Las Vegas Shooting

[rocket surgeon]

What if there's not a police officer there?

not sure if i follow, but what do you mean?  chances are, if you are drinking and there's an incident with a firearm, unless you are on the moon, police will be called.  they will talk to you and if you smell like a miller or your eyes are bleeding, they can and will take your permit.  with permits, you MUST have them on you if you are carrying.  not, well, i left it at my girlfriends house

[WarriorInNYC]

So you thought modifying firearms was illegal per your firearm safety class in MN, but you now think that might not be the case?

I was aware of aftermarket modification of firearms... which seems to support the fact that it's at least legal in some cases?

Is there invisible ink somewhere in there that I'm missing or is this another solid Myron Medcalfe kind of moment?

Installing an aftermarket choke or your own neon beads on a skeet gun? That sounds less illegal.

So I have always been of the mindset that you never modify a firearm outside of the mfg's accessories (chokes, stocks, barrel plugs, etc.)... apparently I was wrong.

[WarriorInNYC]

Listen, I'm all for such laws, I'm just saying is it ultimately worth the political fight. I get that's part of what the NRA does, but I just prioritize spending political capital on something that is more pragmatically useful/impactful.

What is there to lose in this political fight?  A law like this surely wouldn't stop some people from making the modifications themselves, but it would prevent a good amount of people from just picking one up at Walmart.

There's absolutely no reason to NOT have this political fight.

[rocket surgeon]

What is there to lose in this political fight?  A law like this surely wouldn't stop some people from making the modifications themselves, but it would prevent a good amount of people from just picking one up at Walmart.

There's absolutely no reason to NOT have this political fight.

walmart just pulled all their bump stocks

my understanding of a bump stock-it may have saved lives in the long run here-stay with me here-

     yes, he had a few rifles equipped and loaded and ready-why-because they jam as they are finding they did.  the gun gets so hot and it the chamber isn't meant for this rapid fire-it jams very predictably.  if he would have had a number of semi-autos all ready, chances are there would have been fewer jams and he could have gotten more shots off in the long run-i'm happy as hell he didn't!

also, where are/were the anti gun people with all the inner-city shootings?  is it because there are usually only one two or three at a time and they're spread out over a number of hours?  in other words do not fall into the category of "mass shootings"?  one other point-the anti-gun people dismiss too easily all of the arguments we put forth-note-they are legitimate arguments.  i don't think there is a need to re-hatch them here, but we can i guess

bottom line-i am by no means trying to diminish vegas- was a nasty nasty incident committed by a very evil individual

[jficke13]

Yeah, dudes modding shotguns out of the back of their pickup trucks under popup tents at the range =/= mfg accessories.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Listen, I'm all for such laws, I'm just saying is it ultimately worth the political fight. I get that's part of what the NRA does, but I just prioritize spending political capital on something that is more pragmatically useful/impactful.

This type of attitude will prevent something from ever getting done. IE "We are unlikely to win this battle so let's just not bother."

[Vander Blue Man Group]

walmart just pulled all their bump stocks

my understanding of a bump stock-it may have saved lives in the long run here-stay with me here-

     yes, he had a few rifles equipped and loaded and ready-why-because they jam as they are finding they did.  the gun gets so hot and it the chamber isn't meant for this rapid fire-it jams very predictably.  if he would have had a number of semi-autos all ready, chances are there would have been fewer jams and he could have gotten more shots off in the long run-i'm happy as hell he didn't!

also, where are/were the anti gun people with all the inner-city shootings?  is it because there are usually only one two or three at a time and they're spread out over a number of hours?  in other words do not fall into the category of "mass shootings"?  one other point-the anti-gun people dismiss too easily all of the arguments we put forth-note-they are legitimate arguments.  i don't think there is a need to re-hatch them here, but we can i guess

bottom line-i am by no means trying to diminish vegas- was a nasty nasty incident committed by a very evil individual

Personally, I think your logic of how the bump stock might have saved lives is an enormous leap. Just my opinion.

