Las Vegas Shooting

[Spotcheck Billy]

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.

[GWSwarrior]

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

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[mu03eng]

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

[MU82]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

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.   

[Spotcheck Billy]

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.

[jsglow]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[mu03eng]

… 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?

[mu03eng]

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.

[Lighthouse 84]

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. 

[jsglow]

The NRA just advocated for 'additional regulations' associated with bump stocks.  Make sense to me.  Good for them.

[StillAWarrior]

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.

[mu03eng]

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

[Jay Bee]

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.

[GGGG]

He wasn't "all for it."  It wasn't (and isn't) illegal. 

[mu03eng]

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.

[MU82]

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.

[Pakuni]

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]

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.

[Jay Bee]

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

[mu03eng]

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