Las Vegas Shooting

[B. McBannerson]

Common-sense, no-brainers?

• No gun sales to the mentally ill
• No gun sales to people on no-fly lists
• No gun sales to people on terror watchlists
• Background checks for all guns, including private sales or gun shows
• Banning assault weapons
• Tracking individual sales so when someone suddenly buys 33 guns in a year it triggers some alerts

Assault weapons were banned for a long time, and the NY Times showed it did nothing to prevent any mass shootings.

If you want to track people to this extent, then surely you must also be supportive of tracking to make sure people didn't vote more than once and show an ID.  Right?

No fly lists? A great way for people to withhold the rights of people by putting them on a list they don't belong.  The list is brutally bad as it is.  CNN reports the most embarrassing mistakes of the esteemed no fly list  http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/no-fly-mistakes-cat-stevens-ted-kennedy-john-lewis/index.html

Terror list, no different than no fly list. Our gov't can't get their act together to prevent billions in fraud each year for Social Security, Welfare and other programs because of lists. Nor can they properly keep people off Do Not Call lists or state gov'ts off voter rolls properly, but you want them to handle these lists? 

[Tugg Speedman]

Yep, GM, like you, brew and others, I also provided a list. Smuggles and his ilk choose to ignore them, move the goalposts, pontificate, cite meaningless statistics - and offer nothing themselves.

Smuggles then takes it one step further by continuing to go with the "maybe Paddock was working for ISIS" story line ... because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.

As the columnist I mentioned in my earlier post said: If the shooter in Las Vegas had been named Mohammed, you can be sure that these same leaders would be offering a laundry list of “solutions” to keep more Mohammeds out of America.

But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?

Travel ban from Mesquite to Vegas? Build a wall around St. George, Utah?

Regarding ISIS ... I'm just pointing out that the FBI has twice said there is no evidence that he was radicalized yet ISIS has now stated three times, after every denial from the FBI, he was one of them.  ISIS has never been this insistent that someone, that was determined to not be part of their group, actually was a follower.  ISIS has tried to take credit for other things like this before (the casino shooting in the Philippines) but quickly dropped it after it was determined the shooter had no connection.  In this case, they are not giving it up.  Compounding it is the fact that after eight days after they still don't have a motivated.

But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?

If this is the case, then we can have the correct conversation.  It will be far more productive than this conversation ... the worst kind of hateful identity politics.

because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.

A guy owns five houses and makes $5 million a year ... please tell me why this profile means one should worry about this person wants to shoot 500 people?

[Tugg Speedman]

Do you have the same problems with the no-fly list?

Yes! It is a mess and a big problem for anyone on it.  The Susan Johnson I noted was the CEO of a major energy company and spend hundreds of thousands in legal fees to get off.  In the meantime, she could not travel by air and it affected the business, costing them far more than the money she spent in getting off the list.

She was fortunate that she had the means to get off the list.  Other Susan Johnsons do not have the means and cannot buy plane tickets.

(again, if you are not familiar with the list, a Susan Johnson was determined to be involved in terrorist activities.  So every Susan Johnson was put on the no-fly list and cannot by plane tickets.  This is how this list works and why it is a terrible mess and a violation of constitutional rights.)

[B. McBannerson]

Except 45 just pulled back the restrictions on the mentally ill. People that do not have the capacity to manage their affairs because of a mental disorder. I'm sorry, but this one is damn personal to me. I have a friend who committed suicide using a gun she bought legally. She had a long history of suicide attempts, all documented by physicians. She had a history of being in psych wards, both voluntary and involuntary.

Without the gun, she never commits suicide?  This is the flawed argument of guns and suicide.  These folks desperate enough will find another way.  Pills.  Hanging.  I, also have had to go through this with a family member.  The gun is a tool, just as the pills are, or jumping off a bridge.

Your 45 claim on mentally ill has some holes in it.  The regulation that 44 put into place was opposed by American Association of People with Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, the Association of Mature American Citizens, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Council on Disability, the National Disability Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union.    Yes, that ACLU.   That's why it was rescinded because it denied people their civil liberties.

It lacked due process.   http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-resurrect-bogus-narrative-that-republicans-made-it-easier-for-the-mentally-ill-to-buy-guns/article/2636419

[Tugg Speedman]

Without the gun, she never commits suicide?  This is the flawed argument of guns and suicide.  These folks desperate enough will find another way.  Pills.  Hanging.  I, also have had to go through this with a family member.  The gun is a tool, just as the pills are, or jumping off a bridge.

