Las Vegas Shooting

[Lennys Tap]

Well, the first part is easy for me. I don't regard a fetus as a "life," especially not in the first 20-22 weeks. That's another debate for another time.

The second, we already vet the hell out of people! Don't forget, what our dear leader wants isn't just vetting but EXTREME VETTING. He couldn't even do a decent job of extremely vetting the people he hired to help him run his administration, but that also is another debate for another time.

Always a pleasure doing business with you, Lenny.

Thanks for making my point for me Mike. "Saving" or protecting life isn't difficult. The problem is what are we willing to give up (compromise)to get it done. Like you, I'm not a gun owner and I don't agree with the right's slippery slope stance against what I consider reasonable gun control measures. Unlike you, I don't feel qualified to determine at what precise moment life is worth protecting (20 weeks, 22 weeks?). I can't understand how people can be so cavalier about it. But since "abortion rights" are now a settled issue, I really don't understand those who defend gruesome practices like partial birth abortion to protect said rights from the slippery slope.

 Lower the speed limits to 40 mph, ban cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles, etc, etc, etc. - all of the above would save lives and for me personally only the lower speed limit would provide even a little bit of a nuisance. But many would consider the cost of these safety measures too high. That's what these arguments all about - what, if any, is the right amount of freedom to abdicate for safety purposes.

[Tugg Speedman]

You certainly say a lot of crazy hyperbolic shyte, but the bold is impressive even by your standards.

I actually agree with your larger point that the cat is out of the bag when it comes to restricting certain types of guns in this country.  There are just far too many of them out there for such a restriction to make much of a difference -- somebody that wants one can get one in any number of currently legal ways.  That being said, there are certainly common sense ways to make it more difficult that have already been discussed in this topic. 

I'm going to take a wild guess that you would support none of them.

You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun.  And in some gang neighborhoods, you don't buy a handgun, you buy them by the crate for as little as $10/each.  They are made in illegal tool and die shops here and especially in Mexico (and smuggled in by the drug runners).  Where do you think the really bad Nacros/Breaking Bad types get their automatic weapons?  They are manufactured in foreign countries by illegitimate outfits.  Why?  Becuase the technology is very easy to reproduce.

Common sense gun regulation ... please name me what that is.

[B. McBannerson]

Injecting a little facts:
This was decided by an ATF administrator who joined the agency about a decade before Obama took office. It didn't cross Obama's desk, much less was he "all for it."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/the-goofy-little-doodad-approved-under-obama-that-was-used-in-las-vegas-carnage/2017/10/04/3a1a2104-a935-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.5d05c8a51643

His administration though.  If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time.  If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this.  Let's not be naive.

[B. McBannerson]

The immediate blowback against glow from posters that share my political leanings simply because he posted the actual text of the second amendment is a bad look, team.

That's because it's a living, breathing document and some people know what it means better than others, just listen to them and they will tell you what the words really mean.

[naginiF]

You have no i.............. regulation ... please name me what that is.

Honest set of yes/no questions for you.  I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.?  (if 'yes' move on.  if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
     - availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
     - who can buy and own guns.
     - quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
     - quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
     - types of weapons available for sale
-  Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?

Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.

I'm 'yes' on all of them

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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.

Correct me if I am wrong but a gun free zone doesn't limit authorized personnel, such as a security guard, from have a weapon, does it?  Maybe it is up to the discretion of that particular establishment.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

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).

Another ridiculous comparison.

[B. McBannerson]

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.

It cannot simply be a dropped the ball argument.  Coming out and blaming one side after the fact when you had complete control to do something and didn't is TOTAL lack of leadership and ownership.  It describes both parties and leaders of this country for many years.  Elizabeth Warren has made zero tweets about gun control in 10 months until this week. What a passionate issue it must be for her.   The assault weapons ban, why did it tank? Because both parties tanked it.  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/15-democrats-helped-tank-2013-assault-weapons-ban/story?id=50275295

My own personal preference is not to put limits on law abiding citizens.  Takes the police too long to get to the house.  For every bad thing that happens with guns, why don't we take a look at lives saved, criminals stopped, homes protected? For some reason our press doesn't like to talk about this much.

