Las Vegas Shooting

[Tugg Speedman]

It doesn't have to come down to this choice. We can still allow Americans the freedom to purchase guns while also banning weapons and accessories that serve no legitimate civilian purpose. I mean, we have laws against people owning bombs and hand grenades, and no one opposes that, but suggest it's maybe not such a good idea to make AR-10s with extended clips available to the public, and (some) people freak out.

Should we limit cars to 40 horsepower and a top speed of 55 MPH?

How about a ban on tobacco and alcohol?  (Yes we tried this 80 years ago and it failed but let's give it another shot).

How about a total and absolute ban on porn? Sex under 18?

Sugar and fatty foods?

Mandatory annual physical exams?

How about Body Mass Index (BMI) in the obese range?


All of the above do more to damage society than mass shootings.  Can we use the same logic here?

[Tugg Speedman]

If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.

I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.

What type of weapons are you referring to?

[jficke13]

Scoop Theorem of Diminishing Returns:

Where both post count and frequency increase while simultaneously the number of users posting on a thread decreases, the odds of that thread containing a valuable discussion approaches zero.

[MerrittsMustache]

Should we limit cars to 40 horsepower and a top speed of 55 MPH?

How about a ban on tobacco and alcohol?  (Yes we tried this 80 years ago and it failed but let's give it another shot).

How about a total and absolute ban on porn? Sex under 18?

Sugar and fatty foods?

Mandatory annual physical exams?

How about Body Mass Index (BMI) in the obese range?


All of the above do more to damage society than mass shootings.  Can we use the same logic here?

Hang on...You think that people who don't take care of themselves are as dangerous to society as a person who fires an assault rifle into a crowd?

[Pakuni]

Should we limit cars to 40 horsepower and a top speed of 55 MPH?

How about a ban on tobacco and alcohol?  (Yes we tried this 80 years ago and it failed but let's give it another shot).

How about a total and absolute ban on porn? Sex under 18?

Sugar and fatty foods?

Mandatory annual physical exams?

How about Body Mass Index (BMI) in the obese range?


All of the above do more to damage society than mass shootings.  Can we use the same logic here?

Well, no, because this juvenile argument offers no logic.
All of the things you cite above (cars, food, sex, tobacco and even porn) offers some purpose beyond killing human beings.

Though I'd love to hear how porn and teenage sex kill more people than mass shootings.

[Tugg Speedman]

The shooter is Steve Paddock.  His father was Ben Paddock, was a bank robber on the FBI’s most wanted list in 1960.  The description listed him as a psychopath that carries firearms.  He escaped prison in 1969 and was the subject of a nationwide manhunt.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stephen-paddock-father-bank-robber-wanted-fbi-article-1.3536478

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.

I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.

In Connecticut, we passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country after Sandy Hook. 
I was at a supplier in Connecticut last week babysitting one of our customer's from backwoods Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania guy wanted to know how close Sturm Ruger was because he owned their product and wanted to visit their home office (or something like that).  The Connecticut guy started bitching about the recent restrictive gun laws and proudly peddling his gun humping and blah, blah, blah, non-gun owners don't understand.  I asked him if he can he still purchase a gun and after his "Yes" he had no answer for "so what's the problem?" 
I guess his only problem was that he can't purchase a semi-automatic AR-15 anymore. 
It just disgusts me.........I'm venting after today's tragedy.

[muwarrior69]

If Sandy Hook didn't change anything in regards to gun control, nothing ever will.

I'm sorry but there's no need for civilians to have access to these types of weapons.

I thought automatic weapons cannot be sold and are already banned, but we do not know how he obtained these weapons or if he retrofitted these weapons.

[Tugg Speedman]

I thought automatic weapons cannot be sold and are already banned, but we do not know how he obtained these weapons or if he retrofitted these weapons.

Automatic weapons have been banned since 1933, 84 years ago.  So this was put in place before many of your grandparents were born (it was a reaction the St. Valentine Day massacre in 1929).

To be clear, you can still own one as a "collector" but this license is few, hard and expensive.  It also subjects you to a yearly unannounced law enforcement inspection.  Further, you still cannot buy any automatic weapon made after 1986.

In the 84 years since they started issuing collector's licenses, not a single automatic weapon owned in this manner has been used in any sort of crime.

