicans to get elected. I don't see how that should have been legal, either. We're supposed to be electing a representative government, but when a group representing one-third of the people - all of them white - can dictate the policy at the expense of blacks "with almost surgical precision," isn't that practically apartheid?
I doubt SCOTUS will hear a more important case this year, or maybe not for several years.
I agree. Here in Illinois the same thing has been done for the last few decades, but by the other party. You should see the outline of my "district" compared to what it looked like 15-20 years ago.
-
Why don't gun background checks really check someone's background
We have a guy who bought over 40 weapons - many high powered assault and sniper rifles.
Let's say that by the 40th purchase, couldn't the checker look and say "hey, this guy has bought 39 weapons in a short period of time including many, many assault weapons; is this normal or should I flag this somehow?"
If someone's background is clean for a single gun, why should the 40th matter? Is there some analytic that says if you buy more than 10 guns you are going to do something despicable with it?
I'm not opposed to such things, but being pragmatic as well as having a penchant for being more free with rights then less free I question the usefulness of such a standard.
-
You are right, Eng, but I would like to point out something you are missing on LGBTQ.
It has been made a part of the culture war which is a huge decision point for millions of voters. So in that way, it does affect a rather large segment of the population.
Otherwise, you point is well taken.
This does not minimize your point
Oh I completely agree, from a political standpoint they are the same....just too lazy to include it :)
-
Good advice from a righty senator bought and paid for by the NRA:
"I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions," he opined. "To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said -- get small."
Who knew? It's the victims here that are guilty of carelessness. It's THEIR own fault they got shot.
Did someone actually just say that in the aftermath of this?
-
If someone's background is clean for a single gun, why should the 40th matter? Is there some analytic that says if you buy more than 10 guns you are going to do something despicable with it?
I think it's a red flag. Chicago gangs, for example, have been known to use people with clean records to purchase large amounts of guns for them out of state.
Buying guns in large quantities may mean nothing, but it's unusual enough that it's a question worth asking, right?
I mean, you make a single call to Syria next week, probably nobody cares. If you make 100 over the next month, you're going to be answering questions.
We have laws limiting how much Sudafed and ammonium nitrate a person can buy within a period of time. Doesn't seem so bad to do the same with firearms.
-
Do someone actually just say that in the aftermath of this?
Senator John Thune.
Apparently the first graders at Sandy Hook weren't small enough.
-
Senator John Thune.
Apparently the first graders at Sandy Hook weren't small enough.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/no-answer.gif)
-
I think it's a red flag. Chicago gangs, for example, have been known to use people with clean records to purchase large amounts of guns for them out of state.
Buying guns in large quantities may mean nothing, but it's unusual enough that it's a question worth asking, right?
I mean, you make a single call to Syria next week, probably nobody cares. If you make 100 over the next month, you're going to be answering questions.
We have laws limiting how much Sudafed and ammonium nitrate a person can buy within a period of time. Doesn't seem so bad to do the same with firearms.
Fair enough.
-
As long as we have a two-party system, voting will never be mandatory (nothing unites Democrats and Republicans more than a common enemy: third parties).
If voting were mandatory, ID would be superfluous. Think about it... the purpose of voter ID is to prove who you are because 1) not everyone is registered or eligible to vote and 2) you don't want people voting under another registered person's name. If you think about it further, showing an ID to vote is just like showing an ID at the bar... the bar doesn't keep a list of everyone who's over 21, and not everyone who could go into the bar is actually there (i.e. someone could be impersonating someone else).
But if you made voting mandatory, you'd have to tie it to the only other mandatory American task: filing a tax return (i.e. you can't file a tax return if you didn't vote, or something like that). So you'd already have a working database of living voters (based on SSN's) to check against, and if you attempted to vote under another name, the system would red flag when someone's name appeared twice. (Ever go to the bar with the person who gave you their ID to use... what do you think the bouncer would do when he saw two different people with the exact same credentials?) And since fraud would be kept to a minimum, you could go online and vote from anywhere anytime before election day.
Sure, it would not be a foolproof system, but voter fraud essentially wouldn't exist without collusion. Ask anyone who's taken a criminal justice, or even a forensic accounting, class and they'll tell you that the best deterrent to crime is one that requires a co-conspirator.
Everyone gets to vote, everyone's vote counts only once, and fraud would be statistically non-existent. A simple solution that satisfies the predominant concerns of both parties (D-disenfranchisement, R-fraud), but you're right that it won't happen. So logic begs the question: Why?
Because the reality is that the predominant concern of both Democrats and Republicans as it relates to elections isn't disenfranchisement or fraud... it's making sure that one of you actually wins, and that becomes exponentially more challenging when elections are about issues rather than turn-out.
It be interesting to see how those on the left would react to such a proposal, simply because the idea of fining someone for not voting would have a much larger impact on the poor than the rich.
What I would support, short of full obligation to vote, and this might be a bit of a grand bargain again......move all elections to Saturdays or Sundays, require ID. and mandatory paid days off for those that would work on election days. I will also reduce the number of elections that are allowed to be held in a given year to 3 or less. Who says no?
-
It be interesting to see how those on the left would react to such a proposal, simply because the idea of fining someone for not voting would have a much larger impact on the poor than the rich.
What I would support, short of full obligation to vote, and this might be a bit of a grand bargain again......move all elections to Saturdays or Sundays, require ID. and mandatory paid days off for those that would work on election days. I will also reduce the number of elections that are allowed to be held in a given year to 3 or less. Who says no?
rational. the only changes i'd make are that the 'required ID' not be one specific ID but a choice of ID methods that 99.9% of the population already has and that there is a reasonable minimum and maximum number of voting locations per geographic area based on population density.
for me i just can't believe we rationalize not having a gun control conversation time and time again.
Senator John Thune.
Apparently the first graders at Sandy Hook weren't small enough.
we drove through SD this year and there were more than a couple "praise God, eat meat, protect the 2nd, and wear fur" signs (going from memory so not a direct quote i just remember saying 'well i'm zero for four'). he shouldn't be taken as representing the majority in any situation.
I don't know what a Jobe is.
There is no Jobe, only G.O.B. (really thought Blue Man Group would've beaten me to this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woUSOqd9wyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woUSOqd9wyw)
-
I think it's a red flag. Chicago gangs, for example, have been known to use people with clean records to purchase large amounts of guns for them out of state.
Buying guns in large quantities may mean nothing, but it's unusual enough that it's a question worth asking, right?
I mean, you make a single call to Syria next week, probably nobody cares. If you make 100 over the next month, you're going to be answering questions.
We have laws limiting how much Sudafed and ammonium nitrate a person can buy within a period of time. Doesn't seem so bad to do the same with firearms.
From what I've heard (and note that I have not fact-checked this at all), is that there is no central, computerized system that shows who has registered what weapons.
I was having a discussion with a colleague on this yesterday, and he mentioned that there was an attempt to pass legislature to have this incorporated, but the NRA lobbied against it and had it shut down. So in essence, if someone were to purchase guns from multiple states, it really wouldn't be known.
Again, I'd like to reiterate that I was literally told this from a colleague and have not fact-checked any of it, so it may be wrong.
-
From what I've heard (and note that I have not fact-checked this at all), is that there is no central, computerized system that shows who has registered what weapons.
I was having a discussion with a colleague on this yesterday, and he mentioned that there was an attempt to pass legislature to have this incorporated, but the NRA lobbied against it and had it shut down. So in essence, if someone were to purchase guns from multiple states, it really wouldn't be known.
Again, I'd like to reiterate that I was literally told this from a colleague and have not fact-checked any of it, so it may be wrong.
This is correct, under the guise of preventing "big brother"
-
There is no Jobe, only G.O.B. (really thought Blue Man Group would've beaten me to this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woUSOqd9wyw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woUSOqd9wyw)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/5PiIuCHlkQ58Y/200.gif)
-
we drove through SD this year and there were more than a couple "praise God, eat meat, protect the 2nd, and wear fur" signs (going from memory so not a direct quote i just remember saying 'well i'm zero for four').
Wow. You are such a better, more enlightened person than those yokels. Thank goodness you have graced us.
-
Sure.
Studies using election data from states where voter ID laws have been imposed indicate that they lead to lower turnout among minority and low-income voters.
I believe this is largely because it creates an additional barrier - the need to acquire a valid state photo ID - to vote.
I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the creation of a universal registry imposes an additional barrier. Many states already require some sort of licensing, permitting or registration, so this would piggyback on that. Even in states without such measures, it would merely require filling out a form at the point of purchase - not unlike what exists at polling places for voters without ID.
It could end up a bureaucratic nightmare on the government's side of things, but for the typical gun owner, filling out some paperwork doesn't seem burdensome. The opposition to a registry stems from privacy concerns, not the potential barrier to ownership.
Legitimate request (i.e. not discrediting or sarcasm), can you link to some of these studies? I'd like to look at the data, and I don't have time to weed through the garbage that I get when I Google "voter ID studies"
-
Good advice from a righty senator bought and paid for by the NRA:
"I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions," he opined. "To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said -- get small."
Who knew? It's the victims here that are guilty of carelessness. It's THEIR own fault they got shot.
Mind boggling...especially after many in Vegas did exactly what experts tell you to do - they hit the deck (i.e., they tried to "get small") - only to expose themselves even more to a shooter from above.
And yet some people will read what he said and agree. :(
-
Legitimate request (i.e. not discrediting or sarcasm), can you link to some of these studies? I'd like to look at the data, and I don't have time to weed through the garbage that I get when I Google "voter ID studies"
Here's one I read:
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf
For the tl;dr, here's an op-ed that study's authors wrote for the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/do-voter-identification-laws-suppress-minority-voting-yes-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.53355a03cb9a
Here's one out of Wisconsin:
https://elections.wisc.edu/news/voter-id-study/Voter-ID-Study-Release.pdf
Here's one from the GAO:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-634
-
Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.
It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.
But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.
-
Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.
It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.
But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.
Ehhhh, even I don't think Internet voting is the way to go, and I'm generally very pro-tech.
Just opens up a whole new can of worms.
-
You had to know it would turn into that. Look at any Facebook post or other similar threads here. Not saying it's right, but it's a little naive to think it wouldn't turn into this.
great point-i thought that was a little self-righteous myself. it would be like wishing the donald a happy birthday on his, well, b-day and then being shocked when the thread turns into "mayhem" ruh-roh
-
Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.
It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.
But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.
Call me a little hesitant that we'd pull this off without complications. See: Yahoo, Equifax, etc.
-
Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.
It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.
But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.
seriously? yeah, don't see anything that could go wrong here ::)
seriously again? mr. provocative, i just can't...how 'bout dem packers, eyn'a?
cruising along, reading some very interesting posts and then hitting some speed bumps ?-(
-
I was listening to NPR in the car for about 10 minutes today. They, like everyone else, were talking about Vegas. They threw out an open-ended question asking what people thought about doing some kind of gun control, and they said they received more than 1,000 responses either via email or a phone line they set up.
The lefties, of course, endorsed various ideas. Righties pretty much shot them down.
That was expected. Here were two answers from consecutive righties that I heard before I turned the dial to music.
One went on a long explanation saying that gun control might be fine for some big cities but in rural Oklahoma, where he lived, he needs a gun to protect his family because law enforcement is too spread out.
And another started with "guns don't kill people; people kill people" - so I knew it was gonna be brilliant - and added that she needs a gun in her house to protect her family from bad guys with guns.
Nobody ever said all guns were going to be confiscated, or that people who have passed background checks and bought their guns legally would have their guns taken away.
But that's the leap these two people immediately went to - THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!! - and it's a pretty common reaction that we've heard over the years.
It would be like after laws were passed requiring seatbelts, people saying: "I need my car! You can't take it away!"
So once you dig in there - we can't close the gun-show loophole because they're coming for our guns - how can you have any intelligent discourse at all?
-
Are we going to make fertilizer illegal, too?
I think the answer is yes we try to track it.
https://www.dhs.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program (https://www.dhs.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program)
-
Of course weapons held one bullet when the second amendment was written almost 230 years ago. Strange how things change over that much time.
The founding fathers could not imagine television any more than they could have envisioned an AR-15. So, should the first amendment not apply to TV using the same logic as the second amendment not applying to an AR-15?
(You could make the case the founding fathers would have applied the second amendment to an AR-15 because the musket was the high-powered military grade weapon of the day, like the AR-15 is modeled after today.)
-
But that's the leap these two people immediately went to - THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!! - and it's a pretty common reaction that we've heard over the years.
It would be like after laws were passed requiring seatbelts, people saying: "I need my car! You can't take it away!"
So once you dig in there - we can't close the gun-show loophole because they're coming for our guns - how can you have any intelligent discourse at all?
Why not? Right after San Bernadino, the New York Times printed a page 1 editorial calling for the banning of guns. It remains the only editorial on page 1 since 1920... signifying how incredibly important the Times thinks this issue is. They are arguing banning guns is the single most important issue of our lifetime. If not, why no other page 1 editorials in the last 97 years?
So you can pretend that no one wants to take all guns away but too many on the "left" have called for exactly that making it a reasonable assumption.
End the Gun Epidemic in America
THE EDITORIAL BOARDDEC. 4, 2015
It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
----
And not it is not possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way ... we tried that with the 1994 assault weapons ban and repealed it in 2004 because it was too difficult to define. So the only effective way is to ban all guns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/24/the-last-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-will-the-new-one-be-different/?utm_term=.76a8909c9288
The problem we learned in 1994 is an "assault weapon" is incredibly hard to define. It came down to how a gun "looks."
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7ab2d6e7173f47d1c18d27974216370)
(http://www.drunktiki.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2013/09/Legal-Vs-Illegal-shotguns.jpg)
-
Why not? Right after San Bernadino, the New York Times printed a page 1 editorial calling for the banning of guns. It remains the only editorial on page 1 since 1920... signifying how incredibly important the Times thinks this issue is. They are arguing banning guns is the single most important issue of our lifetime. If not, why no other page 1 editorials in the last 97 years?
You make it sound like the Times wants to ban all guns. Obviously they have never, ever said that. What they have done is ask to ban the types of assault and military weapons that were just used on almost 600 people.
-
You make it sound like the Times wants to ban all guns. Obviously they have never, ever said that. What they have done is ask to ban the types of assault and military weapons that were just used on almost 600 people.
Read the second part above, you cannot define an assault weapon, so it will include all guns. It's all about how it "looks" because there are dozens of variations on the exact same gun that don't look "scary" that would not be banned (graphic above) but would be just as deadly.
What they fear is you would define an "assault rifle" as a semi-automatic rifle. The semi-automatic rifle was first put into use in 1885. Semi-automatic is the vast vast majority of all guns (and virtually every pistol). Hence a general gun ban.
-
Wow. You are such a better, more enlightened person than those yokels. Thank goodness you have graced us.
Sarcastic response: judging from your response you're one of the following: a) a yokel, b) related to the esteemed Mr. Thune, c) a supporter of the Senator's position, d) in his words, able to "get small", or e) all of the above.
Serious response: You can be insecure and assume i'm taking the position of being "more enlightened", or you can assume i'm pointing out the extremes that dominate rural America and heavily influence who represents them. There are certainly moderate conservatives and liberals in SD (38% at an absolute minimum), but the literal and figurative political landscape is driven by the extreme........you don't put up that message up on billboards unless you are in that extreme.
Also, i'm 0-4 on that list. Some of those 0's are not because of choice or belief.
-
FBI says no.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/isis-claims-vegas-shooting-without-any-evidence
Maybe yes now???
Sheriff Floats Possibility Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Was “RADICALIZED”
In a shocking turn of events, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo is now floating the possibility that the Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock could have been radicalized. Law enforcement are currently investigating the matter.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/sheriff-floats-possibility-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-radicalized/
-
Maybe yes now???
Sheriff Floats Possibility Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Was “RADICALIZED”
In a shocking turn of events, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo is now floating the possibility that the Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock could have been radicalized. Law enforcement are currently investigating the matter.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/sheriff-floats-possibility-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-radicalized/
The same news agency published pictures and names of a completely innocent man the other day to push an agenda that this was a left-wing anti-Trump activist.
They are insanely unreliable, and unapologetically alt-right media.
-
Sarcastic response: judging from your response you're one of the following: a) a yokel, b) related to the esteemed Mr. Thune, c) a supporter of the Senator's position, d) in his words, able to "get small", or e) all of the above.
Serious response: You can be insecure and assume i'm taking the position of being "more enlightened", or you can assume i'm pointing out the extremes that dominate rural America and heavily influence who represents them. There are certainly moderate conservatives and liberals in SD (38% at an absolute minimum), but the literal and figurative political landscape is driven by the extreme........you don't put up that message up on billboards unless you are in that extreme.
Also, i'm 0-4 on that list. Some of those 0's are not because of choice or belief.
No( maybe?), no, no, too fat, no. What the senator said is idiotic on every level. I more took exception with your "I'm smarter than everyone in rural America because my beliefs are better" implication.
Ok you were pointing out extremes that exist in other locations by playing the role a stereotypical faux intellectual who thinks he is better than those with lesser beliefs or those who are "less educated"( because thats what you mean by rural right? Hicks, hillbillies, yokels and the like, right? )Sorry, I missed that nuance in your post.
-
"He was a sick man, a demented man with a lot of problems, I guess, and we are looking into him very, very seriously," Trump said. "We are dealing with a very, very sick individual."
Serious question: Is a mass murder prima facie evidence that the perpetrator suffers from a defined mental condition? We use this word "sick" to describe someone's state of mind when something like this happens, but what does that mean? Does a severe lack of conformity signal mental illness and if so, where do you draw the line? Can someone who murders only one person automatically be considered "sick?" Was Stalin or Hirohito sick? Was Truman? What about Lorena Bobbitt? Dylan and Eric were troubled and bullied, were they also sick?
We all get angry, and we all react to anger differently. Some bottle it up, some punch pillows, some yell and scream, some kick puppies, and some grab a gun. How can one logically look at the 1500+ mass shootings that have taken place in this country since Sandy Hook and not have the thought cross his/her mind that this might simply be part of the human condition for some people?
I think it's actually more dangerous to immediately chalk these events up to mental illness and dismiss the fact that a perfectly rational person (by medical definition, not by observation or relative to the majority) may be capable of committing a heinous crime with the right motivation. That's not to say we don't treat the mentally ill to the best of our capability, we absolutely should. But as we search for answers in the aftermath of these shootings, I think if we grossly oversimplify and allow prevention efforts to focus primarily on those that may be diagnosable with a medical condition, we might miss the perfectly "normal" multimillionaire carrying suitcases full of automatic weapons into a high rise hotel.
(Also not to say that Paddock was perfectly sane... but other than the act itself, nothing that's been revealed about him thus far seems to fit the mold of "psychotic killer.")
-
ok, here's an issue the left can relate to-abortion. anything short of partial birth abortion or even trying to outlaw it, the left freaks out-they want to make decisions about what a woman does to her body...sound familiar?
-
ok, here's an issue the left can relate to-abortion. anything short of partial birth abortion or even trying to outlaw it, the left freaks out-they want to make decisions about what a woman does to her body...sound familiar?
Not sure what you are trying to say here, but partial birth abortion is illegal in the US.
If you are trying to say that people on the left are against outlawing all abortion, and this equates to discussions of gun control, I'm afraid that makes no sense. No one is asking for total banning of all guns. They are asking for specific types of weapons to be banned...you highlight the major argument regarding abortion that supports such laws.
Partial birth abortions being illegal is a reasonable law, just like outlawing certain types of weapons that have no practical purpose. In both cases, the majority of americans are in favor of such laws. In both cases, the restrictions would be very specific, and due to that most court precedents would support the laws being constitutional.
-
We get it, Smuggles. If Paddock somehow is proven to have been "radicalized," it will be your wettest dream since Nov. 8!
You need Paddock to be more than just another run-of-the-mill white, male arsehole. After all, it's got to be tough on a hatemonger like you that so many white, male arseholes keep committing terrorist acts.
A bonus: It also would give your hero a platform to spew more hate.
It's OK, Smuggles, you can admit that's why you're obsessed with this part of the story (or at least your hoped-for part of the story). You're rooting for it, so let's hear your cheer:
Radicalized! Radicalized! I need this guy to be Radicalized!
-
Maybe yes now???
Sheriff Floats Possibility Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock Was “RADICALIZED”
In a shocking turn of events, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo is now floating the possibility that the Las Vegas gunman, Stephen Paddock could have been radicalized. Law enforcement are currently investigating the matter.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/sheriff-floats-possibility-las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-radicalized/
Just stop it. The sheriff never mentioned isis.
Many Web trolls have however.
-
I guess what really bothers politicians on the right is the noise these guns make. Heck, sooner or later someone is gonna notice how many people are shot every day.
Luckily, they are right on the case. They will vote to legalize silencers cuz - and they actually said this - they want to protect the ears of hunters. No word, however, if they want to protect lives of innocent American citizens. A date has not been set for the vote because mass shootings keep interfering with their plans.
Just imagine how many more hundreds of people would have been shot in Vegas if the murderer had been equipped with silencers. Republicans are working hard to make them available for the next nut that comes along.
-
We get it, Smuggles. If Paddock somehow is proven to have been "radicalized," it will be your wettest dream since Nov. 8!
You need Paddock to be more than just another run-of-the-mill white, male arsehole. After all, it's got to be tough on a hatemonger like you that so many white, male arseholes keep committing terrorist acts.
A bonus: It also would give your hero a platform to spew more hate.
It's OK, Smuggles, you can admit that's why you're obsessed with this part of the story (or at least your hoped-for part of the story). You're rooting for it, so let's hear your cheer:
Radicalized! Radicalized! I need this guy to be Radicalized!
Again, what is more important to you than anything else is you hold the moral high ground in your mind. That way you can scream that anyone that disagrees with you is a hatemonger (which you just called me) and devoid yourself of any rational discussion and just bludgeon opposing views into submission with your point of view. Becuase yours is the superior view and everyone that disagrees with your is a lower form of human life.
I started another thread that scoop is a microcosm of the US where a bunch of closed minded people screams at each as they think the way to compromise is to yell louder than the competition.
You can stop proving this point anytime you want.
-
Again, what is more important to you than anything else is you hold the moral high ground in your mind. That way you can scream that anyone that disagrees with is a hatemonger (which you just called me) and devoid yourself of any rational discussion and just bludgeon everyone that disagrees with you into submission with your point of view.
This from the guy who posts about a dozen articles a day...
-
This from the guy who posts about a dozen articles a day...
You're smart enough to know that I post stories/links to spur discussion and most of the time present them without comment. But since your politics don't agree with mine, bludgeon me as will thinking outscreaming me will win the day.
(Again, I reformed myself two days ago and will stop screaming back. I welcome you to do the same.)
-
You're smart enough to know that I post stories/links to spur discussion and most of the time present them without comment. But since your politics don't agree with mine, bludgeon me as will thinking outscreaming me will win the day.
(Again, I reformed myself two days ago and will stop screaming back. I welcome you to do the same.)
Actually you are giving me way too much credit. I don't read most of your posts.
-
You're smart enough to know that I post stories/links to spur discussion and most of the time present them without comment. But since your politics don't agree with mine, bludgeon me as will thinking outscreaming me will win the day.
(Again, I reformed myself two days ago and will stop screaming back. I welcome you to do the same.)
The problem is when you present a link without comment, that gives the impression you are presenting it as fact. It would actually be helpful if you stated your opinions of the links.
-
We were doing so well following the Dr. Wolfe rule. Pull back on the ad hominem, eh?
-
We were doing so well following the Dr. Wolfe rule. Pull back on the ad hominem, eh?
Unfortunately some just can't help themselves. Personal attacks, extremely unfortunate.
-
As someone who is not a gun person, I had never heard of bump stocks until this atrocity.
They are legal and easily affordable yet easily turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons, which are illegal.
It's insanity. How does this make any sense? What am I missing here?
-
As someone who is not a gun person, I had never heard of bump stocks until this atrocity.
They are legal and easily affordable yet easily turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons, which are illegal.
It's insanity. How does this make any sense? What am I missing here?
One perspective of what it is and why used.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/foghorn/bumpfire-stock-exist/
-
One perspective of what it is and why used.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/foghorn/bumpfire-stock-exist/
They should be illegal, full stop.
-
One perspective of what it is and why used.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/foghorn/bumpfire-stock-exist/
So their legality and what its used for basically boils down to "its fun and exciting!". I'm with VBMG. Thats not a civil liberty issue, its common sense. I'm almost embarrassed that I went to a website called "Truth About Guns" expecting to see a cogent explanation in defense of bump stocks.
-
No( maybe?), no, no, too fat, no. What the senator said is idiotic on every level. I more took exception with your "I'm smarter than everyone in rural America because my beliefs are better" implication.
Ok you were pointing out extremes by playing the role a stereotypical faux intellectual who thinks he is better than those with lesser beliefs. Sorry, I missed that nuance in your post.
I'm not going to get into sound bite throwing contest with you - i clearly hit a nerve when you jump to throw away talk radio terms like 'faux intellectual'.
i will say that a lot of our politicians are kept in power by the extremes and the $ those extremes throw at them (i really didn't think this was a topic that was up for debate). I don't think it's anything but obvious that in SD, the state that elected the senator whose quote started this, the extreme that keeps mr thune in office is the conservative extreme. In a state like MA there is a different extreme influencing their state reps.
In no way did i ever imply "i'm smarter than everyone in rural america because my beliefs are better" that is a HUGE assumption on your part, presumably because of my 0-4 position on fur, meat, god and guns......
Fur: I've never met anyone that is 'pro' fur. on this one you are correct, i probably would assume a position of intellectual/moral superiority in that debate. If there is an argument for why we should wear fur, please start a new thread and you can call me 'faux intellectual' as you enlighten me on the benefits of fur.
Meat: I literally can't eat most mammals....i'm allergic. I don't hold it against people who do enjoy it, i just don't have a choice.
God and Guns: The extremists are wrong, the vast majority of us just have a different opinions. As long as you don't push your gun or your god into anyone else's face there is no issue. Differing points of view does not a position of intellectual superiority make.
If someone were to argue that the level of gun violence in the US isn't completely unacceptable and/or that one part of the solution to this extremely complicated issue is not addressing who can buy firearms and the types of firearms they can buy, then i'm going to claim the intellectual and moral high ground on that person.
-
Again, what is more important to you than anything else is you hold the moral high ground in your mind. That way you can scream that anyone that disagrees with you is a hatemonger (which you just called me) and devoid yourself of any rational discussion and just bludgeon opposing views into submission with your point of view. Becuase yours is the superior view and everyone that disagrees with your is a lower form of human life.
I started another thread that scoop is a microcosm of the US where a bunch of closed minded people screams at each as they think the way to compromise is to yell louder than the competition.
Pot, meet kettle.
You can stop proving this point anytime you want.
You prove your own point several times per day.
I don't know why you won't just admit that you hope ISIS somehow got to this guy, and that's why you keep bringing it up. You need it!
-
We all get angry, and we all react to anger differently. Some bottle it up, some punch pillows, some yell and scream, some kick puppies, and some grab a gun. How can one logically look at the 1500+ mass shootings that have taken place in this country since Sandy Hook and not have the thought cross his/her mind that this might simply be part of the human condition for some people?
I think it's actually more dangerous to immediately chalk these events up to mental illness and dismiss the fact that a perfectly rational person (by medical definition, not by observation or relative to the majority) may be capable of committing a heinous crime with the right motivation. That's not to say we don't treat the mentally ill to the best of our capability, we absolutely should. But as we search for answers in the aftermath of these shootings, I think if we grossly oversimplify and allow prevention efforts to focus primarily on those that may be diagnosable with a medical condition, we might miss the perfectly "normal" multimillionaire carrying suitcases full of automatic weapons into a high rise hotel.
(Also not to say that Paddock was perfectly sane... but other than the act itself, nothing that's been revealed about him thus far seems to fit the mold of "psychotic killer.")
And sometimes when people get angry they say vicious, hateful and untrue things about their fellow scoopers. This thread is full of them. When does that anger go so deep that it morphs into "sickness"? When a punch is thrown? When a shot (or shots) are fired? It's a lot more palatable to look at all of these killers as deranged rather than ultra motivated angry guys - that hits a little too close to home.
-
And sometimes when people get angry they say vicious, hateful and untrue things about their fellow scoopers. This thread is full of them. When does that anger go so deep that it morphs into "sickness"? When a punch is thrown? When a shot (or shots) are fired? It's a lot more palatable to look at all of these killers as deranged rather than ultra motivated angry guys - that hits a little too close to home.
Right here is a pretty good argument against allowing guns in bars. In the last few years, NC and many other states have passed laws saying guns in bars are just peachy-keen.
You can be just a couple of guys having a "friendly debate." When one of you pisses the other off, a punch is thrown ... and, hey, I've got a gun handy! And what good is a gun if you don't use it?
That sounds snarky, but I am serious about this point. Guns in bars. Yet another NRA-sponsored great idea passed by the legislators they have on puppet strings. It's all about freedom!
But yes, Lenny, I agree with your overall point.
I get angry at myself that I let myself get angered by a couple of posters - and it is only a couple, and everybody here knows who they are: one who openly brags about his smugness, and the other who was banned a year ago but keeps rising from the ashes.
I should be better than that - "superior," as Smuggles keeps saying, because it makes him feel superior to keep accusing others of feeling superior - but I do admit to my weakness. I'll try to do better.
-
Five words to add to the 2nd Amendment by Justice John Paul Stevens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.38431cdd15ad
This article nicely summarizes the legal history of the 2nd amendment. i encourage all to read it no matter your position on the 2nd so as to have a better understanding of its history over the last two centuries.
P.S. this article is part of a very insightful book.
-
Differing points of view does not a position of intellectual superiority make.
