Mass shooting in Las Vegas

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by booradley

Doesn't matter. Won't come to that. Persistent, determined resistance gets results. Go read a history book. Educate yourself.

Yeah all those nuclear powered democratically elected governments overthrown by some yokels playing Army in their backyards.

The Turner Diaries isn't real life.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Radii

CU Tiger made a good point above. So did digamma. CU Tiger pointed out that every time we have a thread like this the folks that want stronger gun control don't even know basic terminology for different types of weapons. I sure don't.

But the thing is, gun control needn't be about banning particular types of weapons. That's a form of gun control, to be sure, but there are so many other common sense things that could be done that don't amount to BAN THE GUNS.

I mean, even if you want to say 'okay sure the Supreme Court spent 200 years saying there was no individual right codified under the Second Amendment but that just means every SCOTUS jurist ever nominated, even those in the early days of the Republic, were oblivious to what their political contemporaries actually intended by the Second Amendment, and it took Heller for SCOTUS to finally get it right,' there are things you can do without infringing on that reinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

You can expand mental health services to try to catch and treat the mentally ill before they get to that point. Maybe don't try to unwind the Medicaid expansion that enables some (many?) of those people to access the sort of help they previously couldn't.

You can do what we had done before Trump got elected and Congress gleefully began overturning every Obama-era rule they could before their window expired, and restrict the ability of the mentally ill to own a firearm.

There are biometric and RFID trigger locks out there; granted, those wouldn't forestall a shooting like what happened in Vegas, but it WOULD hamper the ability of a burglar to use a stolen weapon in the commission of another crime, say, or the ability of a toddler to accidentally discharge her parents' weapon.

You can expand background checks for gun purchases. As others have pointed out, what used to take at least 72 hours can now be reasonably done in 30 minutes or less.

All of those are things that could be done to address the gun-related death rate without banning a single god damned weapon. But the NRA opposes it because reasons, and Republicans won't offer any legislation that would cause the NRA to give them a reduction in "grade" (or campaign donations).


As was pointed out earlier, we made it more difficult to play home chemist with explosives after Oklahoma City.

We made changes to airline security in the wake of 9/11.

Clearly, we've identified other threats - even those with far lower probabilities of happening to the average citizen - and taken steps to mitigate the threats.

But this one, despite the panoply of ways that firearm deaths take their toll on our communities on a daily basis, we have folks of a particular political stripe insisting that, on this, there is absolutely nothing that can be done, ever, except to offer thoughts and prayers.

Thoughts and prayers which go unanswered when, six months or a year later, somebody else plays Rambo.

Why? Why the resistance to even the most basic, non-infringing reform? Fear that it might be successful at casualty mitigation and then they'll be pressured to do more?

[illinifan999]

It's easy in times like these to advocate increased gun control. But are you comfortable with a new "War on drugs"?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by booradley

He's a coward. He doesn't deserve to be a husband or father, because he doesn't have the guts to defend his own. (S)he greedily, irresponsibly, relies on other, better men and women to do that for him, naturally whining and complaining all the while. That's how it is with children.

Some people can afford to live in safe neighborhoods where the odds of needing a gun are up there with being struck by lightning. I wouldn't consider their choice to not own a gun as cowardly just as I wouldn't consider their choice to step outside on a cloudy day to be dangerous.

While you see someone who doesn't arm themselves to the teeth when heading out to the suburban Panera a coward, I'd consider the guy who does feel he needs to constantly be armed a colossal pussy.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

CU Tiger made a good point above. So did digamma. CU Tiger pointed out that every time we have a thread like this the folks that want stronger gun control don't even know basic terminology for different types of weapons.

It's also used as a crutch in arguments when you don't want to actually defend a position. Similar to criticizing someone's spelling.

While I understand the need for detailed knowledge in the crafting of specific laws, I don't think it's necessary to know every detail to know that whatever weapon that guy was using in that situation should not be accessible to the general public.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's also used as a crutch in arguments when you don't want to actually defend a position. Similar to criticizing someone's spelling.

It can be, but I don't think it was here. Because this does come up every time this happens. People use the words "automatic/semiautomatic/assault" interchangeably and it frustrates even the reasonable folks on the other side who might be willing to listen.