[Tugg Speedman]

In Connecticut, we passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country after Sandy Hook. 
I was at a supplier in Connecticut last week babysitting one of our customer's from backwoods Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania guy wanted to know how close Sturm Ruger was because he owned their product and wanted to visit their home office (or something like that).  The Connecticut guy started bitching about the recent restrictive gun laws and proudly peddling his gun humping and blah, blah, blah, non-gun owners don't understand.  I asked him if he can he still purchase a gun and after his "Yes" he had no answer for "so what's the problem?" 
I guess his only problem was that he can't purchase a semi-automatic AR-15 anymore. 
It just disgusts me.........I'm venting after today's tragedy.

The vast vast majority of guns in the united states are semi-automatic.  Virtually every pistol is semi-automatic and has been for generations.  The semi-automatic gun was invented in the 19th century.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US.  Over 5 million are currently in circulation.  It is also the most popular hunting rifle in the US (after shotguns).

The AR-15 shoots a .223 bullet.  The same bullet 22 squirrel guns shoot.

[Pakuni]

Automatic weapons have been banned since 1933, 84 years ago.  So this was put in place before many of your grandparents were born (it was a reaction the St. Valentine Day massacre in 1929).

To be clear, you can still own one as a "collector" but this license is few, hard and expensive.  It also subjects you to a yearly unannounced law enforcement inspection.  Further, you still cannot buy any automatic weapon made after 1986.

In the 84 years since they started issuing collector's licenses, not a single automatic weapon owned in this manner has been used in any sort of crime.

Nope.

The fusillade emanating from the Mandalay Bay hotel in Las Vegas Sunday night sounded to many as if it came from one or more automatic rifles, which fire continuously so long as the trigger is held down. Such guns are legal, so long as they were made before May 1986 and are registered with the federal government.

If an automatic weapon, also called a machine gun, was made or imported after 1986, it may be legally owned only by licensed dealers, police and the military.

Congress began regulating such weapons under the National Firearms Act in 1934, in response to criminals having greater firepower than the police. Owners of automatic weapons were required to pay a $200 tax, a large amount at the time, as well as provide fingerprints and a photograph, undergo a background check and obtain approval from the chief law enforcement officer in the area. Except for the local police approval, those requirements remain in place today, and the $200 charge has not changed.

Semi-automatic guns, which fire only once for each trigger pull, may not be legally modified to automatic. And anyone who wants to buy an automatic weapon must undergo the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms background check and registration process. But there are plenty of automatic weapons available for sale on the Internet. Guns made before 1986 may be owned by anyone who passes a background check and registers the gun. A letter from the ATF to the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association last year indicated that there were 490,664 automatic weapons in the ATF’s National Firearms Registration Transfer Record System.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/10/02/some-automatic-weapons-as-used-in-las-vegas-shooting-are-legal-but-heavily-regulated/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.b911e380cfbb

[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

Are we sure he used an automatic weapon?  If so, how was it obtained?

[Tugg Speedman]

Though I'd love to hear how porn and teenage sex kill more people than mass shootings.

I believe I said "damage to society" but you moved the goal posts to "kill people."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-porn-addiction/201408/how-porn-really-affects-relationships

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170926-is-porn-harmful-the-evidence-the-myths-and-the-unknowns

But don't worry, I support your daily addiction to pornhub.com

[Benny B]

The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.

Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional.  In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago.  I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.

That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose.  If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far).  There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.

There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.

[Pakuni]

I believe I said "damage to society" but you moved the goal posts to "kill people."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/inside-porn-addiction/201408/how-porn-really-affects-relationships

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170926-is-porn-harmful-the-evidence-the-myths-and-the-unknowns

But don't worry, I support your daily addiction to pornhub.com

So, in your mind, "porn addiction" does more damage to society than mass murder?
OK.

[Pakuni]

The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.

Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional.  In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago.  I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.

That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose.  If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far).  There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.

There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.

You're right ... making these weapons more difficult, if not impossible, to come by won't eliminate mass shootings. But how many more people survive last night's shooting unscathed had the killer been armed with a standard hunting rifle instead?
I suspect dozens.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

You're right ... making these weapons more difficult, if not impossible, to come by won't eliminate mass shootings. But how many more people survive last night's shooting unscathed had the killer been armed with a standard hunting rifle instead?
I suspect dozens.

Exactly. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.

Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional.  In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago.  I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.

That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose.  If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far).  There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.