If someone were to argue that the level of gun violence in the US isn't completely unacceptable and/or that one part of the solution to this extremely complicated issue is not addressing who can buy firearms and the types of firearms they can buy,
So, maybe I was wrong and if so I apologize. Your comment seemed completely condescending. Maybe I read it wrong.
Also didn't know faux intellectual was a talk radio term. Only talk radio I listen to is MLB radio. A bit of a guilty pleasure for me. But I didn't know what to call someone who seemed to think they were so superior. Again, maybe I misinterpreted your tone.
You also seem to be jumping to conclusions about me. I'm not a gun guy. Never fired one in my life. Not a fur guy either, but go ahead and take the moral high ground if you like. I didn't have a problem with what you said. It was how you said it, and maybe that is on me. Sorry.
-
I guess what really bothers politicians on the right is the noise these guns make. Heck, sooner or later someone is gonna notice how many people are shot every day.
Luckily, they are right on the case. They will vote to legalize silencers cuz - and they actually said this - they want to protect the ears of hunters. No word, however, if they want to protect lives of innocent American citizens. A date has not been set for the vote because mass shootings keep interfering with their plans.
Just imagine how many more hundreds of people would have been shot in Vegas if the murderer had been equipped with silencers. Republicans are working hard to make them available for the next nut that comes along.
50 state legal sound suppressor already available: https://www.store.silencerco.com/products/maxim-50?variant=37950952529&avad=55963_ff8f407d
-
So, maybe I was wrong and if so I apologize. Your comment seemed completely condescending. Maybe I read it wrong.
Also didn't know faux intellectual was a talk radio term. Only talk radio I listen to is MLB radio. A bit of a guilty pleasure for me. But I didn't know what to call someone who seemed to think they were so superior. Again, maybe I misinterpreted your tone.
You also seem to be jumping to conclusions about me. I'm not a gun guy. Never fired one in my life. Not a fur guy either, but go ahead and take the moral high ground if you like. I didn't have a problem with what you said. It was how you said it, and maybe that is on me. Sorry.
No prob - i am a socially liberal, urban living, atheist and (mostly) vegetarian - that combination doesn't get viewed as elitist totally by accident.
-
In my opinion, whatever point in history it was that political opinions became equivalent to sports fan opinions (i.e. my team is the best and yours sucks) eternally doomed our society. I most definitely lean one way in the political debate and I will fully admit to falling into that trap. My instinctual reaction is to agree with people on my side and assume the other side doesn't know what they are talking about. However, there are more than a few topics that I cannot, and won't, defend "my side's" position. At that point, I get depressed and turn on sports where I know my team actually is the best and the other teams sucks.
-
They should be illegal, full stop.
Yep. It's pretty sad to make automatic weapons illegal, if you can easily turn a semi automatic into an automatic.
-
Yep. It's pretty sad to make automatic weapons illegal, if you can easily turn a semi automatic into an automatic.
Not just sad.... stupid.
Perhaps this was a Minnesota thing or maybe our instructor was just trying to scare us into not doing anything stupid, but when I took firearms safety at RCC in the early 90's, I distinctly remember the instructor saying that any modification to a firearm's mechanics was highly illegal and would land us in jail for a long time. So I have always been of the mindset that you never modify a firearm outside of the mfg's accessories (chokes, stocks, barrel plugs, etc.)... apparently I was wrong.
-
Right here is a pretty good argument against allowing guns in bars. In the last few years, NC and many other states have passed laws saying guns in bars are just peachy-keen.
You can be just a couple of guys having a "friendly debate." When one of you pisses the other off, a punch is thrown ... and, hey, I've got a gun handy! And what good is a gun if you don't use it?
That sounds snarky, but I am serious about this point. Guns in bars. Yet another NRA-sponsored great idea passed by the legislators they have on puppet strings. It's all about freedom!
But yes, Lenny, I agree with your overall point.
I get angry at myself that I let myself get angered by a couple of posters - and it is only a couple, and everybody here knows who they are: one who openly brags about his smugness, and the other who was banned a year ago but keeps rising from the ashes.
I should be better than that - "superior," as Smuggles keeps saying, because it makes him feel superior to keep accusing others of feeling superior - but I do admit to my weakness. I'll try to do better.
Totally agree, Mike. why people can't see that guns and booze are a toxic mix is beyond me.
-
Not just sad.... stupid.
Perhaps this was a Minnesota thing or maybe our instructor was just trying to scare us into not doing anything stupid, but when I took firearms safety at RCC in the early 90's, I distinctly remember the instructor saying that any modification to a firearm's mechanics was highly illegal and would land us in jail for a long time. So I have always been of the mindset that you never modify a firearm outside of the mfg's accessories (chokes, stocks, barrel plugs, etc.)... apparently I was wrong.
That sounds... not quite right. I worked at a shotgun trap/skeet/sporting clays range in high school and there's a huge industry of after-market modifications to trap guns.
Enabling full auto on an M-16? Sure, that sounds illegal.
Installing an aftermarket choke or your own neon beads on a skeet gun? That sounds less illegal.
-
That sounds... not quite right. I worked at a shotgun trap/skeet/sporting clays range in high school and there's a huge industry of after-market modifications to trap guns.
Enabling full auto on an M-16? Sure, that sounds illegal.
Installing an aftermarket choke or your own neon beads on a skeet gun? That sounds less illegal.
always read the full post.
-
Yep. It's pretty sad to make automatic weapons illegal, if you can easily turn a semi automatic into an automatic.
Agreed, its really just a question of technology. You can make extended mags, silencers, modify to auto, etc at home without a kit. You wouldn't have to go buy anything that someone could keep off the market. So if you make something like extended mags illegal, you are simply making "legitimate" needs for extended mags(no idea what that is but let's assume there is one) illegal while doing nothing to prevent the evil doer with know-how from getting the thing he(always a he right?) wants to do.
I'm not saying this as an excuse not to make extended mags or a stock bump, etc illegal....simply saying pragmatically it won't really do anything so is it worth the fight?
-
Agreed, its really just a question of technology. You can make extended mags, silencers, modify to auto, etc at home without a kit. You wouldn't have to go buy anything that someone could keep off the market. So if you make something like extended mags illegal, you are simply making "legitimate" needs for extended mags(no idea what that is but let's assume there is one) illegal while doing nothing to prevent the evil doer with know-how from getting the thing he(always a he right?) wants to do.
I'm not saying this as an excuse not to make extended mags or a stock bump, etc illegal....simply saying pragmatically it won't really do anything so is it worth the fight?
Well, for starters, I don't buy for a second that just anyone could pick up a few items at Lowe's and make their own extended mags and stock bumps. It seems metallurgy would take some skill and specialized equipment, no?
Regardless, I don't understand this line of thinking. At all.
Taken to its logical conclusion, you could apply it to pretty much any law out there and ultimately ... what? Decide not to have laws?
Because some yokel in a trailer in Iowa can cook meth, should we make meth legal?
Because somebody can make pipe bombs in their basement, should we allow the sale of Semtex and C4 at Home Depot?
Because people continue to murder, rape, assault and steal, should we legalize murder, rape, assault and theft?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that there's no point in having these gun control laws because some might choose to violate them.
By that standard, there's no point in having any law, because every law gets broken.
-
always read the full post.
I... uh... did?
-
Well, for starters, I don't buy for a second that just anyone could pick up a few items at Lowe's and make their own extended mags and stock bumps. It seems metallurgy would take some skill and specialized equipment, no?
Regardless, I don't understand this line of thinking. At all.
Taken to its logical conclusion, you could apply it to pretty much any law out there and ultimately ... what? Decide not to have laws?
Because some yokel in a trailer in Iowa can cook meth, should we make meth legal?
Because somebody can make pipe bombs in their basement, should we allow the sale of Semtex and C4 at Home Depot?
Because people continue to murder, rape, assault and steal, should we legalize murder, rape, assault and theft?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that there's no point in having these gun control laws because some might choose to violate them.
By that standard, there's no point in having any law, because every law gets broken.
This is so spot-on, Pakuni. It actually is a big part of the gun lobby's reason for not passing gun laws. "You can't stop all shootings, so why bother?"
-
Five words to add to the 2nd Amendment by Justice John Paul Stevens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.38431cdd15ad
This article nicely summarizes the legal history of the 2nd amendment. i encourage all to read it no matter your position on the 2nd so as to have a better understanding of its history over the last two centuries.
P.S. this article is part of a very insightful book.
Thanks so much for this, GSW. Brilliantly written piece. The logic in it is almost inarguable unless one has an ulterior motive - such as selling guns.
This is one of many arguments against strict "constitutionalism." The Constitution was written 228 years ago. The men who wrote it were very smart, but they weren't perfect. And they certainly couldn't see the future.
Laws that protect a militia's right to keep flintlocks and muskets do not translate very well to 2017.
-
Totally agree, Mike. why people can't see that guns and booze are a toxic mix is beyond me.
"Most states reserve the right to revoke a concealed carry pistol permit under reasonable suspicion and chemical analysis. That means, if a police officer has probable cause that you may have been drinking and you have a weapon on you, he has the authority granted to him by the state to immediately revoke that permit. . Continue reading at: http://aliengearholsters.com/blog/concealed-carry-and-alcohol/"
in the article-they highlight-"in almost every single case, the concealed carry handgun permit is pulled"
-
My neighbor was on Sunday night. Wonderful guy. Super outgoing, father of four (two of his own and two step sons), his oldest was a recent graduate of the Air Force Academy. His second son went to high school with my son and currently with my daughter, he is a senior. Brian was an avid sportsman, hunter, fisherman, snowboarder, always had the coolest toys - he enjoyed having fun. On Friday he and 20+ other family and friends flew to Vegas to have fun, go to the concerts. He became an ordained minister just to be able to perform the marriage service of his oldest son this Summer. As of yesterday, the two youngest kids (grade school) had not been told of his death until their mom returned home last night for Nevada.
His wife was with him in Vegas Sunday night, but they were separated when the shooting started as he wanted to get closer to the stage to hear one of his favorite songs. His oldest son left earlier that day to start grad school at UCLA on Monday.
If you are considering making a donation, a special family and special man. RIP Brian.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Recalling-Final-Goodbye-Before-Las-Vegas-Shooting_Los-Angeles-449344563.html
https://www.gofundme.com/j8f37g-brians-family
Thank you
JD
-
My neighbor was on Sunday night. Wonderful guy. Super outgoing, father of four (two of his own and two step sons), his oldest was a recent graduate of the Air Force Academy. His second son went to high school with my son and currently with my daughter, he is a senior. Brian was an avid sportsman, hunter, fisherman, snowboarder, always had the coolest toys - he enjoyed having fun. On Friday he and 20+ other family and friends flew to Vegas to have fun, go to the concerts. He became an ordained minister just to be able to perform the marriage service of his oldest son this Summer. As of yesterday, the two youngest kids (grade school) had not been told of his death until their mom returned home last night for Nevada.
His wife was with him in Vegas Sunday night, but they were separated when the shooting started as he wanted to get closer to the stage to hear one of his favorite songs. His oldest son left earlier that day to start grad school at UCLA on Monday.
If you are considering making a donation, a special family and special man. RIP Brian.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Recalling-Final-Goodbye-Before-Las-Vegas-Shooting_Los-Angeles-449344563.html
https://www.gofundme.com/j8f37g-brians-family
Thank you
JD
wow! very very sad! whenever these stories hit this close to home, they become more real. i've never donated to a gofundme, but this is too sad to pass up. very heartfelt prayers of peace to the family
-
Under Obama, the U.S. OK'd bump-fire stocks... making semi-automatics more similar to automatic weapons. Interesting, hey?
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article176908121.html (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article176908121.html)
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-shooting/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-shooting/index.html)
...PS, re: the Second Amendment and cries over it...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452240/second-amendment-argument-united-states-constitution (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452240/second-amendment-argument-united-states-constitution)
GO LYNX
-
Under Obama, the U.S. OK'd bump-fire stocks... making semi-automatics more similar to automatic weapons. Interesting, hey?
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article176908121.html
"The stocks have been around for less than a decade. The government gave its seal of approval to selling them in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law."
What's so interesting? They don't violate federal law. That's why they want to change the law.
-
Well, for starters, I don't buy for a second that just anyone could pick up a few items at Lowe's and make their own extended mags and stock bumps. It seems metallurgy would take some skill and specialized equipment, no?
Regardless, I don't understand this line of thinking. At all.
Taken to its logical conclusion, you could apply it to pretty much any law out there and ultimately ... what? Decide not to have laws?
Because some yokel in a trailer in Iowa can cook meth, should we make meth legal?
Because somebody can make pipe bombs in their basement, should we allow the sale of Semtex and C4 at Home Depot?
Because people continue to murder, rape, assault and steal, should we legalize murder, rape, assault and theft?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that there's no point in having these gun control laws because some might choose to violate them.
By that standard, there's no point in having any law, because every law gets broken.
Listen, I'm all for such laws, I'm just saying is it ultimately worth the political fight. I get that's part of what the NRA does, but I just prioritize spending political capital on something that is more pragmatically useful/impactful.
-
I... uh... did?
Then read it again.
-
"Most states reserve the right to revoke a concealed carry pistol permit under reasonable suspicion and chemical analysis. That means, if a police officer has probable cause that you may have been drinking and you have a weapon on you, he has the authority granted to him by the state to immediately revoke that permit. . Continue reading at: http://aliengearholsters.com/blog/concealed-carry-and-alcohol/"
in the article-they highlight-"in almost every single case, the concealed carry handgun permit is pulled"
What if there's not a police officer there?
-
Well, for starters, I don't buy for a second that just anyone could pick up a few items at Lowe's and make their own extended mags and stock bumps. It seems metallurgy would take some skill and specialized equipment, no?
Regardless, I don't understand this line of thinking. At all.
Taken to its logical conclusion, you could apply it to pretty much any law out there and ultimately ... what? Decide not to have laws?
Because some yokel in a trailer in Iowa can cook meth, should we make meth legal?
Because somebody can make pipe bombs in their basement, should we allow the sale of Semtex and C4 at Home Depot?
Because people continue to murder, rape, assault and steal, should we legalize murder, rape, assault and theft?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that there's no point in having these gun control laws because some might choose to violate them.
By that standard, there's no point in having any law, because every law gets broken.
Well stated.
-
Then read it again.
So you thought modifying firearms was illegal per your firearm safety class in MN, but you now think that might not be the case?
I was aware of aftermarket modification of firearms... which seems to support the fact that it's at least legal in some cases?
Is there invisible ink somewhere in there that I'm missing or is this another solid Myron Medcalfe kind of moment?
-
What if there's not a police officer there?
not sure if i follow, but what do you mean? chances are, if you are drinking and there's an incident with a firearm, unless you are on the moon, police will be called. they will talk to you and if you smell like a miller or your eyes are bleeding, they can and will take your permit. with permits, you MUST have them on you if you are carrying. not, well, i left it at my girlfriends house
-
So you thought modifying firearms was illegal per your firearm safety class in MN, but you now think that might not be the case?
I was aware of aftermarket modification of firearms... which seems to support the fact that it's at least legal in some cases?
Is there invisible ink somewhere in there that I'm missing or is this another solid Myron Medcalfe kind of moment?
Installing an aftermarket choke or your own neon beads on a skeet gun? That sounds less illegal.
So I have always been of the mindset that you never modify a firearm outside of the mfg's accessories (chokes, stocks, barrel plugs, etc.)... apparently I was wrong.
-
Listen, I'm all for such laws, I'm just saying is it ultimately worth the political fight. I get that's part of what the NRA does, but I just prioritize spending political capital on something that is more pragmatically useful/impactful.
What is there to lose in this political fight? A law like this surely wouldn't stop some people from making the modifications themselves, but it would prevent a good amount of people from just picking one up at Walmart.
There's absolutely no reason to NOT have this political fight.
-
What is there to lose in this political fight? A law like this surely wouldn't stop some people from making the modifications themselves, but it would prevent a good amount of people from just picking one up at Walmart.
There's absolutely no reason to NOT have this political fight.
walmart just pulled all their bump stocks
my understanding of a bump stock-it may have saved lives in the long run here-stay with me here-
yes, he had a few rifles equipped and loaded and ready-why-because they jam as they are finding they did. the gun gets so hot and it the chamber isn't meant for this rapid fire-it jams very predictably. if he would have had a number of semi-autos all ready, chances are there would have been fewer jams and he could have gotten more shots off in the long run-i'm happy as hell he didn't!
also, where are/were the anti gun people with all the inner-city shootings? is it because there are usually only one two or three at a time and they're spread out over a number of hours? in other words do not fall into the category of "mass shootings"? one other point-the anti-gun people dismiss too easily all of the arguments we put forth-note-they are legitimate arguments. i don't think there is a need to re-hatch them here, but we can i guess
bottom line-i am by no means trying to diminish vegas- was a nasty nasty incident committed by a very evil individual
-
Yeah, dudes modding shotguns out of the back of their pickup trucks under popup tents at the range =/= mfg accessories.
-
Listen, I'm all for such laws, I'm just saying is it ultimately worth the political fight. I get that's part of what the NRA does, but I just prioritize spending political capital on something that is more pragmatically useful/impactful.
This type of attitude will prevent something from ever getting done. IE "We are unlikely to win this battle so let's just not bother."
-
walmart just pulled all their bump stocks
my understanding of a bump stock-it may have saved lives in the long run here-stay with me here-
yes, he had a few rifles equipped and loaded and ready-why-because they jam as they are finding they did. the gun gets so hot and it the chamber isn't meant for this rapid fire-it jams very predictably. if he would have had a number of semi-autos all ready, chances are there would have been fewer jams and he could have gotten more shots off in the long run-i'm happy as hell he didn't!
also, where are/were the anti gun people with all the inner-city shootings? is it because there are usually only one two or three at a time and they're spread out over a number of hours? in other words do not fall into the category of "mass shootings"? one other point-the anti-gun people dismiss too easily all of the arguments we put forth-note-they are legitimate arguments. i don't think there is a need to re-hatch them here, but we can i guess
bottom line-i am by no means trying to diminish vegas- was a nasty nasty incident committed by a very evil individual
Personally, I think your logic of how the bump stock might have saved lives is an enormous leap. Just my opinion.
Second, I don't like the term "anti-gun people". To me it implies that all people who are advocating for more common sense gun control, closing loopholes, background checks, banning certain items, etc. don't believe in the 2nd amendment when that is clearly not the case. I am not a gun person and doubt I will ever own one. I do believe in the 2nd amendment but with limits. There's no reason a civilian needs an assault rifle, high capacity magazines, bump stocks, etc.
As for the inner city shootings, that's an entirely separate argument than the one around instances like Vegas or Sandy Hook, IMO. It's an instance of criminals going out of state to get guns, obtaining them illegally. Those people aren't looking to inflict damage at one time on the level of Vegas. That violence is also highly connected to gangs, drugs, and poverty, which most events on the scale of Vegas are not. It's a serious problem but an entirely different discussion from my perspective.
-
Yeah, dudes modding shotguns out of the back of their pickup trucks under popup tents at the range =/= mfg accessories.
Do I really need to spell this out? When I talk about not modifying the firearm's mechanics, I'm not talking about the guy who works on your gun when it breaks down. Sure, he might be a nice guy and all, but that's probably illegal too. No, I'm talking about the gun's inner-workings, here. I'd draw you a nice diagram in MS-Paint, but my skillz aren't as mad as they once were and it would probably be so abstract that I'm afraid you might end up seeing a guy in coveralls lubing a barrel rather than a firing pin, hammer, etc.
Paint your gun's stock, put a nice scope on the top, draw some bunny ears on it, whatever. Just don't touch the insides and it's all good. At least that's what I thought. Apparently that's not the case in Nevada or perhaps anywhere else... I'm not going to look it up, because I don't plan on modifying my gun at all.
-
Do I really need to spell this out? When I talk about not modifying the firearm's mechanics, I'm not talking about the guy who works on your gun when it breaks down. Sure, he might be a nice guy and all, but that's probably illegal too. No, I'm talking about the gun's inner-workings, here. I'd draw you a nice diagram in MS-Paint, but my skillz aren't as mad as they once were and it would probably be so abstract that I'm afraid you might end up seeing a guy in coveralls lubing a barrel rather than a firing pin, hammer, etc.
Paint your gun's stock, put a nice scope on the top, draw some bunny ears on it, whatever. Just don't touch the insides and it's all good. At least that's what I thought. Apparently that's not the case in Nevada or perhaps anywhere else... I'm not going to look it up, because I don't plan on modifying my gun at all.
People do that. All the time. The moving bits that you cant draw in paint. They advertise for it. They do it using non-mfg parts.
However, I'm pretty sure we're talking right past each other about this one, so I'm going to call this a "started the game vs. starter minutes" internet fight and bow out.
-
Ha, you've got this seriously mixed up amigo. The 2nd amendment is not the mechanism to advance gun control. There's nothing in the Constitution or in Supreme Court precedent that says the right to bear arms includes the right to bear any weapon, including assault weapons (those didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights were drafted). Gun control legislation absolutely can be -- and has been! -- passed without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. What you meant to say was that the 2nd amendment would be the mechanism to advance gun prohibition, but not gun control.
A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.
1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch. If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done? Feels like a fair question. Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.
2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people? I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.
We can tick through the nations, but imagine Venezuela right now and the oppression those people are going through knowing they can't do anything. Cuba. So many other nations through the last 100 years. The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.
Whenever these events happen, and they are horrible and grotesque, the MMQB starts with the blame game. So often, the blamers forget how much control and power they had, but did nothing.
-
A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.
1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch. If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done? Feels like a fair question. Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.
2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people? I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.
We can tick through the nations, but imagine Venezuela right now and the oppression those people are going through knowing they can't do anything. Cuba. So many other nations through the last 100 years. The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.
Whenever these events happen, and they are horrible and grotesque, the MMQB starts with the blame game. So often, the blamers forget how much control and power they had, but did nothing.
1. Something should have been done.
2. I don't see many (any?) here calling for a total ban. I have no problem with handguns, no problem with concealed carry, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. I have a problem with assault rifles, etc. I'd even be OK with assault rifles if they could only be owned by gun ranges and were under a tight registration system for those who wish to still use them for recreational purposes.
But there is simply no place in society for those weapons to be owned in the home with little government control. I may like to drive a monster truck, but that doesn't mean I should be able to drive it down the interstate.
-
A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.
1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch. If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done? Feels like a fair question. Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.
2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people? I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.
We can tick through the nations, but imagine Venezuela right now and the oppression those people are going through knowing they can't do anything. Cuba. So many other nations through the last 100 years. The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.
Whenever these events happen, and they are horrible and grotesque, the MMQB starts with the blame game. So often, the blamers forget how much control and power they had, but did nothing.
1. They dropped the ball. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Who here has advocated a total ban? Please list - because I can't find any. My own personal preference would be to define "arms" under the second amendment as perhaps a handgun or two for "self-defense," and a hunting rifle or two. No single individual needs 50 assault rifles for "fighting back against tyranny."
Again - if you have identified people here who advocate nothing short of a total ban, please point them out.
-
This type of attitude will prevent something from ever getting done. IE "We are unlikely to win this battle so let's just not bother."
False, some republicans are already starting to fall in line behind a bump stock ban....so letting them get there on their own gets us a win (banning bump stocks) and very little political capital gets spent which can be used in a much more valuable and useful effort like a universal gun register and data analysis around gun purchases for areas of concern.
-
2. I don't see many (any?) here calling for a total ban. I have no problem with handguns, no problem with concealed carry, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. I have a problem with assault rifles, etc. I'd even be OK with assault rifles if they could only be owned by gun ranges and were under a tight registration system for those who wish to still use them for recreational purposes.
Can someone who's calling for an assault rifle ban please tell me what the practical, definable difference is between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle?
-
Can someone who's calling for an assault rifle ban please tell me what the practical, definable difference is between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle?
That's a good question, but I think most people say "ban assault rifles" as in not necessarily saying a particular class of guns, but limiting certain items.
For example, rate of fire, power, magazine load capacity.
I know certain guns can "look" like an assault rifle, but in essence be a standard hunting rifle but have a certain modifications to it that make it look more like an assault rifle.
I, for one, can't tell you the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle (from a technical perspective). But I know when I use the term "assault rifle", I'm inferring towards power, rate of fire, magazine load capacity. Perhaps that is a particular part of the conversation that needs to be altered a bit.
-
I know certain guns can "look" like an assault rifle, but in essence be a standard hunting rifle but have a certain modifications to it that make it look more like an assault rifle.
This kind of stuff is why I steer clear of most gun conversations. Not because I don't have a strong feeling about what I would (and would not) like to see legislated, but because I just can't even pretend to understand "gun people" and therefore make a bad ambassador for my position.
-
To all hunters out there: why couldn't we define "hunting rifles" as one shot, then reload?
I can hit a deer with one pass of my car. If you can't hit it with one shot, you aren't a very good hunter.
-
I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration. I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible. But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now some may not like that. But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States. Thank you for reading and considering it carefully. It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.
Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders. Thanks.
-
Did 44 ever say why he's a fan of bump stocks or did he try to keep that quiet?
-
A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.
1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch. If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done? Feels like a fair question. Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.
Feels like an irrelevant, partisan question that does nothing to further the actual discussion.
Bump stocks should not have been allowed then. They should not be allowed today. There.
Also, for the record, it was an ATF bureaucrat hired during the Clinton Administration and promoted to the relevant post during the Bush II administration that made the call on bump stocks. So, I guess if we're more interested in casting blame than doing something that might actually matter, there's plenty to go around.
2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people? I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.
This is a ridiculous red herring, since no one here has once suggested a total ban.
The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.
This may have been true in the 1790s, but you're deluding yourself otherwise.
A little reality check for you ... if there were a coup tomorrow and the new government imposes martial law, you and your AR-15 aren't going 'Red Dawn' on the armed forces and overthrowing the military junta. You'll just be the first one dead.
-
To all hunters out there: why couldn't we define "hunting rifles" as one shot, then reload?
I can hit a deer with one pass of my car. If you can't hit it with one shot, you aren't a very good hunter.
Should handguns have only one shot then reload? Your question is a fair one, should semi-auto weapons be banned, it's a clear definition. I don't think it would ever, ever pass....but at least it is a definable, enforcable standard.
-
False, some republicans are already starting to fall in line behind a bump stock ban....so letting them get there on their own gets us a win (banning bump stocks) and very little political capital gets spent which can be used in a much more valuable and useful effort like a universal gun register and data analysis around gun purchases for areas of concern.
That's not at all how your previous post came off to me so perhaps I misinterpreted.
-
This is a ridiculous red herring, since no one here has once suggested a total ban.
This may have been true in the 1790s, but you're deluding yourself otherwise.
A little reality check for you ... if there were a coup tomorrow and the new government imposes martial law, you and your AR-15 aren't going 'Red Dawn' on the armed forces and overthrowing the military junta. You'll just be the first one dead.
There are some folks in Afghanistan that would beg to differ.
In all fairness this is the stupidest of discussions simply because it wouldn't happen, but a well armed partisan group within the US could have some chance against the US military, especially assuming that the US military would not be 100% in some sort of coup situation.
-
I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration. I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible. But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now some may not like that. But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States. Thank you for reading and considering it carefully. It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.
Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders. Thanks.
The 2nd Amendment was written in 1789 when guns could hold a bullet and had to be reloaded. This is not about the right to keep and bear arms. It is about the kind of weaponry that is available, their power, and the ability of a regular citizen to inflict massive damage.
-
I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration. I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible. But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now some may not like that. But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States. Thank you for reading and considering it carefully. It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.
Which well-regulated militia did Stephen Paddock belong to? Or Adam Lanza? Seung-Hui Cho? Omar Mateen? George Hennard? James Holmes? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?
Please explain how allowing any random, untrained and unmonitored civilian to possess a weapon which serves no purpose beyond mass killing further the interests of a "well-regulated militia?"
-
For as much as folks have talked about gun culture in this country, and how important it is to the fabric of this country, anyone astounded that HALF of all guns in this country are owned by just 3% of the population, and that 78% of people own zero guns at all?
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds
-
That's not at all how your previous post came off to me so perhaps I misinterpreted.
Yeah, don't get me wrong on this stuff, my whole thing is I want sensible, practical, and enforceable laws that do something. I too want to limit, prevent gun violence and I think there is work to be done in gun control, however if it's not practically useful I don't want to bother with it. Bump stocks fall under "sensible, practical, and enforceable" (especially enforceable) so I'm all for it.
-
A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.
1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch. If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done? Feels like a fair question. Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.
Completely different animal but the GOP currently controls the Senate and House yet they can get healthcare legislation passed. Back in 2008 to 2010, did it require 60 votes to move forward? I honestly don't remember. There can be plenty of reasons why nothing was able to get done even with control.
-
That's a good question, but I think most people say "ban assault rifles" as in not necessarily saying a particular class of guns, but limiting certain items.
For example, rate of fire, power, magazine load capacity.
I know certain guns can "look" like an assault rifle, but in essence be a standard hunting rifle but have a certain modifications to it that make it look more like an assault rifle.
I, for one, can't tell you the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle (from a technical perspective). But I know when I use the term "assault rifle", I'm inferring towards power, rate of fire, magazine load capacity. Perhaps that is a particular part of the conversation that needs to be altered a bit.
I think one of the key things about dealing with this issue is addressing the semantics and technical/legal jargon that both sides use that clouds the real issue. "Assault rifle" as any scary looking gun. "Fully Automatic" have the very narrow meaning of multiple shots in one trigger pull. I think what a lot of people want to prevent is having guns available to the general public that can fire huge numbers of rounds quickly. When people reasonably (IMO) say that they think fully automatic weapons should be illegal, I think it's reasonable to take the position that devices like the bump stock that effectively convert a semi-automatic into the functional equivalent of an automatic should also be illegal. It's the rate of fire that I would think we want to make illegal (as we did when automatic weapons were made illegal), not the mechanism by which that rate of fire is achieved.
