Las Vegas Strip - Deadliest Mass Shooting in US

[Jeff Lebowski]

I’m not sure if that one qualifies or not, R.I.P. Triplet.

I am speaking of BM. Not you.

It definitely qualifies. If DDD doesn't agree he can get his butt back here and argue the point!

[creekster]

I’m not sure if that one qualifies or not, R.I.P. Triplet.

I'm not sure it really matters if it does. Irony abounds in this thread. So what? Let's see, who is it that likes to say inconsistency is a dumb retort?

Speaking of dumb, I was up very early this morning and unable to go back to sleep so I spent a fair amount of time combing through articles about the vegas shooting. Talk about a lot of really bad journalism out there. I like the articles that show a zoomed in view of the room service receipt and then breathlessly claim this PROVES there was more than one person in the room. Really? Have these people ever had room service? You're lucky if they bring what you ordered and get the charge right. I have had them say there are more than one persons precisely becasue I ordered two drinks. It may be some evidence, but it proves nothing. I was surprised to learn he had broken out two windows and also shot at the jet fuel tanks across thew way at McCarran. For some reason this had escaped my notice until today.

[creekster]

I am speaking of BM. Not you.

It definitely qualifies. If DDD doesn't agree he can get his butt back here and argue the point!

Oh. then yes, clearly irony. Your antecedent was a bit unclear.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I am speaking of BM. Not you.

It definitely qualifies. If DDD doesn't agree he can get his butt back here and argue the point!

I understood. I was just taking a moment to honor the spirit of our lost brother.

[Moliere]

Interesting take.

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

THat's a very good and reasonable article, which means it won't get any love from anyone that can make any sort of change. The conspiracy theories are abound among the right-wingers. Mark Levin was screaming today that he has a right to have the gov't prove to him that the shooter wasn't a radicalized muslim

[Bo Diddley]

I was half listening to someone on the radio this morning (I was only half awake as I drove into work). I think he was a psychological profiler. Pretty interesting how he painted a picture of how the shooter's enabled everything to play out as it did.

[smokymountainrain]

I clicked on that, thinking I'd watch for just a bit to get a general sense of the video, but I ended up being transfixed by the smiling faces of the victims and endured to the end, feeling nearly as emotionally drained as I felt after Newtown. Such a tragedy.

It's petty and vindictive on my part, but I want that now-fired CBS vice-president (the victims didn't deserve her sympathy for being country western fans and Trump supporters) to watch that video over and over.

she wouldn't care as they are overwhelmingly white and - she would assume - republican. it would probably make her smile and want to give Paddock a big hug.

[Solon]

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.

I think cowboy has done a good job of framing some of the key points in this issue.

My main objection to the "you're more likely to be killed by lightning than in a mass shooting" isn't because it's wrong (indeed, it's accurate). My objection is that it's only part of the overall argument. It obscures the hard truth that Americans think that current risk-levels are acceptable. The real story is that many (most?) Americans -as a nation, a society, a culture, a people, whatever - have decided that the risk of dying in a mass shooting is not high enough to justify increased controls on firearms. After all, if the worst-possible-scenario of Newtown did not move this needle, IMO nothing will (at least, not for a long time). The desire/need to own firearm weapons - for now - in the minds of most/many/enough Americans outstrips the need to protect against mass-shootings.

The argument that many things - like a truck on the cote d'azure - can also be used as a weapon of mass-killing obscures the fact that trucks have purposes outside of killing. It is easier to ethically justify keeping trucks around because their main purpose is beneficial to society (at least, society thinks so). The same goes for the silly guy with the "spoons made me fat" sign. Guns, however, have the main purpose of shooting bullets - whether at game or targets or humans. The main purpose of guns is to shoot stuff. Indeed, many guns are not usable as hunting guns, leaving them even more limited in their purposes. Again, as a society, we have determined that it is an acceptable trade-off to continue owning guns while running the risks of mass-murders, and we don't really make an argument that guns serve some other purpose than to shoot stuff. There are legitimate and illegitimate ways to shoot stuff (hunting, target-practice, a "well regulated militia", self-defense, & military conflicts vs. mass murder), but that's really all that guns do.

