Las Vegas Shooting

[mu03eng]

So, I'm pretty jammed up and can't give this as much of a response as it deserves, but I didn't want to ignore it either.
This is reasoned and thoughtful, but I think ultimately wrong.
I think rather than establishing the Second Amendment to fend off a "well-regulated militia," it clearly was to create and maintain a well-regulated militia.
The Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the creation of a large, standing military in the United States (a philosophy that largely stayed in place in this country more or less until after WWI). However, they were not naive to the geopolitical realities that they were a young nation in a precarious spot with threats from all sides and a need to protect itself.
So their answer to these competing beliefs was a citizen army, aka a militia. In order to have a citizen army ready to fight on potentially short notice, it needed a citizenry that was a) armed and b) well regulated.
This was so important to them that they codified in their Constitution.

There's more to this, but that's all I've got time for now.

Right but the founding fathers were also the ones that then provided for the generation of a standing army and navy with legislative action. They could have amended the constitution (having known what they intended) that a standing militia was no longer as relevant having constituted a standing army.

[Pakuni]

Right but the founding fathers were also the ones that then provided for the generation of a standing army and navy with legislative action. They could have amended the constitution (having known what they intended) that a standing militia was no longer as relevant having constituted a standing army.

The Naval Act of 1794 commissioned the construction of six frigates, primarily to protect merchant ships from pirates.
The nation had no army at the time of the Constitution. The closest came three years later, with the creation of the "Legion of the United States," which was a small armed force of about 5,000 established primarily to fight natives.
The British army, which is what the FF would have viewed as a standing army in that era,had about 120,000 full-time members at that time.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Reports are he didn't kill himself.

Where did you see this?

[GGGG]

Where did you see this?

Saw them earlier this week, but I think they were wrong.

[GooooMarquette]

Whoa.  So Lallapalooza was apparently 'targeted' by the gunman in that he rented two hotel rooms overlooking Grant Park but seemingly never checked in and didn't pursue it.  I think many of you may have heard that already.

Here's what you might not have heard.  I just listened to a City of Chicago official (not sure who, certainly not Rahm) say the following......

'The attack didn't happen here because we (Chicago) were better prepared for it than Las Vegas.'

I have to figure out who that a-clown is.  That was the most divisive, self serving, and disrespectful thing I have heard a local official say in a long time.  Again, I'm embarrassed by our local politicians. Terrible.

Mind-blowingly insensitive and arrogant.

[jsglow]

Mind-blowingly insensitive and arrogant.

I know.  I couldn't believe I heard it.  But they played the tape of him saying it.  Brutal.

[naginiF]

The NRA just advocated for 'additional regulations' associated with bump stocks.  Make sense to me.  Good for them.

Yes it is a good first step.  But it's also the smart/only step from the NRA perspective in an attempt to avoid a push for larger regulations.  Judging from their history they are doing this to protect themselves not address the problem.

I'll say 'good for them' or ' they are willing to address the severity of gun violence' when some version of "hey we're not unreasonable, we were willing to discuss 'additional regulations' on bump stocks" isn't the response to broader background checks, registering all guns sold, ammo clip capacity, the next version of a bump stock that can be used to increase the lethality of a weapon.

Again, it's a good first step and i appreciate that.  I hope nobody sees this as a solution.

edit: CNN points out the same thing
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html

[GooooMarquette]

Is it the speed at which bullets can be fired the concern or the amount of bullets, or both? If we accept self-defense, you need semi-automatic because seconds count and having to cock the gun in between shots could kill someone. If you allow semi-automatic in hand guns, can you disallow it with long guns?

IMHO, it's mostly the sheer number.  Six rapid fire makes sense if you're fighting off an intruder at night.

And yeah, you can disallow it with long guns if you'd only get one bullet at a time to kill a deer (see my suggestion above).  A semi-automatic mechanism would be kind of a waste in a gun with only one bullet, no?

I'm not saying these are the ultimate (or best answers).  I'm just showing that it should be very possible to come up with reasonable guidelines.  Some of it is going to be arbitrary, as results of negotiations always are.  But it's better than just giving up the discussion and watching one mass shooting after another.

[GooooMarquette]

Saw them earlier this week, but I think they were wrong.

Yeah, I initially heard that he died in a shootout with police...but they later changed the story to say he was found dead, presumably moments before the police entered.

[jsglow]

Yeah, I initially heard that he died in a shootout with police...but they later changed the story to say he was found dead, presumably moments before the police entered.