Your 45 claim on mentally ill has some holes in it.  The regulation that 44 put into place was opposed by American Association of People with Disabilities, the Arc of the United States, the Association of Mature American Citizens, the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Council on Disability, the National Disability Rights Network and the American Civil Liberties Union.    Yes, that ACLU.   That's why it was rescinded because it denied people their civil liberties.

It lacked due process.   http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/reporters-resurrect-bogus-narrative-that-republicans-made-it-easier-for-the-mentally-ill-to-buy-guns/article/2636419

As I linked above (in the long blue colored comments), the number way that women commit suicide in the US is poisoning or pills.  Number 2 is guns.  So what do we do about getting pills out of society to save women from suicides?

[forgetful]

So every gun in private hands must in the hands of the one who purchased it... forever?

No pretty simple to allow them to be resold through licensed dealers, who have to follow all the background checks.  Not that hard, doesn't violate anyones constitutional rights.

[Tugg Speedman]

No pretty simple to allow them to be resold through licensed dealers, who have to follow all the background checks.  Not that hard, doesn't violate anyones constitutional rights.

The largest transfer of guns every year is the existing owner of a gun passes away and the gun(s) pass to their surviving spouse or children.  You have made dying illegal as the survivors break the law because they participated in an illegal transfer of guns because they did not go through a licensed gun dealer.

And, the survivors cannot take the guns to the dealer and sell them because they are not the owner.  They now have the same profile of someone trying to fence stolen guns.  And what if they don't want to sell them?  Are you forcing them with prison time to sell those guns?

It is not an insignificant issue.

[forgetful]

... and who owns the gun when the current owner dies?  Does the spouse or children have to go through a background check upon their death?  Or, isn't it illegal for you to die because that constitutes an illegal transfer of your guns?

And, the day after you die, your wife (or kids) have to go through a background check.  And if their name is the same name as someone on the no-fly list, or have mental illness or arrest in their background, they do not pass and the ATF arrests them at your funeral for being an illegal owner of guns.  They cannot sell them after you die because they are not the registered owner.

Regarding the mentally Ill definition ... It is not the definition, it is about due process.  If someone is determined to be mentally ill, they need a way to contest this, via the courts.  And, like any list the government keeps, it has to be public (no secret lists anymore).  So what is to stop landlords and employees from using this list to deny leases and jobs.  Do you want to go down this road?

This is a dumb argument/statement.  Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will.  Laws can be written in that manner.

For mentally ill.  Let them contest it in court.  Or, let them get a second doctors opinion who can overrule the first.  Again, easy to write that into the law.

For landlords and employers, simple.  The law already forbids discrimination in such cases.  Make the lists public, but searches of the list documentable.  That makes it easy to prove discrimination in a case where it was used to deny housing/jobs.  A few massive lawsuits for discrimination and it won't be a problem. 

I have no problem going down this road.  It is quite simple to put in provisions to protect individuals from misuse.  None of these restrictions we discuss here are unconstitutional, none infringe on anyones legal rights, all can be drafted to protect against misuse.  Should be common sense to implement. 

[forgetful]

The largest transfer of guns every year is the existing owner of a gun passes away and the gun(s) pass to their surviving spouse or children.  You have made dying illegal as the survivors break the law because they participated in an illegal transfer of guns because they did not go through a licensed gun dealer.

It is not an insignificant issue.

No I haven't.  You are being dense. 

See above.

[B. McBannerson]

This is a dumb argument/statement.  Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will.  Laws can be written in that manner.

For mentally ill.  Let them contest it in court.  Or, let them get a second doctors opinion who can overrule the first.  Again, easy to write that into the law.

For landlords and employers, simple.  The law already forbids discrimination in such cases.  Make the lists public, but searches of the list documentable.  That makes it easy to prove discrimination in a case where it was used to deny housing/jobs.  A few massive lawsuits for discrimination and it won't be a problem. 

I have no problem going down this road.  It is quite simple to put in provisions to protect individuals from misuse.  None of these restrictions we discuss here are unconstitutional, none infringe on anyones legal rights, all can be drafted to protect against misuse.  Should be common sense to implement.

And as is the case most times these events occur, none of these proposed changes would have made a difference.  The shooter had no mental illness.  He bought guns legally. Yes, he had many guns but he could have carried out his whims with just a few if needed. 

When common sense and implementation ever occur in harmony with the United States government, let me know.

