Las Vegas Shooting

[drewm88]

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.

Did you want a thread of people publicly offering thoughts and prayers? What good does that do?

[MU82]

I say we do nothing about guns because no legislation would stop 100% of these mass shootings.

While we're at it ...

Drunk driving laws haven't stopped 100% of all killings involving drunk drivers; narcotics laws haven't stopped 100% of all narcotics deaths; laws against murders haven't stopped 100% of all murders; laws against rape and incest haven't stopped 100% of all rapes and incest; laws against insider trading haven't stopped 100% of all insider trading; laws against misuse of campaign funds haven't stopped 100% of all misuse of campaign funds; etc., etc., etc.

So lets get rid of laws against drunk driving, narcotics trafficking, murder, rape, incest, insider trading, misuse of campaign funds, and, well, everything else to cover all the "etc.'s." Laws are stupid. They constrain our freedom!

OTOH, I shouldn't let my frustration push me to sarcasm. 

I mean, the gun laws we have so far are working great, so why mess with success?!?!?!

Congress is considering a bill to make it easier to buy silencers because, well, sportsmen, collectors and people defending their homes - you know, the folks the NRA always refers to when discussing gun owners - desperately need silencers! The bill was supposed to come to a vote this week, but Congress is probably going to have to delay the vote in the wake of Vegas ... until the NRA throws a few bazillion more bucks at 'em. Then, as Oprah would say, "You get a silencer, you get a silencer, you get a silencer!"

Are gun-control people "using" this tragedy for political purposes? Yes they are. The NRA has smartly "gone dark" for now, but they undoubtedly will use this tragedy to push for MORE "gun freedom." Everybody packing! That's how you solve this stuff!!!

Hell, all 22,000 concert goers should have be packing. Then, once the shooting started 32 floors above them, all of them could have started indiscriminately firing their weapons. That would have made the situation much better! Lots of gun-rights advocates (including a few Scoopers IIRC) argued that folks in the Aurora incident should have been packing, because what could possibly go wrong with a bunch of people shooting in a dark movie theater? The Newton kids should have been packing, too, dammit!

And speaking of kids packing ...

Once a week somewhere in the good ol' U.S.A., a toddler shoots somebody.

Toddlers! Damn! Give them their dessert, already!!!

http://childrensfirearmsafetyalliance.com/with-2016-over-a-toddler-has-now-shot-a-person-every-week-in-the-us-for-two-years-straight

More guns! We need them, and we need them right now!

And investors are betting that we'll get them. RGR (Sturm Ruger) and AOBC (American Outdoor Brands) stock prices are up nicely today. So congrats to all the smart traders out there!

[Benny B]

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)

As long as we have a two-party system, voting will never be mandatory (nothing unites Democrats and Republicans more than a common enemy: third parties).

If voting were mandatory, ID would be superfluous.  Think about it... the purpose of voter ID is to prove who you are because 1) not everyone is registered or eligible to vote and 2) you don't want people voting under another registered person's name.  If you think about it further, showing an ID to vote is just like showing an ID at the bar... the bar doesn't keep a list of everyone who's over 21, and not everyone who could go into the bar is actually there (i.e. someone could be impersonating someone else).

But if you made voting mandatory, you'd have to tie it to the only other mandatory American task: filing a tax return (i.e. you can't file a tax return if you didn't vote, or something like that).  So you'd already have a working database of living voters (based on SSN's) to check against, and if you attempted to vote under another name, the system would red flag when someone's name appeared twice.  (Ever go to the bar with the person who gave you their ID to use... what do you think the bouncer would do when he saw two different people with the exact same credentials?)  And since fraud would be kept to a minimum, you could go online and vote from anywhere anytime before election day.

Sure, it would not be a foolproof system, but voter fraud essentially wouldn't exist without collusion.  Ask anyone who's taken a criminal justice, or even a forensic accounting, class and they'll tell you that the best deterrent to crime is one that requires a co-conspirator.

Everyone gets to vote, everyone's vote counts only once, and fraud would be statistically non-existent.  A simple solution that satisfies the predominant concerns of both parties (D-disenfranchisement, R-fraud), but you're right that it won't happen.  So logic begs the question: Why?