Finally, a lesser objection to the "armed psychos and lighting-strikes and other acts of God/Nature are random and unpreventable and ineluctable" argument is that 500 years of humanist thought has dedicated itself to the idea that human society can be changed and improved and made better. it is lazy to assert that - since the statistical probability of being killed by a mass-shooter is so low, that the current laws are working perfectly. We can always improve things (and cowboy is right to urge caution and careful, deliberate action rather than knee-jerk reaction). Just because polio is almost wiped out doesn't mean we shouldn't still hunt it down to its last host and eliminate it. Similarly with mass-shootings in America, humanist thought suggests that we can improve this problem rather than throw up our hands and blame Fate/Nature/God. Humans are better than that.

There really are two sides to this issue.

But, for now, Americans have decided that the need/desire to own guns capable of inflicting massive amounts of injury & death is worth the risk of mass-shootings.
I see both sides of the argument, but I think we need to be more candid in our appraisal of American ideals and values as we continue this discussion on a national scale.

Aside: I think that the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment offers some wiggle-room for a compromise on this issue, but that's just a thought.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Very nicely done, Solon. I often wonder about the "well-regulated militia" introductory clause. If I were a member of the National Guard (which I presume is the only regulated militia currently, but someone please correct me on this), I would be required to use whatever weapons my commanding officers dictated, and that I wouldn't be allowed to provide my own weaponry.

[Topper]

I think cowboy has done a good job of framing some of the key points in this issue.

My main objection to the "you're more likely to be killed by lightning than in a mass shooting" isn't because it's wrong (indeed, it's accurate). My objection is that it's only part of the overall argument. It obscures the hard truth that Americans think that current risk-levels are acceptable. The real story is that many (most?) Americans -as a nation, a society, a culture, a people, whatever - have decided that the risk of dying in a mass shooting is not high enough to justify increased controls on firearms. After all, if the worst-possible-scenario of Newtown did not move this needle, IMO nothing will (at least, not for a long time). The desire/need to own firearm weapons - for now - in the minds of most/many/enough Americans outstrips the need to protect against mass-shootings.

The argument that many things - like a truck on the cote d'azure - can also be used as a weapon of mass-killing obscures the fact that trucks have purposes outside of killing. It is easier to ethically justify keeping trucks around because their main purpose is beneficial to society (at least, society thinks so). The same goes for the silly guy with the "spoons made me fat" sign. Guns, however, have the main purpose of shooting bullets - whether at game or targets or humans. The main purpose of guns is to shoot stuff. Indeed, many guns are not usable as hunting guns, leaving them even more limited in their purposes. Again, as a society, we have determined that it is an acceptable trade-off to continue owning guns while running the risks of mass-murders, and we don't really make an argument that guns serve some other purpose than to shoot stuff. There are legitimate and illegitimate ways to shoot stuff (hunting, target-practice, a "well regulated militia", self-defense, & military conflicts vs. mass murder), but that's really all that guns do.

Finally, a lesser objection to the "armed psychos and lighting-strikes and other acts of God/Nature are random and unpreventable and ineluctable" argument is that 500 years of humanist thought has dedicated itself to the idea that human society can be changed and improved and made better. it is lazy to assert that - since the statistical probability of being killed by a mass-shooter is so low, that the current laws are working perfectly. We can always improve things (and cowboy is right to urge caution and careful, deliberate action rather than knee-jerk reaction). Just because polio is almost wiped out doesn't mean we shouldn't still hunt it down to its last host and eliminate it. Similarly with mass-shootings in America, humanist thought suggests that we can improve this problem rather than throw up our hands and blame Fate/Nature/God. Humans are better than that.

There really are two sides to this issue.

But, for now, Americans have decided that the need/desire to own guns capable of inflicting massive amounts of injury & death is worth the risk of mass-shootings.
I see both sides of the argument, but I think we need to be more candid in our appraisal of American ideals and values as we continue this discussion on a national scale.

Aside: I think that the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment offers some wiggle-room for a compromise on this issue, but that's just a thought.

