Las Vegas Strip - Deadliest Mass Shooting in US

[Topper]

Consider the following:

At one point, Americans were dropping like flies from infectious diseases. Small pox. Tuberculosis. You name it. Now these are a thing of the past--simply because we decided to do something about it instead of throwing up our hands and saying it was futile.

Saying that the existence of 357 million guns in America is a reason not to do anything about it is just plain irresponsible (not to mention absurd).

99.99999% of people are responsible with their tuberculosis, by the way. They will cover their mouth when they cough. Still doesn't mean it isn't dangerous and shouldn't be eradicated.

Aside from the absurdity of the implication that gun control is futile, there is objective public health evidence that gun access causes more Americans to die--usually due to more effective suicide attempts.

You miss on two points.

First, public health as it pertains to population health is part of the police powers constitutionally identified.

Second, the right to arms is a Constitutional Right, not akin to coughing. You have no data with your silly analogy. In fact, you can probably find evidence that people, even healthcare workers don't follow proper hygiene.

We have waged wars on many things. Let's see the US waged war on drugs. How did that work out? We fought a war on illegal immigration. How did that work out?

Could a war on guns be fought? Of course, at what cost?

Right now, the US is facing an epidemic of obesity that affects at least 10% and maybe as high as 20% of the population. That's 35 to 70 million persons. If we want to do something about this true healthcare epidemic, it will cost a lot of money, trillions of dollars.

Do we divert trillions to fight a losing war that currently affects about 11,000 people per year, while tragic, horrific and heart-rending, in order to feel good about ourselves? Or do we focus upon causes of violence and address big picture population health issues? Plus, if we eliminate or reduce gun violence, which is decreasing organically, what high horse would you be able to ride to pontificate about your moral and intellectual superiority? We'd hate to deny you your pedestal.

A horrible event like this brings out the worst in people with political agendas, while ignoring the root causes and cures.

[Northwestcoug]

A horrible event like this brings out the worst in people with political agendas, while ignoring the root causes and cures.

So what is the 'worst' that is brought out from people who want more gun control? And if they are ignoring a 'cure', what is it?

[Uncle Ted]

You miss on two points.

First, public health as it pertains to population health is part of the police powers constitutionally identified.

Second, the right to arms is a Constitutional Right, not akin to coughing. You have no data with your silly analogy. In fact, you can probably find evidence that people, even healthcare workers don't follow proper hygiene.

We have waged wars on many things. Let's see the US waged war on drugs. How did that work out? We fought a war on illegal immigration. How did that work out?

Could a war on guns be fought? Of course, at what cost?

Right now, the US is facing an epidemic of obesity that affects at least 10% and maybe as high as 20% of the population. That's 35 to 70 million persons. If we want to do something about this true healthcare epidemic, it will cost a lot of money, trillions of dollars.

Do we divert trillions to fight a losing war that currently affects about 11,000 people per year, while tragic, horrific and heart-rending, in order to feel good about ourselves? Or do we focus upon causes of violence and address big picture population health issues? Plus, if we eliminate or reduce gun violence, which is decreasing organically, what high horse would you be able to ride to pontificate about your moral and intellectual superiority? We'd hate to deny you your pedestal.

A horrible event like this brings out the worst in people with political agendas, while ignoring the root causes and cures.

[scottie]

A surreal pic of the aftermath of the shootings, and not for the fainthearted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/commen...egas_shooting/

[Topper]

A surreal pic of the aftermath of the shootings, and not for the fainthearted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/commen...egas_shooting/

What an ugly scene.

[Uncle Ted]

Saying that the existence of 357 million guns in America is a reason not to do anything about it is just plain irresponsible (not to mention absurd).

The former president of Mexico agrees with you...

Embedded Tweet

Gun control is working for them!

[beefytee]

Consider the following:

At one point, Americans were dropping like flies from infectious diseases. Small pox. Tuberculosis. You name it. Now these are a thing of the past--simply because we decided to do something about it instead of throwing up our hands and saying it was futile.

Saying that the existence of 357 million guns in America is a reason not to do anything about it is just plain irresponsible (not to mention absurd).

99.99999% of people are responsible with their tuberculosis, by the way. They will cover their mouth when they cough. Still doesn't mean it isn't dangerous and shouldn't be eradicated.

Aside from the absurdity of the implication that gun control is futile, there is objective public health evidence that gun access causes more Americans to die--usually due to more effective suicide attempts.

I don't think there isn't anything we can do. I also don't think there is any magic wand that we could wave to save that many more people's lives from gun violence.

I'm all for getting rid of the gun show loop hole and limiting the capacity of magazines. I think that is the most straightforward approach and will have the most impact at least for mass shootings, but I don't think it will really save that many lives. The bottom line is that very few people die (or are injured) from mass shootings. Like you said, suicide attempts are really high, it only takes one bullet, and no history of crime or depression.