Because the reality is that the predominant concern of both Democrats and Republicans as it relates to elections isn't disenfranchisement or fraud... it's making sure that one of you actually wins, and that becomes exponentially more challenging when elections are about issues rather than turn-out.

[Pakuni]

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.

If not after the worst mass shooting in US history, when would be the proper time to discuss issues like gun control?

[jficke13]

As long as we have a two-party system, voting will never be mandatory (nothing unites Democrats and Republicans more than a common enemy: third parties).

If voting were mandatory, ID would be superfluous.  Think about it... the purpose of voter ID is to prove who you are because 1) not everyone is registered or eligible to vote and 2) you don't want people voting under another registered person's name.  If you think about it further, showing an ID to vote is just like showing an ID at the bar... the bar doesn't keep a list of everyone who's over 21, and not everyone who could go into the bar is actually there (i.e. someone could be impersonating someone else).

But if you made voting mandatory, you'd have to tie it to the only other mandatory American task: filing a tax return (i.e. you can't file a tax return if you didn't vote, or something like that).  So you'd already have a working database of living voters (based on SSN's) to check against, and if you attempted to vote under another name, the system would red flag when someone's name appeared twice.  (Ever go to the bar with the person who gave you their ID to use... what do you think the bouncer would do when he saw two different people with the exact same credentials?)  And since fraud would be kept to a minimum, you could go online and vote from anywhere anytime before election day.

Sure, it would not be a foolproof system, but voter fraud essentially wouldn't exist without collusion.  Ask anyone who's taken a criminal justice, or even a forensic accounting, class and they'll tell you that the best deterrent to crime is one that requires a co-conspirator.

Everyone gets to vote, everyone's vote counts only once, and fraud would be statistically non-existent.  A simple solution that satisfies the predominant concerns of both parties (D-disenfranchisement, R-fraud), but you're right that it won't happen.  So logic begs the question: Why?

Because the reality is that the predominant concern of both Democrats and Republicans as it relates to elections isn't disenfranchisement or fraud... it's making sure that one of you actually wins, and that becomes exponentially more challenging when elections are about issues rather than turn-out.

Hate to be debbie downer on mandatory voting, but if voting is speech (it is), and the choice not to speak is protected 1A speech (it is), then the right not to vote is enshrined by 1A (and... it is). Mandatory voting will not survive constitutional scrutiny.

That being said, I had a lovely chat with a couple Aussies a few days ago at Oktoberfest. They informed me that voting in Australia is mandatory *but* you have the option to throw your vote away or vote n/a (forgive me for not having a lot more detail or if I got the details wrong... we were a few eins, zwei, s'ouffa's into the evening).

Perhaps, perhaps, if you gave a n/a category on a compulsory voting slate it could survive 1A scrutiny... but even then I'm not sure it would.

Interesting to think about though.

[Pakuni]

Out of curiosity, would anyone turn down the grand bargain of universal gun registration for universal voter identification? If not, why not?

I don't see the two issues naturally pairing together.

I think wanting to protect the electoral process by insuring only legal voters participate is a worthy and valid cause.
The problem is that addressing it through mandatory voter ID laws has the proven consequence of reducing voter participation among minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote. This has been the case even in elections with Obama on the ballot, something one could probably assume would spur the minority - or at least African-American - vote.
It's no mere coincidence that the primary sponsors of such measures are GOP politicians, who have self-serving reasons to reduce the number of minority voters.
So, while I too want to see that only legal ballots are counted, I think the negative consequences of voter ID laws outweigh the potential benefits.

I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms.

[g0lden3agle]

I don't see the two issues naturally pairing together.

I think wanting to protect the electoral process by insuring only legal voters participate is a worthy and valid cause.
The problem is that addressing it through mandatory voter ID laws has the proven consequence of reducing voter participation among minorities who are lawfully entitled to vote. This has been the case even in elections with Obama on the ballot, something one could probably assume would spur the minority - or at least African-American - vote.
It's no mere coincidence that the primary sponsors of such measures are GOP politicians, who have self-serving reasons to reduce the number of minority voters.
So, while I too want to see that only legal ballots are counted, I think the negative consequences of voter ID laws outweigh the potential benefits.

