Las Vegas Strip - Deadliest Mass Shooting in US

[originalsocal]

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.

Damn it!! But I have the right to a device to modify the function of a semi automatic weapon!

[Topper]

Damn it!! But I have the right to a device to modify the function of a semi automatic weapon!

Perhaps you are mocking yourself, as nobody is saying that.

[Bo Diddley]

The thread title makes no reference to history or even time at all. So you can't with certainty say it's factually incorrect.

What I can say is that your immediate and obvious troll, attempting to use freshly spilled blood to score political points is repugnant. Up to this point, I've viewed your comments on the board in a charitable light, even holding out hope that you say what you say from a position of honesty. It's obvious to me now that I was wrong, and you're simply the stereotypical ex-mormon who can leave the church but can't leave the church alone. From now on when I see your posts, all I'll hear is this:

BM, I didn't mean it. I took some NyQuil last night, so I was as drunk as I ever get. I guess I'm an angry drunk.

[Flystripper]

Also, I believe people are foolish to think that more gun laws and curbing 2nd amendment rights would be a net benefit to society.

That is pretty strongly worded statement when there appear to examples in the world where gun laws and no second amendment rights appear to have been a net positive.

Yes , yes I do recognize the USA is different than the rest of the world with respect to our history, our culture, and our laws, and I am not so stupid to think that an outright ban of all firearms will stop mass murder but I don't think I am a fool.

[creekster]

That is pretty strongly worded statement when there appear to examples in the world where gun laws and no second amendment rights appear to have been a net positive.

Yes , yes I do recognize the USA is different than the rest of the world with respect to our history, our culture, and our laws, and I am not so stupid to think that an outright ban of all firearms will stop mass murder but I don't think I am a fool.

I am not sure I agree that it is foolish to take the position cowboy mentions, but I do know I have acted foolishly many times without, necessarily, being a fool.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Damn it!! But I have the right to a device to modify the function of a semi automatic weapon!

Who are you arguing with?

[Northwestcoug]

I talked about this before in the Guns thread. Every year Canada memorializes the 1989 massacre at a Montreal college where 14 women were killed. It's been over 20 years since it happened, yet there is a day of remembrance that is publicized throughout the whole country. Although a big emphasis of the memorial is violence against women, there is an undercurrent of anti-gun emotion that is prevalent. It is part of the national psyche, that Canada is what the US isn't, a gun-loving country. Alberta and some provinces still bristle at gun restrictions placed on them by the federal government. But even then, your average conservative Albertan is still clearly left of a mainstream conservative republican, with respect to gun ownership. As I assume most every other developed countries are.

In some ways, Cowboy and others have a point. Guns are not the sole issue. A huge problem is the perception of freedom, and how the private ownership of guns has situated itself at the forefront of what freedom means for a large segment of the US population. And because of this, there is inaction on two fronts. One is common-sense gun control reforms. Hopefully we will see some positive movement soon on assault rifle modifications and large magazines. I'd also like to see an assault rifle ban and nationwide standardization of licensing requirements and other regulations. In a perfect world, I'd even go further restricting (not eliminating) gun ownership.

And yes, I realize fully that these reforms will likely not, in and of themselves, curtail much of US gun violence. But IMO they are needed to address the second front of the gun problem. It is the perception of freedom with respect to gun ownership that has to drastically change before we see positive changes. It will require a fundamental change with how the right views the second amendment. It cannot be held as a sacrosanct constitutional right for essentially unfettered private gun ownership.

Other countries have a gun violence problem, but the US's issues are entirely unique. It is ignorant to think they are solely caused by its unique history. The US can reduce gun violence by political and cultural reforms that move the country towards the rest of the developed world. But this will be a long game, and it will take at least a generation of citizens growing up in a culture of restricted gun ownership. Hopefully gun ownership will not viewed as the shining example of freedom as it is currently. And hopefully this cultural change will reduce gun violence across the board. It certainly can't make it worse.

(Disclaimer from a multi-gun owner who just attended his first black-powder shoot, who did not share his political views with the other black-powder enthusiasts).

[Katy Lied]

Byron has requested an apology twice. So I'd like to apologize for any insults I've hurled your way. We all should treat each other with respect.