-
I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration. I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible. But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now some may not like that. But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States. Thank you for reading and considering it carefully. It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.
Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders. Thanks.
I'm simply going to quote myself given the recent comments. You are entitled to your opinion. :)
-
There are some folks in Afghanistan that would beg to differ.
In all fairness this is the stupidest of discussions simply because it wouldn't happen, but a well armed partisan group within the US could have some chance against the US military, especially assuming that the US military would not be 100% in some sort of coup situation.
Wait ... what? You're comparing the situation in Afghanistan to the United States?
You're smarter than that.
No, a well-armed partisan group would not stand a chance against a highly trained military of 1.4 million full-time members and access to weaponry slightly more powerful than what you can pick up at Cabela's. That's just silly.
-
The immediate blowback against glow from posters that share my political leanings simply because he posted the actual text of the second amendment is a bad look, team.
-
The immediate blowback against glow from posters that share my political leanings simply because he posted the actual text of the second amendment is a bad look, team.
Thanks very much. Look, it's a tough problem.
-
Wait ... what? You're comparing the situation in Afghanistan to the United States?
You're smarter than that.
No, a well-armed partisan group would not stand a chance against a highly trained military of 1.4 million full-time members and access to weaponry slightly more powerful than what you can pick up at Cabela's. That's just silly.
Again, in this scenario (some sort of US Civil War) the US military would not be at 100% (assuming some "defect" to the partisans) and quite frankly you are making the same mistakes King George III, George W Bush, Sir George Pomeroy Colley, etc have made. I could cite at least a dozen times in history when a bigger, better foe has been defeated or at least held to a stalemate by a smaller, weaker one. One should know their history before they are doomed to repeat it.
*also this isn't an argument for giving citizens a bunch of firepower, more an academic discussion in partisan military engagements*
-
Listen, I'm all for such laws, I'm just saying is it ultimately worth the political fight. I get that's part of what the NRA does, but I just prioritize spending political capital on something that is more pragmatically useful/impactful.
Simple answer: Yes, it's worth the political fight.
I think we all agree that the kind of gun control measures we're talking about here won't prevent, and perhaps not even reduce, mass shootings. But I think we can also agree that if, say, Adam Lanza were armed with a Winchester single-shot or a 9mm pistol, there likely would be several Sandy Hook Elementary school kids still alive today. Or that Stephen Paddock's kill count wouldn't be approaching 60 if he had less powerful weaponry. Or that a few more people might have walked out of a Colorado movie theater alive if James Holmes hadn't had access to an AR-15 or similar firearm.
So, yeah, I think reducing the lethality of these shooting - aka literally saving the lives of fellow Americans enjoying a concert, seeing a movie or sitting in a first-grade classroom - is worth a political fight.
Don't you?
-
I think one of the key things about dealing with this issue is addressing the semantics and technical/leg jargon that both sides use that clouds the real issue. "Assault rifle" as any scary looking gun. "Fully Automatic" have the very narrow meaning of multiple shots in one trigger pull. I think what a lot of people want to prevent is having guns available to the general public that can fire huge numbers of rounds quickly. When people reasonably (IMO) say that they think fully automatic weapons should be illegal, I think it's reasonable to take the position that devices like the bump stock that effectively convert a semi-automatic into the functional equivalent of an automatic should also be illegal. It's the rate of fire that I would think we want to make illegal (as we did when automatic weapons were made illegal), not the mechanism by which that rate of fire is achieved.
Yup, that's exactly it.
A while back, I was having a conversation with someone that was "pro-gun" (I really don't like that particular terminology because I'm not certain its entirely accurate, but I'll use it in this instance). I mentioned that there was no reason for civilians to have assault rifles, and his immediate response was about how that's ridiculous because some people determine certain guns to be "assault rifles" just based on how they look, etc.
So if it means we need to be slightly more educated on what an assault rifle is vs a standard rifle, and what it is exactly that we are trying to restrict, perhaps it would lead to a much more productive conversation.
-
Again, in this scenario (some sort of US Civil War) the US military would not be at 100% (assuming some "defect" to the partisans) and quite frankly you are making the same mistakes King George III, George W Bush, Sir George Pomeroy Colley, etc have made. I could cite at least a dozen times in history when a bigger, better foe has been defeated or at least held to a stalemate by a smaller, weaker one. One should know their history before they are doomed to repeat it.
*also this isn't an argument for giving citizens a bunch of firepower, more an academic discussion in partisan military engagements*
I guess I'm confused (not terribly uncommon, I suppose).
It sounded to me as if you were suggesting a well-armed citizen militia would stand a chance against the U.S. military. Now your position is that the U.S. military would be fighting itself, or at least a portion of itself?
Every instance you cite above involved an unpopular foreign power using attempting to use small portion of its military force to quell a veteran, homegrown insurgency fighting within its own territory. That's a far, far cry from suggesting the full weight of the U.S. military, fighting on its own shores, couldn't handle an insurgency here.
Apples and oranges.
-
What's not surprising is the only MU82 actually read the article that i posted about the 2nd amendment and the case law that either enforces or restricts the right inherent in amendment.
To MU82 i say good job, you at least now whave some historical background.
to others:
i'm wondering what your thoughts on Heller and McDonald are, and how do those decisions help to shape your personal views
-
I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration. I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible. But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Now some may not like that. But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States. Thank you for reading and considering it carefully. It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.
Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders. Thanks.
There are limitations placed on the Bill of Rights all the time. Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. Freedom of assembly isn't unlimited.
-
Chicago police investigating report gunman rented a room at Chicago hotel overlooking Lollapalooza but never showed up.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...vegas-gunman-lollapalooza-20171005-story.html
-
What's not surprising is the only MU82 actually read the article that i posted about the 2nd amendment and the case law that either enforces or restricts the right inherent in amendment.
To MU82 i say good job, you at least now whave some historical background.
to others:
i'm wondering what your thoughts on Heller and McDonald are, and how do those decisions help to shape your personal views
I confess I didn't read your link, but I'm already familiar with Heller and McDonald. I don't believe either contradict my view that the Second Amendment does not prohibit any restrictions on arms. In fact, we know this to be true because we already have several arms restrictions in place that have been ruled lawful. Like, for example, the average person can't legally buy a cruise missile.
Rather, the court (by the narrowest of margins, for what that's worth) found that those particular restrictions imposed by those particular cities, went too far.
What's your take on Friedman v. Highland Park?
-
Glow-
Just a note on the Bill of Rights. The Articles of the Constitution came first. The Bill of Rights was added after the initial version and during the ratification process. So the 2nd amendment is not actually the second thing the founders wrote down. Common mistake.
-
I confess I didn't read your link, but I'm already familiar with Heller and McDonald. I don't believe either contradict my view that the Second Amendment does not prohibit any restrictions on arms. In fact, we know this to be true because we already have several arms restrictions in place that have been ruled lawful. Like, for example, the average person can't legally buy a cruise missile.
Rather, the court (by the narrowest of margins, for what that's worth) found that those particular restrictions imposed by those particular cities, went too far.
What's your take on Friedman v. Highland Park?
in regards to Friedman, I believe the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a class of constitutionally protected “arms” which includes the AR-15 and also that the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning large capacity ammunition magazines.
-
There are limitations placed on the Bill of Rights all the time. Freedom of speech isn't unlimited. Freedom of assembly isn't unlimited.
Of course. But the presumption is always toward 'more' rather than 'less' and in the 'citizens hands' not the 'government's'.
Take freedom of speech for example. As much as we all despise what the Nazis have to say, they do have the right to get a lawful permit, hold a rally, and say what they want. I'd argue that's good even though I disagree with what they say. Free society always has a cost. But as Americans, we've decided that the cost of freedom has to be measured against the threat of totalitarianism in the hands of an elite.
Our Founders wrote a series of documents that err strongly on one side of that debate. And it's worked pretty darn well for almost 250 years. So we should always be careful when considering the costs related to a reduction in freedom when compared with some well meaning restriction. That principle surely applies in the discussion at hand.
-
[...]
What's your take on Friedman v. Highland Park?
I think it's too bad the SCOTUS denied cert. It would be nice to have the highest court in the land provide clear guidance on issues like this so that armchair legal scholars like mois (or any of the goons who try to write laws) don't have to do so much guessing whether a proposed regulation is permissible under 2A.
-
Glow-
Just a note on the Bill of Rights. The Articles of the Constitution came first. The Bill of Rights was added after the initial version and during the ratification process. So the 2nd amendment is not actually the second thing the founders wrote down. Common mistake.
Not trying to be a historian. 'Second thing they wrote down in the Bill of Rights.' (Second as opposed to 9th.) ;D
By the way, I saw all that stuff again this summer at the National Archives. It is simply amazing and humbling to me to see what our forefathers did in 6 pages (Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights). Greatest and most concise written work in human history. We're a Blessed people for their incredible wisdom.
-
Of course. But the presumption is always toward 'more' rather than 'less' and in the 'citizens hands' not the 'government's'.
Take freedom of speech for example. As much as we all despise what the Nazis have to say, they do have the right to get a lawful permit, hold a rally, and say what they want. I'd argue that's good even though I disagree with what they say. Free society always has a cost. But as Americans, we've decided that the cost of freedom has to be measured against the threat of totalitarianism in the hands of an elite.
Our Founders wrote a series of documents that err strongly on one side of that debate. And it's worked pretty darn well for almost 250 years. So we should always be careful when considering the costs related to a reduction in freedom when compared with some well meaning restriction. That principle surely applies in the discussion at hand.
I don't disagree with you at all. I just think that line can be reasonably drawn by smart people.
-
I don't disagree with you at all. I just think that line can be reasonably drawn by smart people.
Let's hope that with God's guidance they can do that now.
-
Did 44 ever say why he's a fan of bump stocks or did he try to keep that quiet?
I don't know about anyone else, but I had to reread JB's post. I thought he was making an innuendo about 4never.....
In answer to the question though, I haven't seen 44's response to why his ATF approved bump stocks. It's convenient now for some to bring up the banning after Vegas, though it should have/could have been brought up during 44's term.
I'm all for the second amendment. I'll never own a gun personally but respect another's right to own firearms. But hopefully both sides can agree that bump stocks should be made illegal and also hopefully both sides can have some meaningful dialogue on banning assault rifles. There is truly no purpose in owning one except for the purpose of killing people.
-
Which well-regulated militia did Stephen Paddock belong to? Or Adam Lanza? Seung-Hui Cho? Omar Mateen? George Hennard? James Holmes? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?
Please explain how allowing any random, untrained and unmonitored civilian to possess a weapon which serves no purpose beyond mass killing further the interests of a "well-regulated militia?"
Pakuni, you obviously understand the background on the 3rd and 4th Amendment. Heck, you're probably one of the only people here who actually know what the 3rd and 4th Amendments say.
Consider this: the 3rd A talks about soldiers not busting into private homes, 4th A talks about people being secure in their homes, 5th A talks about private property not being taken for gov't use; in other words, you have three Amendments that basically address the same concept. Wouldn't it be easier to to just say something along the lines of "the gov't may not inhibit an individual's enjoyment of their property" instead of spreading it across several amendments? Everything was hand-written back then, and the framers weren't bossing scribes around to do their writing for them; so the authors would not likely have repeated similar concepts multiple times if there wasn't a reason for it. But the conceptual and logical overlap among them is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ exceeding that of a cucumber, i.e. they are not isolated, individual thoughts... the amendments are complementary to one another.
That being said, it is not plausible to think that the 2nd Amendment was complementary to the aforementioned similarities of 3, 4, and 5? In other words, in a world at a time when the reality ingrained into many was that the government or soldiers/militiamen had the right to bust into someone's house in the middle of the night and commandeer it for themselves, perhaps the authors realized that even though we have these "rules" in the 3rd, 4th and 5th barring such, that it may not preclude some of these para-military types not directly working under gov't orders (militiamen) from going rogue. This was a new country, laws varied between states, and a war had just ended where private citizens did have their homes and property seized, if only temporarily, by both American and British soldiers and militiamen. As it holds true today, it held true back then.... old habits die hard, and the authors perhaps needed to include something of an "incentive" for these militiamen to not break the laws. What better incentive than introducing the likelihood that the next house where William Robert and Bubbaford decided to squat in the name of the "US Militia" would have a homeowner with his own musket.
Militias are difficult to regulate. The authors knew that. Hell, we have a hell of time today even regulating our own soldiers. To that end, the 2nd Amendment may very well have been intended as a regulation against violation of the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the people the right to bear arms in case they join (or are a part of) a militia... it's to protect citizens against the militia.
-
walmart just pulled all their bump stocks
my understanding of a bump stock-it may have saved lives in the long run here-stay with me here-
yes, he had a few rifles equipped and loaded and ready-why-because they jam as they are finding they did. the gun gets so hot and it the chamber isn't meant for this rapid fire-it jams very predictably. if he would have had a number of semi-autos all ready, chances are there would have been fewer jams and he could have gotten more shots off in the long run-i'm happy as hell he didn't!
also, where are/were the anti gun people with all the inner-city shootings? is it because there are usually only one two or three at a time and they're spread out over a number of hours? in other words do not fall into the category of "mass shootings"? one other point-the anti-gun people dismiss too easily all of the arguments we put forth-note-they are legitimate arguments. i don't think there is a need to re-hatch them here, but we can i guess
bottom line-i am by no means trying to diminish vegas- was a nasty nasty incident committed by a very evil individual
Reports are that Paddock had 12 semi's with bump stocks. It's possible he didn't jam all 12 before killing himself.
-
I think it's too bad the SCOTUS denied cert. It would be nice to have the highest court in the land provide clear guidance on issues like this so that armchair legal scholars like mois (or any of the goons who try to write laws) don't have to do so much guessing whether a proposed regulation is permissible under 2A.
Agreed. Although a Roberts court would have tried to narrowly tailor the issue
-
I don't know about anyone else, but I had to reread JB's post. I thought he was making an innuendo about 4never.....
In answer to the question though, I haven't seen 44's response to why his ATF approved bump stocks. It's convenient now for some to bring up the banning after Vegas, though it should have/could have been brought up during 44's term.
I'm all for the second amendment. I'll never own a gun personally but respect another's right to own firearms. But hopefully both sides can agree that bump stocks should be made illegal and also hopefully both sides can have some meaningful dialogue on banning assault rifles. There is truly no purpose in owning one except for the purpose of killing people.
I'll preface this by saying that based upon what I know at this point, I agree that bump stocks should be illegal. If we're comfortable making fully automatic weapons illegal (and I am), I think we should also ban devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to perform like automatic weapons.
That said, respectfully, I think your last sentence is garbage. To the extent that many people on both sides hope to make progress on this issue, what is gained by saying there is no reason to own one "except for the purpose of killing people"? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that millions of these things have been sold and people enjoy using them. Hell, I'll admit that I'd kind of like to try one, even though I don't own any guns. At this time, I'm aware of one single person who used them to kill people. In order to have a meaningful debate about gun control and -- hopefully -- to make common sense progress, it's probably best to recognize that there are millions of people out there who enjoy firing weapons and have never and will never kill anyone. To claim that a product that they are purchasing and enjoying has no purpose other than killing people is extremely inflammatory and just backs people into corners.
-
Reports are that Paddock had 12 semi's with bump stocks. It's possible he didn't jam all 12 before killing himself.
Reports are he didn't kill himself.
-
I guess I'm confused (not terribly uncommon, I suppose).
It sounded to me as if you were suggesting a well-armed citizen militia would stand a chance against the U.S. military. Now your position is that the U.S. military would be fighting itself, or at least a portion of itself?
Every instance you cite above involved an unpopular foreign power using attempting to use small portion of its military force to quell a veteran, homegrown insurgency fighting within its own territory. That's a far, far cry from suggesting the full weight of the U.S. military, fighting on its own shores, couldn't handle an insurgency here.
Apples and oranges.
The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits use of Army and Air Force on US soil (Navy and Marines are left out but have regulations similar). So if the US Army were ordered to attack US citizens, there is an interpretation that this would be considered an illegal order and therefore not followed. So the assumption that the US military is 100% deployed without issue seems far fetch.
Second, you are assuming that these partisans are going toe to toe on the "open battlefield" which would be insane because you are right they would lose. However, with an insurgency based battlefield the US military's strengths can become weaknesses, especially when it comes to logistics and target identification.
Not nearly as clear cut as you might imagine
-
chances are, if you are drinking and there's an incident with a firearm, unless you are on the moon, police will be called. they will talk to you and if you smell like a miller or your eyes are bleeding, they can and will take your permit. with permits, you MUST have them on you if you are carrying. not, well, i left it at my girlfriends house
By that time, it's too late, rocket!
I thought we were about preventing deaths, not about getting cops to the scene after somebody is dead (or several somebodies are dead). The idiot who was allowed to be packing in a tavern might have shot 5 innocent people ... because he was too drunk to get the guy he wanted to kill.
Guns in bars is about as bad an idea as any legislator has ever come up with, and that's a pretty big list.
-
Should handguns have only one shot then reload? Your question is a fair one, should semi-auto weapons be banned, it's a clear definition. I don't think it would ever, ever pass....but at least it is a definable, enforcable standard.
… Or maybe hunting rifles could have one, while handguns could have six, given that the common rationale is self-defense.
-
A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.
1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch. If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done? Feels like a fair question. Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.
2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people? I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.
We can tick through the nations, but imagine Venezuela right now and the oppression those people are going through knowing they can't do anything. Cuba. So many other nations through the last 100 years. The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.
Whenever these events happen, and they are horrible and grotesque, the MMQB starts with the blame game. So often, the blamers forget how much control and power they had, but did nothing.
1) Because the economy was in the crapper and things had to be done that took precedent over gun laws. Healthcare included. These were all big ticket items. Despite party majorities there is a limit to how many one can pass legislatively.
2) Don't see anyone here stating they want a full ban.
-
read this at another site and it made me chuckle:
Weird, you can buy 49 firearms, bunch of ammo, pounds of ammonium nitrate, but I can’t by more than two boxes of Claritin D within a 30 day period.
-
Whoa. So Lallapalooza was apparently 'targeted' by the gunman in that he rented two hotel rooms overlooking Grant Park but seemingly never checked in and didn't pursue it. I think many of you may have heard that already.
Here's what you might not have heard. I just listened to a City of Chicago official (not sure who, certainly not Rahm) say the following......
'The attack didn't happen here because we (Chicago) were better prepared for it than Las Vegas.'
I have to figure out who that a-clown is. That was the most divisive, self serving, and disrespectful thing I have heard a local official say in a long time. Again, I'm embarrassed by our local politicians. Terrible.
-
Simple answer: Yes, it's worth the political fight.
I think we all agree that the kind of gun control measures we're talking about here won't prevent, and perhaps not even reduce, mass shootings. But I think we can also agree that if, say, Adam Lanza were armed with a Winchester single-shot or a 9mm pistol, there likely would be several Sandy Hook Elementary school kids still alive today. Or that Stephen Paddock's kill count wouldn't be approaching 60 if he had less powerful weaponry. Or that a few more people might have walked out of a Colorado movie theater alive if James Holmes hadn't had access to an AR-15 or similar firearm.
So, yeah, I think reducing the lethality of these shooting - aka literally saving the lives of fellow Americans enjoying a concert, seeing a movie or sitting in a first-grade classroom - is worth a political fight.
Don't you?
Absolutely!
If we were talking about saving one "life" by limiting (or preventing) abortions, many of the same people who want no new gun laws at all would line up behind it. Same if we were talking about saving one life by instituting a Muslim ban.
Saving one shooting victim ... well ... most of our politicians - and just about none from the NRA Party - have little stomach for that fight.
Close the gun-show loophole ... mandatory background checks and registration for those who buy online, including private sales ... no guns for those on the no-fly list or for those certified to have mental-health issues ... mandatory training for gun owners, at least for those younger than 21 ... define what constitutes an "assault rifle" and ban them - just as bazookas, rocket launchers and grenades are banned ... ban on clips for fully automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets and other military gear ... limits on number of guns per household except for licensed collectors ... no guns in establishments that serve alcohol.
Those are a few of my ideas. None is original, none is ground-breaking. Maybe none has a chance of being passed in a country in which the NRA has one of the two major parties in its pocket. But if even a few lives per year get saved, I agree with you, Pakuni. It's worth the political fight.
-
… Or maybe hunting rifles could have one, while handguns could have six, given that the common rationale is self-defense.
Is it the speed at which bullets can be fired the concern or the amount of bullets, or both? If we accept self-defense, you need semi-automatic because seconds count and having to cock the gun in between shots could kill someone. If you allow semi-automatic in hand guns, can you disallow it with long guns?
-
Absolutely!
If we were talking about saving one "life" by limiting (or preventing) abortions, many of the same people who want no new gun laws at all would line up behind it. Same if we were talking about saving one life by instituting a Muslim ban.
So if banning abortion saves one life we should do it? Isn't the argument for abortion that we can't legislate people's bodies and what they do with them, that people have their own responsibilities? How is that different than guns (this is a rhetorical conversation, just evaluating the consistency of the logic). What if racial profiling prevents one crime death, should we allow it?
Close the gun-show loophole agreed ... mandatory background checks and registration for those who buy online, including private sales agreed, and make a universal(federal) registration list that can be used for analytics around concerns, i.e dude bought 40 guns... no guns for those on the no-fly list or for those certified to have mental-health issues neither of these things actually has anything to do with due process, I know a guy who had to change his name because he had the same name as several on the no-fly list, we want to take away his rights? I don't know enough about a universal mental-health list to advocate one way or the other ... mandatory training for gun owners, at least for those younger than 21 should be universal training or at least certification, no different than owning a car... define what constitutes an "assault rifle" and ban them you can't, it's a made up term- just as bazookas, rocket launchers and grenades are banned all definable... ban on clips for fully automatic weapons, armor-piercing bullets and other military gear what's other military gear? otherwise agree... limits on number of guns per household except for licensed collectors why? what's the limit? if you want to trigger a follow up, fine but why artificially limit it?... no guns in establishments that serve alcohol.
Those are a few of my ideas. None is original, none is ground-breaking. Maybe none has a chance of being passed in a country in which the NRA has one of the two major parties in its pocket. But if even a few lives per year get saved, I agree with you, Pakuni. It's worth the political fight.
At the end of the day, I'm supportive of efforts to limit/curb gun violence....but will always hedge on the side of providing more freedoms, not less.
-
That said, respectfully, I think your last sentence is garbage. To the extent that many people on both sides hope to make progress on this issue, what is gained by saying there is no reason to own one "except for the purpose of killing people"? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that millions of these things have been sold and people enjoy using them. Hell, I'll admit that I'd kind of like to try one, even though I don't own any guns. At this time, I'm aware of one single person who used them to kill people. In order to have a meaningful debate about gun control and -- hopefully -- to make common sense progress, it's probably best to recognize that there are millions of people out there who enjoy firing weapons and have never and will never kill anyone. To claim that a product that they are purchasing and enjoying has no purpose other than killing people is extremely inflammatory and just backs people into corners.
Respectfully, I disagree. Inflammatory would be if I think any gun's sole purpose is for killing people, which I don't. I'm all for those who want a gun for protection or for hunting. But to have an assault weapon is for neither protection nor for hunting. And if the idea is an assault weapon should be available for those who just enjoy firing weapons, I think that there has to be some reasonable regulations on obtaining them. And by the way, I'm against more government regulations in general.
-
The NRA just advocated for 'additional regulations' associated with bump stocks. Make sense to me. Good for them.
-
Respectfully, I disagree. Inflammatory would be if I think any gun's sole purpose is for killing people, which I don't. I'm all for those who want a gun for protection or for hunting. But to have an assault weapon is for neither protection nor for hunting. And if the idea is an assault weapon should be available for those who just enjoy firing weapons, I think that there has to be some reasonable regulations on obtaining them. And by the way, I'm against more government regulations in general.
As I said, I think the bump stocks should be illegal. But there is another reason to have it other than to kill people: because it's probably a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. I'm not suggesting that it should be legal because of that, but that is another reason other than killing people. The overwhelming majority of people who have bump stocks have them for a purpose other than killing people. When you suggest that the only reason to have them is to kill people, it's insulting to those people. I just think it's more effective to tell people, "I know you enjoy this product, but I think that there are good reasons that it should be illegal" than to tell people, "the only purpose to have one of those is killing people."
I think if we want to make progress on this issue, it's important to recognize the motivations of people on the other side rather than just telling them that the only purpose for the thing they enjoy is killing people.
-
As I said, I think the bump stocks should be illegal. But there is another reason to have it other than to kill people: because it's probably a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. I'm not suggesting that it should be legal because of that, but that is another reason other than killing people. The overwhelming majority of people who have bump stocks have them for a purpose other than killing people. When you suggest that the only reason to have them is to kill people, it's insulting to those people. I just think it's more effective to tell people, "I know you enjoy this product, but I think that there are good reasons that it should be illegal" than to tell people, "the only purpose to have one of those is killing people."
Agreed
(http://e.lvme.me/i5r17mp.jpg)
-
The NRA just advocated for 'additional regulations' associated with bump stocks. Make sense to me. Good for them.
Yep. Still strange that 44 was all for it.
-
He wasn't "all for it." It wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
-
He wasn't "all for it." It wasn't (and isn't) illegal.
Yeah it's weird to say if you don't do anything about something you are some how for that thing.
-
So if banning abortion saves one life we should do it? Isn't the argument for abortion that we can't legislate people's bodies and what they do with them, that people have their own responsibilities? How is that different than guns (this is a rhetorical conversation, just evaluating the consistency of the logic). What if racial profiling prevents one crime death, should we allow it?
At the end of the day, I'm supportive of efforts to limit/curb gun violence....but will always hedge on the side of providing more freedoms, not less.
For some reason, I wasn't able to quote the notes you made in red within my previous post, but as usual you make many good points, mu03.
My abortion comparison might have been a reach, yes. What I was saying is that the same people who DO want to control a women's body in an effort to save something that many argue isn't even a "life," have no interest in legislation that might actually save a living, breathing, walking, talking human being.
We agree on plenty, and although neither of us is "extreme" in his thoughts, that just goes to show there is some common ground for making some common-sense changes. Even if we eliminated the few that we disagree on, that would be a pretty good start.
"mu03eng and MU82 ... 2020!" That's right ... I'll even settle for being vice president.
-
Yep. Still strange that 44 was all for it.
Injecting a little facts:
This was decided by an ATF administrator who joined the agency about a decade before Obama took office. It didn't cross Obama's desk, much less was he "all for it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-goofy-little-doodad-approved-under-obama-that-was-used-in-las-vegas-carnage/2017/10/04/3a1a2104-a935-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.5d05c8a51643
-
Pakuni, you obviously understand the background on the 3rd and 4th Amendment. Heck, you're probably one of the only people here who actually know what the 3rd and 4th Amendments say.
Consider this: the 3rd A talks about soldiers not busting into private homes, 4th A talks about people being secure in their homes, 5th A talks about private property not being taken for gov't use; in other words, you have three Amendments that basically address the same concept. Wouldn't it be easier to to just say something along the lines of "the gov't may not inhibit an individual's enjoyment of their property" instead of spreading it across several amendments? Everything was hand-written back then, and the framers weren't bossing scribes around to do their writing for them; so the authors would not likely have repeated similar concepts multiple times if there wasn't a reason for it. But the conceptual and logical overlap among them is painfully obvious to anyone with an IQ exceeding that of a cucumber, i.e. they are not isolated, individual thoughts... the amendments are complementary to one another.
That being said, it is not plausible to think that the 2nd Amendment was complementary to the aforementioned similarities of 3, 4, and 5? In other words, in a world at a time when the reality ingrained into many was that the government or soldiers/militiamen had the right to bust into someone's house in the middle of the night and commandeer it for themselves, perhaps the authors realized that even though we have these "rules" in the 3rd, 4th and 5th barring such, that it may not preclude some of these para-military types not directly working under gov't orders (militiamen) from going rogue. This was a new country, laws varied between states, and a war had just ended where private citizens did have their homes and property seized, if only temporarily, by both American and British soldiers and militiamen. As it holds true today, it held true back then.... old habits die hard, and the authors perhaps needed to include something of an "incentive" for these militiamen to not break the laws. What better incentive than introducing the likelihood that the next house where William Robert and Bubbaford decided to squat in the name of the "US Militia" would have a homeowner with his own musket.
Militias are difficult to regulate. The authors knew that. Hell, we have a hell of time today even regulating our own soldiers. To that end, the 2nd Amendment may very well have been intended as a regulation against violation of the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments.
In other words, the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the people the right to bear arms in case they join (or are a part of) a militia... it's to protect citizens against the militia.
So, I'm pretty jammed up and can't give this as much of a response as it deserves, but I didn't want to ignore it either.
This is reasoned and thoughtful, but I think ultimately wrong.
I think rather than establishing the Second Amendment to fend off a "well-regulated militia," it clearly was to create and maintain a well-regulated militia.
The Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the creation of a large, standing military in the United States (a philosophy that largely stayed in place in this country more or less until after WWI). However, they were not naive to the geopolitical realities that they were a young nation in a precarious spot with threats from all sides and a need to protect itself.
So their answer to these competing beliefs was a citizen army, aka a militia. In order to have a citizen army ready to fight on potentially short notice, it needed a citizenry that was a) armed and b) well regulated.
This was so important to them that they codified in their Constitution.
There's more to this, but that's all I've got time for now.