I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms.

Interesting.  You're basically arguing that the increase in inconvenience to voters vs. gun owners needs to be balanced with the how bad the individual actually wants to exercise their right to do something.  In your example a random person's want to vote is lower than a gunowners want to own firearms, thus the decrease in voter participation will outweigh decrease in gun ownership.  Would infrastructure changes that streamlined the process of gaining valid voter ID offset the chance that you would see reduced voter participation among minorities?   

Actually, as I just typed this up, I had a thought - would the decrease in voter participation be acceptable if it meant there was an associated decrease in gun violence due to universal gun registration decreasing the quantity of guns in the wrong hands? 

[buckchuckler]

Did you want a thread of people publicly offering thoughts and prayers? What good does that do?

As opposed to this, which does what exactly?

[Pakuni]

Interesting.  You're basically arguing that the increase in inconvenience to voters vs. gun owners needs to be balanced with the how bad the individual actually wants to exercise their right to do something. In your example a random person's want to vote is lower than a gunowners want to own firearms, thus the decrease in voter participation will outweigh decrease in gun ownership.

No, that's nothing like what I'm arguing and I have no idea what example you think I offered.
The problem is you're mistakenly framing voter ID as merely an "inconvenience," when in reality it's a barrier.

  Would infrastructure changes that streamlined the process of gaining valid voter ID offset the chance that you would see reduced voter participation among minorities? 

Maybe. I've yet to see a voter ID law paired with measures intended to make it easier to obtain valid ID.

Actually, as I just typed this up, I had a thought - would the decrease in voter participation be acceptable if it meant there was an associated decrease in gun violence due to universal gun registration decreasing the quantity of guns in the wrong hands?

Interesting hypothetical. Push comes to shove, I'd probably chose lives over votes. But it's a false dilemma because there's no reason one has to come at the expense of the other.

[g0lden3agle]

No, that's nothing like what I'm arguing and I have no idea what example you think I offered.
The problem is you're mistakenly framing voter ID as merely an "inconvenience," when in reality it's a barrier.

"I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms."  -  Could you explain this claim in more detail then?

Maybe. I've yet to see a voter ID law paired with measures intended to make it easier to obtain valid ID.

Interesting hypothetical. Push comes to shove, I'd probably chose lives over votes. But it's a false dilemma because there's no reason one has to come at the expense of the other.

I'm just trying to sculpt a scenario that would allow both "pro voter ID" and "pro gun registration" to come together and both say YES.  The likelihood that the laws would be sculpted to completely prevent a drop in voter participation is low.  The likelihood that gun registration laws will completely prevent gun violence is also low.  In a scenario where voter participation falls some amount, can that be outweighed by the amount that gun violence dropped due to the gun laws that were paired with it?

[Pakuni]

"I'm not sure universal registration would have a similar effect on people wishing to exercise their right to own firearms."  -  Could you explain this claim in more detail then?

Sure.
Studies using election data from states where voter ID laws have been imposed indicate that they lead to lower turnout among minority and low-income voters.
I believe this is largely because it creates an additional barrier - the need to acquire a valid state photo ID - to vote.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the creation of a universal registry imposes an additional barrier. Many states already require some sort of licensing, permitting or registration, so this would piggyback on that. Even in states without such measures, it would merely require filling out a form at the point of purchase - not unlike what exists at polling places for voters without ID.
It could end up a bureaucratic nightmare on the government's side of things, but for the typical gun owner, filling out some paperwork doesn't seem burdensome. The opposition to a registry stems from privacy concerns, not the potential barrier to ownership.

[g0lden3agle]

Sure.
Studies using election data from states where voter ID laws have been imposed indicate that they lead to lower turnout among minority and low-income voters.
I believe this is largely because it creates an additional barrier - the need to acquire a valid state photo ID - to vote.

I could be mistaken, but I don't believe the creation of a universal registry imposes an additional barrier. Many states already require some sort of licensing, permitting or registration, so this would piggyback on that. Even in states without such measures, it would merely require filling out a form at the point of purchase - not unlike what exists at polling places for voters without ID.
It could end up a bureaucratic nightmare on the government's side of things, but for the typical gun owner it doesn't seem to be burdensome.