Banning guns is bound to go even less well than alcohol prohibition did, considering that there is no amendment declaring our rights to alcohol. (By the way, alcohol related deaths have 2x the deaths of firearms). https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...and-statistics

Topper mentioned tackling the obesity problem. I think there is a more effective means to the end of saving lives. We've been pretty successful saving peoples lives through no smoking campaigns.

I would add removing human drivers from the road, and going fully autonomous. That is likely to save as many lives as eliminating all firearms deaths in the US.

Obviously they are not mutually exclusive, and we should take an all of the above approach. But the fact of the matter is that solving the gun problem is hard. Just as hard as solving the alcohol or drug problem.

[cowboy]

I don't see this as a gun problem. It can be viewed that way from the perspective that most mass murders are committed with guns, but I think that is simply a function of guns being easy. If people want to commit a mass murder, they'll find a way, either with guns, a truck full of fertilizer, a truck plowing through a crowd, or a pressure cooker. As I've said before, we have somehow gotten to the point that people want to go out making themselves famous. I think the most effective way to stop it is muzzling the press and releasing as little information as possible about the attacker. I'd bet a lot of attacks would have never happened if the attackers knew they'd never make the news, but die as they lived: an anonymous nobody. Sure, that violates constitutional rights, but so does taking away guns.

I'll not bother making the (very compelling) argument that private gun ownership is still vital to our national security, other than to say I believe the 2nd amendment as it was intended is still applicable today. I think a more salient discussion is what to do about a society that makes people want to murder en masse. Also, while it is horrific when it occurs, mass murder isn't even on the radar as a likely way to die, so assuming that our political and societal efforts have a limit, it does make sense to spend more time focusing our life-saving efforts elsewhere. Does this mean we do nothing? Of course not, but it does suggest that trying to confiscate guns, pass new laws, etc., are probably a much less productive use of time and capital than other efforts.

[old_gregg]

I don't see this as a gun problem. It can be viewed that way from the perspective that most mass murders are committed with guns, but I think that is simply a function of guns being easy. If people want to commit a mass murder, they'll find a way, either with guns, a truck full of fertilizer, a truck plowing through a crowd, or a pressure cooker. As I've said before, we have somehow gotten to the point that people want to go out making themselves famous. I think the most effective way to stop it is muzzling the press and releasing as little information as possible about the attacker. I'd bet a lot of attacks would have never happened if the attackers knew they'd never make the news, but die as they lived: an anonymous nobody. Sure, that violates constitutional rights, but so does taking away guns.

I'll not bother making the (very compelling) argument that private gun ownership is still vital to our national security, other than to say I believe the 2nd amendment as it was intended is still applicable today. I think a more salient discussion is what to do about a society that makes people want to murder en masse. Also, while it is horrific when it occurs, mass murder isn't even on the radar as a likely way to die, so assuming that our political and societal efforts have a limit, it does make sense to spend more time focusing our life-saving efforts elsewhere. Does this mean we do nothing? Of course not, but it does suggest that trying to confiscate guns, pass new laws, etc., are probably a much less productive use of time and capital than other efforts.

yes, rather than infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to bear a huge number of weapons, whose deadly capacity the framers never could have imagined, it makes sense to muzzle the press.

[New Mexican Disaster]

yes, rather than infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to bear a huge number of weapons, whose deadly capacity the framers never could have imagined, it makes sense to muzzle the press.

Surely the framers pictured automatic weapons.

[old_gregg]

Surely the framers pictured automatic weapons.

it says so right there in the 2nd amendment you antifa leftist

[falafel]

Surely the framers pictured automatic weapons.

Surely the framers pictured weapons that could stand up to government oppression.

[cowboy]

Surely the framers pictured automatic weapons.

I keep hearing this argument, and I don't know why you and others who keep hammering it think it is a good one. So they didn't picture automatic weapons, so what? Their point with the right to bear arms was to allow people to defend themselves and their country. If the constitution had been written in the 1400's would people have been arguing that the right to bear arms only extended to swords and bows, but not muskets? Of course not. The authors likely didn't see a lot of things, including a 24-hour news cycle that gave people updates across the nation as they were happening, and technology that allowed the press to find out private details about people's lives with a keyboard.

To be clear, I don't support laws limiting the press. I do, however, believe that limiting information about mass murderers would be more effective in curbing such events than more gun laws. Both avenues violate the constitution, and thus both are out of bounds, in my opinion. Also, I believe people are foolish to think that more gun laws and curbing 2nd amendment rights would be a net benefit to society.

[Moliere]

Surely the framers pictured automatic weapons.

They didn’t, but they did know that some amendments would need to be made to the constitution, so they allowed for a process to make those changes. The framers were smarter than you are giving them credit for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Surely the framers pictured automatic weapons.

I don't know why you dummies keep saying this. Automatic weapons are already banned, unless you have a pre 1986 gun which cost 10s of thousands of dollars. Move onto the devices that this guy used to modify the function of his semi automatic weapons, those should absolutely be banned.