-
Injecting a little facts:
This was decided by an ATF administrator who joined the agency about a decade before Obama took office. It didn't cross Obama's desk, much less was he "all for it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-goofy-little-doodad-approved-under-obama-that-was-used-in-las-vegas-carnage/2017/10/04/3a1a2104-a935-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.5d05c8a51643
I've heard "silence is the same as agreement" a lot recently... hmmm
-
For some reason, I wasn't able to quote the notes you made in red within my previous post, but as usual you make many good points, mu03.
My abortion comparison might have been a reach, yes. What I was saying is that the same people who DO want to control a women's body in an effort to save something that many argue isn't even a "life," have no interest in legislation that might actually save a living, breathing, walking, talking human being.
We agree on plenty, and although neither of us is "extreme" in his thoughts, that just goes to show there is some common ground for making some common-sense changes. Even if we eliminated the few that we disagree on, that would be a pretty good start.
"mu03eng and MU82 ... 2020!" That's right ... I'll even settle for being vice president.
Agreed, and that's what I'm trying to drive.....let's accomplish some useful and practical changes that makes sense to at least some majority of both sides of the argument. Too much all or nothing talk these days.
And I get exactly what you were doing with the abortion stuff and it's a point well made. One of my big buggaboos in politics is not taking a morally and/or logically consistent position for situation to situation. I'd much rather discuss and debate with someone that says that we should ban abortion because it harms life, but we also have to support that life we helped protect versus someone who says abortion is murder, but as soon as you're born good luck kid. It's not logically consistent, it's really whatever makes you feel good not what makes sense *you not being you, you being them and who them is is anyone's game ;D
-
So, I'm pretty jammed up and can't give this as much of a response as it deserves, but I didn't want to ignore it either.
This is reasoned and thoughtful, but I think ultimately wrong.
I think rather than establishing the Second Amendment to fend off a "well-regulated militia," it clearly was to create and maintain a well-regulated militia.
The Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the creation of a large, standing military in the United States (a philosophy that largely stayed in place in this country more or less until after WWI). However, they were not naive to the geopolitical realities that they were a young nation in a precarious spot with threats from all sides and a need to protect itself.
So their answer to these competing beliefs was a citizen army, aka a militia. In order to have a citizen army ready to fight on potentially short notice, it needed a citizenry that was a) armed and b) well regulated.
This was so important to them that they codified in their Constitution.
There's more to this, but that's all I've got time for now.
Right but the founding fathers were also the ones that then provided for the generation of a standing army and navy with legislative action. They could have amended the constitution (having known what they intended) that a standing militia was no longer as relevant having constituted a standing army.
-
Right but the founding fathers were also the ones that then provided for the generation of a standing army and navy with legislative action. They could have amended the constitution (having known what they intended) that a standing militia was no longer as relevant having constituted a standing army.
The Naval Act of 1794 commissioned the construction of six frigates, primarily to protect merchant ships from pirates.
The nation had no army at the time of the Constitution. The closest came three years later, with the creation of the "Legion of the United States," which was a small armed force of about 5,000 established primarily to fight natives.
The British army, which is what the FF would have viewed as a standing army in that era,had about 120,000 full-time members at that time.
-
Reports are he didn't kill himself.
Where did you see this?
-
Where did you see this?
Saw them earlier this week, but I think they were wrong.
-
Whoa. So Lallapalooza was apparently 'targeted' by the gunman in that he rented two hotel rooms overlooking Grant Park but seemingly never checked in and didn't pursue it. I think many of you may have heard that already.
Here's what you might not have heard. I just listened to a City of Chicago official (not sure who, certainly not Rahm) say the following......
'The attack didn't happen here because we (Chicago) were better prepared for it than Las Vegas.'
I have to figure out who that a-clown is. That was the most divisive, self serving, and disrespectful thing I have heard a local official say in a long time. Again, I'm embarrassed by our local politicians. Terrible.
Mind-blowingly insensitive and arrogant.
-
Mind-blowingly insensitive and arrogant.
I know. I couldn't believe I heard it. But they played the tape of him saying it. Brutal.
-
The NRA just advocated for 'additional regulations' associated with bump stocks. Make sense to me. Good for them.
Yes it is a good first step. But it's also the smart/only step from the NRA perspective in an attempt to avoid a push for larger regulations. Judging from their history they are doing this to protect themselves not address the problem.
I'll say 'good for them' or ' they are willing to address the severity of gun violence' when some version of "hey we're not unreasonable, we were willing to discuss 'additional regulations' on bump stocks" isn't the response to broader background checks, registering all guns sold, ammo clip capacity, the next version of a bump stock that can be used to increase the lethality of a weapon.
Again, it's a good first step and i appreciate that. I hope nobody sees this as a solution.
edit: CNN points out the same thing
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html)
-
Is it the speed at which bullets can be fired the concern or the amount of bullets, or both? If we accept self-defense, you need semi-automatic because seconds count and having to cock the gun in between shots could kill someone. If you allow semi-automatic in hand guns, can you disallow it with long guns?
IMHO, it's mostly the sheer number. Six rapid fire makes sense if you're fighting off an intruder at night.
And yeah, you can disallow it with long guns if you'd only get one bullet at a time to kill a deer (see my suggestion above). A semi-automatic mechanism would be kind of a waste in a gun with only one bullet, no?
I'm not saying these are the ultimate (or best answers). I'm just showing that it should be very possible to come up with reasonable guidelines. Some of it is going to be arbitrary, as results of negotiations always are. But it's better than just giving up the discussion and watching one mass shooting after another.
-
Saw them earlier this week, but I think they were wrong.
Yeah, I initially heard that he died in a shootout with police...but they later changed the story to say he was found dead, presumably moments before the police entered.
-
Yeah, I initially heard that he died in a shootout with police...but they later changed the story to say he was found dead, presumably moments before the police entered.
No, the current timeline has the perp shooting out the windows for approximately 7-11 minutes. It was at roughly the 11 minute mark that unarmed Mandy Bay security guard Jesus Campos (let's consider him as an incredible American hero) approached the door and was shot in the leg through the closed door with one of 200 rounds directed his way. There were few (if any) rounds discharged out the windows after that. SWAT did not break down the door for another 30 minutes minimum. I believe that their strategy was that shooting had stopped and hotel guest safety was being considered prior to the breech.
So it's somewhat speculated that shortly after encountering the Mandy guard the perp put a round in his head.
Let me again reiterate my outrage at the Chicago official's horrific statements today juxtaposed against the incredible valor of Mr. Campos who knew full well what he was facing without a weapon. Thereafter, he remained on scene assisting the LVPD with valuable information until ordered to the hospital for medical attention.
Let me add one other thing that I hope my friends on the left might agree with. IF Mandy was a 'gun free zone' and as a result Mr. Campos was required to be unarmed......
Well, you know my opinion on that. That's as easy as the bump stop argument.
-
Absolutely!
If we were talking about saving one "life" by limiting (or preventing) abortions, many of the same people who want no new gun laws at all would line up behind it. Same if we were talking about saving one life by instituting a Muslim ban.
Mike, so you are OK with limiting abortions and extreme vetting of folks from some countries? Those measures, along with sensible gun control, would surely save lives. Is compromise really in the air?
-
glow, are you sure you heard the Chicago official correctly? This isn't being reported anywhere. There are a bunch of reports of Chicago officials talking about their readiness for the marathon this weekend.
-
No, the current timeline has the perp shooting out the windows for approximately 7-11 minutes. It was at roughly the 11 minute mark that unarmed Mandy Bay security guard Jesus Campos (let's consider him as an incredible American hero) approached the door and was shot in the leg through the closed door with one of 200 rounds directed his way. There were few (if any) rounds discharged out the windows after that. SWAT did not break down the door for another 30 minutes minimum. I believe that their strategy was that shooting had stopped and hotel guest safety was being considered prior to the breech.
So it's somewhat speculated that shortly after encountering the Mandy guard the perp put a round in his head.
Let me again reiterate my outrage at the Chicago official's horrific statements today juxtaposed against the incredible valor of Mr. Campos who knew full well what he was facing without a weapon. Thereafter, he remained on scene assisting the LVPD with valuable information until ordered to the hospital for medical attention.
Let me add one other thing that I hope my friends on the left might agree with. IF Mandy was a 'gun free zone' and as a result Mr. Campos was required to be unarmed......
Well, you know my opinion on that. That's as easy as the bump stop argument.
I'm confused about where you're going with the second underlined sentence above. First (in the first sentence I underlined) you stated that the guard actually WAS unarmed...but in the second underlined sentence you seemed to be asking what would have happened IF HE HAD BEEN unarmed.
Answer: we know. He was unarmed, yet presumably stopped the worst mass shooting in American history. To me, this shows that the answer to guns isn't necessarily more guns. I agree with you that he is a true hero...but he clearly didn't need a gun to achieve that status.
-
glow, are you sure you heard the Chicago official correctly? This isn't being reported anywhere. There are a bunch of reports of Chicago officials talking about their readiness for the marathon this weekend.
Yes. I heard the audio tape myself on WLS during an afternoon top of hour news broadcast. I assure you that while my words might not be exact, they express the message conveyed correctly. I believe it might have happened during Rahm's presser discussing the marathon but it absolutely wasn't Rahm. Maybe the speaker has been given the courtesy of 'revising and extending his remarks'.
-
I'm confused about where you're going with the second underlined sentence above. First (in the first sentence I underlined) you stated that the guard actually WAS unarmed...but in the second underlined sentence you seemed to be asking what would have happened IF HE HAD BEEN unarmed.
Answer: we know. He was unarmed, yet presumably stopped the worst mass shooting in American history. To me, this shows that the answer to guns isn't necessarily more guns. I agree with you that he is a true hero...but he clearly didn't need a gun to achieve that status.
No, you may misunderstand. Campos was unarmed but the perp might not have known that. Campos may have been unarmed because of a 'gun free' policy applicable in the Mandalay Bay where nobody is allowed to carry including a security guard. Note that this is total speculation on my part. I don't know it to be policy. But it does happen in some settings. The perp took his own life with his own weapon. But Campos would have been more effective if armed. Hope that clarifies my position.
-
No, you may misunderstand. Campos was unarmed but the perp might not have known that. Campos may have been unarmed because of a 'gun free' policy applicable in the Mandalay Bay where nobody is allowed to carry including a security guard. Note that this is total speculation on my part. I don't know it to be policy. But it does happen in some settings. The perp took his own life with his own weapon. But Campos would have been more effective if armed. Hope that clarifies my position.
That does clarify your opinion...but the underlined sentence is speculation. Maybe if he was armed, he would have gone more boldly at the door and been taken out with one shot...and the perp could have opened up again on the crowd.
We truly have no idea what would have happened if he had been armed...but we know that he very effectively stopped the rampage as an unarmed man.
-
That does clarify your opinion...but the underlined sentence is speculation. Maybe if he was armed, he would have gone more boldly at the door and been taken out with one shot...and the perp could have opened up again on the crowd.
We truly have no idea what would have happened if he had been armed...but we know that he very effectively stopped the rampage as an unarmed man.
Campos stopped nothing. The perp killed himself. I reject categorically that Campos shouldn't have been armed. You've just asked a soldier to go to war with his good looks. Never and an indefensible position.
-
Campos stopped nothing. The perp killed himself. I reject categorically that Campos shouldn't have been armed. You've just asked a soldier to go to war with his good looks. Never and an indefensible position.
Sorry, but if the story is correct, Campos stopped everything. He caused the perp to realize that the authorities had figured out where he was, so that he had no way out. By doing that, Campos' mere presence caused the perp to stop shooting and take his own life. And Campos did it without a gun.
Your speculation that it would have been "better" if Campos had a gun is simply that - speculation.
-
Sorry, but if the story is correct, Campos stopped everything. He caused the perp to realize that the authorities had figured out where he was, so that he had no way out. By doing that, Campos' mere presence caused the perp to stop shooting and take his own life. And Campos did it without a gun.
Your speculation that it would have been "better" if Campos had a gun is simply that - speculation.
We're not going to agree on this my friend. Have a good evening.
-
Actually you are giving me way too much credit. I don't read most of your posts.
It obvious from most of your responses
-
The 2nd Amendment was written in 1789 when guns could hold a bullet and had to be reloaded. This is not about the right to keep and bear arms. It is about the kind of weaponry that is available, their power, and the ability of a regular citizen to inflict massive damage.
The first amendment was written in 1789 when the only form of public speaking was a slow moveable type printing press that took hours to set up to print one page, and then maybe a 100 could be printed.
The founding fathers could have never envisioned radio, television and the internet.
Therefore, we need to exclude all these new technologies from the first amendment and freedom of speech.
-----
See how stupid that sounds? About as stupid as your 2nd amendment argument.
Note: the single shot musket was the military grade weapon of the day and the founding fathers wanted these military type weapons held by the citizenry in case the government got out of control and need to be brought back into line.
So, yes they would have approved AR-15 held by the public. In fact, you could make the case they might have approved private ownership of nukes (for the same reason).
-
We're not going to agree on this my friend. Have a good evening.
Peace, bro.
-
For as much as folks have talked about gun culture in this country, and how important it is to the fabric of this country, anyone astounded that HALF of all guns in this country are owned by just 3% of the population, and that 78% of people own zero guns at all?
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds
I'll see your Harvard study and raise you a Pew Research that says 44% of all households own a gun.
Surprise: Gun ownership rises to 44% of all homes
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-gun-ownership-rises-to-44-of-all-homes/article/2600319
-
Let me add one other thing that I hope my friends on the left might agree with. IF Mandy was a 'gun free zone' and as a result Mr. Campos was required to be unarmed......
Well, you know my opinion on that. That's as easy as the bump stop argument.
Mandy has different types of security. Some carry guns, some do not cary guns. Campos was one of the ones that does not carry a weapon.
Regardless, he was a hero that despite being unarmed saved lives by finding the shooter and the shooter stopping his assault.
-
Mandy has different types of security. Some carry guns, some do not cary guns. Campos was one of the ones that does not carry a weapon.
Regardless, he was a hero that despite being unarmed saved lives by finding the shooter and the shooter stopping his assault.
Cool. Thanks for filling in with the facts regarding their policy. Adds to the discussion.
-
Yep - thanks forgetful.
Regardless of any disagreements, we all agree that Campos was a hero. Between him and the many people who risked their lives to help others escape, there is still hope for humanity.
Jonathan Smith is another great example....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/us/las-vegas-shooting-jonathan-smith-tom-mcgrath-hero-intv/index.html
-
walmart just pulled all their bump stocks
my understanding of a bump stock-it may have saved lives in the long run here-stay with me here-
yes, he had a few rifles equipped and loaded and ready-why-because they jam as they are finding they did. the gun gets so hot and it the chamber isn't meant for this rapid fire-it jams very predictably. if he would have had a number of semi-autos all ready, chances are there would have been fewer jams and he could have gotten more shots off in the long run-i'm happy as hell he didn't!
also, where are/were the anti gun people with all the inner-city shootings? is it because there are usually only one two or three at a time and they're spread out over a number of hours? in other words do not fall into the category of "mass shootings"? one other point-the anti-gun people dismiss too easily all of the arguments we put forth-note-they are legitimate arguments. i don't think there is a need to re-hatch them here, but we can i guess
bottom line-i am by no means trying to diminish vegas- was a nasty nasty incident committed by a very evil individual
This is exactly correct, the guns do overheat and jam easily. They are not designed for auto shooting.
That is why some think he brought up to 12 guns with bump stocks. He did not reload but picked up another gun.
-
read this at another site and it made me chuckle:
Weird, you can buy 49 firearms, bunch of ammo, pounds of ammonium nitrate, but I can’t by more than two boxes of Claritin D within a 30 day period.
He bought his first gun in 1982. It took him 35 years to accumulate this many guns.
-
He bought his first gun in 1982. It took him 35 years to accumulate this many guns.
You're not entirely wrong. It did take him 35 years to accumulate 49 firearms. However...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/10/04/las-vegas-shooter-bought-33-guns-last-12-months/730634001/
-
To all hunters out there: why couldn't we define "hunting rifles" as one shot, then reload?
I can hit a deer with one pass of my car. If you can't hit it with one shot, you aren't a very good hunter.
Should handguns have only one shot then reload? Your question is a fair one, should semi-auto weapons be banned, it's a clear definition. I don't think it would ever, ever pass....but at least it is a definable, enforcable standard.
The first semi-automatic gun was invented in 1885. It is 140-year technology and virtual every pistol made in the last 100 years is semi-automatic. The vast majority of rifles since WW1 are semi-automatic.
Gun owners understand this and that is why when gun novices say "ban semi-automatics" gun owners hear "ban all guns."
Think of making automatic transmission cars illegal and think of how many we have made and how it radically changes all cars on the road. That is what it means to ban semi-automatic guns. It is functionally the same as saying "ban all guns."
-
By that time, it's too late, rocket!
I thought we were about preventing deaths, not about getting cops to the scene after somebody is dead (or several somebodies are dead). The idiot who was allowed to be packing in a tavern might have shot 5 innocent people ... because he was too drunk to get the guy he wanted to kill.
Guns in bars is about as bad an idea as any legislator has ever come up with, and that's a pretty big list.
ok, first of all, bars are private businesses and they have the right to ban handguns(as many do) if they so choose. my opinion-that's fine. a couple of problems, in my opinion-1) you are telling all your customers that there are NO handguns in the bar and 2) great! now you've just advertised to all crooks-no handguns here. would you put a sign outside your house stating the same?
when the government starts to mandate to private business they cannot allow firearms-well, sounds like we will then have a problem with the 2nd
if i have to, i can pull a bunch of stats out that show most of the mass shootings occur in "gun-free" zones
yes, in a perfect world, EVERYONE is safe from everything bad. unfortunately my friend, bad chit happens to good people too often. we have for good reasons, tried to protect us from ourselves throughout our being here on earth. doesn't hurt to keep trying, but at some point, we must weigh risk/reward.
note-the wynn is now one of the first in vegas to check bags i believe? don't know if airport style security is next? this will probably go through some growing pains before they find an acceptable solution. now, by solution, i mean something that the customers will tolerate and feel is acceptable. if they will do next to anything to "feel safe"-the customer is always right. right now, yes of course many seem willing to do anything as we are coming off the worst mass shooting in our history. but if i'm going to have to stand in line and get felt up every time i come and go from a casino hotel-hello Pottawatomie, oneida, rivers, etc...i'm staying home to gamble-just saying.
-
The first semi-automatic gun was invented in 1885. It is 140-year technology and virtual every pistol made in the last 100 years is semi-automatic. The vast majority of rifles since WW1 are semi-automatic.
Gun owners understand this and that is why when gun novices say "ban semi-automatics" gun owners hear "ban all guns."
Think of making automatic transmission cars illegal and think of how many we have made and how it radically changes all cars on the road. That is what it means to ban semi-automatic guns. It is functionally the same as saying "ban all guns."
The ban would be moving forward. Trying to make anything like that retroactive would be impossible. So no, it wouldn't be banning all guns - it would just prevent the most dangerous ones from continuing to be sold.
A better analogy is the MPG requirements for new cars. We saw that gas guzzlers were doing bad things, so the government imposed more stringent standards for new cars. The gas guzzlers stayed on the road, but are very gradually fading away.
Solid effort, though....
-
The ban would be moving forward. Trying to make anything like that retroactive would be impossible. So no, it wouldn't be banning all guns - it would just prevent the most dangerous ones from continuing to be sold.
A better analogy is the MPG requirements for new cars. We saw that gas guzzlers were doing bad things, so the government imposed more stringent standards for new cars. The gas guzzlers stayed on the road, but are very gradually fading away.
Solid effort, though....
I have a friend that has an actual 1871 colt 45 (145+ year-old gun) that I shot with him about a month ago (with a "quick draw" holster like the movies). It works as good today as it did when Grover Cleveland was President. Point is guns do not get too old and go stale (unless they are not properly cared for).
You a fan of Star Trek? Becuase you could ban newly made semi-automatics today and with 300 million in the country (yes, that is how many we have), currently existing semis will be commonly and regularly used in the 24th century. Jon Luc-Picard will be running for cover!
I also have a 60-year-old shotgun my dad gave me for my 12th birthday. (Remmington 870 pump). I still use it to this day.
So good job in finding a solution that will take about a thousand years to complete.
-----
To your incorrect analogy ...
The average life of a properly cared for car is about 11 to 12 years.
The average life for a properly cared for a gun is at least 145 years (and counting) as my first example above shows.
-
I have a friend that has an actual 1871 colt 45 (145+ year-old gun) that I shot with him about a month ago (with a "quick draw" holster like the movies). It works as good today as it did when Grover Cleveland was President. Point is guns do not get too old and go stale (unless they are not properly cared for).
You a fan of Star Trek? Becuase you could ban newly made semi-automatics today and with 300 million in the country (yes, that is how many we have), currently existing semis will be commonly and regularly used in the 24th century. Jon Luc-Picard will be running for cover!
I also have a 60-year-old shotgun my dad gave me for my 12th birthday. (Remmington 870 pump). I still use it to this day.
So good job in finding a solution that will take about a thousand years to complete.
-----
To your incorrect analogy ...
The average life of a properly cared for car is about 11 to 12 years.
The average life for a properly cared for a gun is at least 145 years (and counting) as my first example above shows.
You give a couple examples of old guns, and equate that to the "average" life? Wow - you're really digging deep.
I'm still willing to make the change moving forward. Given your inane belief that all the semi-automatics out there will be around for 145 years on average, you ought to be OK with that, right?
Or are you gonna stick with "let's just give up"?
-
Campos stopped nothing. The perp killed himself. I reject categorically that Campos shouldn't have been armed. You've just asked a soldier to go to war with his good looks. Never and an indefensible position.
Campis isn't a soldier. He's a hotel security guard. Let's not pretend otherwise.
And to answer your earlier questiion, the Mandalay does have armed security officers. Campos wasn't one of them.
-
You give a couple examples of old guns, and equate that to the "average" life? Wow - you're really digging deep.
I'm still willing to make the change moving forward. Given your inane belief that all the semi-automatics out there will be around for 145 years on average, you ought to be OK with that, right?
Or are you gonna stick with "let's just give up"?
The highlighted part is key ... a non-gun owner wants to make himself feel better because that is more important than actually solving the problem.
-
The highlighted part is key ... a non-gun owner wants to make himself feel better because that is more important than actually solving the problem.
No, it's solving the problem little by little...for my kids, grandkids, etc. Better than just ignoring it.
Same reason I care about the environment. Probably no monumental changes in the 40 or so years I have left...but I'd still like to try to improve things for future generations.
-
No, it's solving the problem little by little...for my kids, grandkids, etc. Better than just ignoring it.
Same reason I care about the environment. Probably no monumental changes in the 40 or so years I have left...but I'd still like to try to improve things for future generations.
What is the problem you are solving again?
-
What is the problem you are solving again?
Get lost much? You make yourself look more silly with every post.
-
Get lost much?
Guns are a legal and constitutionally protect the product. 76 million people own at least one and there are 300 million in circulation. Virtually all of them are semi-automatic.
So, if you want to ban them, then man up and say you willing to have your taxes raised to hire hundreds of thousands of swat team geared ATF agents to go house by house to get rid of them. And when they physically eject you and your family from your home to rip up the floorboards to search for guns, be sure to thank them and suggest other parts of your house that can destroy looking for guns.
Because short of that, you're not getting rid of guns (sorry semi-automatics) and really just looking for a way to make yourself feel superior and good.
-
Mike, so you are OK with limiting abortions and extreme vetting of folks from some countries? Those measures, along with sensible gun control, would surely save lives. Is compromise really in the air?
Well, the first part is easy for me. I don't regard a fetus as a "life," especially not in the first 20-22 weeks. That's another debate for another time.
The second, we already vet the hell out of people! Don't forget, what our dear leader wants isn't just vetting but EXTREME VETTING. He couldn't even do a decent job of extremely vetting the people he hired to help him run his administration, but that also is another debate for another time.
Always a pleasure doing business with you, Lenny.
-
Guns are a legal and constitutionally protect the product. 76 million people own at least one and there are 300 million in circulation. Virtually all of them are semi-automatic.
So, if you want to ban them, then man up and say you willing to have your taxes raised to hire hundreds of thousands of swat team geared ATF agents to go house by house to get rid of them. And when they physically eject you and your family from your home to rip up the floorboards to search for guns, be sure to thank them and suggest other parts of your house that can destroy looking for guns.
Because short of that, you're not getting rid of guns (sorry semi-automatics) and really just looking for a way to make yourself feel superior and good.
You got completely lost again. Not surprising.
I never said to completely get rid of them – I said we should stop the continued production and sale of them, so that the number gradually decreases over time.
Good night Chica....
-
You got completely lost again. Not surprising.
I never said to completely get rid of them – I said we should stop the continued production and sale of them, so that the number gradually decreases over time.
Good night Chica....
And as I said, banning current production with 300 million in circulation means the amount of guns and its usage remain high for hundreds of years.
And since a Gun is 140 year old technology, and tens of thousands that passed a machine shop class in high school and can find their local Home Depot, they are capable of manufacturing a semi-automatic in their basement, we will have an active black market in guns for centuries.
You want to start a national registry of blue collar workers? Every mechanic, plumber, welder, etc possesses the skill and knowledge to make a gun. Should we restrict and regulate their activities?
Their is a big market in homemade pistols (aka “the Saturday night special “) they can be bought for as little as $10.
It’s obvious you have never owned a gun or understand much about them. I’m trying to show you the folly in your idea and your response is to maintain your ignorance and insult anyone that disagrees with you.
-
He bought his first gun in 1982. It took him 35 years to accumulate this many guns.
33 in the past year.
33.
-
You got completely lost again. Not surprising.
I never said to completely get rid of them – I said we should stop the continued production and sale of them, so that the number gradually decreases over time.
Good night Chica....
i would consider this idea anti-gun lite. drip drip drip. also, against the will of the people and do you realize how many jobs this would eliminate? i know, you are going to focus on the job elimination. that's just collateral damage though, eyn'a? someone earlier said within this thread "no one said anyone here is for the total elimination of guns" well there you have it, more or less
-
And as I said, banning current production with 300 million in circulation means the amount of guns and its usage remain high for hundreds of years.
And since a Gun is 140 year old technology, and tens of thousands that passed a machine shop class in high school and can find their local Home Depot, they are capable of manufacturing a semi-automatic in their basement, we will have an active black market in guns for centuries.
You want to start a national registry of blue collar workers? Every mechanic, plumber, welder, etc possesses the skill and knowledge to make a gun. Should we restrict and regulate their activities?
Their is a big market in homemade pistols (aka “the Saturday night special “) they can be bought for as little as $10.
It’s obvious you have never owned a gun or understand much about them. I’m trying to show you the folly in your idea and your response is to maintain your ignorance and insult anyone that disagrees with you.
You certainly say a lot of crazy hyperbolic shyte, but the bold is impressive even by your standards.
I actually agree with your larger point that the cat is out of the bag when it comes to restricting certain types of guns in this country. There are just far too many of them out there for such a restriction to make much of a difference -- somebody that wants one can get one in any number of currently legal ways. That being said, there are certainly common sense ways to make it more difficult that have already been discussed in this topic.
I'm going to take a wild guess that you would support none of them.
-
33 in the past year.
33.
If only we had the technology that would allow law enforcement to recognize that kind of red flag.
-
i would consider this idea anti-gun lite. drip drip drip. also, against the will of the people and do you realize how many jobs this would eliminate? i know, you are going to focus on the job elimination. that's just collateral damage though, eyn'a? someone earlier said within this thread "no one said anyone here is for the total elimination of guns" well there you have it, more or less
There's a reason why slippery slope arguments are considered a fallacy, rocket.
Job elimination vs life elimination? Hmmm. Such a tough, tough choice.
Seriously, of all the cynical, inhuman and lousy arguments I've heard against gun control (and there are plenty) that may be the most cynical, inhuman and lousy.
-
I'm confused about where you're going with the second underlined sentence above. First (in the first sentence I underlined) you stated that the guard actually WAS unarmed...but in the second underlined sentence you seemed to be asking what would have happened IF HE HAD BEEN unarmed.
Answer: we know. He was unarmed, yet presumably stopped the worst mass shooting in American history. To me, this shows that the answer to guns isn't necessarily more guns. I agree with you that he is a true hero...but he clearly didn't need a gun to achieve that status.
We still don't know much with any certainty. Some theories think Campos was a 2nd shooter and he killed Paddock, shot himself in the leg and put 200 rounds through the door. If you've seen the pictures of Paddock laying on the floor, notice the casings laying on top of his blood on the carpet. Some even report that Campos had GDR on his hands.
I don't know if any of that is true but I also don't know that it isn't true.
-
We still don't know much with any certainty. Some theories think Campos was a 2nd shooter and he killed Paddock, shot himself in the leg and put 200 rounds through the door. If you've seen the pictures of Paddock laying on the floor, notice the casings laying on top of his blood on the carpet. Some even report that Campos had GDR on his hands.
I don't know if any of that is true but I also don't know that it isn't true.
I hear the Russians conspired with ISIS and Black Lives Matter to pull off a massive false flag operation.
I don't know of any of that is true but I also don't know that it isn't true.
-
Well, the first part is easy for me. I don't regard a fetus as a "life," especially not in the first 20-22 weeks. That's another debate for another time.
The second, we already vet the hell out of people! Don't forget, what our dear leader wants isn't just vetting but EXTREME VETTING. He couldn't even do a decent job of extremely vetting the people he hired to help him run his administration, but that also is another debate for another time.
Always a pleasure doing business with you, Lenny.
Thanks for making my point for me Mike. "Saving" or protecting life isn't difficult. The problem is what are we willing to give up (compromise)to get it done. Like you, I'm not a gun owner and I don't agree with the right's slippery slope stance against what I consider reasonable gun control measures. Unlike you, I don't feel qualified to determine at what precise moment life is worth protecting (20 weeks, 22 weeks?). I can't understand how people can be so cavalier about it. But since "abortion rights" are now a settled issue, I really don't understand those who defend gruesome practices like partial birth abortion to protect said rights from the slippery slope.
