Mass shooting in Las Vegas

[Ben E Lou]

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.

Feinstein has introduced this bill, just in case others missed it.

I'm surprised that she hasn't attached a bunch of other stuff to it, Unless, of course, she thinks that the Rs will even push back against this by itself. Otherwise, it seems like this would be a "win" for R politicians more than Dems. They get to say "see, we did something," while banning a now-highly-unpopular and inexpensive niche device that has been used in the tiniest of fractions of gun-related murders. Meanwhile, this will be seen as a mere drop in the bucket by just about everyone on the left, which would serve--I would think--to lower voter enthusiasm a bit.

{Claims Victory Over Quik In The "Who Is More Cynical" Competition.}

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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."

I'm frustrated with myself because I cant (apparently) make my point.
What are things "like AR-15 and the like" I have no clue what that means to you.


Let me give you an example.
This is a picture of the exact model rifle I use to deer hunt with:

443184_02_browning_a_bolt_ii_7mm_wsm_com_640.jpg

And this is a picture of an "AR" rifle
560_rifle_and_parts_together.JPG


Which one do you want banned?
How are you differentiating them?

[Arles]

I feel like a broken record on this, but why can't the first step be a ban on magazines over 10-15 rounds? Let everyone keep their guns, but they just can't legally obtain high capacity magazines. It doesn't "fix" the problem, but it makes situations like this a lot harder to pull off. If he doesn't have magazines with 100 rounds (but instead a max of 10-15), they impact is much different. I still have yet to see a legit reason not to decrease the maximum rounds allowed in a magazine to 15 (and maybe even 10).

Right now, I could buy a 100-round magazine for under $200. This is insane to me - for what possible purpose does a normal citizen need that level of firepower?

https://www.fwtguns.com/sf-mag5-100-100-rnd-mag-ar15

[cartman]

One is a bolt-action, with likely a 3-5 round magazine. The other is a semi-auto, with a 10-100 round magazine/drum as an option. Most people would lean towards banning the one that can get dozens of rounds out at an incredibly rapid pace.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Arles

I feel like a broken record on this, but why can't the first step be a ban on magazines over 10-15 rounds? Let everyone keep their guns, but they just can't legally obtain high capacity magazines. It doesn't "fix" the problem, but it makes situations like this a lot harder to pull off. If he doesn't have magazines with 100 rounds (but instead a max of 10-15), they impact is much different. I still have yet to see a legit reason not to decrease the maximum rounds allowed in a magazine to 15 (and maybe even 10).

Right now, I could buy a 100-round magazine for under $200. This is insane to me - for what possible purpose does a normal citizen need that level of firepower?

https://www.fwtguns.com/sf-mag5-100-100-rnd-mag-ar15

Does your magazine ban apply to the millions that are already out there? Or just new sales?

[Arles]

There would be a buffer where you could offer a buyback. Ban new sales and offer a buyback period for a few years. After a certain amount of time, you make the ban complete.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I'm frustrated with myself because I cant (apparently) make my point.
What are things "like AR-15 and the like" I have no clue what that means to you.


Let me give you an example.
This is a picture of the exact model rifle I use to deer hunt with:

Attachment 6240

And this is a picture of an "AR" rifle
Attachment 6241


Which one do you want banned?
How are you differentiating them?

I'm not arguing for or against any ban at the moment. I'm saying that having a technical knowledge of what is defined as automatic or semi-automatic or assault or whatever isn't necessary for people to suggest a general direction in a policy debate. We don't demand that knowledge in any other policy area and doing so is often a way to shut people out of the debate.

As I've also said, eventually this technical knowledge matters a lot when it comes to writing legislation, but people can offer general policy preferences without knowing a lot of details.

[Edward64]

I do think the definition of semi-automatic is important. The majority of guns/rifles are semi-automatic and don't fire full-auto. e.g. many/majority of regular hunting guns are semi-automatic.

So when someone groups semi-automatic with "assault rifle" (full auto) I do think its important to make that distinction.

If you say ban assault rifles, I think they are already banned with exceptions. If you say ban semi-automatic rifles, that's a much different story because that's probably vast majority of guns/weapons.

[Buccaneer]

Creating a general policy based on ignorance (or self-serving gains) and putting in the details later is how we have gotten in so much trouble with many legislations. It starts off with faulty assumptions and addresses the wrong problems. Then the details just make it worse. But most people just want the applause of men thinking they had done their good deed in their eyes.

[JPhillips]

For the third time, yes, it's important for legislation, it isn't a reason to shut people out of the debate.

We don't demand an IRS vocab quiz before someone is allowed to say they want lower taxes.

