Las Vegas Shooting

[McBell]

I'd probably look a reclassification of firearms to include assault rifles and semi automatic weapons with that of machine guns. Not illegal with proper permits, but also instutute a requirement to store them in arms rooms, such as the police department or another secured area where checkout and check in is mandatory.

I dunno why trigger cranks and butt stocks are legal, but would suggest federal restrictions limiting use to law enforcement and military purposes.

It would be helpful to start with a proper useful and meaningful definition of the term "assault rifle"....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nor is it a good reason to make worthless laws that only harm the law abiding citizen.

It seems to me there are a fair number of bad assumptions in your statement.

 

[McBell]

It seems to me there are a fair number of bad assumptions in your statement.

Please clarify.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please clarify.

Mainly your assumptions that the laws would be worthless or that they would only hurt "law abiding" gun owners.

 

[McBell]

Mainly your assumptions that the laws would be worthless or that they would only hurt "law abiding" gun owners.

Is it your claim that there has never been proposed a worthless law that would do nothing more than interfere with law abiding citizens?

If not, why would you assume that I think all gun laws are worthless?

 

[Falvlun]

While I am saddened at the loss of life, and pissed off at yet another mass shooting, I am mostly, unfortunately, feeling pretty numb about it. It just seems like an unavoidable fact of life now.

I'm just waiting for it to happen in my city. A coworker mentioned that her son is running in the Chicago marathon next week, and a part of me was thinking "oh crap, what's gonna happen?" I know we can't think like that because then the terrorists win, but what's the alternative? We keep giving up our freedoms and we keep adding more and more onerous layers of security but it doesn't stop these things from happening. I do think we need better gun control, at a national level, but I have no faith that the political climate would ever allow it in my lifetime.

I hate that I don't really care. And I hate that I just accept it. And I hate that I don't really see a solution happening. But that's the truth of where I'm at.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it your claim that there has never been proposed a worthless law that would do nothing more than interfere with law abiding citizens?

If not, why would you assume that I think all gun laws are worthless?

Yeah... when you're ready for reasonable conversation, let me know. I'm not interested in playing this game with you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Mainly your assumptions that the laws would be worthless or that they would only hurt "law abiding" gun owners.

What I don't get, so many in America assume gun control will "harm law abiding gun owners," or that only a government with "malicious intent would take away guns." Canada has tight restrictions, England and Japan have very few of them, and yet the law abiding citizens are doing just fine and their governments aren't turning tyrant (and of course the citizens of America are in no position to launch an armed conflict against the military of America - and they say that despite the fact treason was the only crime originally defined in the Constitution and it's illegal to even advocate overthrowing the government).
And the sad thing is the voices of reason are drown out and silenced by the pockets who want anyone and everyone to be able to buy whatever guns they wants and those who want to take them all away, and our freedoms will continue to be repressed "more guns" will never solve our gun problem here in America.

 

[Stevicus]

While I am saddened at the loss of life, and pissed off at yet another mass shooting, I am mostly, unfortunately, feeling pretty numb about it. It just seems like an unavoidable fact of life now.

Yeah, I know the feeling. I sometimes try to shake myself out of it, but I'm reminded of a line from a song by U2: "And it's true we are immune
When fact is fiction and TV reality
And today the millions cry
We eat and drink while tomorrow they die"

I'm just waiting for it to happen in my city.

We've had a few incidents here in Tucson by local nutcases, but nothing of the magnitude that happened in Las Vegas. To be honest, at least regarding personal safety, I'm still more worried about gangs and cartels than I am about international terrorists.

A coworker mentioned that her son is running in the Chicago marathon next week, and a part of me was thinking "oh crap, what's gonna happen?" I know we can't think like that because then the terrorists win, but what's the alternative?

There may not be any short-term alternative at this point. But I also wouldn't worry about the terrorists "winning." They haven't "won" diddley.

We keep giving up our freedoms and we keep adding more and more onerous layers of security but it doesn't stop these things from happening. I do think we need better gun control, at a national level, but I have no faith that the political climate would ever allow it in my lifetime.

I hate that I don't really care. And I hate that I just accept it. And I hate that I don't really see a solution happening. But that's the truth of where I'm at.

There may very well be a solution, but sometimes, the cure can be worse than the disease. Part of the problem may also be that, as a society, we're somewhat hampered in our ability to even discuss solutions openly and rationally - mainly because such discussions are overly racked with emotionalism. I'm not referring to the grief and anguish caused by these heinous acts, but there's also a good deal of pride and arrogance that may cloud our reasoning.

 

[Stevicus]

What I don't get, so many in America assume gun control will "harm law abiding gun owners," or that only a government with "malicious intent would take away guns." Canada has tight restrictions, England and Japan have very few of them, and yet the law abiding citizens are doing just fine and their governments aren't turning tyrant (and of course the citizens of America are in no position to launch an armed conflict against the military of America - and they say that despite the fact treason was the only crime originally defined in the Constitution and it's illegal to even advocate overthrowing the government).
And the sad thing is the voices of reason are drown out and silenced by the pockets who want anyone and everyone to be able to buy whatever guns they wants and those who want to take them all away, and our freedoms will continue to be repressed "more guns" will never solve our gun problem here in America.

