Mass shooting in Las Vegas

[JPhillips]

Sounds good, but the biggest problem is that currently the GOP won't agree to any new regulation on firearms. For all people want to bash the gun control crowd, they aren't the ones refusing to move even an inch off of their current position.

[Arles]

It's the only thing that has a chance at passing, IMO. But, you're right, no republican congressman will ever vote for any kind of gun limit (even on the # of rounds fired) because they don't want their NRA rating (and funding) to be impacted.

It's sad, but that's politics in the US (on both sides). Small, well funded special interests dictate all policy changes and anyone wanting small, coming sense changes to protect people and/or improve bad situations is SOL. At this point, what is the point of even having a debate on issues. Nothing will ever change and normal, well-intentioned people will just continue to be frustrated.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Sounds good, but the biggest problem is that currently the GOP won't agree to any new regulation on firearms. For all people want to bash the gun control crowd, they aren't the ones refusing to move even an inch off of their current position.

yeah

"won't agree" sounds weird tho. That infers they are actually talking about it. I have never heard any GOP want to talk about it.

[CrimsonFox]

Are there any laws against illegally selling guns? Any punishments? Read something about gun shows and the amount sold to people without limits or background checks and even at gunshow parking lots. Makes sense that that kinda stuff happens as often as backalley drug sales. But if they catch someone doing that what are the penalties? Should be immediate jailtime for buying, more for selling.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Are there any laws against illegally selling guns?

Wut?

[Vince, Pt. II]

Thanks, I wasn't quick enough to get there

[NobodyHere]

As for the rest of his post I think he was referring to the Gun Show loophole. Only sales conducted by licensed firearm dealers need to have background checks.

If I owned a gun, I guess could sell it to whoever I want without a background check and sales like that happen at gunshows.

According to a study from Harvard, 22% of gun owners bought their last gun with no back ground checks.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Arles

It's the only thing that has a chance at passing, IMO. But, you're right, no republican congressman will ever vote for any kind of gun limit (even on the # of rounds fired) because they don't want their NRA rating (and funding) to be impacted.

It's sad, but that's politics in the US (on both sides). Small, well funded special interests dictate all policy changes and anyone wanting small, coming sense changes to protect people and/or improve bad situations is SOL. At this point, what is the point of even having a debate on issues. Nothing will ever change and normal, well-intentioned people will just continue to be frustrated.

I've always been curious why a large anti-gun or pro gun control organization to rival the NRA hasn't been formed. If politicians just chase money, shouldn't an rival lobbying group exist, take donations from the public, donate to politicians, etc.

[digamma]

That is true on a federal level. There are 19 states that have closed the "gun show loophole" and require background checks for all sales. Penalties vary by state for violations. This is where we have the best data on universal background checks as an effective policy for reducing gun violence--comparing full background check states with those without full background checks. We also have a really interesting case study and data from Missouri where they repealed their universal background check law. Gun deaths increased and "time to crime" (the amount of time between a gun sale and the gun showing up in a crime) decreased on average.

People will point to Las Vegas where the guns (if initial reporting is accurate) appear to have been bought legally and pursuant to a background check, and quite simply you can never stop every single incident. But, we can make a hell of a dent in these god awful numbers.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Thanks, I wasn't quick enough to get there

heh hahahahahahahahaha

I see...hahahahahahaha
yeah I did that.

You know what I mean.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Wut?

It's actually not as weird a question as you think. There are no federal laws against gun trafficking. The only thing on the books is straw purchases and the punishment for that is so minor it mirrors a traffic violation.

It's up to the states to really police illegal gun stuff and since most of these operations run state-to-state, it's almost impossible to catch the bad guys.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's actually not as weird a question as you think. There are no federal laws against gun trafficking. The only thing on the books is straw purchases and the punishment for that is so minor it mirrors a traffic violation.