[Buccaneer]

Understood that you are talking about public and private discourses (or what little that passes off as such). But when people say they want to ban X or allow X, they generally do not know what that would really mean. They don't really want a ban or allowance, they just want a desired outcome and have no idea if that's even going to have its intended consequences. Oftentimes it doesn't solve much, only to make things worse.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

For the third time, yes, it's important for legislation, it isn't a reason to shut people out of the debate.

We don't demand an IRS vocab quiz before someone is allowed to say they want lower taxes.

No we don't, but some basic level of understanding is expected for debate. If someone wants to engage in a debate about the intricacies of drug policy, it is certainly expected that they can differentiate between marijuana and cocaine. If someone wants to debate about the intricacies of pharmaceuticals it's expected they can differentiate between aspirin and opioids, and if someone wants to discuss motorcycle policy it is expected that they can differentiate between a motorcycle, a moped, and a bicycle. If one party wants to argue the specifics of something, while also demanding they remain willfully ignorant about the subject, does that really qualify as debate?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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.

Someone can make child porn in their home with a smartphone if they want. We still make the product illegal. We still target those who create it and distribute it. We don't throw up our hands and say "well it's easy to make so what's the point?".

I'm sure some people won't care and will make it themselves. I'm sure some people who don't have the technical wherewithal will not use it. The goal isn't to eliminate all gun homicides. But if the Las Vegas shooting killed 30 people instead of 59 because he couldn't fire off bullets at such a ridiculous rate, I see that as a good thing.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

while banning a now-highly-unpopular and inexpensive niche device that has been used in the tiniest of fractions of gun-related murders.

Does that change now? This guy just showed of effective it can be. Does the next mass shooter buy one of these when he goes on his rampage?

[dawgfan]

Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale for bump stocks being legal?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Just out of curiosity, what is the rationale for bump stocks being legal?

'Cuz technically it skirts the legal definition of automatic fire. As far as I understand it, the trigger is still being engaged only once per bullet fired and as such it still qualifies as semi-automatic.

[Atocep]

There are many examples of things that are perfectly fine when in responsible hands, but are a danger to yourself or others when misused that we have tight regulations on. I don't understand why guns are off limits to even consider and why we've become so accepting of mass shootings taking place.

I've actually heard people say their ok with all the tsa checkpoints and searches because they make them feel safer. They acknowledge that they may not actually accomplish a great deal and they infringe on their rights, but they do feel safer because of it and that makes it ok.

My own personal experience has been that the vast majority of people I've known in the last 2 areas I've lived that I would qualify as gun nuts don't need them for home defense and don't hunt. Yet most vote on a presidential candidate based on their stance on guns. What I find interesting is in talking to these people their stance on guns tends to stem from a simple love for guns. Not because of the canned home defense or hunting excuses that are quick to be used. Any regulations on guns would be similar to regulating anyone's favorite hobby. I know that isn't the way every gun advocate sees things, but I do think it's a complicating matter when discussing regulations on guns.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

'Cuz technically it skirts the legal definition of automatic fire. As far as I understand it, the trigger is still being engaged only once per bullet fired and as such it still qualifies as semi-automatic.

Sorry, let me re-phrase my question - since this devices appears to be a clear workaround of the restrictions against fully automatic weapons, why have they not been banned yet? What arguments have been made in favor of not banning them?

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sorry, let me re-phrase my question - since this devices appears to be a clear workaround of the restrictions against fully automatic weapons, why have they not been banned yet? What arguments have been made in favor of not banning them?

I dunno if there's a clear answer for you, other than "because they hadn't been used to kill anybody until now". My guess is that the situation is akin to the designer drug craze, where things are being designed specifically to mimic something illegal while remaining within the legally defined boundaries. I assume the device went through some sort of complicated vetting process to get approved for sale, but that certainly doesn't mean that that every firearm and/or accessory gets explicitly presented to lawmakers with a question of "should this be allowed or banned?" before it gets released to the public.

[Arles]

The gun control debate reminds me of the old anecdote where a man walks into a poor middle school's classroom. He tells the teacher he will give 10 of 25 kids a free ride through college, the teacher just needs to tell him their names. After a night of meeting with the parents, the teacher goes back to the man and says that she can't give any names because it would be unfair to the 15 kids not chosen.

This is like the gun debate. Gun owners/advocates are so paranoid about losing their guns, that unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the change will end gun violence 100%, they don't think the loss of rights (even small ones like bump stocks or 100-round magazines) are worth it.

There's never going to be one reasonable step that will completely end the chance of what happened in Vegas, Orlando or Sandy Hook. But, there are some small, reasonable changes that could reduce the impact of this violence over time. We need to start shifting the discussion from "tell me how change X will completely prevent Las Vegas" to "with change X, maybe only 45 people get killed instead of 58".