Second, I don't like the term "anti-gun people". To me it implies that all people who are advocating for more common sense gun control, closing loopholes, background checks, banning certain items, etc. don't believe in the 2nd amendment when that is clearly not the case. I am not a gun person and doubt I will ever own one. I do believe in the 2nd amendment but with limits. There's no reason a civilian needs an assault rifle, high capacity magazines, bump stocks, etc.

As for the inner city shootings, that's an entirely separate argument than the one around instances like Vegas or Sandy Hook, IMO. It's an instance of criminals going out of state to get guns, obtaining them illegally. Those people aren't looking to inflict damage at one time on the level of Vegas. That violence is also highly connected to gangs, drugs, and poverty, which most events on the scale of Vegas are not. It's a serious problem but an entirely different discussion from my perspective. 

[Benny B]

Yeah, dudes modding shotguns out of the back of their pickup trucks under popup tents at the range =/= mfg accessories.

Do I really need to spell this out?  When I talk about not modifying the firearm's mechanics, I'm not talking about the guy who works on your gun when it breaks down. Sure, he might be a nice guy and all, but that's probably illegal too.   No, I'm talking about the gun's inner-workings, here.  I'd draw you a nice diagram in MS-Paint, but my skillz aren't as mad as they once were and it would probably be so abstract that I'm afraid you might end up seeing a guy in coveralls lubing a barrel rather than a firing pin, hammer, etc.

Paint your gun's stock, put a nice scope on the top, draw some bunny ears on it, whatever.  Just don't touch the insides and it's all good.  At least that's what I thought.  Apparently that's not the case in Nevada or perhaps anywhere else... I'm not going to look it up, because I don't plan on modifying my gun at all. 

[jficke13]

Do I really need to spell this out?  When I talk about not modifying the firearm's mechanics, I'm not talking about the guy who works on your gun when it breaks down. Sure, he might be a nice guy and all, but that's probably illegal too.   No, I'm talking about the gun's inner-workings, here.  I'd draw you a nice diagram in MS-Paint, but my skillz aren't as mad as they once were and it would probably be so abstract that I'm afraid you might end up seeing a guy in coveralls lubing a barrel rather than a firing pin, hammer, etc.

Paint your gun's stock, put a nice scope on the top, draw some bunny ears on it, whatever.  Just don't touch the insides and it's all good.  At least that's what I thought.  Apparently that's not the case in Nevada or perhaps anywhere else... I'm not going to look it up, because I don't plan on modifying my gun at all.

People do that. All the time. The moving bits that you cant draw in paint. They advertise for it. They do it using non-mfg parts.

However, I'm pretty sure we're talking right past each other about this one, so I'm going to call this a "started the game vs. starter minutes" internet fight and bow out.

[B. McBannerson]

Ha, you've got this seriously mixed up amigo. The 2nd amendment is not the mechanism to advance gun control. There's nothing in the Constitution or in Supreme Court precedent that says the right to bear arms includes the right to bear any weapon, including assault weapons (those didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights were drafted). Gun control legislation absolutely can be -- and has been! -- passed without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. What you meant to say was that the 2nd amendment would be the mechanism to advance gun prohibition, but not gun control.

A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.

1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch.  If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done?  Feels like a fair question.   Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.

2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people?  I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.   

We can tick through the nations, but imagine Venezuela right now and the oppression those people are going through knowing they can't do anything. Cuba.  So many other nations through the last 100 years.   The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.

Whenever these events happen, and they are horrible and grotesque, the MMQB starts with the blame game.  So often, the blamers forget how much control and power they had, but did nothing.

[GGGG]

A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.

1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch.  If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done?  Feels like a fair question.   Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.

2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people?  I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.   

We can tick through the nations, but imagine Venezuela right now and the oppression those people are going through knowing they can't do anything. Cuba.  So many other nations through the last 100 years.   The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.

