Las Vegas Shooting

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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.

Did someone actually just say that in the aftermath of this? 

[Pakuni]

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 think it's a red flag. Chicago gangs, for example, have been known to use people with clean records to purchase large amounts of guns for them out of state.
Buying guns in large quantities may mean nothing, but it's unusual enough that it's a question worth asking, right?
I mean, you make a single call to Syria next week, probably nobody cares. If you make 100 over the next month, you're going to be answering questions.
We have laws limiting how much Sudafed and ammonium nitrate a person can buy within a period of time. Doesn't seem so bad to do the same with firearms.

[Pakuni]

Do someone actually just say that in the aftermath of this?

Senator John Thune.
Apparently the first graders at Sandy Hook weren't small enough.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Senator John Thune.
Apparently the first graders at Sandy Hook weren't small enough.

[mu03eng]

I think it's a red flag. Chicago gangs, for example, have been known to use people with clean records to purchase large amounts of guns for them out of state.
Buying guns in large quantities may mean nothing, but it's unusual enough that it's a question worth asking, right?
I mean, you make a single call to Syria next week, probably nobody cares. If you make 100 over the next month, you're going to be answering questions.
We have laws limiting how much Sudafed and ammonium nitrate a person can buy within a period of time. Doesn't seem so bad to do the same with firearms.

Fair enough.

[mu03eng]

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.

It be interesting to see how those on the left would react to such a proposal, simply because the idea of fining someone for not voting would have a much larger impact on the poor than the rich.

What I would support, short of full obligation to vote, and this might be a bit of a grand bargain again......move all elections to Saturdays or Sundays, require ID. and mandatory paid days off for those that would work on election days. I will also reduce the number of elections that are allowed to be held in a given year to 3 or less. Who says no?

[naginiF]

It be interesting to see how those on the left would react to such a proposal, simply because the idea of fining someone for not voting would have a much larger impact on the poor than the rich.

What I would support, short of full obligation to vote, and this might be a bit of a grand bargain again......move all elections to Saturdays or Sundays, require ID. and mandatory paid days off for those that would work on election days. I will also reduce the number of elections that are allowed to be held in a given year to 3 or less. Who says no?

rational.  the only changes i'd make are that the 'required ID' not be one specific ID but a choice of ID methods that 99.9% of the population already has and that there is a reasonable minimum and maximum number of voting locations per geographic area based on population density. 

for me i just can't believe we rationalize not having a gun control conversation time and time again.

Senator John Thune.
Apparently the first graders at Sandy Hook weren't small enough.

we drove through SD this year and there were more than a couple "praise God, eat meat, protect the 2nd, and wear fur" signs (going from memory so not a direct quote i just remember saying 'well i'm zero for four').  he shouldn't be taken as representing the majority in any situation.

I don't know what a Jobe is.

There is no Jobe, only G.O.B. (really thought Blue Man Group would've beaten me to this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woUSOqd9wyw

[WarriorInNYC]

I think it's a red flag. Chicago gangs, for example, have been known to use people with clean records to purchase large amounts of guns for them out of state.
Buying guns in large quantities may mean nothing, but it's unusual enough that it's a question worth asking, right?
I mean, you make a single call to Syria next week, probably nobody cares. If you make 100 over the next month, you're going to be answering questions.
We have laws limiting how much Sudafed and ammonium nitrate a person can buy within a period of time. Doesn't seem so bad to do the same with firearms.

From what I've heard (and note that I have not fact-checked this at all), is that there is no central, computerized system that shows who has registered what weapons.

I was having a discussion with a colleague on this yesterday, and he mentioned that there was an attempt to pass legislature to have this incorporated, but the NRA lobbied against it and had it shut down.  So in essence, if someone were to purchase guns from multiple states, it really wouldn't be known.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that I was literally told this from a colleague and have not fact-checked any of it, so it may be wrong.

[mu03eng]

From what I've heard (and note that I have not fact-checked this at all), is that there is no central, computerized system that shows who has registered what weapons.

I was having a discussion with a colleague on this yesterday, and he mentioned that there was an attempt to pass legislature to have this incorporated, but the NRA lobbied against it and had it shut down.  So in essence, if someone were to purchase guns from multiple states, it really wouldn't be known.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that I was literally told this from a colleague and have not fact-checked any of it, so it may be wrong.

This is correct, under the guise of preventing "big brother"

[Vander Blue Man Group]

There is no Jobe, only G.O.B. (really thought Blue Man Group would've beaten me to this)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woUSOqd9wyw

[buckchuckler]

we drove through SD this year and there were more than a couple "praise God, eat meat, protect the 2nd, and wear fur" signs (going from memory so not a direct quote i just remember saying 'well i'm zero for four').

Wow.  You are such a better, more enlightened person than those yokels.  Thank goodness you have graced us. 

[Benny B]

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.

Legitimate request (i.e. not discrediting or sarcasm), can you link to some of these studies?  I'd like to look at the data, and I don't have time to weed through the garbage that I get when I Google "voter ID studies"

[GooooMarquette]

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.

Mind boggling...especially after many in Vegas did exactly what experts tell you to do - they hit the deck (i.e., they tried to "get small") - only to expose themselves even more to a shooter from above. 

And yet some people will read what he said and agree. 