There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.

I loathe this line of thinking.  You can absolutely diminish the magnitude of the carnage. 

[Vander Blue Man Group]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-las-vegas-shooting-20171002-story.html

[Benny B]

I loathe this line of thinking.  You can absolutely diminish the magnitude of the carnage.

I didn't think my post was exactly a tldr.  But if you're going to cherry pick an argument, you'll be much more effective if you don't quote it in its entirety.

[Spotcheck Billy]

The vast vast majority of guns in the united states are semi-automatic.  Virtually every pistol is semi-automatic and has been for generations.  The semi-automatic gun was invented in the 19th century.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US.  Over 5 million are currently in circulation.  It is also the most popular hunting rifle in the US (after shotguns).

The AR-15 shoots a .223 bullet.  The same bullet 22 squirrel guns shoot.

not true oh great ignorant one

.22 LR vs. .223 Rem.

The target is a 16-gauge metal pipe. Notice that the pipe is visibly deformed at point of entry (left), and there is no exit point. The .22LR bullet did not pierce the metal pipe. A penny is used for reference.



Now compare that to the same exact 16-gauge metal pipe shot with a .223 bullet. There is a well defined entry point, and the bullet’s copper jacket peeled off upon entry and stuck. Not only did the .223 bullet have enough energy to pierce the front side of the pipe, it easily pierced the back side of the pipe as well. A penny is used for reference.



The .22LR cartridge on the left, and the .223 cartridge on the right. A penny is used for reference.

[jficke13]

The moment I see draft language of a Constitutional Amendment repealing or modifying the 2nd Amendment being advanced for ratification in blue states, then I'll take people seriously when they say things like "Congress should get of its a** and do something."

There's a mechanism to advance gun control, but I haven't seen anyone actually start the process of moving it forward after any of these tragedies.

I'd be happy to consider and support well-drafted amendment language... but I haven't even heard of any being proposed in deep blue states.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I didn't think my post was exactly a tldr.  But if you're going to cherry pick an argument, you'll be much more effective if you don't quote it in its entirety.

Thanks for the advice.  I read the entire post and agreed with some of your points. 

When you referred to "incidents of this nature" I was taking the amount of casualties/injuries into account.  So I strongly disagree that anyone who thinks gun control will stop incidents of this natures from happening is ignorant or delusional.  Maybe it's semantics or maybe I misunderstood that particular point. 

[Benny B]

Thanks for the advice.  I read the entire post and agreed with some of your points. 

When you referred to "incidents of this nature" I was taking the amount of casualties/injuries into account.  So I strongly disagree that anyone who thinks gun control will stop incidents of this natures from happening is ignorant or delusional.  Maybe it's semantics or maybe I misunderstood that particular point.

Semantics.  My "incidents of this nature" was referring to a person indiscriminately targeting a large group of people with lethal means without regard for numbers of injuries/fatalities.  Again, I agree that you can mitigate the severity of these attacks (i.e. reduce the numbers of injuries/fatalities), but you're not going to stop them completely.  The problem is that the left wants complete "elimination" and the right wants complete "freedom" (neither of which are realistic), and of course, this being a hot-button political issue, a solution that would save more lives (but not all) just isn't going to happen. 

That's what a turn-out based politic environment is all about... don't give up the ship, and never compromise.

[Jockey]

The point remains that - it's pretty clear to me that the shooter was using automatic weapons, and I think it's safe to say that the shooter didn't have an ATF permit - the shooting involved firearms that were either obtained and/or modified illegally.

Anyone who thinks that furthering gun control will stop incidents of this nature from happening are somewhere on the spectrum between ignorant and delusional.  In fact, the only way these attacks don't happen is by eliminating firearms altogether, and unfortunately, that ship sailed over a century ago.  I hate to say it, but the only feasible solution here is to accept the reality that incidents like this will happen unless you're going to exert serious police-state control over the populous.

That said, I agree that there's no reason that anyone needs to own a firearm with no legitimate civilian purpose.  If you can't take down down the animal or neutralize the threat with the first 15 shots, chances are you're not going find much success with the next 35 (assuming you get that far).  There are things that can be done that could realistically reduce the severity of these incidents, but there's probably not much to be done regarding the frequency.

There are bad people out there... if/when they decide to kill, there's not much you can do to stop them.

Hard jail time for anyone selling these "illegal" weapons might help.