All I'm saying is that I see virtually everyone in this thread having already decided that the other side isn't listening, and digging in their heels. And maybe most people aren't budging. Why even bother posting then? Reach out and try to find some understanding and common ground. That's all.

Anyone knows me knows that I VERY CLEARLY and VERY STRONGLY am in favor of gun control in some fashion. No one on the "2nd amendment" side of this thing has told me to fuck off. But two people who I agree with in almost every way on these issues have taken the time to take the one sentence I typed attempting to establish any sort of shred of common ground and have tried to pull me away from it.

I find this fascinating, and deeply saddening.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's also used as a crutch in arguments when you don't want to actually defend a position. Similar to criticizing someone's spelling.

While I understand the need for detailed knowledge in the crafting of specific laws, I don't think it's necessary to know every detail to know that whatever weapon that guy was using in that situation should not be accessible to the general public.

I'd agree with you completely if I thought our lawmakers had the capacity to pass a single meaningful piece of legislation on the topic more often than every 50 years, or so. With our current record/history on gun control, I feel like we'll be lucky if we ever implement even a single piece of legislation, and if that is the case than using that opportunity on specific-weapon legislature is practically a waste.

For whatever it's worth, I think it bears pointing out that this country did have an assault weapons ban in effect from 1994-2004, and while I can't speak to it's effect on mass-violence at the time it seems obvious that it had no long-term effect on our gun culture.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Radii

I'm interested in what whomario has to say. The least us Americans can do is understand that the rest of the world is different, with different results. We don't have to base our laws on what other countries do, but isn't there at least value in understanding laws other countries have made?

To be frank, I am not. I love most of what whomario posts, but when he posts about the way he feels things should be in the U.S, he honestly should go take a flying leap. I read a lot of condescension and moral superiority in what he writes on some things. Gun control is one of those things.

And keep in mind, I am not a gun nut. Never owned a gun, rarely cared to, and am in support of reasonable gun laws, so long as it doesn't go to the level of taking all guns away from lawful citizens. I don't have any idea why any regular citizen needs an assault rifle for anything. IMO, if something can be converted to auto at all, or used in any way which is essentially becomes an auto, it should not be legal to own (outside of military or law enforcement).

If there are other ideas on gun control that the rest of the world uses that we can use, I am all ears. But not when it is delivered by someone who doesn't live in this country, doesn't understand American culture and who presumes to be better than Americans simply by, what, being? If that's not his intent, then he has done a damn poor job of delivering his message.

I don't tell him how to do things in Germany. I will kindly ask he cease and desist when it comes to the U.S.

[RainMaker]

I'm just saying it doesn't matter to me if you call it automatic, semiautomatic, assault, machine gun, or whatever. I don't think it should be legal to own and operate weapons that can shoot bullets at the rate that guy shot them.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm just saying it doesn't matter to me if you call it automatic, semiautomatic, assault, machine gun, or whatever. I don't think it should be legal to own and operate weapons that can shoot bullets at the rate that guy shot them.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I don't tell him how to do things in Germany.

If your country does something vastly superior to another country, why not tell them how to do things better?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If your country does something vastly superior to another country, why not tell them how to do things better?

First of all, you have to agree that they do something better. Second, it has to be something that can fit in either culture. The U.S. is not Germany. Third, deliver your message without the moral superiority and maybe I will be more inclined to listen to it.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm just saying it doesn't matter to me if you call it automatic, semiautomatic, assault, machine gun, or whatever. I don't think it should be legal to own and operate weapons that can shoot bullets at the rate that guy shot them.

Well, that's kind of the rub: it already is. In this case a better understanding of those terms would help toward understanding why the legislation you're asking for is already on the books, and how/why to frame the action you're actually hoping for. You're bound to be disappointed and angry if the action you're calling for is impossible, because it's already been in place, rendered impotent and bypassed decades ago

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

First of all, you have to agree that they do something better. Second, it has to be something that can fit in either culture. The U.S. is not Germany. Third, deliver your message without the moral superiority and maybe I will be more inclined to listen to it.

I don't think it's a subjective topic unless you want to argue that more murder is good. Less people are murdered in Germany and much less with guns.