Total ban advocates, I'm not doing a search here on Scoop, but some examples elsewhere:

This was 12 hours ago in the NY Times   https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/opinion/guns-second-amendment-nra.html

The Times has run at least 4 total ban pieces in the last 5 years.  The nation's newspaper.

https://newrepublic.com/article/125498/its-time-ban-guns-yes-them


An article a few days about interviewing survivors of Vegas shooting and whether they want more Gun Control

http://time.com/4968467/las-vegas-shooting-victims-gun-control/

[Benny B]

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.

We're on the same page as far as history goes... citizen militias were - I believe - not just desirable but inevitable as far as the framers were concerned.  So if I'm reading you correctly, I think we're in agreement that a standing military such as what we have today was incomprehensible to the framers at the time, just as they could have never conceived of the concept of rifles that could fire off 200 rounds/minute.

So where we differ is that I believe that the (not-infringing on the) right to bear arms perhaps may have been intended to regulate militias whereas you believe that its was a pre-req for a regulated militia.  So what we have here is the bastard offspring of both the classic "verb/adjective" stand-off and the "chicken and the egg" conundrum.  Sh|t.

Let's just call it at that; however, I will submit that perhaps we're debating lobster vs. cracked crab here.

[MU82]

Thanks for making my point for me Mike. "Saving" or protecting life isn't difficult. The problem is what are we willing to give up (compromise)to get it done. Like you, I'm not a gun owner and I don't agree with the right's slippery slope stance against what I consider reasonable gun control measures. Unlike you, I don't feel qualified to determine at what precise moment life is worth protecting (20 weeks, 22 weeks?). I can't understand how people can be so cavalier about it. But since "abortion rights" are now a settled issue, I really don't understand those who defend gruesome practices like partial birth abortion to protect said rights from the slippery slope.

 Lower the speed limits to 40 mph, ban cigarettes, trans fat, alcohol, football, motorcycles, bicycles, etc, etc, etc. - all of the above would save lives and for me personally only the lower speed limit would provide even a little bit of a nuisance. But many would consider the cost of these safety measures too high. That's what these arguments all about - what, if any, is the right amount of freedom to abdicate for safety purposes.

Okey dokey, Lenny. I understand what you're saying. I'm just an interwebs mope and I don't pretend to have all the answers. A lot of the gun-control conversation is me trying to search for answers because there have to be some. NOT some that stop every shooting - that's stupid, just as no law against murder can stop murder - but some practical answers that would lessen the carnage.

You are right about the # of weeks re abortions. I'm going to try to avoid such declarations in the future. I certainly am no medical expert. I am firmly pro-choice, but I do realize there is nuance. There also is law; partial-birth abortion is illegal. I wish I hadn't brought up abortion in this thread; rarely does something good come out of an abortion discussion here. This will be my last word on that topic in this thread. You are free to have the last word if you want.

Later.

[GWSwarrior]

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).

yes you do sound stupid.  You're honestly saying the only form of public speaking in 1789 was a printing press?

So in your opinion/ beliefs in 1789 nobody made any public speeches?

Wow, i know we disagree on things but I honestly thought you were smarter.

[WarriorInNYC]

You have no idea how easy it is to make a gun.  And in some gang neighborhoods, you don't buy a handgun, you buy them by the crate for as little as $10/each.  They are made in illegal tool and die shops here and especially in Mexico (and smuggled in by the drug runners).  Where do you think the really bad Nacros/Breaking Bad types get their automatic weapons?  They are manufactured in foreign countries by illegitimate outfits.  Why?  Becuase the technology is very easy to reproduce.

With the amount of links you post on this board, can you provide something on this at all?  This is the first I'm hearing about how easy it is to make a homemade gun and that they can be bought by the crate for $10/each.