It's up to the states to really police illegal gun stuff and since most of these operations run state-to-state, it's almost impossible to catch the bad guys.

aka buy a gun in state without laws and take them wherever.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by bob

I've always been curious why a large anti-gun or pro gun control organization to rival the NRA hasn't been formed. If politicians just chase money, shouldn't an rival lobbying group exist, take donations from the public, donate to politicians, etc.

There's not really money to be made on keeping people safe.

[NobodyHere]

By definition if someone is selling an illegal gun then there's some law somewhere that made it illegal.

I think I know what he meant but it the question was terribly and amusingly phrased.

[whomario]

I don't see any reason to "cease and desist" when it comes to a discussion (would be a sad day if you could only argue things you are an expert in and/or born into), so me not continuing to partake in the discussion, at least not regularly, is merely that i essentially said all i needed on the subject.

It's up to you (as in "the citizens of the United States") to change things.
But as someone posting here for a long time, having a huge affinity to a lot of things "american" and who has lived in your country for about 2 1/2 years all told (2 as a teenager, another half year in my early 20s) and still has friends from these periods as well as other americans i have met all over the world during my travels and time studying abroad i feel inclined to speak out on issues i find extremely troublesome and that affects people i know and care for.

Should i have maybe taken a different tone ? Quite possible. But at some point, you have seen a troublesome thing happening too many times to be polite about it anymore. And i certainly feel comfortable pointing out that this is looking crazy for a lot more people than it looks sane. I might be that everybody else is driving in the wrong direction, but it also just might be you driving the wrong way. Is the "american way" still viable in this special instance if it is not actually benefitting the american people but actively hurting a hell of a lot more than it protects ?

The whole idea of this being a uniquely american thing that no outside perspective can ever grasp or "fix" is simply confounding and essentially kills any discussion right off the bat. Essentially what you are saying is that you have a unique culture of violence and are fine with it. Sometimes hiding behind "culture" and saying it's too complicated for outsiders to grasp and whoever disagrees isn't really a good american is the easy way out, isn't it ?

There's so many examples in history where things were "culture" until they weren't anymore. Heck, there's a few prominent examples in US history and even more of the US interfering in other cultures, but i will leave it for others to open that particular can of worms.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

By definition if someone is selling an illegal gun then there's some law somewhere that made it illegal.

I think I know what he meant but it the question was terribly and amusingly phrased.

yes it was. My grammar really sucks today. I was more after the consequences thereof and if there really are any as I hadn't thought of parking lot gun show sales as a thing until I read whatever I read.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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?

Yes, we had a mass shooting at a popular tourist spot which prompted the change - 35 killed by a man with 'significant intellectual disabilities'.

There are absolutely illegal guns still out there, but probably not as many as you'd think. I think the fact that it's illegal is a key point as to why there's not that many out there, as well as the fact that there was a buy-back scheme, where you were paid a certain amount depending on the firearm.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by bob

I've always been curious why a large anti-gun or pro gun control organization to rival the NRA hasn't been formed. If politicians just chase money, shouldn't an rival lobbying group exist, take donations from the public, donate to politicians, etc.

There is the Brady Campaign and some rich people like Michael Bloomberg has donated a lot of money. I think in the end there is more passion in the people who want to keep their perceived rights than those who want to take them away. And of course the NRA gets a lot of funds from the gun industry.

I think the Brady Campaign should be renamed the Tom Brady Campaign. They would raise a lot more money.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

There is the Brady Campaign and some rich people like Michael Bloomberg has donated a lot of money. I think in the end there is more passion in the people who want to keep their perceived rights than those who want to take them away. And of course the NRA gets a lot of funds from the gun industry.

I think the Brady Campaign should be renamed the Tom Brady Campaign. They would raise a lot more money.

DEFLATE GUN SALES!

[digamma]

Originally Posted by bob

I've always been curious why a large anti-gun or pro gun control organization to rival the NRA hasn't been formed. If politicians just chase money, shouldn't an rival lobbying group exist, take donations from the public, donate to politicians, etc.