My take on the gun control argument is somewhat different. The root problem is that someone a long time ago decided to invent gunpowder, which led to the invention of guns. That knowledge has been passed down over the centuries to the point that we're at now. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back.

Also, I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of "correlation/causation" and make assumptions that "more gun control" = "less crime" by comparing it to countries like England or Canada. That argument doesn't hold up in a lot of other places. Countries like Russia and Brazil have much stricter firearms laws than the United States, yet their murder rates are much, much higher than that of the U.S. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Mexico is another example where tighter regulations do not translate to a lower murder rate.

Also, regarding the British, it should be noted that their possessions of Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands, and British Virgin Islands also have higher murder rates than that of the United States.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

That is sort of how this strikes me. No pun intended, believe me.
He was at this for over an hour? Surely there would have been complaints from nearby tenants about the noise prior to the smoke detectors going off? Where was the hotel staff and the police response? Again, I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I don't know about this sort of stuff.

The Websay (as in hearsay) is the police found him by the smoke detector going off. Also heard on Glen radio (yes the weepy Beck guy) no comment on full auto firearms, but they did find the weapons set up for bump fire. Bump fire is a method and its legal, go figgure, that uses a special sling and uses the weapons recoil to shoot rounds as fast as a full auto machine gun.

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

My take on the gun control argument is somewhat different. The root problem is that someone a long time ago decided to invent gunpowder, which led to the invention of guns. That knowledge has been passed down over the centuries to the point that we're at now. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back.

Also, I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of "correlation/causation" and make assumptions that "more gun control" = "less crime" by comparing it to countries like England or Canada. That argument doesn't hold up in a lot of other places. Countries like Russia and Brazil have much stricter firearms laws than the United States, yet their murder rates are much, much higher than that of the U.S. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Mexico is another example where tighter regulations do not translate to a lower murder rate.

Also, regarding the British, it should be noted that their possessions of Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands, and British Virgin Islands also have higher murder rates than that of the United States.

Even we disagree on some, ... ok many issues I am happy to see you defending the issue by facts. Very enlightening!

; }>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I'd probably look a reclassification of firearms to include assault rifles and semi automatic weapons with that of machine guns. Not illegal with proper permits, but also instutute a requirement to store them in arms rooms, such as the police department or another secured area where checkout and check in is mandatory.

I dunno why trigger cranks and butt stocks are legal, but would suggest federal restrictions limiting use to law enforcement and military purposes.

Even though you are being kinder, easing the requirements of a restriction as opposed to a ban, your cure is the same as a ban. It would not even slow down someone wanting one, getting one.
: {>

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My take on the gun control argument is somewhat different. The root problem is that someone a long time ago decided to invent gunpowder, which led to the invention of guns. That knowledge has been passed down over the centuries to the point that we're at now. The genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back.

Also, I wouldn't want to fall into the trap of "correlation/causation" and make assumptions that "more gun control" = "less crime" by comparing it to countries like England or Canada. That argument doesn't hold up in a lot of other places. Countries like Russia and Brazil have much stricter firearms laws than the United States, yet their murder rates are much, much higher than that of the U.S. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Mexico is another example where tighter regulations do not translate to a lower murder rate.

Also, regarding the British, it should be noted that their possessions of Anguilla, Montserrat, Cayman Islands, and British Virgin Islands also have higher murder rates than that of the United States.

None of those address my points. One being that places like England and Japan are not authoritarian, dictatorships, or tyrants, yet they don't allow guns for most people. And there is Canada, which seems to have found an ideal balance in gun ownership/restriction laws. Places like Brazil and Mexico are violent, essentially more-or-less, because drugs are illegal and the drug cartels are providing for those markets and becoming wealthy, powerful, and very dangerous in the process. And, of course, things like poverty walks hand-in-hand with violence, so, gun control won't fix all the violence in America. But, nevertheless, we can work and make great improvements in reducing the amount of accidental deaths from guns as well as make sure those who shouldn't have a gun at least have to go the extra distance to acquire one. Of course it's not full proof, but there is no excuse or reason for letting people buy a gun without ensuring they are trained to properly use, handle, and store one.
Guns and cars are two things we must take, as a society, far more seriously than what we do.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

They are given to us by the constitution.

That is wrong my friend. Rights are only protected or guaranteed by the constitution not given. Also in the same vein our Constitution only guarantees “unalienable rights”. For clarity unalienable means our rights cant be taken away from or given away by the anyone or any method. Additionally, to expand 'guarantees' means it lists specific protections of those rights in the Bill of Rights and by the later amendments. Lastly it is the Declaration of independence that deems them “inalienable”.

Obviously nature gives us no rights, or all countries would be on equal grounds when it comes to the rights of the citizens.