If murder is part of a culture, it's an inferior culture.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by booradley

He's a coward. He doesn't deserve to be a husband or father, because he doesn't have the guts to defend his own. (S)he greedily, irresponsibly, relies on other, better men and women to do that for him, naturally whining and complaining all the while. That's how it is with children.

What a stupid fucking indictment

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

First of all, you have to agree that they do something better.

I try to stay out of this debate because I definitely don't know all the answers, but via a simple google search:

2007 - 2012 Homicides per 1 million people by firearm:
Germany - 2.1
U.S. - 31.2

Germany is definitively better than the US at having fewer people die by firearms. If you add in the suicide rate (60+% of firearm deaths in the US, per the same article) it gets even more ridiculous.

There is literally no question that, in the context of whomario's point, Germany is "better" at this.

Do I think that means we should just immediately do everything the Germans do with regards to gun control? Absolutely not. But to dismiss the opinion out of hand because you're not sure they are even doing it better seems silly.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by TCY Junkie

Not to be contrary but your statement reminded me of a video I saw of a relative pissed that his relative was gunned down by ar 15 while breaking in a house and that he didn't have a chance against the home owners.

Well it's pretty obvious he got what he deserved, but my Taurus Judge can accomplish the same without the need to squeeze off 20 rounds.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Well, that's kind of the rub: it already is. In this case a better understanding of those terms would help toward understanding why the legislation you're asking for is already on the books, and how/why to frame the action you're actually hoping for. You're bound to be disappointed and angry if the action you're calling for is impossible, because it's already been in place, rendered impotent and bypassed decades ago

I don't think the action is impossible because just about every major industrialized nation has accomplished it.

You're right that I don't know how to frame the legislation. I know a bit about guns but am not an expert. But I don't know about a lot of things that I still want results from a governing body. For instance I don't know what goes into designing roadways and intersections. But I can still want them to operate efficiently in my town.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think the action is impossible because just about every major industrialized nation has accomplished it.

You're right that I don't know how to frame the legislation. I know a bit about guns but am not an expert. But I don't know about a lot of things that I still want results from a governing body. For instance I don't know what goes into designing roadways and intersections. But I can still want them to operate efficiently in my town.

Yeah, and I certainly don't want to argue against your concerns....that's the opposite of my point and my politics.

I guess my point is just that I get some kinda unnecessary, internet-white-knight-version-of-"concerned" when I see sympathetic folks misusing terms regarding firearms legislation, because the tiniest specifics of the terms are absolutely what any kind of legislation is going to come down to, and misunderstanding of those terms is only going to result in further anger & frustration when said legislation inevitably complies with those technical terms but falls short of their collective wishes.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

I try to stay out of this debate because I definitely don't know all the answers, but via a simple google search:

2007 - 2012 Homicides per 1 million people by firearm:
Germany - 2.1
U.S. - 31.2

Germany is definitively better than the US at having fewer people die by firearms. If you add in the suicide rate (60+% of firearm deaths in the US, per the same article) it gets even more ridiculous.

There is literally no question that, in the context of whomario's point, Germany is "better" at this.

Do I think that means we should just immediately do everything the Germans do with regards to gun control? Absolutely not. But to dismiss the opinion out of hand because you're not sure they are even doing it better seems silly.

But there is a cost on the other side, that many Americans hold sacred (rhe right to bear arms). Yes, Germany does homicide by gun (and in general) better, but a price paid for that is that right. To Germans, this is not a thing of concern, but to many Americans, it is. That is why, I don't stop at one, but list the next two. Culture and, specifically to whomario, the tenor of his message. What Germany does isn't likely to work here because of the culture. And as for the other part, an important element of communication is to not insult the target of your communication. Doing so just shuts down the conversation before real, rational.discourse can happen.

[Hammer]

Finding it odd Germany is used as an example of a non gun culture. You could replace Germany with almost any country in Europe, plus a whole bunch of others outside Europe. Looking in from the outside it appears pretty obvious the gun laws are a huge problem in the States. Just amazing the residents can't see that, blinded by their own culture.