Lower the speed limits to 40 mph, ban cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles, etc, etc, etc. - all of the above would save lives and for me personally only the lower speed limit would provide even a little bit of a nuisance. But many would consider the cost of these safety measures too high. That's what these arguments all about - what, if any, is the right amount of freedom to abdicate for safety purposes.
-
You certainly say a lot of crazy hyperbolic shyte, but the bold is impressive even by your standards.
I actually agree with your larger point that the cat is out of the bag when it comes to restricting certain types of guns in this country. There are just far too many of them out there for such a restriction to make much of a difference -- somebody that wants one can get one in any number of currently legal ways. That being said, there are certainly common sense ways to make it more difficult that have already been discussed in this topic.
I'm going to take a wild guess that you would support none of them.
You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun. And in some gang neighborhoods, you don't buy a handgun, you buy them by the crate for as little as $10/each. They are made in illegal tool and die shops here and especially in Mexico (and smuggled in by the drug runners). Where do you think the really bad Nacros/Breaking Bad types get their automatic weapons? They are manufactured in foreign countries by illegitimate outfits. Why? Becuase the technology is very easy to reproduce.
Common sense gun regulation ... please name me what that is.
-
Injecting a little facts:
This was decided by an ATF administrator who joined the agency about a decade before Obama took office. It didn't cross Obama's desk, much less was he "all for it."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-goofy-little-doodad-approved-under-obama-that-was-used-in-las-vegas-carnage/2017/10/04/3a1a2104-a935-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.5d05c8a51643
His administration though. If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time. If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this. Let's not be naive.
-
The immediate blowback against glow from posters that share my political leanings simply because he posted the actual text of the second amendment is a bad look, team.
That's because it's a living, breathing document and some people know what it means better than others, just listen to them and they will tell you what the words really mean.
-
You have no i.............. regulation ... please name me what that is.
Honest set of yes/no questions for you. I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.? (if 'yes' move on. if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
- availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
- who can buy and own guns.
- quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
- quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
- types of weapons available for sale
- Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?
Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.
I'm 'yes' on all of them
-
No, the current timeline has the perp shooting out the windows for approximately 7-11 minutes. It was at roughly the 11 minute mark that unarmed Mandy Bay security guard Jesus Campos (let's consider him as an incredible American hero) approached the door and was shot in the leg through the closed door with one of 200 rounds directed his way. There were few (if any) rounds discharged out the windows after that. SWAT did not break down the door for another 30 minutes minimum. I believe that their strategy was that shooting had stopped and hotel guest safety was being considered prior to the breech.
So it's somewhat speculated that shortly after encountering the Mandy guard the perp put a round in his head.
Let me again reiterate my outrage at the Chicago official's horrific statements today juxtaposed against the incredible valor of Mr. Campos who knew full well what he was facing without a weapon. Thereafter, he remained on scene assisting the LVPD with valuable information until ordered to the hospital for medical attention.
Let me add one other thing that I hope my friends on the left might agree with. IF Mandy was a 'gun free zone' and as a result Mr. Campos was required to be unarmed......
Well, you know my opinion on that. That's as easy as the bump stop argument.
Correct me if I am wrong but a gun free zone doesn't limit authorized personnel, such as a security guard, from have a weapon, does it? Maybe it is up to the discretion of that particular establishment.
-
The first amendment was written in 1789 when the only form of public speaking was a slow moveable type printing press that took hours to set up to print one page, and then maybe a 100 could be printed.
The founding fathers could have never envisioned radio, television and the internet.
Therefore, we need to exclude all these new technologies from the first amendment and freedom of speech.
-----
See how stupid that sounds? About as stupid as your 2nd amendment argument.
Note: the single shot musket was the military grade weapon of the day and the founding fathers wanted these military type weapons held by the citizenry in case the government got out of control and need to be brought back into line.
So, yes they would have approved AR-15 held by the public. In fact, you could make the case they might have approved private ownership of nukes (for the same reason).
Another ridiculous comparison.
-
1. They dropped the ball. Two wrongs don't make a right.
2. Who here has advocated a total ban? Please list - because I can't find any. My own personal preference would be to define "arms" under the second amendment as perhaps a handgun or two for "self-defense," and a hunting rifle or two. No single individual needs 50 assault rifles for "fighting back against tyranny."
Again - if you have identified people here who advocate nothing short of a total ban, please point them out.
It cannot simply be a dropped the ball argument. Coming out and blaming one side after the fact when you had complete control to do something and didn't is TOTAL lack of leadership and ownership. It describes both parties and leaders of this country for many years. Elizabeth Warren has made zero tweets about gun control in 10 months until this week. What a passionate issue it must be for her. The assault weapons ban, why did it tank? Because both parties tanked it. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/15-democrats-helped-tank-2013-assault-weapons-ban/story?id=50275295
My own personal preference is not to put limits on law abiding citizens. Takes the police too long to get to the house. For every bad thing that happens with guns, why don't we take a look at lives saved, criminals stopped, homes protected? For some reason our press doesn't like to talk about this much.
Total ban advocates, I'm not doing a search here on Scoop, but some examples elsewhere:
This was 12 hours ago in the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html
The Times has run at least 4 total ban pieces in the last 5 years. The nation's newspaper.
https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them
An article a few days about interviewing survivors of Vegas shooting and whether they want more Gun Control
http://time.com/4968467/las-vegas-shooting-victims-gun-control/
-
The Naval Act of 1794 commissioned the construction of six frigates, primarily to protect merchant ships from pirates.
The nation had no army at the time of the Constitution. The closest came three years later, with the creation of the "Legion of the United States," which was a small armed force of about 5,000 established primarily to fight natives.
The British army, which is what the FF would have viewed as a standing army in that era,had about 120,000 full-time members at that time.
We're on the same page as far as history goes... citizen militias were - I believe - not just desirable but inevitable as far as the framers were concerned. So if I'm reading you correctly, I think we're in agreement that a standing military such as what we have today was incomprehensible to the framers at the time, just as they could have never conceived of the concept of rifles that could fire off 200 rounds/minute.
So where we differ is that I believe that the (not-infringing on the) right to bear arms perhaps may have been intended to regulate militias whereas you believe that its was a pre-req for a regulated militia. So what we have here is the bastard offspring of both the classic "verb/adjective" stand-off and the "chicken and the egg" conundrum. Sh|t.
Let's just call it at that; however, I will submit that perhaps we're debating lobster vs. cracked crab here.
-
Thanks for making my point for me Mike. "Saving" or protecting life isn't difficult. The problem is what are we willing to give up (compromise)to get it done. Like you, I'm not a gun owner and I don't agree with the right's slippery slope stance against what I consider reasonable gun control measures. Unlike you, I don't feel qualified to determine at what precise moment life is worth protecting (20 weeks, 22 weeks?). I can't understand how people can be so cavalier about it. But since "abortion rights" are now a settled issue, I really don't understand those who defend gruesome practices like partial birth abortion to protect said rights from the slippery slope.
Lower the speed limits to 40 mph, ban cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles, etc, etc, etc. - all of the above would save lives and for me personally only the lower speed limit would provide even a little bit of a nuisance. But many would consider the cost of these safety measures too high. That's what these arguments all about - what, if any, is the right amount of freedom to abdicate for safety purposes.
Okey dokey, Lenny. I understand what you're saying. I'm just an interwebs mope and I don't pretend to have all the answers. A lot of the gun-control conversation is me trying to search for answers because there have to be some. NOT some that stop every shooting - that's stupid, just as no law against murder can stop murder - but some practical answers that would lessen the carnage.
You are right about the # of weeks re abortions. I'm going to try to avoid such declarations in the future. I certainly am no medical expert. I am firmly pro-choice, but I do realize there is nuance. There also is law; partial-birth abortion is illegal. I wish I hadn't brought up abortion in this thread; rarely does something good come out of an abortion discussion here. This will be my last word on that topic in this thread. You are free to have the last word if you want.
Later.
-
The first amendment was written in 1789 when the only form of public speaking was a slow moveable type printing press that took hours to set up to print one page, and then maybe a 100 could be printed.
The founding fathers could have never envisioned radio, television and the internet.
Therefore, we need to exclude all these new technologies from the first amendment and freedom of speech.
-----
See how stupid that sounds? About as stupid as your 2nd amendment argument.
Note: the single shot musket was the military grade weapon of the day and the founding fathers wanted these military type weapons held by the citizenry in case the government got out of control and need to be brought back into line.
So, yes they would have approved AR-15 held by the public. In fact, you could make the case they might have approved private ownership of nukes (for the same reason).
yes you do sound stupid. You're honestly saying the only form of public speaking in 1789 was a printing press?
So in your opinion/ beliefs in 1789 nobody made any public speeches?
Wow, i know we disagree on things but I honestly thought you were smarter.
-
You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun. And in some gang neighborhoods, you don't buy a handgun, you buy them by the crate for as little as $10/each. They are made in illegal tool and die shops here and especially in Mexico (and smuggled in by the drug runners). Where do you think the really bad Nacros/Breaking Bad types get their automatic weapons? They are manufactured in foreign countries by illegitimate outfits. Why? Becuase the technology is very easy to reproduce.
With the amount of links you post on this board, can you provide something on this at all? This is the first I'm hearing about how easy it is to make a homemade gun and that they can be bought by the crate for $10/each.
Of course it could be because I just don't pay attention to those sorts of things. But I just thought that since you link a bajillion other things on this board, there's gotta be something you can find on this.
-
With the amount of links you post on this board, can you provide something on this at all? This is the first I'm hearing about how easy it is to make a homemade gun and that they can be bought by the crate for $10/each.
Of course it could be because I just don't pay attention to those sorts of things. But I just thought that since you link a bajillion other things on this board, there's gotta be something you can find on this.
The most popular guns for committing crimes in Chicago based on weapons confiscated by police...not a single mention of "homemade" guns within a pretty detailed article. Data is from 2014 so maybe Heisy's
"data" is more recent.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/ (https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/)
-
Guns are a legal and constitutionally protect the product. 76 million people own at least one and there are 300 million in circulation. Virtually all of them are semi-automatic.
So, if you want to ban them, then man up and say you willing to have your taxes raised to hire hundreds of thousands of swat team geared ATF agents to go house by house to get rid of them. And when they physically eject you and your family from your home to rip up the floorboards to search for guns, be sure to thank them and suggest other parts of your house that can destroy looking for guns.
Because short of that, you're not getting rid of guns (sorry semi-automatics) and really just looking for a way to make yourself feel superior and good.
You need to read the article i posted
-
Honest set of yes/no questions for you. I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.? (if 'yes' move on. if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
- availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
- who can buy and own guns.
- quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
- quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
- types of weapons available for sale
- Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?
Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.
I'm 'yes' on all of them
FWIW, I am yes on all as well.
I doubt you’re going to get Chicos to make any meaningful suggestions, because he probably doesn’t even believe there is a problem. He just likes to criticize others’ suggestions, without making any of his own.
-
His administration though. If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time. If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this. Let's not be naive.
yeah, he just found out his dang ATF had a rogue operator who didn't get the memo in his morning newspaper over coffee and a danish, just like you and i-eyyyn'a?
-
The most popular guns for committing crimes in Chicago based on weapons confiscated by police...not a single mention of "homemade" guns within a pretty detailed article. Data is from 2014 so maybe Heisy's
"data" is more recent.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/ (https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/)
this is too easy-
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/police-seize-another-batch-of-3d-printed-guns-as-authorities-deal-with-danger-of-downloadable-firearms/news-story/c2fa2711ebf7b761e3e2f0802a80d1b2
-
Honest set of yes/no questions for you. I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.? (if 'yes' move on. if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
- availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
- who can buy and own guns.
- quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
- quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
- types of weapons available for sale
- Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?
Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.
I'm 'yes' on all of them
A little open-ended no?
"Everything in our power" infers the willingness to do all the hyperbolic things that Heisey and co. say to distract from the issue (he was talking about ATF SWAT raids earlier I think).
-
His administration though. If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time. If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this. Let's not be naive.
Only with those with a persecution complex like yourself.
-
this is too easy-
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/police-seize-another-batch-of-3d-printed-guns-as-authorities-deal-with-danger-of-downloadable-firearms/news-story/c2fa2711ebf7b761e3e2f0802a80d1b2
Well, I guess I was thinking of this country, not Australia. ::)
Show me some/any statistics that these guns are now being used by gangs here in the U.S. in any significant quantity. Maybe they are, I don't know.
-
If only we had the technology that would allow law enforcement to recognize that kind of red flag.
Now it has come out the the gunman tried to buy tracer rounds at a gun show but the vendor didn't have any to sell. We all know of the loopholes that exist in terms of gun shows. Here is a quote about tracer rounds:
"It allows you to keep your weapon on not necessarily a specific target, but a specific area. ... There would have been a lot higher casualty rate if he had tracer rounds," said Roderick, a former assistant director of the US Marshals Service.
Tracer rounds also seem like something a civilian wouldn't need and the type of artillery that should be logged in a database if someone buys or tries to buy it. Maybe it's just me but I certainly see purchasing 33 guns within a year and attempting to purchase tracer rounds as something that should set off some alarms.
-
Now it has come out the the gunman tried to buy tracer rounds at a gun show but the vendor didn't have any to sell. We all know of the loopholes that exist in terms of gun shows. Here is a quote about tracer rounds:
"It allows you to keep your weapon on not necessarily a specific target, but a specific area. ... There would have been a lot higher casualty rate if he had tracer rounds," said Roderick, a former assistant director of the US Marshals Service.
Tracer rounds also seem like something a civilian wouldn't need and the type of artillery that should be logged in a database if someone buys or tries to buy it. Maybe it's just me but I certainly see purchasing 33 guns within a year and attempting to purchase tracer rounds as something that should set off some alarms.
Far be it from me to correct the assistant director of US Marshall Service (but I'm gonna). The tracers would have allowed the gunmen to visualize where his rounds were impacting and adjust his fire accordingly. He was indiscriminately firing into a huge crowd, tracer fire wouldn't have necessarily helped him until later on as the crowd dispersed and he was firing more discriminately. So yes, the casualty rate could have been higher, but no way to know. Tracers are essentially illuminated(phosphor coated I believe) bullets that glow as they go down range so you can see where you are shooting. Typically a clip(in a military application) would have a tracer every 3rd round.
Having said all of that, I see no practical civilian application for tracers other than they look pretty going down range, therefore that should be an easy ban, just like bump stocks. To your point further, this is why the primary focus should be on a national registry so we could actually flag this sort of stuff and investigate, there is no way to do that now.
-
A little open-ended no?
"Everything in our power" infers the willingness to do all the hyperbolic things that Heisey and co. say to distract from the issue (he was talking about ATF SWAT raids earlier I think).
fair. How about: do you believe the U.S. should make a concerted effort to reduce the number of gun murders, suicides and injuries by 50% in the next decade?
-
His administration though. If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time. If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this. Let's not be naive.
Interesting times we live in when citing facts is labeled as giving deference. I suppose we are indeed in the post-truth era.
Anyhow, would I "give the same deference" to a Republican? Well, let's see. Anywhere in this thread have I blamed Bush II for allowing the assault weapons ban to expire, which then allowed for high-capacity magazines? Or the Republican lawmakers who later shot down efforts to reinstate it and similar measures to reduce magazine capacity? Did I blame the GOP leaders who shot down efforts to create a universal registry that might have detected some red flags in Stephen Paddock's activities?
If you haven't seen me do that, then you have your answer, don't you?
Look, we get it Chico's. You need so badly to blame this on Obama or the Democrats or anyone else that allows you to avoid feeling any shame. Have at it. I'm not playing that game with you.
-
Well, I guess I was thinking of this country, not Australia. ::)
Show me some/any statistics that these guns are now being used by gangs here in the U.S. in any significant quantity. Maybe they are, I don't know.
well if semi-automatic guns were illegal here like they are in australia, you would probably see more of this here...by the bad guys
-
well if semi-automatic guns were illegal here like they are in australia, you would probably see more of this here...by the bad guys
I doubt it. Once the guns are no longer sold or distributed here, it would be much more difficult for bad guys to get these guns. Yeah it would take some time to get the ones on the streets off, but once that is accomplished, it is hard to see how bad guys could get their hands on these with regularity.
-
I doubt it. Once the guns are no longer sold or distributed here, it would be much more difficult for bad guys to get these guns. Yeah it would take some time to get the ones on the streets off, but once that is accomplished, it is hard to see how bad guys could get their hands on these with regularity.
first off, i was talking about 3-d printed guns. secondly, are you serious that if these guns became illegal, no longer sold or distributed here, it would be hard to get them? just like cocaine, pot, meth, rocket(no pun) launchers, hand grenades...oh yeah and automatic guns? that's what they do man-they get illegal chit by the truck load and sell it...for A LOT$$
-
first off, i was talking about 3-d printed guns. secondly, are you serious that if these guns became illegal, no longer sold or distributed here, it would be hard to get them? just like cocaine, pot, meth, rocket(no pun) launchers, hand grenades...oh yeah and automatic guns? that's what they do man-they get illegal chit by the truck load and sell it...for A LOT$$
Cocaine, pot, meth, etc. would be a lot easier to get if it were legal.
-
FWIW, I am yes on all as well.
I doubt you’re going to get Chicos to make any meaningful suggestions, because he probably doesn’t even believe there is a problem. He just likes to criticize others’ suggestions, without making any of his own.
I'm actually not trying to get meaningful suggestions - Judging from some peoples posts they appear to either believe we don't have a gun problem OR the problem isn't big enough to tackle. I'm trying to understand if that is actually the belief, it is really a need to criticize others, there is a need to defend the extreme position to prevent any perceived "win from the left", or i've misinterpreted a whole bunch of posts.
-
Cocaine, pot, meth, etc. would be a lot easier to get if it were legal.
But being illegal doesn't make them hard to get.
-
I'm actually not trying to get meaningful suggestions - Judging from some peoples posts they appear to either believe we don't have a gun problem OR the problem isn't big enough to tackle. I'm trying to understand if that is actually the belief, it is really a need to criticize others, there is a need to defend the extreme position to prevent any perceived "win from the left", or i've misinterpreted a whole bunch of posts.
Fair enough. It just boggles my mind when some people actually talk as though there isn’t a serious problem.
-
But being illegal doesn't make them hard to get.
It certainly makes it harder.
-
It certainly makes it harder.
It will make it impossible for the law abiding citizen and inconvenient for the bad guys.
-
It will make it impossible for the law abiding citizen and inconvenient for the bad guys.
The law abiding citizen doesn't need assault rifles. If they are truly law abiding, they can have handguns, shotguns, etc.
-
The most popular guns for committing crimes in Chicago based on weapons confiscated by police...not a single mention of "homemade" guns within a pretty detailed article. Data is from 2014 so maybe Heisy's
"data" is more recent.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/ (https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/)
Try and read what you link. Becuase you missed this section which read like I plagiarized it for my comments on this site
Your apology is accepted and I know you will be more careful and actually read what you link in the future.
-------------------------
The “Saturday Night Special” is still kicking
In the 1980s, a group of gun manufacturers set up shop outside Los Angeles, California. These companies, which included Raven Arms and Lorcin Engineering, were collectively dubbed the “Ring of Fire,” as they became notorious for producing simple, cheap handguns commonly known as “Saturday Night Specials.” Even though these junk guns had a tendency to misfire or malfunction, production by Ring of Fire companies grew exponentially, and by 1990, they churned out one-third of all handguns in the U.S. A trace report by the ATF in the 1990s found that Saturday Night Specials like the ones produced by Raven and Lorcin were 3.4 times more likely to be used in crimes than other guns.
Though both companies have been out of business for decades, the appearance of the Lorcin .380 and Raven .25 among Chicago’s most seized guns speaks to the enduring appeal of the Saturday Night Special. Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, says that many black market gun customers are looking for a weapon that even the least skilled person can operate. These firearms fit the bill.
Older guns are also easier to buy for cheap on the black market, adding to their attraction, especially for younger gang members. Cook’s research has shown that crime guns purchased by gang members tend to be an average of 12.6 years old.
Guns are durable goods, and once a lax law or untoward seller allows a gun to enter the black market, it will often stay in circulation for decades. “A gun manufactured in 1984 will kill you just as dead as a new one,” says Pollack.
-
And there is the inevitable doubling-down. Predictable. And hilarious. I'll let others more engaged in the discussion than I respond.
Truly amazing.
-
It will make it impossible for the law abiding citizen and inconvenient for the bad guys.
You could make the same argument for legalizing a grenade launchers, heroin and child porn, I guess. But we've wisely decided as a society that we'd be better without them legal. Even though the bad guys still can get them (despite the inconvenience).
That reminds me of an earlier post in which you cited banning "40 mph, cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles" as something that would save lives, and yet we allow them,
For starters, it's a bad analogy because most of these things harm no one but the user. Pretty sure I won't die an early death because someone else eats too much trans fat, plays football and drives a motorcycle.
An AR-15 with an extended clip, on the other hand, exists to hurt people other than the user.
So, big difference.
Beyond that, all the things you cite provide some sort of benefit that we as a society have determined outweigh the harm. Speedy interstate travel is beneficial. Bicycles are beneficial. Even alcohol and tobacco have benefits.
What benefit does an AR-15 with an extended clip in the hands of a civilian provide?
-
I'm actually not trying to get meaningful suggestions - Judging from some peoples posts they appear to either believe we don't have a gun problem OR the problem isn't big enough to tackle. I'm trying to understand if that is actually the belief, it is really a need to criticize others, there is a need to defend the extreme position to prevent any perceived "win from the left", or i've misinterpreted a whole bunch of posts.
we don't have a gun problem...with law abiding citizens. we have a problem with bad people.
please define "extreme". or is it FAR right? or is gun nut a better term? ::)
-
You could make the same argument for legalizing a grenade launchers, heroin and child porn, I guess. But we've wisely decided as a society that we'd be better without them legal. Even though the bad guys still can get them (despite the inconvenience).
That reminds me of an earlier post in which you cited banning "40 mph, cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles" as something that would save lives, and yet we allow them,
For starters, it's a bad analogy because most of these things harm no one but the user. Pretty sure I won't die an early death because someone else eats too much trans fat, plays football and drives a motorcycle.
An AR-15 with an extended clip, on the other hand, exists to hurt people other than the user.
So, big difference.
Beyond that, all the things you cite provide some sort of benefit that we as a society have determined outweigh the harm. Speedy interstate travel is beneficial. Bicycles are beneficial. Even alcohol and tobacco have benefits.
What benefit does an AR-15 with an extended clip in the hands of a civilian provide?
Many would say a modern sporting rifle with a 30-round magazine exists for hunting, competition, home defense and just plain old target shooting. I guess those reasons could be considered "benefits" to the civilian owner. Personally, I've spent a few afternoons picking off clay targets at 100 yds at the old quarry with an AR-15, and it certainly was enjoyable. Am I willing to forgo that type of activity for the good of society? Maybe.. Should I be required to? Tough questions indeed.
-
we don't have a gun problem...with law abiding citizens. we have a problem with bad people.
please define "extreme". or is it FAR right? or is gun nut a better term? ::)
Bad people can do worse things with guns. Unless you think that America has a higher percentage of bad people than other countries.
This entire topic has just devolved into the same illogical pro-gun talking points that it always does.
-
Try and read what you link. Becuase you missed this section which read like I plagiarized it for my comments on this site
Your apology is accepted and I know you will be more careful and actually read what you link in the future.
-------------------------
The “Saturday Night Special” is still kicking
In the 1980s, a group of gun manufacturers set up shop outside Los Angeles, California. These companies, which included Raven Arms and Lorcin Engineering, were collectively dubbed the “Ring of Fire,” as they became notorious for producing simple, cheap handguns commonly known as “Saturday Night Specials.” Even though these junk guns had a tendency to misfire or malfunction, production by Ring of Fire companies grew exponentially, and by 1990, they churned out one-third of all handguns in the U.S. A trace report by the ATF in the 1990s found that Saturday Night Specials like the ones produced by Raven and Lorcin were 3.4 times more likely to be used in crimes than other guns.
Though both companies have been out of business for decades, the appearance of the Lorcin .380 and Raven .25 among Chicago’s most seized guns speaks to the enduring appeal of the Saturday Night Special. Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, says that many black market gun customers are looking for a weapon that even the least skilled person can operate. These firearms fit the bill.
Older guns are also easier to buy for cheap on the black market, adding to their attraction, especially for younger gang members. Cook’s research has shown that crime guns purchased by gang members tend to be an average of 12.6 years old.
Guns are durable goods, and once a lax law or untoward seller allows a gun to enter the black market, it will often stay in circulation for decades. “A gun manufactured in 1984 will kill you just as dead as a new one,” says Pollack.
I'm going to type this really slowly so you can try to understand it.
I posted the link to refute your homemade gun nonsense, or at least try to have you back up your outlandish claims with actual facts. Instead you quote an article that talks about something I never mentioned. Good Job!
I never mentioned the fact that older guns are still in use, that criminal types would probably favor cheaper weapons (no sh!t Sherlock) and in an earlier post I actually said I agree with you that there are too many guns in circulation to ever ban them.
So yet again, like StillAWarrior pointed out, you completely miss the point and go all berserk on some other tangential topic.
So, I would love to see some actual statistics on your claims about homemade guns. Thanks
-
Meanwhile, last month Charlotte cops seemingly shot a guy who had his hands up and was trying to comply with orders. For weeks, they claimed otherwise, but the video doesn't look good for the cops. Not only might they have shot an innocent man but they might have been trying to cover it up.
Looks worse for the victim, of course, cuz he's dead.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article177439796.html?#emlnl=Afternoon_Newsletter&id=bWlrZW5hZGVsQHNiY2dsb2JhbC5uZXQ=
The victim had a gun (naturally - doesn't everybody? - they're so much fun!) but told the 9-1-1 dispatcher it wasn't loaded. It's hard to blame the cops for not believing the man, who very well might have had mental issues. But again ...
-
this is too easy-
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/police-seize-another-batch-of-3d-printed-guns-as-authorities-deal-with-danger-of-downloadable-firearms/news-story/c2fa2711ebf7b761e3e2f0802a80d1b2
No, not too easy. Weapons are not being produced on large scale 3D printers anywhere in the world, including Australia. The guns produced in this shop are more dangerous for the shooter than the person being shot at.
Although 3D designs for guns exist for cheap 3D printers. They are largely inoperable and typically explode or fail after a single attempted fire. The materials are not not compatible with the forces present in a firearm.
3D printable guns of decent quality can be produced, but are practically useless. Technology right now would allow maybe 1-2 guns to be made a day, with labor and material costs of $100-200 (not $10). The labor and training to manufacture them is limited and requires extensive training and skill (graduate level educations). More importantly, the technology to do so is rare. An instrument costs upwards of $1M, and has extremely limited availability. It would be trivial to restrict the sale of such equipment to research Universities and established production companies (essentially it already is).
Even the 3D printable guns would be of inferior quality than current weapons. A fully automatic produced with this technology would likely fail very quickly.
-
Haven't read many comments but....
Comparisons to Australia str irrelevant. The aussies have 1/3 of 1% of the guns the US has in very conservative surveys. Making them outright illegal won't change anything. The supply is to large for the insane price of an illegal gun in Australia to work here.
Yes there is a very large problem in our country with this. We should focus on finding an actual solution instead of having the same argument over and over. And no an outright ban of guns will not work. See Norway.
-
we don't have a gun problem...with law abiding citizens. we have a problem with bad people.
please define "extreme". or is it FAR right? or is gun nut a better term? ::)
The problem is that everyone is considered a law abiding citizen...until they aren’t. And by the time they aren’t, it’s often too late. See Las Vegas shooter.
-
And no an outright ban of guns will not work. See Norway.
First, Norway doesn't ban guns.
Second, despite the fact not one person here is arguing for a ban on guns, you guys keep arguing against a ban on guns. Can't t help the straw man or do you literally have no other talking points?
-
Fair enough. It just boggles my mind when some people actually talk as though there isn’t a serious problem.
I'm with ya, but that seems to be the point of view at least 4 here - some vehemently.
-
we don't have a gun problem...with law abiding citizens. we have a problem with bad people.
please define "extreme". or is it FAR right? or is gun nut a better term? ::)
"extreme" is believing that we do not have a gun violence problem in the U.S.. I don't care how FAR (why is this capitalized?) right you are or how much of a "gun nut" (nothing close to that term came from me) you are, if you don't think we have a gun violence issue you hold an "extreme" position.
I posted some 'yes/no' questions earlier trying to figure out if certain Scoopers believed we have a gun violence issue. I take it you don't think we have a gun violence issue or, if we do, it isn't associated with the availability/volume of guns in the US.
-
Many would say a modern sporting rifle with a 30-round magazine exists for hunting, competition, home defense and just plain old target shooting.
A 30-round clip for hunting? Are those big, bad deer packing iron now? Shooting back at you?
To state the obvious, by "you" I mean hunters, not you personally. But some people here will twist it anyways into some sort of personal attack.
-
I'm with ya, but that seems to be the point of view at least 4 here - some vehemently.
Hard to figure who they could be. ;D ;D
-
First, Norway doesn't ban guns.
Second, despite the fact not one person here is arguing for a ban on guns, you guys keep arguing against a ban on guns. Can't t help the straw man or do you literally have no other talking points?
They don't have any real arguments, so creating the straw man of "you really want a total ban" is the only way they can argue. Kind of like Trump's "they're going to take all your guns away" fear mongering during the campaign. I'm sure he'd be pleased that they're staying on script.
