Las Vegas Shooting

[GGGG]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.



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?

[StillAWarrior]

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.

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."

[WarriorInNYC]

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.)

[naginiF]

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

[ATL MU Warrior]

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. 

[Tugg Speedman]

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

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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?

[Tugg Speedman]

There is so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.

Give it a shot

[ATL MU Warrior]

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.

[forgetful]

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.

[B. McBannerson]

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.   

[forgetful]

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?

[B. McBannerson]

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.

[B. McBannerson]

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.

[forgetful]

^^^^^

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?

[B. McBannerson]

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?

[forgetful]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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.

[forgetful]

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. 

[rocket surgeon]

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