Of course it could be because I just don't pay attention to those sorts of things.  But I just thought that since you link a bajillion other things on this board, there's gotta be something you can find on this.

[ATL MU Warrior]

With the amount of links you post on this board, can you provide something on this at all?  This is the first I'm hearing about how easy it is to make a homemade gun and that they can be bought by the crate for $10/each.

Of course it could be because I just don't pay attention to those sorts of things.  But I just thought that since you link a bajillion other things on this board, there's gotta be something you can find on this.

The most popular guns for committing crimes in Chicago based on weapons confiscated by police...not a single mention of "homemade" guns within a pretty detailed article.  Data is from 2014 so maybe Heisy's
 "data" is more recent.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/

[GWSwarrior]

Guns are a legal and constitutionally protect the product.  76 million people own at least one and there are 300 million in circulation.  Virtually all of them are semi-automatic.

So, if you want to ban them, then man up and say you willing to have your taxes raised to hire hundreds of thousands of swat team geared ATF agents to go house by house to get rid of them.  And when they physically eject you and your family from your home to rip up the floorboards to search for guns, be sure to thank them and suggest other parts of your house that can destroy looking for guns.

Because short of that, you're not getting rid of guns (sorry semi-automatics) and really just looking for a way to make yourself feel superior and good.

You need to read the article i posted

[GooooMarquette]

Honest set of yes/no questions for you.  I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.?  (if 'yes' move on.  if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
     - availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
     - who can buy and own guns.
     - quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
     - quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
     - types of weapons available for sale
-  Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?

Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.

I'm 'yes' on all of them

FWIW, I am yes on all as well.

I doubt you’re going to get Chicos to make any meaningful suggestions, because he probably doesn’t even believe there is a problem. He just likes to criticize others’ suggestions, without making any of his own.

[rocket surgeon]

His administration though.  If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time.  If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this.  Let's not be naive.

yeah, he just found out his dang ATF had a rogue operator who didn't get the memo in his morning newspaper over coffee and a danish, just like you and i-eyyyn'a?

[rocket surgeon]

The most popular guns for committing crimes in Chicago based on weapons confiscated by police...not a single mention of "homemade" guns within a pretty detailed article.  Data is from 2014 so maybe Heisy's
 "data" is more recent.
https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/chicago-crime-guns-chart/

  this is too easy-

  http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/police-seize-another-batch-of-3d-printed-guns-as-authorities-deal-with-danger-of-downloadable-firearms/news-story/c2fa2711ebf7b761e3e2f0802a80d1b2

[jficke13]

Honest set of yes/no questions for you.  I'm not looking for links, deflections, or explanations, or 'it is too complex of an issue for a yes/no'.....just yes or no:
- Do you believe there is an issue with gun violence in the U.S.?  (if 'yes' move on.  if 'no' there is no need to answer the rest)
- Do you believe any of these factors contribute to the issue of gun violence:
     - availability of guns i.e. ease of purchase.
     - who can buy and own guns.
     - quantity of guns currently existing in U.S.
     - quantity of guns produced and sold in U.S. from this moment forward
     - types of weapons available for sale
-  Do you believe we should do everything in our power to address gun violence in the U.S.?

Again, it's an extremely complex situation, and i know you are going to want to go into the subtle nuances of some of these, but just to level set where each of us is starting from yes/no on the above.

I'm 'yes' on all of them

A little open-ended no?

"Everything in our power" infers the willingness to do all the hyperbolic things that Heisey and co. say to distract from the issue (he was talking about ATF SWAT raids earlier I think).

[GGGG]

His administration though.  If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time.  If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this.  Let's not be naive.

Only with those with a persecution complex like yourself.

[ATL MU Warrior]

  this is too easy-

  http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/design/police-seize-another-batch-of-3d-printed-guns-as-authorities-deal-with-danger-of-downloadable-firearms/news-story/c2fa2711ebf7b761e3e2f0802a80d1b2

Well, I guess I was thinking of this country, not Australia.   