-
"extreme" is believing that we do not have a gun violence problem in the U.S.. I don't care how FAR (why is this capitalized?) right you are or how much of a "gun nut" (nothing close to that term came from me) you are, if you don't think we have a gun violence issue you hold an "extreme" position.
I posted some 'yes/no' questions earlier trying to figure out if certain Scoopers believed we have a gun violence issue. I take it you don't think we have a gun violence issue or, if we do, it isn't associated with the availability/volume of guns in the US.
i can respect your position. i hope you can respect mine.
no, i do not think we have a gun problem. we have a people problem. how many guns go up north wisconsin around thanksgiving every year? how many gun deaths/murders occur during that period? you cannot dismiss this example. now, let's take a certain square block region in say, milwaukee. is the problem with guns?
yes, we have some random stuff like vegas-very very horrific as it is, is not the rule. certain regions of chicago, it is sadly, an every day occurrence. why in certain specific areas, are people shooting, knifing, clubbing, running over other human beings? we cannot predict people going off the deep end with no uncertainty all the time. someone just snaps. and then we want to find someone or something to blame? it's only natural. we want some type of closure. we want to try to make sense out of it-hey! blame the guns? i just struggle with that.
i have a saying that helps me out sometimes and it's embedded at the bottom of tamu's posts. ya can't go wrong with it. check it out-it's very pertinent here and can be universally applied to many other areas of our lives. if it doesn't work the first time, repeat...
-
The law abiding citizen doesn't need assault rifles. If they are truly law abiding, they can have handguns, shotguns, etc.
So you woild ban all the guns on the right, but not the left, even though they are the same gun.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7ab2d6e7173f47d1c18d27974216370)
-
I'm going to type this really slowly so you can try to understand it.
I posted the link to refute your homemade gun nonsense, or at least try to have you back up your outlandish claims with actual facts. Instead you quote an article that talks about something I never mentioned. Good Job!
I never mentioned the fact that older guns are still in use, that criminal types would probably favor cheaper weapons (no sh!t Sherlock) and in an earlier post I actually said I agree with you that there are too many guns in circulation to ever ban them.
So yet again, like StillAWarrior pointed out, you completely miss the point and go all berserk on some other tangential topic.
So, I would love to see some actual statistics on your claims about homemade guns. Thanks
That passage is from your link noting the most popular guns in Chicago are still Saturday Night Specials even though the illegal (read homemade, not in a licensed factory) were over 20 years old.
You're calling the idea that nonlicensed (homemade guns) is nonsense by linking to an article that says they are the biggest problem in Chicago.
-
So you woild ban all the guns on the right, but not the left, even though they are the same gun.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7ab2d6e7173f47d1c18d27974216370)
I don't know. Have to start somewhere.
-
i can respect your position. i hope you can respect mine.
no, i do not think we have a gun problem.
Certainly can respect yours. however, we are talking about two different 'problems' or past each other......in the bolded above you are missing a word in the phrase i'm using. it's a gun violence problem to me and an evil person problem for you.
The two things that each one of these violent acts has in common is that it involves a gun and it involves someone evil/sick/hurt enough to use it on another human. Agreement on that right?
Both sides of the issue need to be worked equally diligently to get to a lower level of human on human gun violence. Another thing i think we can agree on is that the volume of gun murders/suicides/injuries that happen (self inflicted, acts of terrorism, legally obtained, illegally obtained, lone wolfs, acts of passion, etc, etc..) is beyond acceptable.
-
I don't know. Have to start somewhere.
Thank you as you perfectly stated the problem gun owners have with non-gun owners that demand emotionally based rules about a subject they know little about ... you want to make up random rules to randomly restrict guns but not actually fix any problem. All this is designed make yourself feel better.
And this only ends in one place ... a total ban, as you'll keep piling on and piling on random rules until we have that total ban.
Here is a fact, most mass shooting like Sandy Hook, San Bernardino or the Pulse nightclub in Orlando the shooter did not use the most lethal gun available. That would be a shotgun. In close quarters shootings (like those noted above) a hunting shotgun would do far more damage.
So when your done banning assault rifles (after you can define them) and the psychopaths turn to shotguns, are we going to ban them too?
Vegas is an exception to this ... but mass shootings from up to 1200 feet away, as was the case with Vegas is almost unheard of. Maybe the Texas tower shooting about 55 years ago ... so twice a century.
-
You could make the same argument for legalizing a grenade launchers, heroin and child porn, I guess. But we've wisely decided as a society that we'd be better without them legal. Even though the bad guys still can get them (despite the inconvenience).
That reminds me of an earlier post in which you cited banning "40 mph, cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles" as something that would save lives, and yet we allow them,
For starters, it's a bad analogy because most of these things harm no one but the user. Pretty sure I won't die an early death because someone else eats too much trans fat, plays football and drives a motorcycle.
An AR-15 with an extended clip, on the other hand, exists to hurt people other than the user.
So, big difference.
Beyond that, all the things you cite provide some sort of benefit that we as a society have determined outweigh the harm. Speedy interstate travel is beneficial. Bicycles are beneficial. Even alcohol and tobacco have benefits.
What benefit does an AR-15 with an extended clip in the hands of a civilian provide?
Where did I ever say anything about wanting AR-15s legal? Mine was just a simple and true declarative. Banning ANYTHING will by definition mean law abiding citizens will cease to have access to whatever that anything is. Lawbreakers will be inconvenienced but not stopped. If you want to argue that the inconvenience will result in saving lives I'm open to that argument.
On another subject, you can very well, for example, die an early death because of another's consumption of alcohol. I'd guess your chances being killed by a driver impaired by booze or another drug are much better than being gunned down by an AR-15.
Look, I see no need whatsoever for automatic weapons. I don't like guns period. My point is if you REALLY want to cut down on gun deaths, lung cancer, drunk driving (and other driving fatalities), obesity, diabetes, etc. we know how to do it. In all these cases (and many, many more) we've erred on the side of freedom rather than safety. Whether, when and how the scales are tipped in the other direction makes for an interesting debate.
As for the notion that we as society have decided that substances like alcohol and tobacco provide some sort of benefit that outweighs the harm, what are you smokin and drinkin? Cigarettes kill 480,000 smokers every year. Smokers KILL 41,000 of their fellow men by way of second hand smoke. 16,000,000 Americans have serious diseases related to smoking. I won't bore with the numbers of people who kill themselves and there fellow citizens with booze but they're staggering, too. What benefit could possibly outweigh the harm? But enough people want (or are addicted to/"need") the poison and some pretty powerful people make a boatload selling it. If people really care about public safety/health in this country this is where the low hanging fruit is.
-
Thank you as you perfectly stated the problem gun owners have with nongun owners that demand emotionally based rules about a subject they know little about ... you want to make up random rules to randomly restrict guns but not actually fix any problem. All this is designed make yourself feel better.
And this only ends in one place ... a total ban, as you'll keep piling on and piling on random rules until we have that total ban.
Here is a fact, most mass shooting like Sandy Hook, San Bernardino or the Pulse nightclub in Orlando the shooter did not use the most lethal gun available. That would be a shotgun. In close quarters shooting s(like those noted above) a hunting shotgun would do far more damage.
So when your done banning assault rifles (after you can define them) and the psychopaths turn to shotguns, are we going to ban them too?
I think intelligent people can sit down to discuss reasonable alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society. You are the one resorting to emotional-based tactics by posting a picture and saying "which should be ban?"
That's pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t. It is the same lame excuse that people like you always come up with - "well if you can't figure out which ones to ban, then you can't ban any of them."
Be smarter.
-
I think intelligent people can sit down to discuss reasonable alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society. You are the one resorting to emotional-based tactics by posting a picture and saying "which should be ban?"
That's pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t. It is the same lame excuse that people like you always come up with - "well if you can't figure out which ones to ban, then you can't ban any of them."
Be smarter.
What does this mean? .. alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society
-
What does this mean? .. alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society
It's pretty obvious. Be smarter.
-
we don't have a gun problem...with law abiding citizens. we have a problem with bad people.
Or bad toddlers. Unless you missed my post about toddlers shooting an average of one person per week the last couple of years.
Toddlers!
-
That passage is from your link noting the most popular guns in Chicago are still Saturday Night Specials even though the illegal (read homemade, not in a licensed factory) were over 20 years old.
You're calling the idea that nonlicensed (homemade guns) is nonsense by linking to an article that says they are the biggest problem in Chicago.
Last try before I quit.
I know the passage is from the article I linked. The guns in question were made by a company (or rather two companies) in a factory outside of Los Angeles. That matches no definition of homemade that I am aware of. The passage is below and makes no mention of the fact that these factories were unlicensed so as you so often do you are making that up out of thin air.
The “Saturday Night Special” is still kicking
In the 1980s, a group of gun manufacturers set up shop outside Los Angeles, California. These companies, which included Raven Arms and Lorcin Engineering, were collectively dubbed the “Ring of Fire,” as they became notorious for producing simple, cheap handguns commonly known as “Saturday Night Specials.” Even though these junk guns had a tendency to misfire or malfunction, production by Ring of Fire companies grew exponentially, and by 1990, they churned out one-third of all handguns in the U.S. A trace report by the ATF in the 1990s found that Saturday Night Specials like the ones produced by Raven and Lorcin were 3.4 times more likely to be used in crimes than other guns.
Though both companies have been out of business for decades, the appearance of the Lorcin .380 and Raven .25 among Chicago’s most seized guns speaks to the enduring appeal of the Saturday Night Special. Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab, says that many black market gun customers are looking for a weapon that even the least skilled person can operate. These firearms fit the bill.
Older guns are also easier to buy for cheap on the black market, adding to their attraction, especially for younger gang members. Cook’s research has shown that crime guns purchased by gang members tend to be an average of 12.6 years old.
After reading the above, clearly you will no other choice but to apologize for being so completely and utterly wrong (yet again). If you have some actual data that supports your claim please share.
Apologies to all for getting sucked in to this.
-
Certainly can respect yours. however, we are talking about two different 'problems' or past each other......in the bolded above you are missing a word in the phrase i'm using. it's a gun violence problem to me and an evil person problem for you.
The two things that each one of these violent acts has in common is that it involves a gun and it involves someone evil/sick/hurt enough to use it on another human. Agreement on that right?
Both sides of the issue need to be worked equally diligently to get to a lower level of human on human gun violence. Another thing i think we can agree on is that the volume of gun murders/suicides/injuries that happen (self inflicted, acts of terrorism, legally obtained, illegally obtained, lone wolfs, acts of passion, etc, etc..) is beyond acceptable.
yes, we can we agree on all the above except where to place the blame-an inanimate object or a human being who has free will and sets in motion the action of the object as it cannot do this by itself. the difference between an evil person and a non evil person is the evil person acts upon his evil thoughts whereas a non evil person may have the same thoughts but has self control and knows right from wrong. now i know some will argue that not all human beings have free will or do not know right from wrong. to me, that person is still evil.
an evil person does not need a gun to commit his evil acts as well-we have covered this one ad nauseum
-
Try and read what you link. Becuase you missed this section which read like I plagiarized it for my comments on this site
Your apology is accepted and I know you will be more careful and actually read what you link in the future.
As others have explained. You are wrong, like usual. The companies were legal companies. The guns were tested and passed required certification tests.
They were not homemade.
They were low quality guns that could be sold cheaply and legally. That is why they were chambered for low caliber ammunition, they couldn't hold under higher pressures/forces.
-
It's pretty obvious. Be smarter.
Not gonna happen. Every time someone here proposes a starting point to begin a rational discussion, he simply dismisses them as someone who "doesn't understand" (the ultimate irony) and then repeats "total gun ban!", "total gun ban!"
-
i can respect your position. i hope you can respect mine.
no, i do not think we have a gun problem. we have a people problem. how many guns go up north wisconsin around thanksgiving every year? how many gun deaths/murders occur during that period? you cannot dismiss this example. now, let's take a certain square block region in say, milwaukee. is the problem with guns?
yes, we have some random stuff like vegas-very very horrific as it is, is not the rule. certain regions of chicago, it is sadly, an every day occurrence. why in certain specific areas, are people shooting, knifing, clubbing, running over other human beings? we cannot predict people going off the deep end with no uncertainty all the time. someone just snaps. and then we want to find someone or something to blame? it's only natural. we want some type of closure. we want to try to make sense out of it-hey! blame the guns? i just struggle with that.
i have a saying that helps me out sometimes and it's embedded at the bottom of tamu's posts. ya can't go wrong with it. check it out-it's very pertinent here and can be universally applied to many other areas of our lives. if it doesn't work the first time, repeat...
I've read this post multiple times. It'd astounds me how much you don't get it. In fact, it disgusts me. Complete absence of logic.
-
Last try before I quit.
I know the passage is from the article I linked. The guns in question were made by a company (or rather two companies) in a factory outside of Los Angeles. That matches no definition of homemade that I am aware of. The passage is below and makes no mention of the fact that these factories were unlicensed so as you so often do you are making that up out of thin air.
After reading the above, clearly you will no other choice but to apologize for being so completely and utterly wrong (yet again). If you have some actual data that supports your claim please share.
Apologies to all for getting sucked in to this.
Do you think every meth lab is a bunch drug dealers running a "pharmaceutical corporation?"
The "company" was not a licensed gun dealer. It was an illegal operation, a rogue operation.
This is what I meant by "homemade" a bunch of gun runners got together and started making illegal guns. Becuase the technology is that easy to reproduce.
As others have explained. You are wrong, like usual. The companies were legal companies. The guns were tested and passed required certification tests.
They were not homemade.
They were low quality guns that could be sold cheaply and legally. That is why they were chambered for low caliber ammunition, they couldn't hold under higher pressures/forces.
not surprised you would say this, you have made it clear your definition of immoral is "corporation."
And who tested and certified these guns? No such thing existed at the time. At the time anyone could start cranking out these guns.
At its height, Pablo Escobar was the 7th richest man in the world. Was his operation easily confused with Merck?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorcin_Engineering_Company
Lorcin Engineering Company was a firearms manufacturer established in 1989 by Jim Waldorf.[1] Lorcin produced a series of very inexpensive handguns, which were sold primarily through pawn shops and marketed towards people with low income. As such, their guns were frequently referred to as saturday night specials, and Lorcin was noted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as one of the Ring of Fire companies, a series of companies established around Los Angeles, California, all of which manufactured inexpensive handguns of similar design[2] and all of which were connected to Raven Arms. Waldorf was a high school friend of Bruce Jennings, founder of Jennings Firearms.
The guns were constructed of injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.
In 1993, Lorcin was the number one pistol manufacturer in the United States, producing 341,243 guns.[3] However, in 1996, Lorcin filed for bankruptcy, with 18 pending product liability, personal injury, and wrongful death lawsuits. The company emerged from bankruptcy in 1997, but went out of business permanently in 1998 with an additional 22 lawsuits having been filed.[3]
----
He made cheap guns and sold them through pawn shops. THe "company" was only in existence for seven years before it was shut down. Yeah, that is a legit way of doing things.
So everyone, let's confuse this operation with Remington or Smith & Wesson.
And then there is this ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Arms
Raven Arms was a firearms manufacturer established in 1970 by firearms designer George Jennings. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting the importation of inexpensive handguns prompted Jennings to design the MP-25, a .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol, and enter the firearms business. Raven has been referred to as the original "Ring of Fire" company; the Ring of Fire companies were those known for producing inexpensive Saturday night special handguns.[1]
Raven kept manufacturing costs to a minimum by building their guns from injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.
-------
So we banned the import of cheap handguns in 1968. No doubt this was "sensible gun regulation." So what happened?
Rogue operations opened business to fill the void and made hundreds of thousands of guns and sold them through pawn shops.
Think about this when you continue to call for gun bans. My point is the gun is an old technology and easily reproduced. They are not now because legitimate companies make quality guns at reasonable prices. Ban them and "companies" like this will sprout up and fill this demand for these guns.
-
I think intelligent people can sit down to discuss reasonable alternatives for the types of guns we should allow in society. You are the one resorting to emotional-based tactics by posting a picture and saying "which should be ban?"
That's pseudo-intellectual bullsh*t. It is the same lame excuse that people like you always come up with - "well if you can't figure out which ones to ban, then you can't ban any of them."
Be smarter.
What happens when Intelligent people sit down and conclude the article below? Do you listen carefully to this argument and concede your "we have to start somewhere" argument from a few posts above might be misguided? Or do you yell and yell to bludgeon this voice/argument into submission?
Be reasonable
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Also, let's not confuse the Washinton Post with Infowars ...
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
The Washinton Post
October 3, 2017
Leah Libresco
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.de92f8dc57dc
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.
-------------------
Here is the orginal 538 analysis
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/
-
Honest set of yes/no questions for you. I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.? (if 'yes' move on. if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
- availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
- who can buy and own guns.
- quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
- quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
- types of weapons available for sale
- Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?
Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.
I'm 'yes' on all of them
No on most of them.
Have you looked at the data?
Remember that two-thirds of gun deaths every year are suicides. Can we conclude those people would find another way even if every gun was banned and removed from the US?
So what about homicides? Will you accept this reality?
And if you can, would you be open-minded enough to think it possible that more guns means less crime?
(http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/content_100p/s3/percent_changes_since_1993_-_number_of_firearms_vs._gun_homicide_rate_1993-2013.png?itok=2k90gxfi)
-
Correct me if I am wrong but a gun free zone doesn't limit authorized personnel, such as a security guard, from have a weapon, does it? Maybe it is up to the discretion of that particular establishment.
Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period.
These people are sympathetic with the Black Lives Matter crowd in thinking cops are the problem in this country and their guns are what gives them the authority to commit violations against citizens.
And regarding gun free zones this means everyone is unarmed so come on in and commit crimes
(http://athenasarmory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/gunfreezone.jpg)
And speaking of unarmed, any remember this right after Sandy Hook? Whatever form anyone uses to announces they are unarmed they put themsevles at risk.
New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners’ Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/new-york-journal-news-gun-owners-westchester-rockland-counties_n_2362530.html
A New York newspaper is under criticism for publishing the names and addresses of local gun owners on Monday.
The article includes an interactive map of Westchester and Rockland counties that allows readers to view those who have a license to own handguns around them.
The article also has an editor’s note attached to it describing the type of gun the journalist who wrote the article owns. “Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011,” it states.
Some critics felt the Journal News article put people in danger. “Do you fools realize that you also made a map for criminals to use to find homes to rob that have no guns in them to protect themselves? What a bunch of liberal boobs you all are,” one commenter wrote on the newspaper’s website. Others worried that the names would expose law enforcement officials. “You have judges, policemen, retired policemen, FBI agents — they have permits. Once you allow the public to see where they live, that puts them in harm’s way,” Paul Piperato, the Rockland county clerk, told Journal News reporter Worley.
(http://i.huffpost.com/gen/917051/images/o-JOURNAL-NEWS-GUN-OWNERS-facebook.jpg)
-
Shifting gears from the gun debate, the motivation and profile of the shooter has everyone stumped. He is not the type you would expect to commit this awful crime.
He made $5 million in 2015 alone. How does one get angry at the world when they have this much money (not desperate). Yes we can after-the-fact rationalize a reason but this is not the person an FBI profile would flag.
Vegas Shooter Investigators "Puzzled", Believe He Was Not Alone For Two Reasons
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-06/vegas-shooter-investigators-puzzled-believe-he-was-not-alone-two-reasons
Two days ago, Clark County Sheriff Lombardo for the first time expressed his conviction that Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock had to have help at some point during the tragic mass shooting, either in the preparation or the execution stage, or both.
“Look at this. You look at the weapon obtaining the different amounts of tannerite available, do you think this was all accomplished on his own, face value? You got to make the assumption he had to have help at some point, and we want to insure that’s the answer. Maybe he’s a super guy... Maybe he’s super — that was working out this out on his own, but it will be hard for me to believe that.”
“Here’s the reason why, put one and one–two and two together, another residence in Reno with firearms, okay, electronics and everything else associated with larger amounts of ammo, a place in Mesquite, we know he had a girlfriend. Do you think this is all self-facing individual without talking to somebody, it was sequestered amongst himself.”
Additionally, Sheriff Lombardo suggested that far from a suicide mission, authorities had seen evidence that the shooter planned to survive and escape.
To be sure, the question whether Paddock was alone or coordinated with some, still unknown collaborator, has been one of the most hotly debated topics involving last Sunday's tragic Las Vegas shooting.
Now, providing further impetus to the speculation that Paddock was not alone, NBC News reports, citing senior law enforcement officials, that investigators are speculating that someone else may have been in the Las Vegas gunman's hotel room when he was registered there.
According to NBC, the investigators are "puzzled" by two discoveries: First, a charger was found that does not match any of the cellphones that belonged gunman, Stephen Paddock. And second, garage records show that during a period when Paddock's car left the hotel garage, one of his key cards was used to get into his room. While there are several possible explanations for these anomalies, investigators said they "want to get to the bottom of it."
It gets better: according to Paddock's IRS records, the gunman was not only a legacy millionaire, he was a successful gambler, earning at least $5 million in 2015. Some of that could be from other investments, but most of it was from gambling, officials told NBC.
Separately, and this goes to Paddock's potential ISIS links which the Islamic State has tripled down on over the past week, CNN reports that in addition to his frequent forays into casinos and gun shops, Las Paddock took 20 cruises, many of them in Europe and the Middle East. In addition to stops at ports in Spain, Italy, Greece, the cruises also stopped in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, according to information provided by a law enforcement source. Paddock's girlfriend, Marilou Danley, accompanied him on nine of the cruises.
Picking up on the narrative that Paddock may have hoped to use his car as a bomb, Paddock's car, a 2017 Chrysler Pacifica Touring, was found in the hotel parking garage and contained 90 pounds of Tannerite and two suitcases filled with hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Authorities suspect the Tannerite was intended for use in target practice or to make the car explode if fired upon, according to information provided by the source. The information from the source was derived from intelligence obtained earlier this week. Authorities have since said that the vehicle contained 50 pounds of Tannerite.
That said, so far, investigators have found no evidence supporting a claim by ISIS that Paddock had converted to Islam and carried out the attack on the terror group's behalf, according to the information provided by the source. Paddock's girlfriend, Danley, has been unable to provide a motive for the mass killing, according to the information.
Finally, in the latest previously undisclosed discovery, the NYT reported that what some had assumed was a suicide note, was instead a notepad whose exact contents the authorities have yet to reveal. Sheriff Lombardo said that it contained numbers that were being analyzed for their relevance, and were "significant to the gunman"; the police are attempting to determine their meaning.
Paddock's motive for the worst mass shooting in US history still remains a mystery.
-
Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period.
lol. This should be fun. Lather, rinse, repeat.
-
lol. This should be fun. Lather, rinse, repeat.
In fairness, it means whatever you want it to mean. Many define it as I have while many others define it as you believe
What is a gun-free zone?
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/03/gun-free-zone-facts/
There’s no legal definition of a gun-free zone. The term is often used by both sides in the gun debate to describe places where the average person cannot legally carry a firearm. Schools are typically gun-free zones, owing to a federal law which prohibits firearms in all K-12 schools: public, private, and parochial. But some schools make exceptions, for armed security guards or for hunting instruction, among other examples. At least nine states have extended the exception to teachers who have concealed-carry permits. In reality, few public spaces are truly gun-free, even gun-free zones. (For the purposes of this explainer, we will use the blanket term, understanding that there are often exceptions.)
Gun-free zones can also include courthouses, jails, airports, and sports arenas. Last year, the military eased restrictions on carrying private guns on bases, allowing some service members to holster their own weapons, despite opposition from the Army’s highest-ranking official.
Who decides where guns are allowed?
Gun laws are different in every state. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Second Amendment should be interpreted to permit private citizens to own guns and keep them in their homes. The court left it to states to decide who can carry firearms and where. Florida, for example, forbids guns in airport terminals — but dozens of other states, including Missouri and Oregon, permit them. And even within states, the rules get murky. In Texas, different cities had different interpretations of the state’s open-carry law, including whether firearms are permitted inside local zoos.
What about private businesses, like Starbucks or Target? Can they declare themselves gun-free zones?
In most cases, a business can decide if it wants to allow guns on its property. However, many companies are reluctant to officially ban guns, for fear of potentially alienating customers, and out of concern that doing so might make employees responsible for confronting armed customers. Some businesses, including Chipotle, Levi Strauss, Starbucks, Target, and Trader Joe’s, ask that people don’t bring firearms inside their locations, but stop short of explicitly prohibiting them. Walt Disney World bans weapons of all kinds, including toy guns. So do Costco, Ikea, California Pizza Kitchen, Whole Foods, AMC Theaters, and Waffle House. Others, like Kroger, have refused to take a side.
Many states have rolled back restrictions on where guns can be carried, forcing businesses large and small to set their own policies — meaning if they want to disallow guns, they must put up a notice. In Texas, any business wishing to ban firearms has to display two large “no guns allowed” signs, with strict rules about font size.
There’s also been a movement to force businesses to allow guns on their property. At least 23 states have laws making it illegal for employers to ban guns at workplace parking lots, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
-
I did not know Australia was so gun free, this totally ruins my zombie outbreak survival plan.
-
What happens when Intelligent people sit down and conclude the article below? Do you listen carefully to this argument and concede your "we have to start somewhere" argument from a few posts above might be misguided? Or do you yell and yell to bludgeon this voice/argument into submission?
Be reasonable
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Also, let's not confuse the Washinton Post with Infowars ...
I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
The Washinton Post
October 3, 2017
Leah Libresco
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.de92f8dc57dc
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.
-------------------
Here is the orginal 538 analysis
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/
Sounds good. Let's spend more money on mental health treatment and programs to help prevent domestic violence...on top of sensible gun regulation.
-
In fairness, it means whatever you want it to mean.
This should be the slogan of your posts in general.
But seriously, you think that police can't bring guns into something marked as a "gun free zone?" With few exceptions, police can bring a gun wherever they want.
-
Sounds good. Let's spend more money on mental health treatment and programs to help prevent domestic violence...on top of sensible gun regulation.
Agreed but give me an example of “sensible” gun regulation? Because the article pretty much says every “sensible” idea thrown out on these pages will do nothing to change the level of gun violence in this country.
-
This should be the slogan of your posts in general.
But seriously, you think that police can't bring guns into something marked as a "gun free zone?" With few exceptions, police can bring a gun wherever they want.
Of course they can. But, do you know of any cops that park their squad car two blocks away from a school and walk over to it? Point is, if it is a gun free zone and no police car is parked right in front, it is just an announcement that everyone inside is unarmed.
And it has already happened in 2015 when a Chattanooga armed forces recruiting center was shot up by an ISIS-inspired Muslim shooter. He picked it because he wanted to strike against the American Military/Government and he knew was unarmed. Four people were killed.
This picture and this tragedy is exactly why some like me think gun free zones, and these stickers are one of the worst ideas yet by the anti-gun side.
(http://jonathanmurray.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/gun-free-killing.jpg)
The Pulse hight club in Orlando was a gun free zone by Florida state law. It was also a gay nightclub. So last year when another Muslim shooter that hated gays and wanted to kill them and was looking for a target, how about a gun free nightclub full of gay people? Oh yeah, chain the emergency doors so when the shooter comes guns-a-blazing in the front door, with the escape doors locked, the results, 49 killed in the worst mass gun shooting in American history (until Vagas last week).
Hasn't enough blood been spilled by gun free zones to re-think this entire idea?
-
Of course they can. But, do you know of any cops that park their squad car two blocks away from a school and walk over to it? Point is, if it is a gun free zone and no police car is parked right in front, it is just an announcement that everyone inside is unarmed.
And it has already happened in 2015 when a Chattanooga armed forces recruiting center was shot up by an ISIS-inspired Muslim shooter. He picked it because he wanted to strike against the American Military/Government and he knew was unarmed. Four people were killed.
This picture and this tragedy is exactly why some like me think gun free zones, and these stickers are one of the worst ideas yet by the anti-gun side.
(http://jonathanmurray.com/wp2/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/gun-free-killing.jpg)
lol
Goalpost shifted. Noted.
Heisy: "Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period."
Sultan: "But seriously, you think that police can't bring guns into something marked as a "gun free zone?" With few exceptions, police can bring a gun wherever they want."
Heisy: "Of course they can."
-
Remember that two-thirds of gun deaths every year are suicides. Can we conclude those people would find another way even if every gun was banned and removed from the US?
I don't think we can conclude that at all.
So this is a very small sample size, but I personally know two people (both very close to me) that have attempted suicide and did so without a gun. Thankfully neither of them were successful.
Had they had access to a gun, I feel quite certain it would be a completely different story.
Note: That even though I feel there is a lot of easy, should-be-no-brainers, that can be done to help prevent gun violence, or at the least, limit it to a degree, I don't think those items would necessarily prevent suicides (except for maybe waiting lists, etc.)
-
No on most of them.
Have you looked at the data?.......
I didn't read past this because there is data that supports a direct correlation between the amount of guns/gun availability and using those guns on other human beings.
I just wanted to know if you thought that the number of people killed by guns each year was acceptable - clearly it is. I hope we never get to the level of deaths that causes you to realize we have a problem
-
Do you think every meth lab is a bunch drug dealers running a "pharmaceutical corporation?"
The "company" was not a licensed gun dealer. It was an illegal operation, a rogue operation.
This is what I meant by "homemade" a bunch of gun runners got together and started making illegal guns. Becuase the technology is that easy to reproduce.
not surprised you would say this, you have made it clear your definition of immoral is "corporation."
And who tested and certified these guns? No such thing existed at the time. At the time anyone could start cranking out these guns.