A very well-reasoned analysis of the current situation, and you certainly prick the conscience by suggesting we can improve our conduct.

I really don't know how to find the middle ground that would be effective in reducing unlawful and violent misuse of firearms by rogue or psychologically disturbed elements of society. This article has given me pause for thought. Perhaps it's already been discussed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.e47482c12d95

The difficulty for Second Amendment advocates is a long memory. If you recall, and many are too young, but the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted in response to some high level assassinations of JFK and MLK. JFK was killed by a mail order gun in American Rifleman.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 had many problems though, which were changed in the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 ("FOPA"). Because I imagine many are unfamiliar with FOPA and the changes it made to the GCA I provide a brief review of its provisions.

The GCA as it was adopted and implemented created strict liability, forced confiscations of gun collections despite exoneration by defendants, and forced seizure without proper due process or identification by the authorities. Changes to the GCA included:

Intent to convict. Strict liability was eliminated. The GCA was a strict liability statute, rendering innocent violations guilty.

Engaged in the business. This had been widely used to entrap collectors; four to six sales were all it took for a collector to be guilty of engaging in the business of dealing in guns without a license. FOPA changed this by specifically defining “engaging in the business” as “dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit,” which could not include “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

Seizure. Before FOPA, firearms could be confiscated on the claim they were “intended to be used” in a violation.
Seizure would in most cases require proof of a willful violation. Intent to use must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The firearms to be seized must be “individually identified” as intended for misuse, and legal proceedings must commence within 120 days of seizure.

Attorney’s Fees. Finally, if the collector or dealer won the case, the government would have to pay the owner’s attorneys’ fees.

License Revocations. Without FOPA, prosecuting agencies had forfeited collections and revoked licenses despite the gun owner being found not guilty in criminal proceedings. FOPA provided that seized guns must be returned upon their owner’s winning acquittal or dismissal of charges, and that license revocations could not be based on such charges, either.
Prohibited possessor reforms. Under the Gun Control Act, conviction for a felon in possession of a firearm could be obtained even if the possessor had received a pardon, had the conviction set aside or had his civil rights restored. Under FOPA, winning any of these remedies would restore gun rights, unless the order expressly provided to the contrary.

Dealer records. The Gun Control Act allowed unlimited repetitive search of dealers’ records and inventory, which had been used as a tool for harassment. FOPA allowed one annual inspection, plus inquiries to trace a specific gun or to carry out a criminal investigation of someone other than the dealer. If records are taken, the dealer must be given a copy so he can continue his business.

Gun shows. The Gun Control Act only allowed licensees to transfer guns at their licensed premises. FOPA allowed dealers to conduct business at events sponsored by groups “devoted to the collection, competitive use, or other sporting use of firearms.”

Safe Passage. One of FOPA’s provisions was that persons traveling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas), provided that the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, that the firearms are unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearms are located in a locked container.

Many firearms owners are wary of allowing a reversal of these enforcement presumptions, because of the tendency of administrative overreach. How does one implement effective reforms while considering the legitimate interests of members of the sporting public?

We do have the Brady Bill which is supposed to catch felons and those whom we do not wish to possess firearms. I don't have the answers in light of your thoughts, but decided throw out some additional information.

[old_gregg]

cue cowboy pastoral aw shucks post patronizing us city folk because we could never understand the issues real murica faces, following which he will be treated with kid gloves rather than someone making the point that he lives with white people in the middle o nowhere and deals with people of diverse perspectives only to the extent they work for him.

[Goatnapper'96]

Many firearms owners are wary of allowing a reversal of these enforcement presumptions, because of the tendency of administrative overreach. How does one implement effective reforms while considering the legitimate interests of members of the sporting public?

The answer, I think, are those that are in favor of gun control believe that the legitimate interests of the sporting public should be subordinated to the interests of the public at large. The gun-grabbers genuinely believe that taking away as many guns as they can or enacting as many regulations as they can will make it more difficult for people to get guns and thus make us all safe. At present, it is my opinion that the reason it fails falls into a few camps:

1.) Not enough people believe the argument that it will make them safer. They read the stats Cowboy puts up or other arguments and in their minds the sacrifice of liberty does not bring enough of a guarantee of improved security. That is the biggest issue the gun grabbers must overcome. Regardless of how foolproof they believe their arguments to be way to many Americans are unconvinced it will bring to pass any material change in psychos doing psychotic things with guns.