No, the current timeline has the perp shooting out the windows for approximately 7-11 minutes.  It was at roughly the 11 minute mark that unarmed Mandy Bay security guard Jesus Campos (let's consider him as an incredible American hero) approached the door and was shot in the leg through the closed door with one of 200 rounds directed his way.  There were few (if any) rounds discharged out the windows after that.  SWAT did not break down the door for another 30 minutes minimum.  I believe that their strategy was that shooting had stopped and hotel guest safety was being considered prior to the breech.

So it's somewhat speculated that shortly after encountering the Mandy guard the perp put a round in his head.

Let me again reiterate my outrage at the Chicago official's horrific statements today juxtaposed against the incredible valor of Mr. Campos who knew full well what he was facing without a weapon.  Thereafter, he remained on scene assisting the LVPD with valuable information until ordered to the hospital for medical attention.

Let me add one other thing that I hope my friends on the left might agree with.  IF Mandy was a 'gun free zone' and as a result Mr. Campos was required to be unarmed...... 

Well, you know my opinion on that.  That's as easy as the bump stop argument.

[Lennys Tap]

Absolutely!

If we were talking about saving one "life" by limiting (or preventing) abortions, many of the same people who want no new gun laws at all would line up behind it. Same if we were talking about saving one life by instituting a Muslim ban.

Mike, so you are OK with limiting abortions and extreme vetting of folks from some countries? Those measures, along with sensible gun control, would surely save lives. Is compromise really in the air?

[GGGG]

glow, are you sure you heard the Chicago official correctly?  This isn't being reported anywhere.  There are a bunch of reports of Chicago officials talking about their readiness for the marathon this weekend.

[GooooMarquette]

No, the current timeline has the perp shooting out the windows for approximately 7-11 minutes.  It was at roughly the 11 minute mark that unarmed Mandy Bay security guard Jesus Campos (let's consider him as an incredible American hero) approached the door and was shot in the leg through the closed door with one of 200 rounds directed his way.  There were few (if any) rounds discharged out the windows after that.  SWAT did not break down the door for another 30 minutes minimum.  I believe that their strategy was that shooting had stopped and hotel guest safety was being considered prior to the breech.

So it's somewhat speculated that shortly after encountering the Mandy guard the perp put a round in his head.

Let me again reiterate my outrage at the Chicago official's horrific statements today juxtaposed against the incredible valor of Mr. Campos who knew full well what he was facing without a weapon.  Thereafter, he remained on scene assisting the LVPD with valuable information until ordered to the hospital for medical attention.

Let me add one other thing that I hope my friends on the left might agree with.  IF Mandy was a 'gun free zone' and as a result Mr. Campos was required to be unarmed...... 

Well, you know my opinion on that.  That's as easy as the bump stop argument.

I'm confused about where you're going with the second underlined sentence above.  First (in the first sentence I underlined) you stated that the guard actually WAS unarmed...but in the second underlined sentence you seemed to be asking what would have happened IF HE HAD BEEN unarmed. 

Answer:  we know.  He was unarmed, yet presumably stopped the worst mass shooting in American history.  To me, this shows that the answer to guns isn't necessarily more guns.  I agree with you that he is a true hero...but he clearly didn't need a gun to achieve that status.

[jsglow]

glow, are you sure you heard the Chicago official correctly?  This isn't being reported anywhere.  There are a bunch of reports of Chicago officials talking about their readiness for the marathon this weekend.

Yes.  I heard the audio tape myself on WLS during an afternoon top of hour news broadcast.  I assure you that while my words might not be exact, they express the message conveyed correctly. I believe it might have happened during Rahm's presser discussing the marathon but it absolutely wasn't Rahm.  Maybe the speaker has been given the courtesy of 'revising and extending his remarks'. 

[jsglow]

I'm confused about where you're going with the second underlined sentence above.  First (in the first sentence I underlined) you stated that the guard actually WAS unarmed...but in the second underlined sentence you seemed to be asking what would have happened IF HE HAD BEEN unarmed. 

Answer:  we know.  He was unarmed, yet presumably stopped the worst mass shooting in American history.  To me, this shows that the answer to guns isn't necessarily more guns.  I agree with you that he is a true hero...but he clearly didn't need a gun to achieve that status.

No, you may misunderstand.  Campos was unarmed but the perp might not have known that.  Campos may have been unarmed because of a 'gun free' policy applicable in the Mandalay Bay where nobody is allowed to carry including a security guard.  Note that this is total speculation on my part.  I don't know it to be policy.  But it does happen in some settings.  The perp took his own life with his own weapon.  But Campos would have been more effective if armed.  Hope that clarifies my position.