On the flip side I doubt you guys would of let thousands of refugees with questionable motives in to your country so there is plenty of room to learn from each other.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yes, Germany does homicide by gun (and in general) better, but a price paid for that is that right. To Germans, this is not a thing of concern, but to many Americans, it is.

Yep, and this is why it's not even worth debating any more. A lot of Americans have a thing for guns, most of the rest of the world doesn't understand it, and it's not likely to change no matter what happens. I feel horrible for all the folks killed or hurt as well as those that know them, but honestly, I'm beyond fatigued by it at this point... Seeing the totals of wounded and killed doesn't feel so different from opening a history book now and reading about X number of people killed in some random event 100 years ago.

[Hammer]

It isn't that you can't get guns in European countries, you can, but I guess the ban de-escaltes things. Normal cops who don't carry guns rarely get shot.

This whole having the right to have arms thing is crazy. Just reminds me of Muslims thinking it is their right to have 6 wives or marry a child. So ignorant.

[Groundhog]

You can also get guns in Australia - it's just difficult (basically, you need acreage), and the fact that it's illegal proved to be a good "encouragement" for people to hand them in back when the laws were changed.

[CrimsonFox]

Brother said he was into real estate and that he was a multimillionare.
Had two exwives but got along with them. (possibly some hints of annoyance or light quarreling)
People at the community he lived at knew him.

Oh yeah gun # is now 23 in room, 19 at home. Seriously...how do they miscount # of guns? Did he hide them like easter eggs?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

You can also get guns in Australia - it's just difficult (basically, you need acreage), and the fact that it's illegal proved to be a good "encouragement" for people to hand them in back when the laws were changed.

TBH, even if guns were all of a sudden made illegal in the US, there will be alot of "oops, they were lost, dropped in the river, burned down with the old house etc.".

I do remember hearing about how the Australians turned in their weapons after that one shooting (?). Was it truly successful or are there a bunch of people still holding on to illegal guns?

[PilotMan]

We can talk about guns and gun control until we're blue in the face. The rules in place now, don't do anything, and frankly, even with background checks, a patient person who is bent on a decision will find a way.

I'm much more interested in how this person who did this is going to be identified for the public. How are they going to paint him? What is the reason they are going to stand behind for why he did this? Because this seems like it's the great rationalizer in our discussions in our country.

He's not young and reckless, seeking attention. He isn't a black, green or yellow. He isn't muslim. He's not an immigrant or refugee. He doesn't have ties to terrorism. He isn't actively opposed or supportive of one kind of government stance. He doesn't have a long history of mental illness. He didn't have a criminal record. He wasn't a suffering veteran.

By all records, this was about as average of a citizen as it gets. Any discussion on how to prevent this will be foiled by the fact, that this is the kind of person that the system is supposed to work for. Society is set in a way that the average, pursuit of happiness citizen, can do pretty much anything and as long as they follow the law there won't be too many roadblocks.

Somewhere along the way, in order to formulate the spin or craft the argument needed, this guy will need to be crafted via speculation or perhaps, somewhere along the way, we'll actually know. Here's a guy who appears to be leading a life apart from his public persona. A guy who patiently planned(?) his attack, and who current regulations or even proposed regulations might not have hindered his ability to do what he did.

That seems like it'll be the harder problem in all of this. And how will his narrative be spun so the rest of us can wrap our heads around it all?

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by booradley

He's a coward. He doesn't deserve to be a husband or father, because he doesn't have the guts to defend his own. (S)he greedily, irresponsibly, relies on other, better men and women to do that for him, naturally whining and complaining all the while. That's how it is with children.

Listen you stupid piece of shit, I don't own a gun, nor do I think you need to in order to protect your family you MRA red pilled backwards ass hillbilly.

We fucking found a useless piece of shit in our garage 4 months ago after he and some meth friends went on a stealing spree though our neighborhood. I didn't shoot him because I don't own a gun. Instead I fucking chased him, caught him, and held onto him until the cops got there. Now he's on his way back to Texas where he'll have a lot more fun.

So, I don't know, maybe I'm less of a man than you because I do the chicken shit thing and spray bullets that could have taken out my wife. Maybe she thinks I'm a cuck because I didn't fucking murder him. But at least I didn't have to have a murder hanging in my mind for the rest of my life and my daughter didn't have to see a dead body in the garage when she came down 2 minutes later.