At its height, Pablo Escobar was the 7th richest man in the world. Was his operation easily confused with Merck?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorcin_Engineering_Company
Lorcin Engineering Company was a firearms manufacturer established in 1989 by Jim Waldorf.[1] Lorcin produced a series of very inexpensive handguns, which were sold primarily through pawn shops and marketed towards people with low income. As such, their guns were frequently referred to as saturday night specials, and Lorcin was noted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as one of the Ring of Fire companies, a series of companies established around Los Angeles, California, all of which manufactured inexpensive handguns of similar design[2] and all of which were connected to Raven Arms. Waldorf was a high school friend of Bruce Jennings, founder of Jennings Firearms.
The guns were constructed of injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.
In 1993, Lorcin was the number one pistol manufacturer in the United States, producing 341,243 guns.[3] However, in 1996, Lorcin filed for bankruptcy, with 18 pending product liability, personal injury, and wrongful death lawsuits. The company emerged from bankruptcy in 1997, but went out of business permanently in 1998 with an additional 22 lawsuits having been filed.[3]
----
He made cheap guns and sold them through pawn shops. THe "company" was only in existence for seven years before it was shut down. Yeah, that is a legit way of doing things.
So everyone, let's confuse this operation with Remington or Smith & Wesson.
And then there is this ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Arms
Raven Arms was a firearms manufacturer established in 1970 by firearms designer George Jennings. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting the importation of inexpensive handguns prompted Jennings to design the MP-25, a .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol, and enter the firearms business. Raven has been referred to as the original "Ring of Fire" company; the Ring of Fire companies were those known for producing inexpensive Saturday night special handguns.[1]
Raven kept manufacturing costs to a minimum by building their guns from injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.
-------
So we banned the import of cheap handguns in 1968. No doubt this was "sensible gun regulation." So what happened?
Rogue operations opened business to fill the void and made hundreds of thousands of guns and sold them through pawn shops.
Think about this when you continue to call for gun bans. My point is the gun is an old technology and easily reproduced. They are not now because legitimate companies make quality guns at reasonable prices. Ban them and "companies" like this will sprout up and fill this demand for these guns.
There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.
-
I didn't read past this because there is data that supports a direct correlation between the amount of guns/gun availability and using those guns on other human beings.
I just wanted to know if you thought that the number of people killed by guns each year was acceptable - clearly it is. I hope we never get to the level of deaths that causes you to realize we have a problem
Highlighted is exactly the problem ... you made up your mind and will literally stop reading when something might go against your worldview. You have your conclusions and either we agree with you or you, and others like you, will yell and yell until you bludgeon opposing views into submission.
And no I do not find the level of violence acceptable. But unlike you, I'm searching for a real answer not screaming until some meaningless law is passed designed to just make you feel better and superior to those that disagree with you.
Character revealed
-
lol
Goalpost shifted. Noted.
Heisy: "Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period."
Sultan: "But seriously, you think that police can't bring guns into something marked as a "gun free zone?" With few exceptions, police can bring a gun wherever they want."
Heisy: "Of course they can."
Gun free zones mean whatever one wants it to mean. Plenty of establishments have defined it as I say ... like universities to appease the militant lefties on campus, The latest of many calls
Pitt students demand disarming of police, free tuition
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9791
(2007 no guns on VT's gun free zone campus, 32 dead before a gun go there to stop the shooter)
The problem with the gun free zone argument is some are actually reasonable like you and understand that a gun free zone is a really bad idea and really want guns nearby. That's because you believe in the NRAs basic tenant that the only thing that stops a shooter is another gun so have plenty of guns close by.
-
Note: That even though I feel there is a lot of easy, should-be-no-brainers, that can be done to help prevent gun violence, or at the least, limit it to a degree, I don't think those items would necessarily prevent suicides (except for maybe waiting lists, etc.)
What are these easy no-brainer things that can be done?
-
There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.
Give it a shot
-
Give it a shot
what's the point really? I've got better things to do than point out all of the ways in which you are outright wrong or have changed your argument.
-
The "company" was not a licensed gun dealer. It was an illegal operation, a rogue operation.
This is what I meant by "homemade" a bunch of gun runners got together and started making illegal guns. Becuase the technology is that easy to reproduce.
not surprised you would say this, you have made it clear your definition of immoral is "corporation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorcin_Engineering_Company
Lorcin Engineering Company was a firearms manufacturer established in 1989 by Jim Waldorf.[1] Lorcin produced a series of very inexpensive handguns, which were sold primarily through pawn shops and marketed towards people with low income. As such, their guns were frequently referred to as saturday night specials, and Lorcin was noted by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives as one of the Ring of Fire companies, a series of companies established around Los Angeles, California, all of which manufactured inexpensive handguns of similar design[2] and all of which were connected to Raven Arms. Waldorf was a high school friend of Bruce Jennings, founder of Jennings Firearms.
The guns were constructed of injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.
In 1993, Lorcin was the number one pistol manufacturer in the United States, producing 341,243 guns.[3] However, in 1996, Lorcin filed for bankruptcy, with 18 pending product liability, personal injury, and wrongful death lawsuits. The company emerged from bankruptcy in 1997, but went out of business permanently in 1998 with an additional 22 lawsuits having been filed.[3]
----
He made cheap guns and sold them through pawn shops. THe "company" was only in existence for seven years before it was shut down. Yeah, that is a legit way of doing things.
So everyone, let's confuse this operation with Remington or Smith & Wesson.
And then there is this ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Arms
Raven Arms was a firearms manufacturer established in 1970 by firearms designer George Jennings. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting the importation of inexpensive handguns prompted Jennings to design the MP-25, a .25-caliber semi-automatic pistol, and enter the firearms business. Raven has been referred to as the original "Ring of Fire" company; the Ring of Fire companies were those known for producing inexpensive Saturday night special handguns.[1]
Raven kept manufacturing costs to a minimum by building their guns from injection-molded Zamak, a zinc alloy.
-------
So we banned the import of cheap handguns in 1968. No doubt this was "sensible gun regulation." So what happened?
Rogue operations opened business to fill the void and made hundreds of thousands of guns and sold them through pawn shops.
Think about this when you continue to call for gun bans. My point is the gun is an old technology and easily reproduced. They are not now because legitimate companies make quality guns at reasonable prices. Ban them and "companies" like this will sprout up and fill this demand for these guns.
What you post above 100% proves you wrong, just like everyone is saying. It confirms these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them. What it says is that laws need to be written properly, if the law said that such substandard cheap weapons were illegal period, these companies would have never been created. Saturday Night Specials would not have been produced and sold in the US.
So why wasn't the law written that way? The same reason why, after these new legitimate companies products became problems, laws like requiring the weapon to survive 1000 degrees celsius were shut down. And why laws to ban such weapons entirely, failed...The NRA donated massive amounts of money, had concerts and massive campaigns to shut down any legislation that tried to restrict the manufacture and sale o "saturday night specials."
These were not rogue operations. They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards. They were the subject of numerous lawsuits related to the poor quality of their legitimate weapons.
If they were illegitimate companies, why not shut them down instead of suing them in open court...or creating new laws to outlaw it. Why would you need new laws to shut down illegal rogue operations?
Finally, it is sad that you cannot ever admit how incredibly wrong you are. You also have to flat out invent attacks on people. Never once have I said that corporations are immoral. But you invent that attack, while defending your position with information that proves you wrong. That is pretty special.
-
Why would people think the Slippery Slope argument is bogus when Nancy Pelosi said this two days ago
"They’re going to say, 'You give them bump stock, it's going to be a slippery slope.' I certainly hope so," Pelosi told a reporter at a news conference.
Anyone that has followed gov't and their actions knows the gov't has to be fed. Name the issue, it wants more, not less. More control, not less. When gun control doesn't work, they will want more gun control, and more and more. This is how it works. People have every right to be skeptical of intentions, especially when there are some that want an all out ban.
-
I'll note that one of the defenses the NRA used to fight outlawing "Saturday Night Specials" was that you couldn't stop people from having short barreled handguns because:
“The only difference between a Saturday Night Special and an $800 target gun is a hacksaw blade. The government has never even come up with any suitable criteria as to what is a substandard handgun. Really, it all comes back to the Second Amendment. It’s your right to have a gun. What you can afford is an individual matter.” Herb Chambers: Texas field representative for Texas.
So don't make them illegal, because people could just buy the $800 gun instead of the $25 Saturday Night Special, and then cut off the barrel. Forget the fact that we would have 10's of millions fewer guns on the street if they had been made illegal, because the people that these guns specifically targeted would not have been able to afford an $800 gun.
Again, why was the NRA fighting new laws that made these guns illegal to produce and sell if the companies making them were already illegal rogue operations?
-
It will make it impossible for the law abiding citizen and inconvenient for the bad guys.
^^^^^
Evil people always find a way. Even in nations with an all out ban, they have had mass shootings, because evil people can find a way.
-
Interesting times we live in when citing facts is labeled as giving deference. I suppose we are indeed in the post-truth era.
You mind if I borrow this line in the future, I will give you full attribution? Pinky Promise.
-
^^^^^
Evil people always find a way. Even in nations with an all out ban, they have had mass shootings, because evil people can find a way.
Here is the important question. Are there fewer mass shootings in nations with an all out ban?
-
Here is the important question. Are there fewer mass shootings in nations with an all out ban?
Yes. That is a choice we have made. Are other crimes HIGHER in those nations than here? Robbery, etc? Yes.
Why should elites be allowed to protect themselves with bodyguards, etc, but the regular public does not? Why should I not be allowed to protect my family and property from someone that isn't law abiding and will find a way to get those guns anyway and run roughshod over people? Why should I have to wait 5 minutes or longer for the police to come to my house?
-
Yes. That is a choice we have made. Are other crimes HIGHER in those nations than here? Robbery, etc? Yes.
Yeah, that is just not true. Although we likely do have lower robbery rates than a couple nations with more restrictive gun laws, we have far higher robbery rates than the vast majority of those nations. We have the 16th highest rate of robbery in the world.
The nations that are higher than us that have restrictive gun laws also have insanely high rates of pocket pickings, which are counted as "robberies" in those nations. We had similarly high rates as them until cities like NYC cleaned up the streets in tourist areas...it had nothing to do with gun laws.
-
Gun free zones mean whatever one wants it to mean. Plenty of establishments have defined it as I say ... like universities to appease the militant lefties on campus, The latest of many calls
Pitt students demand disarming of police, free tuition
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9791
(2007 no guns on VT's gun free zone campus, 32 dead before a gun go there to stop the shooter)
The problem with the gun free zone argument is some are actually reasonable like you and understand that a gun free zone is a really bad idea and really want guns nearby. That's because you believe in the NRAs basic tenant that the only thing that stops a shooter is another gun so have plenty of guns close by.
There is not a single university in the country where the local Police can’t carry guns on campus.
You are simply wrong.
-
Yes. That is a choice we have made. Are other crimes HIGHER in those nations than here? Robbery, etc? Yes
Even if that were true, higher property crime rates would be worth lower mass homicide rates. Anyone who disagrees must value stuff over people.
-
Gun free zones mean whatever one wants it to mean. Plenty of establishments have defined it as I say ... like universities to appease the militant lefties on campus, The latest of many calls
Pitt students demand disarming of police, free tuition
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9791
(2007 no guns on VT's gun free zone campus, 32 dead before a gun go there to stop the shooter)
The problem with the gun free zone argument is some are actually reasonable like you and understand that a gun free zone is a really bad idea and really want guns nearby. That's because you believe in the NRAs basic tenant that the only thing that stops a shooter is another gun so have plenty of guns close by.
VT's police/security are/were armed. Columbine had armed security.
-
I've read this post multiple times. It'd astounds me how much you don't get it. In fact, it disgusts me. Complete absence of logic.
see, this is the intolerance of people like you that is disgusting. as i told naginif-i can respect his opinion, just not agree with it. am i "disgusted" by it? not in the least. i understand that there will be people who don't think like me. if i didn't, that would be unreasonable and i'm a pretty reasonable guy. it wold also be narcissistic.
as for your disgust-i hope you're gonna be alright. but for you "not getting it? either you missed the last paragraph or you think a little too highly of yourself and your opinions. but check it out-it's worked on a lot worse
-
What you post above 100% proves you wrong, just like everyone is saying. It confirms these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them. What it says is that laws need to be written properly, if the law said that such substandard cheap weapons were illegal period, these companies would have never been created. Saturday Night Specials would not have been produced and sold in the US.
So why wasn't the law written that way? The same reason why, after these new legitimate companies products became problems, laws like requiring the weapon to survive 1000 degrees celsius were shut down. And why laws to ban such weapons entirely, failed...The NRA donated massive amounts of money, had concerts and massive campaigns to shut down any legislation that tried to restrict the manufacture and sale o "saturday night specials."
These were not rogue operations. They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards. They were the subject of numerous lawsuits related to the poor quality of their legitimate weapons.
If they were illegitimate companies, why not shut them down instead of suing them in open court...or creating new laws to outlaw it. Why would you need new laws to shut down illegal rogue operations?
Finally, it is sad that you cannot ever admit how incredibly wrong you are. You also have to flat out invent attacks on people. Never once have I said that corporations are immoral. But you invent that attack, while defending your position with information that proves you wrong. That is pretty special.
First you say ...
these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them.
and then you said ...
They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards
How can they be both circumvented a poorly written and also registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards
The ATF does not test or certify individual guns. It does MANUFACTURERS but with lots of loopholes so many fall outside their regulation, including many SNS manufacturers. It does register buyers (individuals) and sellers (gun shops). SNS manufactiers got around this by selling to pawn shops.
I understand you equal "corporation" with "immoral" and need to put these companies on the same level as Remington and Smith & Wesson so you can then tar all of them with the same brush.
And regarding homemade guns, they have been used in mass shootings as this article details.
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
And my point in all of this is if you try and ban a certain type of gun, a black market will immediately develop and that gun will not go away.
We banned the import of cheap pistols in 1968 and immediately Saturday Night Special manufacturers popped up so effectively nothing changed.
-
lol
Goalpost shifted. Noted.
Heisy: "Completely wrong ... gun free zone means what the word says, no cops, security guards or any other type of gun ... period."
Sultan: "But seriously, you think that police can't bring guns into something marked as a "gun free zone?" With few exceptions, police can bring a gun wherever they want."
Heisy: "Of course they can."
We all know he does this on a daily basis.
-
Throughout the 21 pages of this thread, I have asked what are these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws that everyone agrees upon and should be done.
Instead, I get the typical virtol, moral superiority and ad hominem attacks that so often come from anyone that does not share the worldview around here. One even admitted he cannot read anything that he disagrees with and prefers to not understand the counter argument and would rather scream at the person disagreeing with him.
So I will ask one last time.
Please bullet point all these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws we need to do.
Me thinks you are afraid because you will get a reasonable argument against it and then instead of trying to understand them, you will continue you unrelenting attacks against people that do not agree with you in hopes of bludgeoning them into submission.
-
First you say ...
these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them.
and then you said ...
They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards
How can they be both circumvented a poorly written and also registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards
The ATF does not test or certify individual guns. It does MANUFACTURERS but with lots of loopholes so many fall outside their regulation, including many SNS manufacturers. It does register buyers (individuals) and sellers (gun shops). SNS manufactiers got around this by selling to pawn shops.
I understand you equal "corporation" with "immoral" and need to put these companies on the same level as Remington and Smith & Wesson so you can then tar all of them with the same brush.
And regarding homemade guns, they have been used in mass shootings as this article details.
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
And my point in all of this is if you try and ban a certain type of gun, a black market will immediately develop and that gun will not go away.
We banned the import of cheap pistols in 1968 and immediately Saturday Night Special manufacturers popped up so effectively nothing changed.
Easy. The law banned the import of such weapons. The people that owned the foreign companies moved shop to the US. So they could legally manufacture and sell the weapons in the US.
They circumvented the law meant to outlaw the weapons by making them on US soil.
Nothing illegal. Are you that dense that you cannot understand simple words and business principles?
I'll repeat. If they were illegal, and the companies making them illegal. Why was there a massive effort to make them illegal and pass new gun laws to restrict their manufacture and sale? Why did the NRA spend millions to fight against these new laws if they were already illegal? Again, are you really that dense?
-
Easy. The law banned the import of such weapons. The people that owned the foreign companies moved shop to the US. So they could legally manufacture and sell the weapons in the US.
They circumvented the law meant to outlaw the weapons by making them on US soil.
Nothing illegal. Are you that dense that you cannot understand simple words and business principles?
I'll repeat. If they were illegal, and the companies making them illegal. Why was there a massive effort to make them illegal and pass new gun laws to restrict their manufacture and sale? Why did the NRA spend millions to fight against these new laws if they were already illegal? Again, are you really that dense?
Let me help you out because you will never ever get a straight answer from him.
Yes, he is.
-
Interesting (and I think spot-on) column in the Washington Post this week. Basic upshot is that Jesus wouldn't want Christians to be content giving "thoughts and prayers" after every shooting.
Jesuit priest James Martin summed it up to me this way: “If your thoughts and prayers are truly with somebody, it means you are going to do something to help them. Jesus prayed. But he prays and then he acts. We also have to act.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/03/why-thoughts-and-prayers-is-starting-to-sound-so-profane/?utm_term=.d1570a1d7a4d
I especially liked this paragraph:
Strangely, when it comes to other issues these same Christians don’t feign helplessness and limit solutions to “thoughts and prayers.” If the shooter in Las Vegas had been named Mohammed, you can be sure that these same leaders would be offering a laundry list of “solutions” to keep more Mohammeds out of America. For that matter, have you ever seen a politician just throw up his or her hands about legalized abortion — which has been the law of the land for 40 years — and say there is nothing that can be done, but “thoughts and prayers” all around?
-
see, this is the intolerance of people like you that is disgusting. as i told naginif-i can respect his opinion, just not agree with it. am i "disgusted" by it? not in the least. i understand that there will be people who don't think like me. if i didn't, that would be unreasonable and i'm a pretty reasonable guy. it wold also be narcissistic.
as for your disgust-i hope you're gonna be alright. but for you "not getting it? either you missed the last paragraph or you think a little too highly of yourself and your opinions. but check it out-it's worked on a lot worse
So you're disgusted that he said he's disgusted? Just trying to keep track....
-
Throughout the 21 pages of this thread, I have asked what are these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws that everyone agrees upon and should be done.
Instead, I get the typical virtol, moral superiority and ad hominem attacks that so often come from anyone that does not share the worldview around here. One even admitted he cannot read anything that he disagrees with and prefers to not understand the counter argument and would rather scream at the person disagreeing with him.
So I will ask one last time.
Please bullet point all these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws we need to do.
Me thinks you are afraid because you will get a reasonable argument against it and then instead of trying to understand them, you will continue you unrelenting attacks against people that do not agree with you in hopes of bludgeoning them into submission.
Look back at my posts a few pages back. I suggested a few common-sense restrictions, and you insulted me by saying I didn't know what I was talking about...and then made the absurd claim that the average life of a gun is 145 years. And you further told me what I really want - a total ban on all guns - which I have categorically said isn't my goal. Telling others what they want is the height of arrogance and ignorance.
You have a keen sense of irony - accusing people of ad hominem attacks when you regularly use them yourself.
-
So you're disgusted that he said he's disgusted? Just trying to keep track....
swingggha and.... a miss
the intolerance of opposing viewpoints is disgusting-respect my good man, respect.
for those of you in rio linda-
"am i "disgusted" by it? not in the least."
now, back to your regularly scheduled channels ;)
-
Look back at my posts a few pages back. I suggested a few common-sense restrictions, and you insulted me by saying I didn't know what I was talking about...and then made the absurd claim that the average life of a gun is 145 years. And you further told me what I really want - a total ban on all guns - which I have categorically said isn't my goal. Telling others what they want is the height of arrogance and ignorance.
You have a keen sense of irony - accusing people of ad hominem attacks when you regularly use them yourself.
If that’s what you lefties truly think passes for sensible gun regulation, this. Is why there’s never any common ground and never any gun regulation.
I have a sensible idea that everybody can agree ... let’s ban all abortions after conception. You essentially are you the same thing when it comes to guns
-
Throughout the 21 pages of this thread, I have asked what are these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws that everyone agrees upon and should be done.
Instead, I get the typical virtol, moral superiority and ad hominem attacks that so often come from anyone that does not share the worldview around here. One even admitted he cannot read anything that he disagrees with and prefers to not understand the counter argument and would rather scream at the person disagreeing with him.
So I will ask one last time.
Please bullet point all these "common sense" and "no-brainer" gun laws we need to do.
Me thinks you are afraid because you will get a reasonable argument against it and then instead of trying to understand them, you will continue you unrelenting attacks against people that do not agree with you in hopes of bludgeoning them into submission.
Common-sense, no-brainers?
- No gun sales to the mentally ill
- No gun sales to people on no-fly lists
- No gun sales to people on terror watchlists
- Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows
- Banning assault weapons
- Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts
Personally, however, I am for actually enforcing the Second Amendment. It reads the following:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
First and foremost, the Second Amendment as written ONLY applies to maintain a well-regulated militia. If you want gun ownership, you need to be an active member of their state's National Guard (not to be confused with the United States National Guard). States would be responsible for management, regular training sessions which must be attended, determining when to call them to active duty, and they would report to the governor. This would be a fully voluntary organization.
If you are not a member of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does NOT grant any right to bear arms. If you are a member of a militia that steps down, misses trainings, or violates a designated code of conduct, your membership (and thus any gun ownership rights) are immediately stripped.
This is all about the Constitution. It does not grant some unlimited access to firearms. It grants ownership rights for the express purpose of maintaining a WELL-ORGANIZED militia. That's it. Not for sport, not for collecting, but to maintain a militia.
-
Common-sense, no-brainers?
- No gun sales to the mentally ill
- No gun sales to people on no-fly lists
- No gun sales to people on terror watchlists
- Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows
- Banning assault weapons
- Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts
Yup, I know you replied to one of my earlier posts and asked for it. Instead of re-typing it all out, I'll just quote this.
I will add (because I know you're going to go there), that there would need to be some definitions around "assault weapons" in regards to fire rate, magazine capacity, and power.
-
First you say ...
these companies were legitimate companies, that circumvented a poorly written law by producing weapons on US soil, instead of importing them.
and then you said ...
They were legitimate companies, that were registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards
How can they be both circumvented a poorly written and also registered, that tested the weapons to certify they met existing standards
The ATF does not test or certify individual guns. It does MANUFACTURERS but with lots of loopholes so many fall outside their regulation, including many SNS manufacturers. It does register buyers (individuals) and sellers (gun shops). SNS manufactiers got around this by selling to pawn shops.
I understand you equal "corporation" with "immoral" and need to put these companies on the same level as Remington and Smith & Wesson so you can then tar all of them with the same brush.
And regarding homemade guns, they have been used in mass shootings as this article details.
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
Homemade guns exploit gun law loophole
And my point in all of this is if you try and ban a certain type of gun, a black market will immediately develop and that gun will not go away.
We banned the import of cheap pistols in 1968 and immediately Saturday Night Special manufacturers popped up so effectively nothing changed.
Looks like the article you included isn't linked at all. There's nothing there.
In regards to this previous claim for which we asked support for:
You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun. And in some gang neighborhoods, you don't buy a handgun, you buy them by the crate for as little as $10/each. They are made in illegal tool and die shops here and especially in Mexico (and smuggled in by the drug runners). Where do you think the really bad Nacros/Breaking Bad types get their automatic weapons? They are manufactured in foreign countries by illegitimate outfits. Why? Becuase the technology is very easy to reproduce.
The only support provided was around actual gun manufacturers making guns.
So I will go ahead and say that this previous statement is quite a ridiculous hyperbole:
And since a Gun is 140 year old technology, and tens of thousands that passed a machine shop class in high school and can find their local Home Depot, they are capable of manufacturing a semi-automatic in their basement, we will have an active black market in guns for centuries.
You want to start a national registry of blue collar workers? Every mechanic, plumber, welder, etc possesses the skill and knowledge to make a gun. Should we restrict and regulate their activities?
-
If that’s what you lefties truly think passes for sensible gun regulation, this. Is why there’s never any common ground and never any gun regulation.
I have a sensible idea that everybody can agree ... let’s ban all abortions after conception. You essentially are you the same thing when it comes to guns
First you say there are no suggestions, then you change course and say there were no "sensible" ones...with you presumably being the sole oracle on sensibility. Talk about more irony - at least you're really good at that.
And you are again showing your stupidity by referring to me as a "lefty." This "lefty" has voted in 10 presidential elections... and 8 of my votes were for Republicans. (Hint: the current Dotard in Chief was not one of them.) I just have enough common sense to view each candidate and issue separately instead of blindly checking off every box on one party's platform. And I allow my opinions to change as facts and circumstances warrant. You, on the other hand, will likely go to your grave with the same stupid notion you had about guns when your dad gave you your pistol at 12. Grow up.
-
Highlighted is exactly the problem ... you made up your mind and will literally stop reading when something might go against your worldview. You have your conclusions and either we agree with you or you, and others like you, will yell and yell until you bludgeon opposing views into submission.
And no I do not find the level of violence acceptable. But unlike you, I'm searching for a real answer not screaming until some meaningless law is passed designed to just make you feel better and superior to those that disagree with you.
Character revealed
Yikes! Your inability to concede even the smallest point in most arguments is weird, your inability to even acknowledge another perspective in this grave situation is just a crapty world approach.
I need to go back through the records but i think i had a reasonable exchange of differing perspectives with Rocket on this topic (props to him btw). I don't think we could differ more on the ultimate solution, but we (mostly) agreed that there is a complex issue that needs to be addressed and that's a start. If you want to further your position you should take a similar approach. If you think being a complete ass will further your position.....keep on, keep'n on.
Edit: Tip o' the cap to the mods on the 'crapty' auto correct.
-
Yikes! Your inability to concede even the smallest point in most arguments is weird, your inability to even acknowledge another perspective in this grave situation is just a crapty world approach.
I need to go back through the records but i think i had a reasonable exchange of differing perspectives with Rocket on this topic (props to him btw). I don't think we could differ more on the ultimate solution, but we (mostly) agreed that there is a complex issue that needs to be addressed and that's a start. If you want to further your position you should take a similar approach. If you think being a complete ass will further your position.....keep on, keep'n on.
Well stated. His opinion is rigid and absolute...with any proposal immediately dismissed as "not sensible."
-
Brew, serious responses in blue, general comment below.
Look forward to any rebuttals, and ad hominems that will naturally come with it.
Common-sense, no-brainers?
- No gun sales to the mentally ill
This is already the law. I agree it is a good law. The one issue here, what is the definition of mentally ill? If I visit a psychiatrist? Take certain medications? Have a family history? What is the due process?
On this issue even the ACLU sides with the NRA and why Trump signed an executive order giving the mentally ill due process in buying a gun. Again, because there is no real definition of "Mentally Ill." Hillary is making the rounds saying Trump "wants mentally ill people to buy guns. No, he wants due process for people accused of being mentally ill, and the ACLU agrees with him.
Forget guns, once you get on this list can employers and landlords look up these names and deny these people because a government list labeled them mentally ill? Do we really want the Government labeling its citizens in this manner? A very slippery slope. Further such a list a ripe for huge abuses by the government. Will the "righties" want people that attempted suicide and had abortions on this list, and then landlords and employers look at it? (the list doesn't say why, HIPA prevents that information to be made public. It only says you're mentally ill). Will the "lefties" abuse this by putting hate speech on the list? Cam Newton, congratulations, you are now mentally ill. Please turn in all your guns!
- No gun sales to people on no-fly lists
Good idea but one problem ... this list is a mess. names go on for lots of reason, very inconsistent and no due process. So once it is fixed, yes.
- No gun sales to people on terror watchlists
see no-fly comment.
- Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows
I think this is a good idea but has some big issues. With 300 million guns, first, you would have to register every gun in the country. Maybe a third or more do not even have serial numbers. The Government cannot fix the no-fly list, voter registration, cannot fix air traffic control ... it cannot even maintain a list of those with firearms licenses. The Government has proven largely incapable of doing these kinds of lists effectively. So beyond costing tens of billions of dollars, most admit such an undertaking by the government is all but impossible.
And there are some that do not want this to happen for a very practical reason. Once the government has a list of guns, it has to be public. Bad people can look up your address and see if you are unarmed. See my post above about the map posted after Sandy Hook. Ditto the mentally ill list.
Without such a list, how does one even know if there has been a private sale? It is not recorded anywhere. When a husband dies, does the wife have to go through a background check if he owns guns? Do your kids? Again, until you can figure out a way to register 300 million guns, this will remain a good idea that cannot be done.
You do know we banned assault weapons in 1994. Then we repealed it in 2004. Why? Because "assault weapon" is a made up term. It has no definition. After 10 years of trying and failing to define them, the Government repealed the law because of its futility.
So define an assault weapon ... bearing in mind legal minds on both sides of this issue struggled with this for a decade and could not come up with one.
- Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts.
There are plenty of reasons someone would buy a lot of guns. If they are a gun dealer for one. A collector for another. An avid sportsman for a third. Guns are like tools, they come in many shapes and sizes each for a different purpose so hobbyist and professional will own lots of guns so they can use the tool that fits the situation.
Regarding Vegas, as noted above, we still cannot figure out what the motivate was. As also noted above, this guy owned 5 houses and made $5 million in 2015 alone. He traveled the world on cruises.
So, when the FBI is asked to investigate a millionaire with five houses and no real police record as to why he bought 33 guns in a year, they are going to find nothing. Also, he did not use 33 guns in the shooting. From what I read, it is anywhere between 2 and 5. Buying lots of guns has no correlation with committing violent crimes.
So, sure go ahead and ask why people bought so many guns. 99% of the time nothing will come of it. Go through all the shootings you hope to stop and you will find it will have stopped none of them with this rule.
Waste of resources better deployed elsewhere.