The citizens DO have “inalienable” natural rights, every human being on earth has those rights. Its just that their governments with big guns and sticks that wrote their version of a constitution and bill of rights say they don't. Those governments can say murder is legal and the citizens have no rights to stop murder. Even if the said citizen is murdered by anyone their natural right was violated! In law theory uses the term nature ie natural law as a philosophical term meant to say our rights are given by God or you can call god the creator or nature. Its a philosophical concept and can be confusing. Look up natural law and natural law (and rights) vs positive rights. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-natural-law-and-natural-rights
Its a fascinating theory and application of theory. Thank God for our bill or rights and unique Constitution.

As for "by their Creator," it was made very vague and non-specific so it could apply more than one person and one specific creator; their Creator also reinforcing the secular nature of America as the idea is it is not "the creator," but rather the promise of every citizen to acknowledge their own creator.

No just the opposite. The term creator was used as a term for God without saying the christian God or the Egyptian God for example. Its specific because its making clear that our rights don't come from man (government). And as I said the USA is the only nation on earth that claims rights come from our creator. Ie in saying rights are from the creator (or God, check the web). But you have to ask did those men think created man? God that's who.

This is getting too long to take in whole. But I will say I agree with some of your other points and will get to the rest of your reply after a pot of coffee.

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

None of those address my points. One being that places like England and Japan are not authoritarian, dictatorships, or tyrants, yet they don't allow guns for most people. And there is Canada, which seems to have found an ideal balance in gun ownership/restriction laws. Places like Brazil and Mexico are violent, essentially more-or-less, because drugs are illegal and the drug cartels are providing for those markets and becoming wealthy, powerful, and very dangerous in the process. And, of course, things like poverty walks hand-in-hand with violence, so, gun control won't fix all the violence in America. But, nevertheless, we can work and make great improvements in reducing the amount of accidental deaths from guns as well as make sure those who shouldn't have a gun at least have to go the extra distance to acquire one. Of course it's not full proof, but there is no excuse or reason for letting people buy a gun without ensuring they are trained to properly use, handle, and store one.
Guns and cars are two things we must take, as a society, far more seriously than what we do.

www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths
Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all

SW says; " reducing the amount of accidental deaths from guns as well as make sure those who shouldn't have a gun at least have to go the extra distance to acquire one."

So lets make law abiding citizens jump through more hoops before owning a legal product ? That is a hoop that does nothing but add restrictions to a system that already has too many gun laws. NO THANKS.

I do not want a government that can tell me what color to poop, and that has a camera in my bedroom. I don't want a government that jails more citizens than any nation on earth mostly for BS reasons (read non-violent drug offenders). Gun control can be added to useless and dangerous things like laws against marijuana. Its those kinds of thing I am 100% opposed to.

: {>

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Rights are only protected or guaranteed by the constitution not given.

The UK provides for rights, yet they don't even have a constitution. They are given by a government, by the state, and no one or anything else.

The citizens DO have “inalienable” natural rights, every human being on earth has those rights.

Ask the citizens on NK or China about the "inalienable natural rights" they have. We have freedom of association and speech, Chinese citizens don't even legally have Facebook. Nature gives us no rights, or apostasy laws would not exist anywhere, ever, not at any point in time.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

So, premeditation on steroids. I was reading two firearms experts yesterday and they opined that due to the number of weapons this could not have been a psychotic break due to the level of planning necessary. I can't even image the sea of shell casings on the floor/carpet.

Yes, man it was pure bad luck the nut got away with it. I am amazed someone did not see something. It makes me want to change my view that pure evil exists, the LA shooter seems to define that term.

; {>

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all

Pets have accidentally shot their owners, toddlers have grabbed guns out of purses and shot someone, and too many people do not realize ejecting the magazine does not clear the chamber (I personally lost a friend to this). We must mandate safety training. So many other things, like cars, require that we do. Guns should be no different.

So lets make law abiding citizens jump through more hoops before owning a legal product ? That is a hoop that does nothing but add restrictions to a system that already has too many gun laws. NO THANKS.

I do not want a government that can tell me what color to poop, and that has a camera in my bedroom. I don't want a government that jails more citizens than any nation on earth mostly for BS reasons (read non-violent drug offenders). Gun control can be added to useless and dangerous things like laws against marijuana. Its those kinds of thing I am 100% opposed to.

Do find evidence where I have suggested such regulations and strictness that you could claim "color to poop" and "camera in the bedroom" is not stretching my position beyond hyperbole, and where I have indicated it should be a strict ban/enforcement on a level similar to pot?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, premeditation on steroids. I was reading two firearms experts yesterday and they opined that due to the number of weapons this could not have been a psychotic break due to the level of planning necessary. I can't even image the sea of shell casings on the floor/carpet.

Gun experts are not mental health experts, and those with a psychotic disorder can indeed plan, calculate, be highly intelligent, and could carry out such an attack. They don't all start out as kids torturing small animals, they aren't always recognized/diagnosed as psychotic, and though most of those with such disorders are fine people, and handful of them do have the potential to carry out terrible attacks.
However, it can't be stressed enough that we can't even speculate too much at his mental health. He's dead now, I've not seen anything brought up that he has sought mental health services, and without being able to actually access him it's just as pointless (and unethical) to try to say certain historic figures had whatever mental illness (much like how we can't definitively say the Biblical Paul was psychotic, though his hallucinations on the road to Damascus are strong indications).