Whenever these events happen, and they are horrible and grotesque, the MMQB starts with the blame game.  So often, the blamers forget how much control and power they had, but did nothing.

1.  Something should have been done.

2.  I don't see many (any?) here calling for a total ban.  I have no problem with handguns, no problem with concealed carry, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.  I have a problem with assault rifles, etc.  I'd even be OK with assault rifles if they could only be owned by gun ranges and were under a tight registration system for those who wish to still use them for recreational purposes.

But there is simply no place in society for those weapons to be owned in the home with little government control.  I may like to drive a monster truck, but that doesn't mean I should be able to drive it down the interstate.

[GooooMarquette]

A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.

1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch.  If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done?  Feels like a fair question.   Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.

2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people?  I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.   

We can tick through the nations, but imagine Venezuela right now and the oppression those people are going through knowing they can't do anything. Cuba.  So many other nations through the last 100 years.   The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.

Whenever these events happen, and they are horrible and grotesque, the MMQB starts with the blame game.  So often, the blamers forget how much control and power they had, but did nothing.

1.  They dropped the ball.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

2.  Who here has advocated a total ban?  Please list - because I can't find any.  My own personal preference would be to define "arms" under the second amendment as perhaps a handgun or two for "self-defense," and a hunting rifle or two.  No single individual needs 50 assault rifles for "fighting back against tyranny."

Again - if you have identified people here who advocate nothing short of a total ban, please point them out.

[mu03eng]

This type of attitude will prevent something from ever getting done. IE "We are unlikely to win this battle so let's just not bother."

False, some republicans are already starting to fall in line behind a bump stock ban....so letting them get there on their own gets us a win (banning bump stocks) and very little political capital gets spent which can be used in a much more valuable and useful effort like a universal gun register and data analysis around gun purchases for areas of concern.

[mu03eng]

2.  I don't see many (any?) here calling for a total ban.  I have no problem with handguns, no problem with concealed carry, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc.  I have a problem with assault rifles, etc.  I'd even be OK with assault rifles if they could only be owned by gun ranges and were under a tight registration system for those who wish to still use them for recreational purposes.

Can someone who's calling for an assault rifle ban please tell me what the practical, definable difference is between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle?

[WarriorInNYC]

Can someone who's calling for an assault rifle ban please tell me what the practical, definable difference is between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle?

That's a good question, but I think most people say "ban assault rifles" as in not necessarily saying a particular class of guns, but limiting certain items.

For example, rate of fire, power, magazine load capacity.

I know certain guns can "look" like an assault rifle, but in essence be a standard hunting rifle but have a certain modifications to it that make it look more like an assault rifle.

I, for one, can't tell you the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle (from a technical perspective).  But I know when I use the term "assault rifle", I'm inferring towards power, rate of fire, magazine load capacity.  Perhaps that is a particular part of the conversation that needs to be altered a bit.

[MUBurrow]

I know certain guns can "look" like an assault rifle, but in essence be a standard hunting rifle but have a certain modifications to it that make it look more like an assault rifle.

This kind of stuff is why I steer clear of most gun conversations. Not because I don't have a strong feeling about what I would (and would not) like to see legislated, but because I just can't even pretend to understand "gun people" and therefore make a bad ambassador for my position.

[GooooMarquette]

To all hunters out there:  why couldn't we define "hunting rifles" as one shot, then reload?

I can hit a deer with one pass of my car.  If you can't hit it with one shot, you aren't a very good hunter.

[jsglow]

I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration.  I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible.  But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now some may not like that.  But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States.  Thank you for reading and considering it carefully.  It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.

Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders.  Thanks.

[Jay Bee]

Did 44 ever say why he's a fan of bump stocks or did he try to keep that quiet?

[Pakuni]

A few questions for you and others that want more gun control and some who even want total ban.