So the next time you think you're and internet tough guy, maybe realize you're not, and you really just a sad, pathetic person who hasn't accomplished anything in life and tried to make up for it with a collection of murder memorabilia that makes you feel tough while you type with one hand and suck off a gun while fondling your dick. Just be careful when you cum.

And with that, you can suspend me Ben, but I don't have the patience to sit around and be called less of a man by whiny pieces of shit.

[BBT]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But the thing is, gun control needn't be about banning particular types of weapons. That's a form of gun control, to be sure, but there are so many other common sense things that could be done that don't amount to BAN THE GUNS.

I mean, even if you want to say 'okay sure the Supreme Court spent 200 years saying there was no individual right codified under the Second Amendment but that just means every SCOTUS jurist ever nominated, even those in the early days of the Republic, were oblivious to what their political contemporaries actually intended by the Second Amendment, and it took Heller for SCOTUS to finally get it right,' there are things you can do without infringing on that reinterpretation of the Second Amendment.

You can expand mental health services to try to catch and treat the mentally ill before they get to that point. Maybe don't try to unwind the Medicaid expansion that enables some (many?) of those people to access the sort of help they previously couldn't.

You can do what we had done before Trump got elected and Congress gleefully began overturning every Obama-era rule they could before their window expired, and restrict the ability of the mentally ill to own a firearm.

There are biometric and RFID trigger locks out there; granted, those wouldn't forestall a shooting like what happened in Vegas, but it WOULD hamper the ability of a burglar to use a stolen weapon in the commission of another crime, say, or the ability of a toddler to accidentally discharge her parents' weapon.

You can expand background checks for gun purchases. As others have pointed out, what used to take at least 72 hours can now be reasonably done in 30 minutes or less.

All of those are things that could be done to address the gun-related death rate without banning a single god damned weapon. But the NRA opposes it because reasons, and Republicans won't offer any legislation that would cause the NRA to give them a reduction in "grade" (or campaign donations).


As was pointed out earlier, we made it more difficult to play home chemist with explosives after Oklahoma City.

We made changes to airline security in the wake of 9/11.

Clearly, we've identified other threats - even those with far lower probabilities of happening to the average citizen - and taken steps to mitigate the threats.

But this one, despite the panoply of ways that firearm deaths take their toll on our communities on a daily basis, we have folks of a particular political stripe insisting that, on this, there is absolutely nothing that can be done, ever, except to offer thoughts and prayers.

Thoughts and prayers which go unanswered when, six months or a year later, somebody else plays Rambo.

Why? Why the resistance to even the most basic, non-infringing reform? Fear that it might be successful at casualty mitigation and then they'll be pressured to do more?

Well stated

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I didn't shoot him because I don't own a gun. Instead I fucking chased him, caught him, and held onto him until the cops got there. Now he's on his way back to Texas where he'll have a lot more fun.

The original post that prompted your reply notwithstanding, I don't think your specific experience negates the need for a weapon.

What if there were multiple meth-heads? Were you lucky he didn't have a weapon? What if you were travelling and it was your wife/daughter alone in the house etc.

Even with a weapon, I would have brought my family together, hunkered down in a room and called 911.

I started shooting with a .22 with my college friends (just plinking). Katrina was an eye opener for me, this was when law and order literally broke down and was non-existent in many sections of New Orleans for over a week. Home defense is a perfectly legitimate reason for owning weapons IMO. Assuming you are trained, a gun is a great equalizer.

[JPhillips]

There's no other policy area where we demand the kind of specific knowledge CU and others are talking about. Having to know the specifics of guns and licensing simply isn't necessary to hold a valid opinion and is used as a barrier to discussion. We don't demand a knowledge of how opioids interact with pain receptors before allowing people into the discussion on drugs. We don't demand charts on border adjusted taxation before allowing people into the discussion on taxation. Demanding detailed knowledge of guns means that only those most likely to be in favor of minimal regulations gets to make all the decisions. (Which, to be fair, is how the gun policy debate works in the U.S.)

The time will come when those writing legislation will need detailed knowledge, but demanding a gun literacy test in order to discuss general policy directions just serves to close off any discussion before it starts.