Thanks.  The misunderstanding came from the fact that I took universal gun registration to be more strict than what it literally says.  I understand what you mean now.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Had a thought about what someone said about gun culture never changing, and I think that's just untrue.

Look at LGBTQ culture in our society, sure there's a whole lot more to be done, but even within the past decade tolerance has been improved ten fold.

Think about how many pride parade are around the country, not only accepted but encouraged, completely different tune from what, even 20-30 years ago?

You're not gonna completely wipe out the super pro gun toting people, just like you're not going to wipe out the extreme Bible thumpers who want to see gays burn in hell, but culture shift is very possible.

[buckchuckler]

Read this article a while ago.  I thought it was interesting.

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12351824/gun-control-sweden-solution

[drewm88]

As opposed to this, which does what exactly?

Shares ideas, discusses solutions, and hopefully motivates someone to speak up or do something in the real world.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Shares ideas, discusses solutions, and hopefully motivates someone to speak up or do something in the real world.

+1.  And for the most part this thread has been pretty civil so far. 

[Jockey]

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

I don't know what a Jobe is.

[Jockey]

Why don't gun background checks really check someone's background

We have a guy who bought over 40 weapons - many high powered assault and sniper rifles.

Let's say that by the 40th purchase, couldn't the checker look and say "hey, this guy has bought 39 weapons in a short period of time including many, many assault weapons; is this normal or should I flag this somehow?"

[Jockey]

Good advice from a righty senator bought and paid for by the NRA:

"I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions," he opined. "To protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said -- get small."


Who knew? It's the victims here that are guilty of carelessness. It's THEIR own fault they got shot.

[MU82]

you do realize that the politicians are voted in by the people who support their ideas and/or political leanings, right?

Here in NC, "Unaffiliateds" (same as Independents elsewhere) just passed Republicans as the second-largest registered group of voters. Democrats are first. So Republicans make up less than a third of the electorate.

But the Dems here were swept out in the anti-Obama wave of 2010, giving control of both houses  to the GOP. And because the GOP was in charge after 2010, they got to re-draw the voting district maps.

They have gerrymandered so blatantly that their maps have been struck down in court multiple times. The last time, the judges on the panel said the maps targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision." The districts were a bunch of squiggly lines that loaded a couple of districts with blacks and other minorities, while all but guaranteeing that Republicans would win the other districts. So you have a state that is less than a third Republican all but guaranteed to have 10 GOP representatives elected in 13 districts for an entire decade.

This afternoon, while we all were having fun debating gun control, anthem protests, etc, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a similar case involving Wisconsin. From what I just read, the line of questioning makes it appear that the four more liberal judges will vote against the gerrymandering and the four more conservative will vote for the right to gerrymander. Kennedy, as is often the case, will be the swing vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court/index.html

This is a huge case, a huge case. But with everything else going on, it's kind of lost in the shuffle.

I think most logical people would conclude: Why let elected officials do this at all? Why not have independent panels or boards do redistricting within states? Indeed, Iowa does it that way, and I think a few others do, too. That makes too damn much sense.

Here in NC, the Dems were in charge for years and they also gerrymandered to make it difficult for Republicans to get elected. I don't see how that should have been legal, either. We're supposed to be electing a representative government, but when a group representing one-third of the people - all of them white - can dictate the policy at the expense of blacks "with almost surgical precision," isn't that practically apartheid?

I doubt SCOTUS will hear a more important case this year, or maybe not for several years.

[mu03eng]

Had a thought about what someone said about gun culture never changing, and I think that's just untrue.

Look at LGBTQ culture in our society, sure there's a whole lot more to be done, but even within the past decade tolerance has been improved ten fold.

Think about how many pride parade are around the country, not only accepted but encouraged, completely different tune from what, even 20-30 years ago?

You're not gonna completely wipe out the super pro gun toting people, just like you're not going to wipe out the extreme Bible thumpers who want to see gays burn in hell, but culture shift is very possible.

Apples and space ships.