I am a proponent of reasonable gun ownership. I don't see a need to start flat out banning different weapons left and right as a starting point. I would rather reduce the ability for someone to legally possess a way to rapidly fire off 100s or even 1000s of bullets in a short timeframe. This can be done with the changes discussed on magazine size and devices to make weapons fully auto. The problem if we do nothing is that as the younger population starts taking over the 40-50+ "pro gun" crowd, there is a chance we hit a tipping point where massive gun bans start gaining wide support. In the long run, it is a better idea to start making allowances short of gun bans that have a chance to reduce the overall chance of these high casualty events. Because the longer we do nothing, the closer we get to the type of gun bans that will really start impacting the spirit of the second amendment.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sorry, let me re-phrase my question - since this devices appears to be a clear workaround of the restrictions against fully automatic weapons, why have they not been banned yet? What arguments have been made in favor of not banning them?

Because the NRA is an industry lobbying group opposed to any restrictions on firearms sales. Industry funds the NRA, the NRA funds the GOP, and the GOP only loosens gun regulations. Everybody gets rich!

[Drake]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Sorry, let me re-phrase my question - since this devices appears to be a clear workaround of the restrictions against fully automatic weapons, why have they not been banned yet? What arguments have been made in favor of not banning them?

My understanding is that bump stocks have been known for awhile to operate in that hazy zone of "innovation that violates the spirit of the law, but not the letter." Other than the usual cold-dead-hands crowd that's going to object to anything, I've yet to see a broad support for bump stocks generally.

Most guys who shoot don't have the money to be ripping off thousands of rounds of 5.56/.223 ammo in an afternoon at the range. At 30 cents a round for decent brass, it's a more expensive hobby than smoking cigarettes in most states.

So if you're asking why they haven't been outright banned up to this point, my guess would be lack of market penetration due to the economics of shooting. Until this incident, most people probably weren't even aware they existed, and many of us who did considered them nothing more than novelties.

(That said, I've already got gun buddies lining up to defend the absolute constitutionality of bump stocks based on nothing more than the cold-dead-hands principle.)

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Arles

There's never going to be one reasonable step that will completely end the chance of what happened in Vegas, Orlando or Sandy Hook. But, there are some small, reasonable changes that could reduce the impact of this violence over time. We need to start shifting the discussion from "tell me how change X will completely prevent Las Vegas" to "with change X, maybe only 45 people get killed instead of 58".

I fundamentally agree with everything you wrote, except that I think a big part of the issue is that a "series of small reasonable changes" is not currently how legislation works in this country in general, and particularly in regards to gun control. To some degree, I am dedicated to the "one big idea" solution, because I think realistically that's all we're going to get.

I'd offer that Obamacare was pretty much sold on the same first-in-a-series-of-reasonable-steps suggestion, and instead devolved into taking a first step in a largely misguided direction and then wrestling on top of that step for perpetuity.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Arles

I am a proponent of reasonable gun ownership. I don't see a need to start flat out banning different weapons left and right as a starting point. I would rather reduce the ability for someone to legally possess a way to rapidly fire off 100s or even 1000s of bullets in a short timeframe. This can be done with the changes discussed on magazine size and devices to make weapons fully auto. The problem if we do nothing is that as the younger population starts taking over the 40-50+ "pro gun" crowd, there is a chance we hit a tipping point where massive gun bans start gaining wide support. In the long run, it is a better idea to start making allowances short of gun bans that have a chance to reduce the overall chance of these high casualty events. Because the longer we do nothing, the closer we get to the type of gun bans that will really start impacting the spirit of the second amendment.

Want to point out that you reinforced the suspicion that many gun owners have that it starts small and where will it end, key word is "start". I don't think you are advocating banning all guns (which I am opposed to) but just an FYI on what I've read and heard.

[RainMaker]

Maybe there should be a restriction on the number of guns you can own at one time. Or buy over a period of time. Or how much ammunition you buy in a year.

In comparison, I can't buy more than 2 packs of Sudafed at one time because the government assumes I might make meth with it. If we make assumptions about cold medicine, maybe make assumptions with guns and ammo too?

[CrimsonFox]

I have a conspiracy-theorist "friend" from high school in my facebook feed. He is lightning fast with posting the extreme theories. The biggest one is THERE WAS A SECOND GUNMAN ON THE 10TH FLOOR!!!! (AND THERE IS VIDEO)

I watched the video. It's dark. And there are blurs. And everything is small.

And if there was a second gunman, wouldn't he pissed at the other guy for taking all the guns and ammo for himself?

[RainMaker]

Do these conspiracy theorists ever wonder why the cops constantly cover up for the extra gunmen?