[GooooMarquette]

No, you may misunderstand.  Campos was unarmed but the perp might not have known that.  Campos may have been unarmed because of a 'gun free' policy applicable in the Mandalay Bay where nobody is allowed to carry including a security guard.  Note that this is total speculation on my part.  I don't know it to be policy.  But it does happen in some settings.  The perp took his own life with his own weapon.  But Campos would have been more effective if armed.  Hope that clarifies my position.

That does clarify your opinion...but the underlined sentence is speculation.  Maybe if he was armed, he would have gone more boldly at the door and been taken out with one shot...and the perp could have opened up again on the crowd.

We truly have no idea what would have happened if he had been armed...but we know that he very effectively stopped the rampage as an unarmed man.

[jsglow]

That does clarify your opinion...but the underlined sentence is speculation.  Maybe if he was armed, he would have gone more boldly at the door and been taken out with one shot...and the perp could have opened up again on the crowd.

We truly have no idea what would have happened if he had been armed...but we know that he very effectively stopped the rampage as an unarmed man.

Campos stopped nothing.  The perp killed himself.  I reject categorically that Campos shouldn't have been armed.  You've just asked a soldier to go to war with his good looks.  Never and an indefensible position.

[GooooMarquette]

Campos stopped nothing.  The perp killed himself.  I reject categorically that Campos shouldn't have been armed.  You've just asked a soldier to go to war with his good looks.  Never and an indefensible position.

Sorry, but if the story is correct, Campos stopped everything.  He caused the perp to realize that the authorities had figured out where he was, so that he had no way out.  By doing that, Campos' mere presence caused the perp to stop shooting and take his own life.  And Campos did it without a gun. 

Your speculation that it would have been "better" if Campos had a gun is simply that - speculation.

[jsglow]

Sorry, but if the story is correct, Campos stopped everything.  He caused the perp to realize that the authorities had figured out where he was, so that he had no way out.  By doing that, Campos' mere presence caused the perp to stop shooting and take his own life.  And Campos did it without a gun. 

Your speculation that it would have been "better" if Campos had a gun is simply that - speculation.

We're not going to agree on this my friend.  Have a good evening.

[Tugg Speedman]

Actually you are giving me way too much credit.  I don't read most of your posts.

It obvious from most of your responses

[Tugg Speedman]

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.   

The first amendment was written in 1789 when the only form of public speaking was a slow moveable type printing press that took hours to set up to print one page, and then maybe a 100 could be printed.

The founding fathers could have never envisioned radio, television and the internet.

Therefore, we need to exclude all these new technologies from the first amendment and freedom of speech.

-----

See how stupid that sounds?  About as stupid as your 2nd amendment argument.



Note: the single shot musket was the military grade weapon of the day and the founding fathers wanted these military type weapons held by the citizenry in case the government got out of control and need to be brought back into line.

So, yes they would have approved AR-15 held by the public.  In fact, you could make the case they might have approved private ownership of nukes (for the same reason).

[GooooMarquette]

We're not going to agree on this my friend.  Have a good evening.

Peace, bro.

[Tugg Speedman]

For as much as folks have talked about gun culture in this country, and how important it is to the fabric of this country, anyone astounded that HALF of all guns in this country are owned by just 3% of the population, and that 78% of people own zero guns at all?

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/20/494765559/nearly-half-of-guns-in-u-s-owned-by-3-percent-of-population-study-finds

I'll see your Harvard study and raise you a Pew Research that says 44% of all households own a gun.

Surprise: Gun ownership rises to 44% of all homes
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-gun-ownership-rises-to-44-of-all-homes/article/2600319

[forgetful]

Let me add one other thing that I hope my friends on the left might agree with.  IF Mandy was a 'gun free zone' and as a result Mr. Campos was required to be unarmed...... 

Well, you know my opinion on that.  That's as easy as the bump stop argument.

Mandy has different types of security.  Some carry guns, some do not cary guns.  Campos was one of the ones that does not carry a weapon. 

Regardless, he was a hero that despite being unarmed saved lives by finding the shooter and the shooter stopping his assault. 

[jsglow]

Mandy has different types of security.  Some carry guns, some do not cary guns.  Campos was one of the ones that does not carry a weapon. 

Regardless, he was a hero that despite being unarmed saved lives by finding the shooter and the shooter stopping his assault.

Cool.  Thanks for filling in with the facts regarding their policy.  Adds to the discussion.