[Tugg Speedman]

This is a dumb argument/statement.  Pretty easy to allow the weapons to be transferred to family members in a will.  Laws can be written in that manner.

So you will allow transfers of guns without a background check.  And this can number of a million transfers of guns a year.

And if I can state in my will who gets it, what if I give them to someone who is mentally ill or has been arrested?  Are they violating the law upon my death?

What you have done is create an incredibly complex byzantine set of rules.  I'm now starting to wonder if you are capable of seeing what you created.

[Tugg Speedman]

And as is the case most times these events occur, none of these proposed changes would have made a difference.  The shooter had no mental illness.  He bought guns legally. Yes, he had many guns but he could have carried out his whims with just a few if needed. 

When common sense and implementation ever occur in harmony with the United States government, let me know.

He did, investigators believe he used between 2 and 5 guns.  The other 27 to 31 guns he bought in the last year, that have so many up in arms, were not used in the commission of a crime.

So yes, put a number of guns that one can own, but please admit it changes nothing that inconveniences legal and lawful owners of guns.

Sensible and common sense laws = punishing law abiding people that commit no crime.

[B. McBannerson]

No I haven't.  You are being dense. 

See above.

Is it possible to have discussions without the name calling anymore?

[forgetful]

Is it possible to have discussions without the name calling anymore?

It is not name calling, I am defining his attitude.  He intentionally ignores statements, and common sense knowledge for the sole purpose of arguing his position, regardless of it being unsupported by facts.  That by definition is being ignorant, aka dense.  It is defining his actions, not him as an individual.  I've never met him and would not assign any terms to him as a person, but I will to his actions on this board. 

And as is the case most times these events occur, none of these proposed changes would have made a difference.  The shooter had no mental illness.  He bought guns legally. Yes, he had many guns but he could have carried out his whims with just a few if needed. 

When common sense and implementation ever occur in harmony with the United States government, let me know.

Two things.  1) We do not have enough details to know if such laws would have impacted this incidence.  But we do about numerous others and they would have had an impact.  2) We do know that he had a mental illness for which he was prescribed very high doses of Valium. 

[forgetful]

So you will allow transfers of guns without a background check.  And this can number of a million transfers of guns a year.

And if I can state in my will who gets it, what if I give them to someone who is mentally ill or has been arrested?  Are they violating the law upon my death?

What you have done is create an incredibly complex byzantine set of rules.  I'm now starting to wonder if you are capable of seeing what you created.

For Chico's on the "dense" statement.  This is evidence number 1.  Laws can very simply be written to allow the transfer of guns in a will to family members upon their death.  Incredibly simple. 

Instead of acknowledging simple facts, Heisy goes on wild tangents and ignores (ignorant) common sense. 

There are no "incredibly complex byzantine set of rules".  Stating "family members" in the law does not allow them to transfer to anyone...only family members.  If the family members wish to sell them to someone else, they can...but again within the confines of the law (through a licensed broker as I suggest).

If they will the weapons to someone who is legally not authorized to have them, say a felon, then just like is currently law, the person accepting the weapons fully knowing they are legally not permitted to possess them is violating the law.  There is no change in that regard, that is already current law. 

Incredibly simple in principle, would take 3-5 years before full implementation of such a change would be wrinkle free, just as any change that has major economic impacts. 

[MU82]

But OK ... let's play. What if Paddock WAS an ISIS "agent" or sympathizer? So? How does anything proposed by any of the right-wing extremists or con-man political opportunists (Trump fits in the latter category) keep the next American ISIS Dude from doing exactly what he did?

If this is the case, then we can have the correct conversation.  It will be far more productive than this conversation ... the worst kind of hateful identity politics.

because it's a lot easier to accept that than the fact that a rich white guy just starting shooting people. Not sure why. The vast majority of terrorist acts in this country have been perpetrated by white male d-bags.

A guy owns five houses and makes $5 million a year ... please tell me why this profile means one should worry about this person wants to shoot 500 people?

What conversation?

Worse identity politics than trying to ban a religion? And let's not pretend; your hero called it a Muslim ban 100 times before the very few intelligent people surrounding him said: "Sorry, Your Orangeness, but that can't pass." Your hero is the KING of identity politics! And your NRA is pretty good at it, too.

Is a fact - that white males commit by far the most terrorist acts in this country - identity politics? Hmmm. You and your ilk don't seem to mind identity-politics-related facts when they support your narrative.