[Topper]

The issue is very emotional for many people on both sides of the argument.

For those who fear or dislike guns, every media report and every heinous act validates their hatred of guns. In their minds, anything is worth doing to rid the world of something they already loathe.

For those who grow up appreciating firearms, it is akin to taking away a birth right.

What is ignored is what can be done at the lowest cost while preserving the current Constitutional right? There is no societal benefit just restricting a right if there is no net benefit. I see many of the proposals similar to efforts to stem the flow of illegal drugs or immigrants. They might be lipstick on a pig, but it won't make the pig a beauty queen.

What Australia did years back was very expensive and still not practical because Australia is an island isolated without porous borders. The cost benefit analysis, while satisfying for authoritarians will be extremely costly while leaving other priorities at risk.

Which priority should the US sacrifice to tackle elimination of guns?

Obesity, the pending epidemic in US healthcare;
Health insurance coverage for the uninsured;
Climate change.

We do not have unlimited resources. Do we tackle matters that affect millions or jettison those priorities for something that affects thousands?

[cowboy]

That is pretty strongly worded statement when there appear to examples in the world where gun laws and no second amendment rights appear to have been a net positive.

Yes , yes I do recognize the USA is different than the rest of the world with respect to our history, our culture, and our laws, and I am not so stupid to think that an outright ban of all firearms will stop mass murder but I don't think I am a fool.

Taken by itself, it's certainly more condescending than I meant it to be. Still, I believe very strongly in the net benefit of gun ownership. I don't have the time or inclination to argue it because everyone generally has their minds made up on the subject. Still, something to think about is that oppressive regimes have generally arisen and come to dominate societies that are defenseless. Also, not that it really matters, but there would have to be a Vegas event every hour for 100 years straight to kill as many people as have been attributed to Mao. On the threat to humanity scale, only famine and disease are more dangerous than oppression, and the 2nd amendment was created to protect us against oppression. Sure, one guy with a hunting rifle has no power against an army, but 100 million people with 3 guns each would make any military pause. Many disagree that guns are a deterrent, or that a deterrent is necessary. That's fine, whatever. Like I said, everyone has their mind made up, so I'm not going to debate it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

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? ...

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.

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?

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!)?

[creekster]

Byron has requested an apology twice. So I'd like to apologize for any insults I've hurled your way. We all should treat each other with respect.

If I request, twice, that you send me twenty dollars, even though I don't deserve it, will you send it to me?

[creekster]

I didn't know what a bump stock was until this incident caused me to look it up. I am not sure how I feel about that, as it seems pretty clearly meant only to circumvent the prohibition on automatic weapons. On balance, however, I am opposed to further restrictions on gun ownership, at least in the shadow of this horrific event.

[falafel]

Byron has requested an apology twice. So I'd like to apologize for any insults I've hurled your way. We all should treat each other with respect.

How many times have we requested that Byron lay off a particular topic, only for him to double down? And now he wants us to help him feel better?

Pass.

[Green Monstah]

Possible solutions to mass killings in the U.S.

1. Increase enforcement measures on illegal automatic weapons.

2. Increase penalties associated with illegal possession of automatic weapons.

3. Make it illegal to modify a semi-automatic weapon to make it the functional equivalent of a fully automatic weapon.

4. Make gun ownership a privilege that may be enjoyed only by those who are certified as mentally competent.

5. Bring back the insane asylum. While it's true that no one likes the though of family and friends who are a danger to society being locked away (even if humanely treated), I'm not sure anyone likes the idea of being shot at in public spaces either.

6. Enact penalties for registered gun owners whose weapons fall into the possession of those who are not permitted to possess or own firearms (felons, mentally incompetent, minors), including vicarious liability for registered gun owners whose weapons are used to commit crimes by persons who are not permitted to possess or own firearms.

In summary, use three guiding principles: 1. Mental competence thresholds are required for gun ownership (makes sense); 2. Deal with psycho and sociopaths in a humane, but socially responsible manner (EMPHASIS ON HUMANE); 3. Incentivize responsible gun ownership/penalize irresponsible gun ownership.