*Note: this next passage is not meant to be a value judgement or some how minimize the LBGTQ community, just me inarticulately trying to explain how the two things are very different*

Changing culture on LGBTQ is largely about the government "creating" freedom for a group of people that don't really impact the rest of the population....so in the practical sense the change in LGBTQ status doesn't "impact" the every day citizen. It's granting a right

Changing gun culture is the government almost literally reaching into people's homes and if necessary, removing guns by force. You are taking away a right.

WAY WAY WAY different.

[Jockey]

Apples and space ships.

*Note: this next passage is not meant to be a value judgement or some how minimize the LBGTQ community, just me inarticulately trying to explain how the two things are very different*

Changing culture on LGBTQ is largely about the government "creating" freedom for a group of people that don't really impact the rest of the population....so in the practical sense the change in LGBTQ status doesn't "impact" the every day citizen. It's granting a right

Changing gun culture is the government almost literally reaching into people's homes and if necessary, removing guns by force. You are taking away a right.

WAY WAY WAY different.

You are right, Eng, but I would like to point out something you are missing on LGBTQ.

It has been made a part of the culture war which is a huge decision point for millions of voters. So in that way, it does affect a rather large segment of the population.

Otherwise, you point is well taken.

This does not minimize your point

[HansMoleman]

Here in NC, "Unaffiliateds" (same as Independents elsewhere) just passed Republicans as the second-largest registered group of voters. Democrats are first. So Republicans make up less than a third of the electorate.

But the Dems here were swept out in the anti-Obama wave of 2010, giving control of both houses  to the GOP. And because the GOP was in charge after 2010, they got to re-draw the voting district maps.

They have gerrymandered so blatantly that their maps have been struck down in court multiple times. The last time, the judges on the panel said the maps targeted blacks "with almost surgical precision." The districts were a bunch of squiggly lines that loaded a couple of districts with blacks and other minorities, while all but guaranteeing that Republicans would win the other districts. So you have a state that is less than a third Republican all but guaranteed to have 10 GOP representatives elected in 13 districts for an entire decade.

This afternoon, while we all were having fun debating gun control, anthem protests, etc, the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing a similar case involving Wisconsin. From what I just read, the line of questioning makes it appear that the four more liberal judges will vote against the gerrymandering and the four more conservative will vote for the right to gerrymander. Kennedy, as is often the case, will be the swing vote.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/redistricting-supreme-court/index.html

This is a huge case, a huge case. But with everything else going on, it's kind of lost in the shuffle.

I think most logical people would conclude: Why let elected officials do this at all? Why not have independent panels or boards do redistricting within states? Indeed, Iowa does it that way, and I think a few others do, too. That makes too damn much sense.

Here in NC, the Dems were in charge for years and they also gerrymandered to make it difficult for Republicans to get elected. I don't see how that should have been legal, either. We're supposed to be electing a representative government, but when a group representing one-third of the people - all of them white - can dictate the policy at the expense of blacks "with almost surgical precision," isn't that practically apartheid?

I doubt SCOTUS will hear a more important case this year, or maybe not for several years.

I agree.  Here in Illinois the same thing has been done for the last few decades, but by the other party.  You should see the outline of my "district" compared to what it looked like 15-20 years ago.

[mu03eng]

Why don't gun background checks really check someone's background

We have a guy who bought over 40 weapons - many high powered assault and sniper rifles.

Let's say that by the 40th purchase, couldn't the checker look and say "hey, this guy has bought 39 weapons in a short period of time including many, many assault weapons; is this normal or should I flag this somehow?"

If someone's background is clean for a single gun, why should the 40th matter? Is there some analytic that says if you buy more than 10 guns you are going to do something despicable with it?

I'm not opposed to such things, but being pragmatic as well as having a penchant for being more free with rights then less free I question the usefulness of such a standard.

[mu03eng]

You are right, Eng, but I would like to point out something you are missing on LGBTQ.

It has been made a part of the culture war which is a huge decision point for millions of voters. So in that way, it does affect a rather large segment of the population.

Otherwise, you point is well taken.

This does not minimize your point

Oh I completely agree, from a political standpoint they are the same....just too lazy to include it