[/list]
So, in the end ... you listed existing laws, laws that have been tried, things that cannot be done for practical reasons and things that will not really matter.
This is the problem with this argument ... the demand to do ineffective things by calling it "common sense."
-
Brew, serious responses in blue, general comment below.
Look forward to any rebuttals, and ad hominems that will naturally come with it.
So, in the end ... you listed existing laws, laws that have been tried, things that cannot be done for practical reasons and things that will not really matter.
This is the problem with this argument ... the demand to do ineffective things by calling it "common sense."
Except 45 just pulled back the restrictions on the mentally ill. People that do not have the capacity to manage their affairs because of a mental disorder. I'm sorry, but this one is damn personal to me. I have a friend who committed suicide using a gun she bought legally. She had a long history of suicide attempts, all documented by physicians. She had a history of being in psych wards, both voluntary and involuntary. You cite HIPAA, but nothing on a generated list would need to list a reason. All that would be needed would be a portion of the mandatory background check with a flag that comes back denying the purchase. The dealer doesn't need to know why, but there are people out there who should not be allowed to purchase firearms and deliberate actions by this administration have altered who can and cannot make such purchases.
Who cares is the list is a mess? If you are on either list, you don't get to buy guns. If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it. Otherwise, we as a society are safer when the people that are accurately on these lists cannot purchase guns. If some people have to wait or take legal recourse to get off the list, so be it.
And every time, we get the "big issues" and discourse about how difficult it would be. Screw that. Difficult isn't a reason to not do something, especially when we are having more than one mass shooting a day in this country for the past year and a half. And yes, every single gun should have a serial number and documentation. And it should be on record. We already know that guns created without serial numbers are illegal weapons, so why on earth would any honest American NOT support this? Begin the process with currently known serial numbers, then allow gun owners 90 days to register any guns that do not currently have serial numbers. If these guns are discovered after the 90-day grace period, possession of such weapons is a felony. Allow people to come forward in the future in the event they buy such a weapon and discover it is unlicensed, but if the police are the ones that find it, seizure of the illegal weapon and felony charges.
My assault rifle definition would likely be far more encompassing than most would like. But creating a definition should be one handled by the legal system and the courts, not lobbyists or the NRA. WarriorInNYC covered many of the main topics that would need to be addressed, but it does need to be addressed. Including a specific definition.
This all comes back to the Second Amendment. Nowhere does the Second Amendment make a provision for collectors or sportsmen. Per the Second Amendment, neither of those are valid reasons for gun ownership. The only reason for gun ownership is to maintain a well-organized militia. That is it.
So again I go back to the portion of my post you ignored. If you want to be a gun owner, you must be a voluntary member of your state's National Guard. You must go through training and routinely drill, per the Militia Act of 1903. This right only exists to insure a free state, and it exists for exactly zero other reasons. If at any point your service is terminated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, so are your rights to bear arms. The Second Amendment is about preserving freedom, not stockpiling enough ammunition and firepower to start your own Jihad.
And strictly adhering to the Second Amendment and the Militia Act would allow the states to determine which weapons are issued to their members, thus getting us past the problem of "what is an assault rifle"? Militia members are allowed only what the state is willing to sell them. My personal thought is it should be one standardized rifle and one standardized pistol/sidearm.
All other guns in the country would be banned. Possession (like above) would be a felony with a grace period to turn them in or to have currently held firearms approved by your state Militia upon approval of application to said agency.
-
...
Who cares is the list is a mess? If you are on either list, you don't get to buy guns. If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it. Otherwise, we as a society are safer when the people that are accurately on these lists cannot purchase guns. If some people have to wait or take legal recourse to get off the list, so be it.
...
The problem is that there is no due process procedure surrounding the no-fly list. It's an arbitrary prohibition on flying that routinely gets people listed who share a name with a bad actor or typos, or children, or legendary civil rights activists that are current members of Congress.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/index.html
Do we want to strip a civil right from people using the same level of due process that gets an 18 month old on a no-fly list and then removed from a plane? Using the no-fly list as a no-gun list isn't a new idea, and the flaws then exist now. Why everyone is so hurry to give away their due process rights will never make sense to me.
And as for "If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it." Well... uh... there's not much legal action to take.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/what-do-if-you-think-youre-no-fly-list
The ACLU describes the process as "constitutionally-inadequate" and basically you shoot off letter appeals to anonymous bureaucrats who don't have to provide you with any evidence as to why you're on the list in the first place, so hopefully whatever you cite as why you shouldn't be on addresses their concerns.
-
Except 45 just pulled back the restrictions on the mentally ill. People that do not have the capacity to manage their affairs because of a mental disorder. I'm sorry, but this one is damn personal to me. I have a friend who committed suicide using a gun she bought legally. She had a long history of suicide attempts, all documented by physicians. She had a history of being in psych wards, both voluntary and involuntary. You cite HIPAA, but nothing on a generated list would need to list a reason. All that would be needed would be a portion of the mandatory background check with a flag that comes back denying the purchase. The dealer doesn't need to know why, but there are people out there who should not be allowed to purchase firearms and deliberate actions by this administration have altered who can and cannot make such purchases.
Again we are arguing about a law that exists that we both in agreement that it is a good idea. But you want to demonize to bludgeon critics into silence.
Now, your description is wrong., He did not change the law. He offered a certain narrowly defined group due process in the gun buying process. It affects about 75,000 people out of 4.6 million that are on this list.
Here is that dangerous radical group the ACLU arguing in favor of this change.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair
If we want to move forward with gun laws we have to stop the inaccurate Jimmy Kimmel talking points.
Finally, I'm sorry about your friend. I too know people that committed suicide with a gun. But the gun was not the problem, their mental illness was.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-brain/201607/fact-check-gun-control-and-suicide
There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world. According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.
Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).
Who cares is the list is a mess? If you are on either list, you don't get to buy guns. If you shouldn't be on the list, take legal action to fix it. Otherwise, we as a society are safer when the people that are accurately on these lists cannot purchase guns. If some people have to wait or take legal recourse to get off the list, so be it.
So throw the constitution away. Who cares about liberty and rights, if names wind up on a list, you cannot buy an airplane ticket, period, no exceptions. And while we're at it, let's deny them a gun. Again, I'm in favor of this once we fix the list.
You gave me an anecdote, I'll give you one. I l know a woman named Susan Johnson. She was on the no-fly list. Why? Becuase some women named Susan Johnson was connected with terrorism so every woman named Susan Johnson was put on the list. This is how you want your government to operate.
Again, the ACLU thinks this list is an injustice
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/no-fly-list-grows-along-injustice-those-wrongly-stuck-it
And the liberal 538 blog says it will not matter anyway
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-problems-with-using-the-terrorist-watch-list-to-ban-gun-sales/
So again, fix the list and I'll go for this. Until then it is just a random violation of constitutional rights that does nothing to reduce gun violence.
And every time, we get the "big issues" and discourse about how difficult it would be. Screw that. Difficult isn't a reason to not do something, especially when we are having more than one mass shooting a day in this country for the past year and a half. And yes, every single gun should have a serial number and documentation. And it should be on record. We already know that guns created without serial numbers are illegal weapons, so why on earth would any honest American NOT support this? Begin the process with currently known serial numbers, then allow gun owners 90 days to register any guns that do not currently have serial numbers. If these guns are discovered after the 90-day grace period, possession of such weapons is a felony. Allow people to come forward in the future in the event they buy such a weapon and discover it is unlicensed, but if the police are the ones that find it, seizure of the illegal weapon and felony charges.
This the emotional part of the ranting ... "I don't care, get it done!! I made up so parameters around 90 days, do that!!!
A far more liberal country tried with rifles and gave up, it was impossible. You may have heard of it
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/#4d7b37475a1b
My assault rifle definition would likely be far more encompassing than most would like. But creating a definition should be one handled by the legal system and the courts, not lobbyists or the NRA. WarriorInNYC covered many of the main topics that would need to be addressed, but it does need to be addressed. Including a specific definition.
What is your definition of an assault rifle? Apparently, you have one. Is it semi-automatic ... suggesting you don't fully understand what the word means and what banning semi-automatic guns means (goo surely doesn't get it).
This all comes back to the Second Amendment. Nowhere does the Second Amendment make a provision for collectors or sportsmen. Per the Second Amendment, neither of those are valid reasons for gun ownership. The only reason for gun ownership is to maintain a well-organized militia. That is it.
The Constitution tells the government what it cannot do, not what it can do. The second amendment says it cannot restrict a well-regulated militia (which includes guns). Just because it does not say something does not mean it is illegal. Please re-take 8th-grade government.
So again I go back to the portion of my post you ignored. If you want to be a gun owner, you must be a voluntary member of your state's National Guard. You must go through training and routinely drill, per the Militia Act of 1903. This right only exists to insure a free state, and it exists for exactly zero other reasons. If at any point your service is terminated, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, so are your rights to bear arms. The Second Amendment is about preserving freedom, not stockpiling enough ammunition and firepower to start your own Jihad.
This is not what the Militia act of 1903 is about. Unless we are no longer a nation of laws, you cannot google something that sounds relevant and pretend that you can apply it as you did above. Why not use the Housing Act of 1965 if you're making up regulations?
And when you googling you discover we also have a Militia Act of 1908, the National Defense Act of 1916, the National Defense Act of 1920, and the National Defense Act Amendments of 1933 ... you cannot pretend that those too mean that the government can "see" a law in them that says every gun owner must be a member of the national guard.
Related question ... If you are so insistent on this, would you be in favor of mandatory military service for everyone between 18 to 20, like Isreal? That way we can give everyone two years of proper gun training.
And strictly adhering to the Second Amendment and the Militia Act would allow the states to determine which weapons are issued to their members, thus getting us past the problem of "what is an assault rifle"? Militia members are allowed only what the state is willing to sell them. My personal thought is it should be one standardized rifle and one standardized pistol/sidearm.
All other guns in the country would be banned. Possession (like above) would be a felony with a grace period to turn them in or to have currently held firearms approved by your state Militia upon approval of application to said agency.
See this gets at what is all the "sensible" and "common sense" laws stuff is really about. You want a total ban on all guns. You are willing to violate constitutional rights to get rid of them. You are willing to have the government use violence against it citizen to accomplish these goals. Of course, you will flame me for saying this but it is painfully obvious this is your endgame (as it is what all the anti-gun loudmouths here).
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Saconstitutional neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
-
First you say there are no suggestions, then you change course and say there were no "sensible" ones...with you presumably being the sole oracle on sensibility. Talk about more irony - at least you're really good at that.
And you are again showing your stupidity by referring to me as a "lefty." This "lefty" has voted in 10 presidential elections... and 8 of my votes were for Republicans. (Hint: the current Dotard in Chief was not one of them.) I just have enough common sense to view each candidate and issue separately instead of blindly checking off every box on one party's platform. And I allow my opinions to change as facts and circumstances warrant. You, on the other hand, will likely go to your grave with the same stupid notion you had about guns when your dad gave you your pistol at 12. Grow up.
Yep, GM, like you, brew and others, I also provided a list. Smuggles and his ilk choose to ignore them, move the goalposts, pontificate, cite meaningless statistics - and offer nothing themselves.
Smuggles then takes it one step further by continuing to go with the "maybe Paddock was working for ISIS" story line ... because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.
As the columnist I mentioned in my earlier post said: If the shooter in Las Vegas had been named Mohammed, you can be sure that these same leaders would be offering a laundry list of “solutions” to keep more Mohammeds out of America.
But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?
Travel ban from Mesquite to Vegas? Build a wall around St. George, Utah?
-
But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?
Travel ban from Mesquite to Vegas? Build a wall around St. George, Utah?
These are good points. Heisy's defense against many suggestions is there are flaws in the design that may render them less effective or burdensome.
But he was a supporter of the travel ban, which has immense flaws and would not be stopping the actual terrorist acts in the US.
He was a supporter of the border wall, that will not affect drug/weapons smuggling into the US (already going through tunnels or the air), nor illegal immigration (also traveling through the air, or legally across the border as tourists then staying too long). For all his pet projects, he ignores far more extensive and documented flaws than he mentions for gun control.
Disallowing the purchase of firearms for the mentally ill is a common sense idea. The definitions can be developed to make sure it is very specific, like was required for the partial-birth abortion ban to be constitutional.
Requiring background checks for all sales, including at gunshots is a common sense idea. Not difficult to implement. And make the charges for violating the law immense, like was done with crack instead of coke.
Tracking all sales and having mandatory investigations for purchasing large quantities of guns in a short amount of time is an obvious law. We track sudaphedrine, we can track guns. Heisy's explanations for why this is too hard does not make sense. It is easy to exempt licensed gun dealers from this, besides licensed gun dealers, no one has a need to buy 33 guns in a year. It infringes on no one.
On the licensed gun dealers side, make it illegal and heavily punished (see above) to sell a weapon if you are not a licensed gun dealer. If I can a prescription for opioids and then sell them to a friend, I'm breaking the law. It should be the same with guns, period. Infringes on no ones constitutional rights.
This is from a gun owner and defender of the 2nd amendment.
-
[..]
On the licensed gun dealers side, make it illegal and heavily punished (see above) to sell a weapon if you are not a licensed gun dealer. If I can a prescription for opioids and then sell them to a friend, I'm breaking the law. It should be the same with guns, period. Infringes on no ones constitutional rights.
This is from a gun owner and defender of the 2nd amendment.
So every gun in private hands must in the hands of the one who purchased it... forever?
-
So every gun in private hands must in the hands of the one who purchased it... forever?
... and who owns the gun when the current owner dies? Does the spouse or children have to go through a background check upon their death? Or, isn't it illegal for you to die because that constitutes an illegal transfer of your guns?
And, the day after you die, your wife (or kids) have to go through a background check. And if their name is the same name as someone on the no-fly list, or have mental illness or arrest in their background, they do not pass and the ATF arrests them at your funeral for being an illegal owner of guns. They cannot sell them after you die because they are not the registered owner.
Regarding the mentally Ill definition ... It is not the definition, it is about due process. If someone is determined to be mentally ill, they need a way to contest this, via the courts. And, like any list the government keeps, it has to be public (no secret lists anymore). So what is to stop landlords and employees from using this list to deny leases and jobs. Do you want to go down this road?
-
Regarding the mentally Ill definition ... It is not the definition, it is about due process. If someone is determined to be mentally ill, they need a way to contest this, via the courts. And, like any list the government keeps, it has to be public (no secret lists anymore). So what is to stop landlords and employees from using this list to deny leases and jobs. Do you want to go down this road?
Do you have the same problems with the no-fly list?
-
Common-sense, no-brainers?
- No gun sales to the mentally ill
- No gun sales to people on no-fly lists
- No gun sales to people on terror watchlists
- Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows
- Banning assault weapons
- Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts
Assault weapons were banned for a long time, and the NY Times showed it did nothing to prevent any mass shootings.
If you want to track people to this extent, then surely you must also be supportive of tracking to make sure people didn't vote more than once and show an ID. Right?
No fly lists? A great way for people to withhold the rights of people by putting them on a list they don't belong. The list is brutally bad as it is. CNN reports the most embarrassing mistakes of the esteemed no fly list http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/index.html
Terror list, no different than no fly list. Our gov't can't get their act together to prevent billions in fraud each year for Social Security, Welfare and other programs because of lists. Nor can they properly keep people off Do Not Call lists or state gov'ts off voter rolls properly, but you want them to handle these lists?
-
Yep, GM, like you, brew and others, I also provided a list. Smuggles and his ilk choose to ignore them, move the goalposts, pontificate, cite meaningless statistics - and offer nothing themselves.
Smuggles then takes it one step further by continuing to go with the "maybe Paddock was working for ISIS" story line ... because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.
As the columnist I mentioned in my earlier post said: If the shooter in Las Vegas had been named Mohammed, you can be sure that these same leaders would be offering a laundry list of “solutions” to keep more Mohammeds out of America.
But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?
Travel ban from Mesquite to Vegas? Build a wall around St. George, Utah?
Regarding ISIS ... I'm just pointing out that the FBI has twice said there is no evidence that he was radicalized yet ISIS has now stated three times, after every denial from the FBI, he was one of them. ISIS has never been this insistent that someone, that was determined to not be part of their group, actually was a follower. ISIS has tried to take credit for other things like this before (the casino shooting in the Philippines) but quickly dropped it after it was determined the shooter had no connection. In this case, they are not giving it up. Compounding it is the fact that after eight days after they still don't have a motivated.
But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?
If this is the case, then we can have the correct conversation. It will be far more productive than this conversation ... the worst kind of hateful identity politics.
because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.
A guy owns five houses and makes $5 million a year ... please tell me why this profile means one should worry about this person wants to shoot 500 people?
-
Do you have the same problems with the no-fly list?
Yes! It is a mess and a big problem for anyone on it. The Susan Johnson I noted was the CEO of a major energy company and spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees to get off. In the meantime, she could not travel by air and it affected the business, costing them far more than the money she spent in getting off the list.
She was fortunate that she had the means to get off the list. Other Susan Johnsons do not have the means and cannot buy plane tickets.
(again, if you are not familiar with the list, a Susan Johnson was determined to be involved in terrorist activities. So every Susan Johnson was put on the no-fly list and cannot by plane tickets. This is how this list works and why it is a terrible mess and a violation of constitutional rights.)
-
Except 45 just pulled back the restrictions on the mentally ill. People that do not have the capacity to manage their affairs because of a mental disorder. I'm sorry, but this one is damn personal to me. I have a friend who committed suicide using a gun she bought legally. She had a long history of suicide attempts, all documented by physicians. She had a history of being in psych wards, both voluntary and involuntary.
Without the gun, she never commits suicide? This is the flawed argument of guns and suicide. These folks desperate enough will find another way. Pills. Hanging. I, also have had to go through this with a family member. The gun is a tool, just as the pills are, or jumping off a bridge.
Your 45 claim on mentally ill has some holes in it. The regulation that 44 put into place was opposed by American Association of People with Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, the Association of Mature American Citizens, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Council on Disability, the National Disability Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union. Yes, that ACLU. That's why it was rescinded because it denied people their civil liberties.
It lacked due process. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-resurrect-bogus-narrative-that-republicans-made-it-easier-for-the-mentally-ill-to-buy-guns/article/2636419
-
Without the gun, she never commits suicide? This is the flawed argument of guns and suicide. These folks desperate enough will find another way. Pills. Hanging. I, also have had to go through this with a family member. The gun is a tool, just as the pills are, or jumping off a bridge.
Your 45 claim on mentally ill has some holes in it. The regulation that 44 put into place was opposed by American Association of People with Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, the Association of Mature American Citizens, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Council on Disability, the National Disability Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union. Yes, that ACLU. That's why it was rescinded because it denied people their civil liberties.
It lacked due process. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-resurrect-bogus-narrative-that-republicans-made-it-easier-for-the-mentally-ill-to-buy-guns/article/2636419
As I linked above (in the long blue colored comments), the number way that women commit suicide in the US is poisoning or pills. Number 2 is guns. So what do we do about getting pills out of society to save women from suicides?
-
So every gun in private hands must in the hands of the one who purchased it... forever?
No pretty simple to allow them to be resold through licensed dealers, who have to follow all the background checks. Not that hard, doesn't violate anyones constitutional rights.
-
No pretty simple to allow them to be resold through licensed dealers, who have to follow all the background checks. Not that hard, doesn't violate anyones constitutional rights.
The largest transfer of guns every year is the existing owner of a gun passes away and the gun(s) pass to their surviving spouse or children. You have made dying illegal as the survivors break the law because they participated in an illegal transfer of guns because they did not go through a licensed gun dealer.
And, the survivors cannot take the guns to the dealer and sell them because they are not the owner. They now have the same profile of someone trying to fence stolen guns. And what if they don't want to sell them? Are you forcing them with prison time to sell those guns?
It is not an insignificant issue.
-
... and who owns the gun when the current owner dies? Does the spouse or children have to go through a background check upon their death? Or, isn't it illegal for you to die because that constitutes an illegal transfer of your guns?
And, the day after you die, your wife (or kids) have to go through a background check. And if their name is the same name as someone on the no-fly list, or have mental illness or arrest in their background, they do not pass and the ATF arrests them at your funeral for being an illegal owner of guns. They cannot sell them after you die because they are not the registered owner.
Regarding the mentally Ill definition ... It is not the definition, it is about due process. If someone is determined to be mentally ill, they need a way to contest this, via the courts. And, like any list the government keeps, it has to be public (no secret lists anymore). So what is to stop landlords and employees from using this list to deny leases and jobs. Do you want to go down this road?
This is a dumb argument/statement. Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will. Laws can be written in that manner.
For mentally ill. Let them contest it in court. Or, let them get a second doctors opinion who can overrule the first. Again, easy to write that into the law.
For landlords and employers, simple. The law already forbids discrimination in such cases. Make the lists public, but searches of the list documentable. That makes it easy to prove discrimination in a case where it was used to deny housing/jobs. A few massive lawsuits for discrimination and it won't be a problem.
I have no problem going down this road. It is quite simple to put in provisions to protect individuals from misuse. None of these restrictions we discuss here are unconstitutional, none infringe on anyones legal rights, all can be drafted to protect against misuse. Should be common sense to implement.
-
The largest transfer of guns every year is the existing owner of a gun passes away and the gun(s) pass to their surviving spouse or children. You have made dying illegal as the survivors break the law because they participated in an illegal transfer of guns because they did not go through a licensed gun dealer.
It is not an insignificant issue.
No I haven't. You are being dense.
See above.
-
This is a dumb argument/statement. Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will. Laws can be written in that manner.
For mentally ill. Let them contest it in court. Or, let them get a second doctors opinion who can overrule the first. Again, easy to write that into the law.
For landlords and employers, simple. The law already forbids discrimination in such cases. Make the lists public, but searches of the list documentable. That makes it easy to prove discrimination in a case where it was used to deny housing/jobs. A few massive lawsuits for discrimination and it won't be a problem.
I have no problem going down this road. It is quite simple to put in provisions to protect individuals from misuse. None of these restrictions we discuss here are unconstitutional, none infringe on anyones legal rights, all can be drafted to protect against misuse. Should be common sense to implement.
And as is the case most times these events occur, none of these proposed changes would have made a difference. The shooter had no mental illness. He bought guns legally. Yes, he had many guns but he could have carried out his whims with just a few if needed.
When common sense and implementation ever occur in harmony with the United States government, let me know.
-
This is a dumb argument/statement. Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will. Laws can be written in that manner.
So you will allow transfers of guns without a background check. And this can number of a million transfers of guns a year.
And if I can state in my will who gets it, what if I give them to someone who is mentally ill or has been arrested? Are they violating the law upon my death?
What you have done is create an incredibly complex byzantine set of rules. I'm now starting to wonder if you are capable of seeing what you created.
-
And as is the case most times these events occur, none of these proposed changes would have made a difference. The shooter had no mental illness. He bought guns legally. Yes, he had many guns but he could have carried out his whims with just a few if needed.
When common sense and implementation ever occur in harmony with the United States government, let me know.
He did, investigators believe he used between 2 and 5 guns. The other 27 to 31 guns he bought in the last year, that have so many up in arms, were not used in the commission of a crime.
So yes, put a number of guns that one can own, but please admit it changes nothing that inconveniences legal and lawful owners of guns.
Sensible and common sense laws = punishing law abiding people that commit no crime.
-
No I haven't. You are being dense.
See above.
Is it possible to have discussions without the name calling anymore?
-
Is it possible to have discussions without the name calling anymore?
It is not name calling, I am defining his attitude. He intentionally ignores statements, and common sense knowledge for the sole purpose of arguing his position, regardless of it being unsupported by facts. That by definition is being ignorant, aka dense. It is defining his actions, not him as an individual. I've never met him and would not assign any terms to him as a person, but I will to his actions on this board.
And as is the case most times these events occur, none of these proposed changes would have made a difference. The shooter had no mental illness. He bought guns legally. Yes, he had many guns but he could have carried out his whims with just a few if needed.
When common sense and implementation ever occur in harmony with the United States government, let me know.
Two things. 1) We do not have enough details to know if such laws would have impacted this incidence. But we do about numerous others and they would have had an impact. 2) We do know that he had a mental illness for which he was prescribed very high doses of Valium.
-
So you will allow transfers of guns without a background check. And this can number of a million transfers of guns a year.
And if I can state in my will who gets it, what if I give them to someone who is mentally ill or has been arrested? Are they violating the law upon my death?
What you have done is create an incredibly complex byzantine set of rules. I'm now starting to wonder if you are capable of seeing what you created.
For Chico's on the "dense" statement. This is evidence number 1. Laws can very simply be written to allow the transfer of guns in a will to family members upon their death. Incredibly simple.
Instead of acknowledging simple facts, Heisy goes on wild tangents and ignores (ignorant) common sense.
There are no "incredibly complex byzantine set of rules". Stating "family members" in the law does not allow them to transfer to anyone...only family members. If the family members wish to sell them to someone else, they can...but again within the confines of the law (through a licensed broker as I suggest).
If they will the weapons to someone who is legally not authorized to have them, say a felon, then just like is currently law, the person accepting the weapons fully knowing they are legally not permitted to possess them is violating the law. There is no change in that regard, that is already current law.
Incredibly simple in principle, would take 3-5 years before full implementation of such a change would be wrinkle free, just as any change that has major economic impacts.
-
But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?
If this is the case, then we can have the correct conversation. It will be far more productive than this conversation ... the worst kind of hateful identity politics.
because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.
A guy owns five houses and makes $5 million a year ... please tell me why this profile means one should worry about this person wants to shoot 500 people?
What conversation?
Worse identity politics than trying to ban a religion? And let's not pretend; your hero called it a Muslim ban 100 times before the very few intelligent people surrounding him said: "Sorry, Your Orangeness, but that can't pass." Your hero is the KING of identity politics! And your NRA is pretty good at it, too.
Is a fact - that white males commit by far the most terrorist acts in this country - identity politics? Hmmm. You and your ilk don't seem to mind identity-politics-related facts when they support your narrative.
As for your last question ... the answer is: Nothing! Nothing tells me that he should want to shoot 500 people (BTW, he actually wanted to shoot a lot more than 500 people; he only was able to shoot 500). Sometimes the motive is hate. Or sickness. Or evil. Or attention.
I mean, did ISIS tell Dylann Roof to go into a black church, pray with the parishioners, and then kill 9 of them? I know you wish that was the case, but Roof was just a white d-bag, yet another in a long line of people I'm embarrassed to share a race with.
Again, what if Paddock was sympathetic to ISIS? So? How does knowing that help us prevent the next one?
-
"... your hero called it a Muslim ban 100 times before..." i'll fix this for ya-it was not a "muslim ban". he didn't ban travel from, say, countries such as indonesia, turkey, india, nigeria, bangladesh...need i go on? so how could it be a muslim ban??
-
Two things. 1) We do not have enough details to know if such laws would have impacted this incidence. But we do about numerous others and they would have had an impact. 2) We do know that he had a mental illness for which he was prescribed very high doses of Valium.
I was agreeing with Ms. Diane Feinstein. “Could there have been any law passed that would've stopped him?” Host John Dickerson asked the senator. “No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/354440-feinstein-no-law-would-have-stopped-las-vegas-gunman
-
"... your hero called it a Muslim ban 100 times before..." i'll fix this for ya-it was not a "muslim ban". he didn't ban travel from, say, countries such as indonesia, turkey, india, nigeria, bangladesh...need i go on? so how could it be a muslim ban??
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/?utm_term=.d8e7cfc91a07
Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."
In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."
"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."
At a rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina on Monday evening, Trump pointed to the statement he released earlier in the day.
“Should I read you the statement?” he asked.
The crowd enthusiastically agreed that he should.
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” he said, adding the word “hell" for emphasis this time.
Supporters erupted in applause.
That was in December 2015. He repeated his calls for a "total and complete" Muslim ban dozens and dozens and dozens (and likely hundreds and hundreds) of times during the campaign. It was one of his many ways of using hate speech and fearmongering to fire up his sheeple.
After he got elected, his advisers finally convinced him that such a ban would have a 0.00% chance to pass legal tests, so he stopped calling it a Muslim ban and changed the parameters.
Which led to the wonderful executive order that absolutely, positively will prevent Americans like Paddock from committing terrorism (not).
Nice try, though, rocket!
-
"That was in December 2015. He repeated his calls for a "total and complete" Muslim ban dozens and dozens and dozens (and likely hundreds and hundreds) of times during the campaign. It was one of his many ways of using hate speech and fearmongering to fire up his sheeple"
seriously? you're better at sports...i think. stick with what ya know and leave the exaggerations to the professional fanatics-you know msnbc, cnn, abc, nbc, et.al. what trump says, when(2015?) he says it and what he actually does are 2 different things, eyn'er?you're zealous rhetoric diminishes the credibility of your statement-check out tamu's saying-you can leave out the "God" part if it helps ;)
-
"That was in December 2015. He repeated his calls for a "total and complete" Muslim ban dozens and dozens and dozens (and likely hundreds and hundreds) of times during the campaign. It was one of his many ways of using hate speech and fearmongering to fire up his sheeple"
seriously? you're better at sports...i think. stick with what ya know and leave the exaggerations to the professional fanatics-you know msnbc, cnn, abc, nbc, et.al. what trump says, when(2015?) he says it and what he actually does are 2 different things, eyn'er?you're zealous rhetoric diminishes the credibility of your statement-check out tamu's saying-you can leave out the "God" part if it helps ;)
This drivel does not disprove a single thing I said.
Did Candidate Trump call it a Muslim ban or not? Did he campaign on it at every stop for almost a year or not?
Do you honestly think that if Trump's people thought he could have gotten away with an actual Muslim ban as president that he wouldn't have instituted one by executive order?
Stick with what YOU know, rocket. And don't be condescending. You're not Smuggles, thank goodness.