1) 2008 to 2010 one party controlled all of gov't legislative process and Executive branch.  If this was such a high priority, why was nothing done?  Feels like a fair question.    Incidentally, bump stocks were approved by the Alcohol, Tobacoo and Firearms in 2010. The ATF is part of the Executive branch and in 2010 that was controlled Democrats.

Feels like an irrelevant, partisan question that does nothing to further the actual discussion.
Bump stocks should not have been allowed then. They should not be allowed today. There.
Also, for the record, it was an ATF bureaucrat hired during the Clinton Administration and promoted to the relevant post during the Bush II administration that made the call on bump stocks. So, I guess if we're more interested in casting blame than doing something that might actually matter, there's plenty to go around.

2) For those that want a total ban, have you seen over history what happens to a people when the only entity that has guns is the gov't and not the people?  I'd especially put that question to those that have so many concerns about police, as they are one of the gov't agencies.   

This is a ridiculous red herring, since no one here has once suggested a total ban.

The 2nd amendment is as much about fighting back against gov't tyranny as it is the right to arm one's self.

This may have been true in the 1790s, but you're deluding yourself otherwise.
A little reality check for you ... if there were a coup tomorrow and the new government imposes martial law, you and your AR-15 aren't going 'Red Dawn' on the armed forces and overthrowing the military junta. You'll just be the first one dead.

[mu03eng]

To all hunters out there:  why couldn't we define "hunting rifles" as one shot, then reload?

I can hit a deer with one pass of my car.  If you can't hit it with one shot, you aren't a very good hunter.

Should handguns have only one shot then reload? Your question is a fair one, should semi-auto weapons be banned, it's a clear definition. I don't think it would ever, ever pass....but at least it is a definable, enforcable standard.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

False, some republicans are already starting to fall in line behind a bump stock ban....so letting them get there on their own gets us a win (banning bump stocks) and very little political capital gets spent which can be used in a much more valuable and useful effort like a universal gun register and data analysis around gun purchases for areas of concern.

That's not at all how your previous post came off to me so perhaps I misinterpreted. 

[mu03eng]

This is a ridiculous red herring, since no one here has once suggested a total ban.
This may have been true in the 1790s, but you're deluding yourself otherwise.
A little reality check for you ... if there were a coup tomorrow and the new government imposes martial law, you and your AR-15 aren't going 'Red Dawn' on the armed forces and overthrowing the military junta. You'll just be the first one dead.

There are some folks in Afghanistan that would beg to differ.

In all fairness this is the stupidest of discussions simply because it wouldn't happen, but a well armed partisan group within the US could have some chance against the US military, especially assuming that the US military would not be 100% in some sort of coup situation.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration.  I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible.  But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now some may not like that.  But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States.  Thank you for reading and considering it carefully.  It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.

Let's continue to seek solutions that further our common goals while we pray for the Las Vegas victims and first responders.  Thanks.

The 2nd Amendment was written in 1789 when guns could hold a bullet and had to be reloaded.  This is not about the right to keep and bear arms.  It is about the kind of weaponry that is available, their power, and the ability of a regular citizen to inflict massive damage.   

[Pakuni]

I'm only sticking a toe in here and let me acknowledge that I'm fully in favor of bump stock restrictions and firearm registration.  I do think a productive conversation and reasonable solutions are possible.  But I thought it helpful to provide everyone with the full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now some may not like that.  But there's a reason it was the second thing the Founder's wrote down when then codified the rights of citizens in the newly formed United States.  Thank you for reading and considering it carefully.  It will always be a heartfelt challenge to draw any line appropriately given this right, especially when in theory that right could be modified via the amendment process.

Which well-regulated militia did Stephen Paddock belong to? Or Adam Lanza? Seung-Hui Cho? Omar Mateen? George Hennard? James Holmes? Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?

Please explain how allowing any random, untrained and unmonitored civilian to possess a weapon which serves no purpose beyond mass killing further the interests of a "well-regulated militia?"