You should check the growth of Everytown and Mom's Demand Action since 2012. The NRA had a decades long head start and as noted, there's not a competing product to push (compared to gun manufacturers for the NRA), but progress is being made, even if yesterday clouds that in an awful, terrible way. And, semantics but important (similar to knowing weapon terminology), the goal is not to be anti-gun but to reduce gun violence and reduce gun deaths.

And if anyone is interested in learning more, please feel free to PM me or if you are interested in getting involved you can text the word HONOR to 644-33.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

There's not really money to be made on keeping people safe.

And a lot of guys who want to play army man in their backyard but don't have the testicles to do the real thing.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by bob

I've always been curious why a large anti-gun or pro gun control organization to rival the NRA hasn't been formed. If politicians just chase money, shouldn't an rival lobbying group exist, take donations from the public, donate to politicians, etc.

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

There is the Brady Campaign and some rich people like Michael Bloomberg has donated a lot of money. I think in the end there is more passion in the people who want to keep their perceived rights than those who want to take them away. And of course the NRA gets a lot of funds from the gun industry.

I think the Brady Campaign should be renamed the Tom Brady Campaign. They would raise a lot more money.

Bloomberg is not affiliated with Brady. He formed an organization called Mayors against Illegal Guns and has since supported Everytown for Gun Safety.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Yes, we had a mass shooting at a popular tourist spot which prompted the change - 35 killed by a man with 'significant intellectual disabilities'.

There are absolutely illegal guns still out there, but probably not as many as you'd think. I think the fact that it's illegal is a key point as to why there's not that many out there, as well as the fact that there was a buy-back scheme, where you were paid a certain amount depending on the firearm.

And something that is partially succesfull is still considered an improvement in most areas of life. Why not here ? This argument of "well, you can't do it 100% succesful so there is no point in doing it" would be laughed off in different areas. Takes speed limits or similar traffic laws for example. There is no way to actually physically prevent people from driving too fast or catch everybody doing it everywhere all the time. And there are still hundreds of people killed in car accidents in every country having these laws. Does that mean it's a useless restriction ?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think in the end there is more passion in the people who want to keep their perceived rights than those who want to take them away.

This is mainly what it is. People who want more gun control don't vote for it like people who want tons of guns do.

I'd also add that the NRA and other interest groups do a great job of scaring people into thinking that any kind of regulation on guns means they're taking your guns from you. It seems silly to most of us but there are a lot of remarkably stupid people who vote.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

There's not really money to be made on keeping people safe.

You can blame the insurance industry for that...

[21C]

[NobodyHere]

Just a random thought: What are they going to do with the hotel room the gunman used?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

This is mainly what it is. People who want more gun control don't vote for it like people who want tons of guns do.

I'd also add that the NRA and other interest groups do a great job of scaring people into thinking that any kind of regulation on guns means they're taking your guns from you. It seems silly to most of us but there are a lot of remarkably stupid people who vote.

I think this is one of the benefits of mandatory voting. You don't end up with just the extremes making the effort to go vote - you get everyone.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And a lot of guys who want to play army man in their backyard but don't have the testicles to do the real thing.

Exhibit A:

Gun-packing Instagram star Dan Bilzerian mocked for fleeing Las Vegas shooting - The Washington Post

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I think this is one of the benefits of mandatory voting. You don't end up with just the extremes making the effort to go vote - you get everyone.

I'd rather go the other way and require a proven minimum score on an IQ test or something similar.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

I'd rather go the other way and require a proven minimum score on an IQ test or something similar.

I think voters should have to pass a citizenship test.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think voters should have to pass a citizenship test.

That would work as well. Just have a verification system and go from there. Maybe it's just something on the driver's license or other document that gets shown to get into the voting booth.

[Izulde]

Trump says police response to Las Vegas shooting was “a miracle�

I know this is more a poor word choice, but fuck him.

Edit: Initial headline was that he called what happened in Vegas a miracle

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by 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.