As for your last question ... the answer is: Nothing! Nothing tells me that he should want to shoot 500 people (BTW, he actually wanted to shoot a lot more than 500 people; he only was able to shoot 500). Sometimes the motive is hate. Or sickness. Or evil. Or attention.

I mean, did ISIS tell Dylann Roof to go into a black church, pray with the parishioners, and then kill 9 of them? I know you wish that was the case, but Roof was just a white d-bag, yet another in a long line of people I'm embarrassed to share a race with.

Again, what if Paddock was sympathetic to ISIS? So? How does knowing that help us prevent the next one?

[rocket surgeon]

  "... your hero called it a Muslim ban 100 times before..."  i'll fix this for ya-it was not a "muslim ban".  he didn't ban travel from, say, countries such as indonesia, turkey, india, nigeria, bangladesh...need i go on?  so how could it be a muslim ban??

   

[B. McBannerson]

Two things.  1) We do not have enough details to know if such laws would have impacted this incidence.  But we do about numerous others and they would have had an impact.  2) We do know that he had a mental illness for which he was prescribed very high doses of Valium.

I was agreeing with Ms. Diane Feinstein.   “Could there have been any law passed that would've stopped him?” Host John Dickerson asked the senator.  “No, he passed background checks registering for handguns and other weapons on multiple occasions,

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/354440-feinstein-no-law-would-have-stopped-las-vegas-gunman

[MU82]

  "... your hero called it a Muslim ban 100 times before..."  i'll fix this for ya-it was not a "muslim ban".  he didn't ban travel from, say, countries such as indonesia, turkey, india, nigeria, bangladesh...need i go on?  so how could it be a muslim ban??

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/12/07/donald-trump-calls-for-total-and-complete-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-the-united-states/?utm_term=.d8e7cfc91a07

Donald Trump called Monday for a "total and complete shutdown" of the entry of Muslims to the United States "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

In a statement released by his campaign Monday afternoon, Trump included recent poll findings that he says show that a sizable segment of the Muslim population has "great hatred towards Americans."

"Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension," Trump is quoted as saying in the statement. "Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life."

At a rally in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina on Monday evening, Trump pointed to the statement he released earlier in the day.

“Should I read you the statement?” he asked.

The crowd enthusiastically agreed that he should.

“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on,” he said, adding the word “hell" for emphasis this time.

Supporters erupted in applause.

That was in December 2015. He repeated his calls for a "total and complete" Muslim ban dozens and dozens and dozens (and likely hundreds and hundreds) of times during the campaign. It was one of his many ways of using hate speech and fearmongering to fire up his sheeple.

After he got elected, his advisers finally convinced him that such a ban would have a 0.00% chance to pass legal tests, so he stopped calling it a Muslim ban and changed the parameters.

Which led to the wonderful executive order that absolutely, positively will prevent Americans like Paddock from committing terrorism (not).

Nice try, though, rocket!

[rocket surgeon]

   "That was in December 2015. He repeated his calls for a "total and complete" Muslim ban dozens and dozens and dozens (and likely hundreds and hundreds) of times during the campaign. It was one of his many ways of using hate speech and fearmongering to fire up his sheeple"

  seriously?  you're better at sports...i think.  stick with what ya know and leave the exaggerations to the professional fanatics-you know msnbc, cnn, abc, nbc, et.al.  what trump says, when(2015?) he says it and what he actually does are 2 different things, eyn'er?you're zealous rhetoric diminishes the credibility of your statement-check out tamu's saying-you can leave out the "God" part if it helps
   

   

[MU82]

   "That was in December 2015. He repeated his calls for a "total and complete" Muslim ban dozens and dozens and dozens (and likely hundreds and hundreds) of times during the campaign. It was one of his many ways of using hate speech and fearmongering to fire up his sheeple"

  seriously?  you're better at sports...i think.  stick with what ya know and leave the exaggerations to the professional fanatics-you know msnbc, cnn, abc, nbc, et.al.  what trump says, when(2015?) he says it and what he actually does are 2 different things, eyn'er?you're zealous rhetoric diminishes the credibility of your statement-check out tamu's saying-you can leave out the "God" part if it helps
   

 

This drivel does not disprove a single thing I said.

Did Candidate Trump call it a Muslim ban or not? Did he campaign on it at every stop for almost a year or not?

Do you honestly think that if Trump's people thought he could have gotten away with an actual Muslim ban as president that he wouldn't have instituted one by executive order?

Stick with what YOU know, rocket. And don't be condescending. You're not Smuggles, thank goodness.