Las Vegas Strip - Deadliest Mass Shooting in US

[pelagius]

I used to opposed additional restrictions on gun ownership, but may time on the board has changed that view. I don't want any of you to own any gun more powerful than 22LR. You guys scare me. Ok, I take it back, I want to confiscate your Ruger 10/22s as well.

[hostile]

I used to opposed additional restrictions on gun ownership, but may time on the board has changed that view. I don't want any of you to own any gun more powerful than 22LR. You guys scare me. Ok, I take it back, I want to confiscate your Ruger 10/22s as well.

You can have my Ruger when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

[frank ryan]

This would also have a significant impact on reducing the homeless population. Just sayin...

It really would massive impact. I have some thoughts on gun control, and caring for the severe and persistently mentally ill when I get a minute.

[falafel]

You can have my Ruger when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

So, he's got to wait until the body cools? Seems unnecessary.

[hostile]

So, he's got to wait until the body cools? Seems unnecessary.

Rigor mortis, baby.

[Omaha 680]

What other first-world countries have mass shootings like this? Serious question.

Why do some of you people act like taking guns away won't help? Take them the hell away for 25 years and see what happens. Everything will be OK. No one is going to break into your house or mug you.

You make some good arguments, but throwing stuff out like this doesn't help. You really think crime like burglary wouldn't increase if the possibility of someone owning a gun in the house was largely removed? I'm not arguing more guns always equal less crime but I do think that no legal guns would definitely equal more crime. Perhaps mass shootings would plummet and it would be worth it. But to definitively declare that confiscating all legal weapons would not increase the risk of crime seems very unscientific of you. Not to mention the utter impracticality of such a strategy. Practically speaking, it's worse than the war on drugs or trying to deport all illegal immigrants.

It really would massive impact. I have some thoughts on gun control, and caring for the severe and persistently mentally ill when I get a minute.

I very much look forward to your thoughts on this. Seeing the homeless population explode in my time here in NYC and noting the obvious fact that the vast majority are mentally ill has been pretty shocking.

[falafel]

You make some good arguments, but throwing stuff out like this doesn't help. You really think crime like burglary wouldn't increase if the possibility of someone owning a gun in the house was largely removed? I'm not arguing more guns always equal less crime but I do think that no legal guns would definitely equal more crime. Perhaps mass shootings would plummet and it would be worth it. But to definitively declare that confiscating all legal weapons would not increase the risk of crime seems very unscientific of you. Not to mention the utter impracticality of such a strategy. Practically speaking, it's worse than the war on drugs or trying to deport all illegal immigrants.

Yes, Byron please lay our your fool-proof solution for "taking away all the guns." Maybe once you show how that is possible, we can move on to discussing your next points.

[cowboy]

cowboy, ftr, I don't feel strongly one way or the other about gun control. And while I think some of the changes the NRA resists would still be favorable (gun shows, better background checks, etc.), I don't think fiddling with the amendment or many of the proposed restrictions would have the beneficial effects their proponents hope for.

This is precisely why I'm anti-regulation on most things, and particularly gun regulation proposals. After every crisis, whether it's a mass murder or a Wall Street scandal, the typical knee-jerk reaction is to pass new laws. The problem is that 1) The new laws passed rarely would have prevented the crisis that led to them, and 2) all regulations have unintended consequences. As a result, we nearly always end up being just as vulnerable, yet worse off, because new laws are usually more bad than good.

That's not to say we should ignore problems, but we seem to be so mired down in partisanship, and our politicians so beholden to money, that I have grown very cynical of government. Simply put, we need to reform our government before we can depend on them to reform anything else, and until then, I don't trust them with any legislation, let alone legislation that deals with gun rights.

But I'm curious about your quoted argument, as well as your earlier statement about gun ownership being vital to national security. You seem to be arguing that the right to bear arms extends to any advance in weapons development. I don't think you're in favor of citizens having Phalanx defense systems, RPGs or (what the heck) tactical nukes, but if you're not, then what's the problem with drawing the line in a different place on the firepower continuum?

It seems to me that the founding fathers saw a need for widespread ownership of defense weapons. However, the fundamental unit of a well regulated, ie properly working, militia (then and now) is an individual with a personal firearm. In that respect, I think the 2nd amendment's intended objective is achieved by allowing individuals the right to own modern self-defense weapons. I don't have a problem keeping RPG's, tactical nukes, etc. out of the hands of the general population.

With that explanation, my answer to your question is that I'd draw the line at limiting the type of self-defense firearm a person can own. I'm okay with the ban on fully automatic weapons, but that's where I'd stop. Again, my reasoning is that 1) Any laws would do little good, and have adverse unintended consequences and 2) it was the intention of the authors of the 2nd amendment for us to be able to defend ourselves and our country, so the un-infringed right to own any modern self-defense weapons seem reasonable.

With respect to national security, are you thinking about defending against foreign invaders or an oppressive U.S. government (both, perhaps)? If I accept your argument, am I shirking a patriotic obligation to arm myself (that may sound snarky, but I'm sincere!)?

I'm not expecting you to accept my argument because, as I have said, this is a debate that few people will switch sides on. However, since you bring up the hypothetical, I'll say that gun ownership is a right, not a responsibility. At this point, it's a numbers game, and there is no need to go Swiss by requiring people to own guns. Again, as I have said, I believe there are enough guns and gun owners to deter any foreign or domestic threat. And to answer your first question, yes, we need protection from both.

[Uncle Ted]

Why do some of you people act like taking guns away won't help? Take them the hell away for 25 years and see what happens. Everything will be OK. No one is going to break into your house or mug you.

Yes, Byron please lay our your fool-proof solution for "taking away all the guns." Maybe once you show how that is possible, we can move on to discussing your next points.

I propose that BM get rid of any guns that he might have and put up a big sign like the following in his front yard for 25 years to see what happens...




And then return and report. (Or not)

[CardiacCoug]

These mass shootings are horrific but are a very small part of the gun problem in this country.

Seems like common sense to me for the US to invest in a massive gun buyback program to get people to voluntarily turn in guns to be destroyed. Sure that wouldn’t fix gun violence but the less guns out there the better. The way new cars are highly regulated in a way to improve safety and monitoring I think there needs to be a serious effort to require guns to integrate technologies that regulate and track their location and use.

If I were king the government would also have a moonshot program to make self-driving cars happen ASAP. That achievement would be analogous to curing a major illness. I agree with that idea as a major national priority.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Interesting take.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0e8ae00800dd

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

[Topper]

Interesting take.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0e8ae00800dd

Excellent find.

[Topper]

You can have my Ruger when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

1911s are God's gift to man. I mean any gun created by John Moses Browning had to be divine.

[myboynoah]

Interesting take.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0e8ae00800dd

Pfft. Not even one mention of tuberculosis. I dismissed it out of hand.

[cowboy]

Interesting take.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.0e8ae00800dd

This article has data behind my previous assertion that none of the proposed laws would help. Lawmakers never waste a good crisis for an opportunity to solve problems that don't exist in order to make themselves look good. As a side note, you are about as likely to get killed by lightning, and 10 times as likely to die from weather exposure as you are to die from a mass shooting. I don't mean to diminish the tragedy in Vegas, it was and will continue to be a nightmare. Also, I'm not saying we ignore mass murder. I'm simply pointing out that this is still a relatively safe country in terms of lunatics trying to kill us.

Also, PAC, I wasn't trying to be snarky when I said I didn't think you'd change your mind. Sorry if it came out that way.