I understand the point you are making, but I think you are missing mine.

Saying Assault rifles should be banned (they already are) is the same as saying pain medicine should be banned (in your opioid analogy)

I don't want to post a long dissertation here, but I'll say this. I am a lifetime nra member. Over the last half a decade I have became a tad disenfranchised with their message. I think compromise is needed from both sides.

I have lived my entire life in the construction industry. My hobbies are hunting, fishing and football. I am a Christian. 4 of those 5 put me routinely in largely unanimous (or seemingly so) conservative populations. But I'm not closed minded. One of the main reasons I stay her at fofc is that it regularly makes me challenge my thought process and belief system. It doesn't change them frequently, per se, but it does make me challenge internally what I believe and why.

So when a poster who I respect greatly weighs in on an issue I try to consider their view point no matter how contradictory it may be to my own beliefs. When a pistol is made that assault rifles should be banned, I discount the balance of their post as mindless dribble reciting half cocked talking points.

If meaningful gun reform is ever to take place, people have to understand what they actually want banned.
Assault rifles?
Already are.
Automatic weapons?
Already are
Semi auto weapons?
We are going to disagree. Most shotguns, most pistols and many hunting rifles are semi automatic.
High powered rifles?
Most hunting rifles are larger caliber and longer range than much of the AR and AK platform weapons.
Hi capacity?
Let's define high.
This is actually an area I support some. Not a 10 max, like suggested above but maybe a 20...

I'm not asking or expecting non gun owners to discuss single action versus double action, or pin versus sear or pistol versus revolver...but basic understanding of machine, versus auto, versus semi auto, versus assault isn't too much to ask as a barrier to conversation in my opinion.

[stevew]

Significantly tax Ammo and use that money to fund victims of shootings.

[CrescentMoonie]

The Las Vegas gunman transferred $100,000 overseas in the days before the attack and planned the massacre so meticulously that he even set up cameras inside the peephole of his high-rise hotel room and on a service cart outside his door, apparently to spot anyone coming for him, authorities said Tuesday.

Sheriff Says Vegas Gunman Set Up Cameras Inside and Outside His Room - Bloomberg

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

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?

Russian nesting guns

[PilotMan]

If only Trump would Tweet:

“Another attack in London (the US) by a loser terrorist. These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard (insert your law enforcement agency here). Must be proactive!” Trump tweeted. “The travel ban into (Gun control in) the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific — but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!”

... but that wouldn't be politically correct

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by whomario

Should i have maybe taken a different tone ? Quite possible. But at some point, you have seen a troublesome thing happening too many times to be polite about it anymore.

Different tone? Nah. I imagine for you it's basically like watching this:

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I understand the point you are making, but I think you are missing mine.

Saying Assault rifles should be banned (they already are) is the same as saying pain medicine should be banned (in your opioid analogy)

I don't want to post a long dissertation here, but I'll say this. I am a lifetime nra member. Over the last half a decade I have became a tad disenfranchised with their message. I think compromise is needed from both sides.

I have lived my entire life in the construction industry. My hobbies are hunting, fishing and football. I am a Christian. 4 of those 5 put me routinely in largely unanimous (or seemingly so) conservative populations. But I'm not closed minded. One of the main reasons I stay her at fofc is that it regularly makes me challenge my thought process and belief system. It doesn't change them frequently, per se, but it does make me challenge internally what I believe and why.

So when a poster who I respect greatly weighs in on an issue I try to consider their view point no matter how contradictory it may be to my own beliefs. When a pistol is made that assault rifles should be banned, I discount the balance of their post as mindless dribble reciting half cocked talking points.

If meaningful gun reform is ever to take place, people have to understand what they actually want banned.
Assault rifles?
Already are.
Automatic weapons?
Already are
Semi auto weapons?
We are going to disagree. Most shotguns, most pistols and many hunting rifles are semi automatic.
High powered rifles?
Most hunting rifles are larger caliber and longer range than much of the AR and AK platform weapons.
Hi capacity?
Let's define high.
This is actually an area I support some. Not a 10 max, like suggested above but maybe a 20...

