Las Vegas Shooting

[Pakuni]

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.

[jsglow]

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

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Betcha Harry Froling would have some good ideas on how to get the conversation going.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie...

[Pakuni]

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

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[jsglow]

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.

[Pakuni]

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

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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.

[jsglow]

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.

[CTWarrior]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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. 

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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. 

[Pakuni]

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

[MU82]

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.

[jsglow]

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.

[GooooMarquette]

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....

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

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.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[Jockey]

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.

[WarriorInNYC]

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.