2.) Trust. This is likely why I think it is a unbridgeable gap. The folks who like guns just don't trust, or even like, folks like Sooner, Obama or John Kerry. Beyond the condescending nature of the attitude of liberal coastal elites who view high school kids from Power County, Idaho hunting in mossy oak there is just no trust when one of these folks seeks to assure the rednecks that "I really don't want to take away your guns." Saying that it appears to me that liberals are getting more honest and candid in their desires to yes, take away guns and a lot of them.

[Art Vandelay]

Are there any reliable statistics on how often a private citizen's firearm PREVENTS a crime (robbery, home invasion, etc)? Taking mass shootings, armed robberies, living in SE Chigaco, etc out of the equation. I would be curious for a comparison of how many accidental shootings and suicides are caused from easy access to guns, versus how much crime they actually prevent?

I grew up hunting. When I was 7 I was paid a quarter for every ground squirrel i killed with my .22 I've done tons of pheasant, chukar and quail hunting, and have gone out for deer and elk a couple times (never shot one). I have nothing against hunting; I just don't like cleaning the animals or eating what I shoot. So i given it up completely. I would say 95% of my real world friends are very pro guns. I know the EQ in my ward frequently has "shooting nights" - I don't attend once I found out it doesn't involve salt pellets and teenagers

I personally am unaware of anyone who has ever had to protect their home, or otherwise used a gun to prevent a crime. I do however know a kind from HS who is missing a toe, another one who put a hole through the side of his dad's Bronco II, and 4 different individuals who used a gun to end their life. My feelings on gun control fluctuate. I wish there were some reliable numbers, that I knew weren't adjusted because of the source's political leanings.

[Topper]

The answer, I think, are those that are in favor of gun control believe that the legitimate interests of the sporting public should be subordinated to the interests of the public at large. The gun-grabbers genuinely believe that taking away as many guns as they can or enacting as many regulations as they can will make it more difficult for people to get guns and thus make us all safe. At present, it is my opinion that the reason it fails falls into a few camps:

1.) Not enough people believe the argument that it will make them safer. They read the stats Cowboy puts up or other arguments and in their minds the sacrifice of liberty does not bring enough of a guarantee of improved security. That is the biggest issue the gun grabbers must overcome. Regardless of how foolproof they believe their arguments to be way to many Americans are unconvinced it will bring to pass any material change in psychos doing psychotic things with guns.

2.) Trust. This is likely why I think it is a unbridgeable gap. The folks who like guns just don't trust, or even like, folks like Sooner, Obama or John Kerry. Beyond the condescending nature of the attitude of liberal coastal elites who view high school kids from Power County, Idaho hunting in mossy oak there is just no trust when one of these folks seeks to assure the rednecks that "I really don't want to take away your guns." Saying that it appears to me that liberals are getting more honest and candid in their desires to yes, take away guns and a lot of them.

There is no trust of the regulators. Between 1968 and 1986, before FOPA, there was such tremendous overreach that sportlers were justified in their disgust of the regulators.

As we become more and more urban, the regulators may eventually win. Although a high number of firearms exist, the percentage of persons acquiring them is declining. Once that percentage declines significantly, the regulators will win. For them, Lady Liberty is just a mascot.

[cowboy]

"I don't mean to diminish the tragedy in Vegas by saying things that diminish the tragedy in Vegas."

(In other words, don't take away my guns over this because it's really not that many people who die in mass shootings and I really like my guns.)

You are smarter than this. You know that's not what I was saying so obviously I wounded you to make you lash out with a ridiculous argument like that. I'm sorry that I triggered you by pointing out that none of your proposed solutions are realistic or effective and that the probability of dying in a mass murder is so small that spending the political time and capital to enforce your proposals is unwise.

Sent from my E6810 using Tapatalk