I'm not asking or expecting non gun owners to discuss single action versus double action, or pin versus sear or pistol versus revolver...but basic understanding of machine, versus auto, versus semi auto, versus assault isn't too much to ask as a barrier to conversation in my opinion.

I think a start would be banning the sale of bump stocks.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think a start would be banning the sale of bump stocks.

I wouldn't oppose that ban.
The problem is, the secret sauce was the IP...the design is out there. I could make a composite bump stock in my home garage in a couple hours with no special tooling I don't already own for working on cars.

Not saying that is a reason not to ban them, just another piece of the puzzle.

I would also be in favor of removing a person's right to own fire arms ifor they illegally manufacture them.

Gun to my head, I'd probably prefer bump stocks go into a Class 3 category as opposed to an outright ban, but I don't feel passionately either way. It's not a product that truly interests me. A friend has one, I've shot it...wasn't controlled enough for my liking.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I understand the point you are making, but I think you are missing mine.

Saying Assault rifles should be banned (they already are) is the same as saying pain medicine should be banned (in your opioid analogy)

In context, most of the statements calling for such a ban are clearly referencing things like AR-15s and the like. In your analogy it's more like people saying pain medicine when they really mean heroin. People may be using the wrong term, but when you read the whole message the meaning is generally pretty clear.

I think the gun definition fanatics are arguing something akin to, "you said opiums when the correct term is opioids, so therefore, I can't take anything you say about drug control seriously."

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

heh hahahahahahahahaha

I see...hahahahahahaha
yeah I did that.

You know what I mean.

I do and did, just made me chuckle

[NobodyHere]

Opinion | I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

This article tends to go along with my line of thinking. I haven't really seen any gun control law that IMO would both drop the gun homicide rate in the US and pass constitutional muster.

Things like magazine sizes and banning bump stocks sound great but really how many murders would that prevent? Especially since everything I've read indicates that there are easy workarounds.

[digamma]

The article misrepresents the work that 538 did and the thesis I put forward earlier in this thread. She's correct that bans of specific guns or technology have not been particularly effective. She ignores that background checks have been effective. This statement was ironically in the very first paragraph of the 538 article.

Edit: So maybe it is a poor headline and leads to spin on "gun control" not being effective, when we have policy initiatives that do broadly reduce gun violence.

[QuikSand]

Ban bump stocks. Knowing full well there's an easy work-around for anyone interested. Pass the bill, do nothing else, call it a day.

Sounds about right for this group, honestly.

(To be honest, I'm really torn about what policies would really help here, but a deep cynicism about our political leaders is pretty much fundamental at this point, right?)

[JPhillips]

I would agree with her that there is no one policy that will make a big difference, but she acknowledges that there are policies that will make small differences. Added together and over time those small differences will matter.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Ban bump stocks. Knowing full well there's an easy work-around for anyone interested. Pass the bill, do nothing else, call it a day.

Sounds about right for this group, honestly.

(To be honest, I'm really torn about what policies would really help here, but a deep cynicism about our political leaders is pretty much fundamental at this point, right?)

I think this mentality is a reason why groups like the NRA are generally uncompromising.

1. Politicians enact gun control policy (which will ban something or create a hassle for gun owners).
2. Gun violence continues
3. Go back to 1.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I would agree with her that there is no one policy that will make a big difference, but she acknowledges that there are policies that will make small differences. Added together and over time those small differences will matter.

Exactly. You don't have to always go for the home run; a few singles in a row will accomplish the same thing.

[CrescentMoonie]

Anything that gets us to no longer have 4x as many gun homicides as the next highest among developed countries is a positive. The challenge is the US only has 4% of the world's population but 42% of privately owned guns. There are valid reasons for having certain weapons, yet places like Germany and Switzerland don't treat them as idols of an imagined masculinity.