Las Vegas Shooting

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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?

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[4everwarriors]

Peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

You seem to have the wisdom of Jobe, so what’s you’re theory, Einstein, hey?

[Pakuni]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.

[Benny B]

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.

[Archies Bat]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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.

[Archies Bat]

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

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

[Pakuni]

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.

[cheebs09]

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.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

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.

[Galway Eagle]

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

[MUfan12]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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?

[mu03eng]

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)

[mu03eng]

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.....

[MUBurrow]

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.

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

[drewm88]

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.

[Tugg Speedman]

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.