[Pakuni]

Legitimate request (i.e. not discrediting or sarcasm), can you link to some of these studies?  I'd like to look at the data, and I don't have time to weed through the garbage that I get when I Google "voter ID studies"

Here's one I read:

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~zhajnal/page5/documents/voterIDhajnaletal.pdf

For the tl;dr, here's an op-ed that study's authors wrote for the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/do-voter-identification-laws-suppress-minority-voting-yes-we-did-the-research/?utm_term=.53355a03cb9a

Here's one out of Wisconsin:
https://elections.wisc.edu/news/voter-id-study/Voter-ID-Study-Release.pdf

Here's one from the GAO:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-634

[Jockey]

Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.

It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.

But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.

It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.

But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.

Ehhhh, even I don't think Internet voting is the way to go, and I'm generally very pro-tech.

Just opens up a whole new can of worms.

[rocket surgeon]

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.

great point-i thought that was a little self-righteous myself.  it would be like wishing the donald a happy birthday on his, well, b-day and then being shocked when the thread turns into "mayhem"  ruh-roh

[jficke13]

Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.

It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.

But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.

Call me a little hesitant that we'd pull this off without complications. See: Yahoo, Equifax, etc.

[rocket surgeon]

Something to keep in mind on getting everyone to vote.

It's easy! Use internet voting. Of course, "everyone" won't vote, but participation would be much higher, especially among the young.

But as one side has repeatedly tried to reduce voting, methinks they won't pass anything that widens voting.

seriously?  yeah, don't see anything that could go wrong here

seriously again?  mr. provocative, i just can't...how 'bout dem packers, eyn'a?

cruising along, reading some very interesting posts and then hitting some speed bumps

[MU82]

I was listening to NPR in the car for about 10 minutes today. They, like everyone else, were talking about Vegas. They threw out an open-ended question asking what people thought about doing some kind of gun control, and they said they received more than 1,000 responses either via email or a phone line they set up.

The lefties, of course, endorsed various ideas. Righties pretty much shot them down.

That was expected. Here were two answers from consecutive righties that I heard before I turned the dial to music.

One went on a long explanation saying that gun control might be fine for some big cities but in rural Oklahoma, where he lived, he needs a gun to protect his family because law enforcement is too spread out.

And another started with "guns don't kill people; people kill people" - so I knew it was gonna be brilliant - and added that she needs a gun in her house to protect her family from bad guys with guns.

Nobody ever said all guns were going to be confiscated, or that people who have passed background checks and bought their guns legally would have their guns taken away.

But that's the leap these two people immediately went to - THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!! - and it's a pretty common reaction that we've heard over the years.

It would be like after laws were passed requiring seatbelts, people saying: "I need my car! You can't take it away!"

So once you dig in there - we can't close the gun-show loophole because they're coming for our guns - how can you have any intelligent discourse at all?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Are we going to make fertilizer illegal, too?

I think the answer is yes we try to track it.

https://www.dhs.gov/ammonium-nitrate-security-program

[Tugg Speedman]

Of course weapons held one bullet when the second amendment was written almost 230 years ago. Strange how things change over that much time.

The founding fathers could not imagine television any more than they could have envisioned an AR-15.  So, should the first amendment not apply to TV using the same logic as the second amendment not applying to an AR-15?

(You could make the case the founding fathers would have applied the second amendment to an AR-15 because the musket was the high-powered military grade weapon of the day, like the AR-15 is modeled after today.)

[Tugg Speedman]

But that's the leap these two people immediately went to - THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!! - and it's a pretty common reaction that we've heard over the years.

It would be like after laws were passed requiring seatbelts, people saying: "I need my car! You can't take it away!"

So once you dig in there - we can't close the gun-show loophole because they're coming for our guns - how can you have any intelligent discourse at all?

Why not? Right after San Bernadino, the New York Times printed a page 1 editorial calling for the banning of guns.  It remains the only editorial on page 1 since 1920... signifying how incredibly important the Times thinks this issue is.  They are arguing banning guns is the single most important issue of our lifetime.  If not, why no other page 1 editorials in the last 97 years?

So you can pretend that no one wants to take all guns away but too many on the "left" have called for exactly that making it a reasonable assumption.

End the Gun Epidemic in America
THE EDITORIAL BOARDDEC. 4, 2015
It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

----

And not it is not possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way ... we tried that with the 1994 assault weapons ban and repealed it in 2004 because it was too difficult to define.  So the only effective way is to ban all guns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/01/24/the-last-assault-weapons-ban-didnt-work-will-the-new-one-be-different/?utm_term=.76a8909c9288

The problem we learned in 1994 is an "assault weapon" is incredibly hard to define.  It came down to how a gun "looks."

[Jockey]

Why not? Right after San Bernadino, the New York Times printed a page 1 editorial calling for the banning of guns.  It remains the only editorial on page 1 since 1920... signifying how incredibly important the Times thinks this issue is.  They are arguing banning guns is the single most important issue of our lifetime.  If not, why no other page 1 editorials in the last 97 years?

You make it sound like the Times wants to ban all guns. Obviously they have never, ever said that. What they have done is ask to ban the types of assault and military weapons that were just used on almost 600 people.

[Tugg Speedman]

You make it sound like the Times wants to ban all guns. Obviously they have never, ever said that. What they have done is ask to ban the types of assault and military weapons that were just used on almost 600 people.

Read the second part above, you cannot define an assault weapon, so it will include all guns.  It's all about how it "looks" because there are dozens of variations on the exact same gun that don't look "scary" that would not be banned (graphic above) but would be just as deadly.

What they fear is you would define an "assault rifle" as a semi-automatic rifle.  The semi-automatic rifle was first put into use in 1885.  Semi-automatic is the vast vast majority of all guns (and virtually every pistol).  Hence a general gun ban.