Show me some/any statistics that these guns are now being used by gangs here in the U.S. in any significant quantity.  Maybe they are, I don't know.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

If only we had the technology that would allow law enforcement to recognize that kind of red flag.

Now it has come out the the gunman tried to buy tracer rounds at a gun show but the vendor didn't have any to sell.  We all know of the loopholes that exist in terms of gun shows.  Here is a quote about tracer rounds:

"It allows you to keep your weapon on not necessarily a specific target, but a specific area. ... There would have been a lot higher casualty rate if he had tracer rounds," said Roderick, a former assistant director of the US Marshals Service.

Tracer rounds also seem like something a civilian wouldn't need and the type of artillery that should be logged in a database if someone buys or tries to buy it.  Maybe it's just me but I certainly see purchasing 33 guns within a year and attempting to purchase tracer rounds as something that should set off some alarms. 

[mu03eng]

Now it has come out the the gunman tried to buy tracer rounds at a gun show but the vendor didn't have any to sell.  We all know of the loopholes that exist in terms of gun shows.  Here is a quote about tracer rounds:

"It allows you to keep your weapon on not necessarily a specific target, but a specific area. ... There would have been a lot higher casualty rate if he had tracer rounds," said Roderick, a former assistant director of the US Marshals Service.

Tracer rounds also seem like something a civilian wouldn't need and the type of artillery that should be logged in a database if someone buys or tries to buy it.  Maybe it's just me but I certainly see purchasing 33 guns within a year and attempting to purchase tracer rounds as something that should set off some alarms.

Far be it from me to correct the assistant director of US Marshall Service (but I'm gonna). The tracers would have allowed the gunmen to visualize where his rounds were impacting and adjust his fire accordingly. He was indiscriminately firing into a huge crowd, tracer fire wouldn't have necessarily helped him until later on as the crowd dispersed and he was firing more discriminately. So yes, the casualty rate could have been higher, but no way to know. Tracers are essentially illuminated(phosphor coated I believe) bullets that glow as they go down range so you can see where you are shooting. Typically a clip(in a military application) would have a tracer every 3rd round.

Having said all of that, I see no practical civilian application for tracers other than they look pretty going down range, therefore that should be an easy ban, just like bump stocks. To your point further, this is why the primary focus should be on a national registry so we could actually flag this sort of stuff and investigate, there is no way to do that now.

[naginiF]

A little open-ended no?

"Everything in our power" infers the willingness to do all the hyperbolic things that Heisey and co. say to distract from the issue (he was talking about ATF SWAT raids earlier I think).

fair.  How about: do you believe the U.S. should make a concerted effort to reduce the number of gun murders, suicides and injuries by 50% in the next decade?

[Pakuni]

His administration though.  If this had happened to a Republican would you give same deference? We all know how the media would be blaming Bush, Trump, Reagan or whatever GOP President was in charge at the time.  If conditions were the same, the howls of how didn't he know, how did the administration allow this.  Let's not be naive.

Interesting times we live in when citing facts is labeled as giving deference. I suppose we are indeed in the post-truth era.

Anyhow, would I "give the same deference" to a Republican? Well, let's see. Anywhere in this thread have I blamed Bush II for allowing the assault weapons ban to expire, which then allowed for high-capacity magazines? Or the Republican  lawmakers who later shot down efforts to reinstate it and similar measures to reduce magazine capacity? Did I blame the GOP leaders who shot down efforts to create a universal registry that might have detected some red flags in Stephen Paddock's activities?
If you haven't seen me do that, then you have your answer, don't you?

Look, we get it Chico's. You need so badly to blame this on Obama or the Democrats or anyone else that allows you to avoid feeling any shame. Have at it. I'm not playing that game with you.

[rocket surgeon]

Well, I guess I was thinking of this country, not Australia.   

Show me some/any statistics that these guns are now being used by gangs here in the U.S. in any significant quantity.  Maybe they are, I don't know.

well if semi-automatic guns were illegal here like they are in australia, you would probably see more of this here...by the bad guys