[Easy Mac]

What if a terrorist with a suitcase nuke was standing at my front door. At some point you have to live in what's happening and not be scared of a boogeyman. Maybe I got lucky, but the fact that a hypothetical situation could have occurred doesn't negate the fact that we were able to solve the problem presented without a gun.

[kingfc22]

If you want to experience bots (Russian and other) on twitter just search the trending hashtag #LasVagasShooting.

For one, they can’t spell Las Vegas and two, the conspiracy theories and amount of retweets is simply crazy. It’s essentially akin to brain washing at this point.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

What if a terrorist with a suitcase nuke was standing at my front door. At some point you have to live in what's happening and not be scared of a boogeyman. Maybe I got lucky, but the fact that a hypothetical situation could have occurred doesn't negate the fact that we were able to solve the problem presented without a gun.

I would argue what you did was more reckless and could have caused more harm than pulling a gun on the guy. (Like Edward said I'm not defending the idiot that called you a coward, totally uncalled for and out of line) I just think self defense is a perfectly reasonable purpose for owning a gun. A handgun or shotgun mind you not a semi-automatic or automatic machine gun.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

If you want to experience bots (Russian and other) on twitter just search the trending hashtag #LasVagasShooting.

For one, they can’t spell Las Vegas and two, the conspiracy theories and amount of retweets is simply crazy. It’s essentially akin to brain washing at this point.

Heard an interesting opinion the other day. The Russian hacking wasn't done with the express intent to put Trump in the White House. It was done as more of a general PsyOps project to sow mistrust and discontent in general. From that point of view they are succeeding greatly.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by panerd

I would argue what you did was more reckless and could have caused more harm than pulling a gun on the guy. (Like Edward said I'm not defending the idiot that called you a coward, totally uncalled for and out of line) I just think self defense is a perfectly reasonable purpose for owning a gun. A handgun or shotgun mind you not a semi-automatic or automatic machine gun.

Or, conversely, I shoot, miss, and it goes through my neighbor's window, or one of the kids that are outside getting in cars to go to school. Or I chase him with a gun in my hand and the cops, who were already in the neighborhood (but unbeknownst to me) see me running with a gun and shoot me because they're not sure who I am.

Its the idea that you have to have a gun to be a man or to protect your family is part of what's wrong with this whole equation. I don't doubt it can come in very handy in an extremely rare situation, but surely you can agree that there are even more every day situations where guns are a danger in this country.

The right keeps saying, "don't exploit this mass attack and use it to discuss gun control." Well when else are we supposed to do it? They refuse to talk about it at any other point. The second amendment wasn't written by God, it was written by guys in their 30s-40s 250 years ago. Things change, technology changes, society changes. The idea that we can't revisit it as things change is absurd.

[CrescentMoonie]

Simple solution: Outlaw all semi and fully automatic weapons for personal use. Anyone who refuses to give their's up goes to prison for 10 years. To make room in the overcrowded prisons, legalize marijuana and release all the harmless people who are there on stupid pot related charges.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But there is a cost on the other side, that many Americans hold sacred (rhe right to bear arms). Yes, Germany does homicide by gun (and in general) better, but a price paid for that is that right. To Germans, this is not a thing of concern, but to many Americans, it is. That is why, I don't stop at one, but list the next two. Culture and, specifically to whomario, the tenor of his message. What Germany does isn't likely to work here because of the culture. And as for the other part, an important element of communication is to not insult the target of your communication. Doing so just shuts down the conversation before real, rational.discourse can happen.

Yeah, I think the cultural disconnect is a huge part of this. If I had to guess it's mostly "how can people possibly equate the right to bear arms with the loss of human life" - I know I have a hard time with my own opinions. Although I don't own any and I'm not the biggest fan, I do really enjoy going to the range and firing guns. I also hate the idea of the government telling me what I can and can't do, with regard to things that don't infringe on others' personal liberties.

At the same time, when you realize that there are practically zero other first world countries that deal with this issue (mass shootings / gun violence), it is extremely hard to see why we cannot at least work toward some sort of goal to limit this. It's also pretty easy to understand where that "condescending" attitude comes from.

[Arles]

There are a lot of 9mm semi auto pistols that are fine (ie, glock). If we were going to do a "ban", I'd focus on magazine/firing capability and especially long range rifles with high capacity. Maybe limit handgun magazines to 16 rounds and outlaw any assault rifle magazine with over 20. I don't see a situation where someone needs a 30-40 round magazine on a handgun or rifle. Unless you are a terrible shot as a hunter or an army breaks into your house, 16 rounds seems like a reasonable maximum for magazines.

[RainMaker]

Ben was right.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...pons.html?_r=0

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Its the idea that you have to have a gun to be a man or to protect your family is part of what's wrong with this whole equation.

The people who say this like boo feel inadequate as men. I wouldn't take it personal. Things in this world have made him feel so small that he thinks a hunk of metal in his hands changes that.

[Edward64]

I don't claim to have the right solution(s) but maybe part of the answer is play the long vs short game for the non-Islamic extremist killings (there, I said it, wasn't hard). Essentially give up on trying to change now but think about the next generation.

Smoking habits have decreased. I'm sure a main reason for this was a campaign, taxes etc. against it.

So create a awareness campaign aimed towards the next generation, increased gun control laws for the next generation etc. and maybe we'll see a downward trend. Educate kids that bullying really has consequences. Tell people to seek help if they have all this internal rage, or off themselves without hurting so many innocent people etc.

It is part of US culture but there are more guns now than before which implies it can change. Prob wishful thinking.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Its the idea that you have to have a gun to be a man or to protect your family is part of what's wrong with this whole equation. I don't doubt it can come in very handy in an extremely rare situation, but surely you can agree that there are even more every day situations where guns are a danger in this country.

I really don't understand why law abiding, trained citizens should not be able to own guns for self-defense.

If you are talking about type, the number of weapons, the magazine size, some sort of more restrictive gun controls etc. fine we can talk then. However, to say/imply that protecting your family is not a good reason to have a weapon is just strange to me.

Do I live in fear day-to-day, no. Do I think I could have a home invasion, not really but that has happened a mile down the street.

Do I think there could be a breakdown in law-and-order for a period of time, absolutely.

Do I think that people living in the country or boonies should own a weapon to protect them against wild animals, yes.

Do I think a farmer should be able to kill varmints that are attacking their live stock or possibly pose a danger to their children, yes.

etc.

[booradley]

***Taking a couple of weeks to consider how to more respectfully address and converse with other posters.***

[NobodyHere]

I wonder how many people will get the ban hammer in this thread

[JPhillips]

In this version of Mockingbird Boo Radley leaves 4chan rants and copies of Soldier of Fortune in the tree for the children.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

If there are other ideas on gun control that the rest of the world uses that we can use, I am all ears. But not when it is delivered by someone who doesn't live in this country, doesn't understand American culture and who presumes to be better than Americans simply by, what, being?

I don't tell him how to do things in Germany. I will kindly ask he cease and desist when it comes to the U.S.

https://forums.operationsports.com/f...attach/jpg.gif

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

But there is a cost on the other side, that many Americans hold sacred (rhe right to bear arms). Yes, Germany does homicide by gun (and in general) better, but a price paid for that is that right. To Germans, this is not a thing of concern, but to many Americans, it is. That is why, I don't stop at one, but list the next two. Culture and, specifically to whomario, the tenor of his message. What Germany does isn't likely to work here because of the culture. And as for the other part, an important element of communication is to not insult the target of your communication. Doing so just shuts down the conversation before real, rational.discourse can happen.

I keep seeing this word "Culture". Maybe that is the problem, people look at the right to bear arms as a culture. I find it unfortunate that we have accepted this as a culture of our society.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In this version of Mockingbird Boo Radley leaves 4chan rants and copies of Soldier of Fortune in the tree for the children.

It's just his tone. For example, when I read this, I thought he was being sarcastic:

Originally Posted by booradley

You're "scared", really? You think once the election results were in we all ran for our KKK hoods and torches, laughing maniacally all the way? Yeah, you got us.

[Arles]

Maybe it's time we re-institute the 1994 magazine limit of 10 rounds per magazine. Seems like a reasonable start that doesn't take guns away from people.