[CrimsonFox]

Gunfire in lower windows? What comes 1st, Flash or Noise? Taxi Cab street view. - YouTube

There's a better video of what they are talking about.

I get it. They are seeing a flashing light. *shrug*
But was there a broken window on the 4th?
haven't heard that.

They are also saying cops reported over the squawkbox that they thought there may be someone on the 4th. But that is no way proof of anything because they just didn't know.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

Gunfire in lower windows? What comes 1st, Flash or Noise? Taxi Cab street view. - YouTube

There's a better video of what they are talking about.

I get it. They are seeing a flashing light. *shrug*
But was there a broken window on the 4th?
haven't heard that.

They are also saying cops reported over the squawkbox that they thought there may be someone on the 4th. But that is no way proof of anything because they just didn't know.

The same thing with 9/11. Conspiracies are built on the discrepancies between what's reported during the initial chaos of an event and what's determined to have happened after some time to put the pieces together.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe there should be a restriction on the number of guns you can own at one time. Or buy over a period of time. Or how much ammunition you buy in a year.

Getting too close to home, back off...

I like guns I collect them like some folks collect DVDs or video games etc.

[cartman]

"Gun Control" doesn't mean banning every single firearm any more than "Birth Control" means eliminating every single pregnancy.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Maybe there should be a restriction on the number of guns you can own at one time. Or buy over a period of time. Or how much ammunition you buy in a year.

In comparison, I can't buy more than 2 packs of Sudafed at one time because the government assumes I might make meth with it. If we make assumptions about cold medicine, maybe make assumptions with guns and ammo too?

I don't think its comparable. If you underwent a background check before you bought the Sudafed, maybe you should be able to buy more than 2 packs at a time.

A common NRA argument is why should law abiding citizens be restricted to buying guns/ammo. Isn't the root cause of most of these horrendous crimes because criminals, Islamic extemists, and mentally ill people doing bad things?

For me, if you want stricter controls such as - longer wait times, background checks when you buy ammo, proof that you took gun training (and continue to do so), proof that you have a gun safe, background checks at gun shows, registeration of weapons and no trading/giving of weapons to relatives without it being tracked etc. - I'm all for it.

But to take limit my ability to buy weapons and ammo doesn't really seem to address the root cause ... because I am law abiding and the majority of legal gun owners are.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think its comparable. If you underwent a background check before you bought the Sudafed, maybe you should be able to buy more than 2 packs at a time.

A common NRA argument is why should law abiding citizens be restricted to buying guns/ammo. Isn't the root cause of most of these horrendous crimes because criminals, Islamic extemists, and mentally ill people doing bad things?

For me, if you want stricter controls such as - longer wait times, background checks when you buy ammo, proof that you took gun training (and continue to do so), proof that you have a gun safe, background checks at gun shows, registeration of weapons and no trading/giving of weapons to relatives without it being tracked etc. - I'm all for it.

But to take limit my ability to buy weapons and ammo doesn't really seem to address the root cause ... because I am law abiding and the majority of legal gun owners are.

These are the requirements to get a driver's license in my state:

30 hours of classroom instruction (2 hours maximum per day).
6 hours of behind-the-wheel training (maximum 1 hour per day). You must FIRST have an instruction permit before you are allowed to begin this portion.
1 hour of behind-the-wheel observation.
50 hours of practice driving outside of the class, with 10 hours being driven at night. If you wish, you may use the DOL's Intermediate License Logbook to track your hours


That's on top of the written and actual driving tests. I don't think it's absurd to suggest owning a gun should require similar training. Yet I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Atocep

These are the requirements to get a driver's license in my state:

30 hours of classroom instruction (2 hours maximum per day).
6 hours of behind-the-wheel training (maximum 1 hour per day). You must FIRST have an instruction permit before you are allowed to begin this portion.
1 hour of behind-the-wheel observation.
50 hours of practice driving outside of the class, with 10 hours being driven at night. If you wish, you may use the DOL's Intermediate License Logbook to track your hours

That's on top of the written and actual driving tests. I don't think it's absurd to suggest owning a gun should require similar training. Yet I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

I personally think that amount of time is excessive.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't think its comparable. If you underwent a background check before you bought the Sudafed, maybe you should be able to buy more than 2 packs at a time.

A common NRA argument is why should law abiding citizens be restricted to buying guns/ammo. Isn't the root cause of most of these horrendous crimes because criminals, Islamic extemists, and mentally ill people doing bad things?

For me, if you want stricter controls such as - longer wait times, background checks when you buy ammo, proof that you took gun training (and continue to do so), proof that you have a gun safe, background checks at gun shows, registeration of weapons and no trading/giving of weapons to relatives without it being tracked etc. - I'm all for it.

But to take limit my ability to buy weapons and ammo doesn't really seem to address the root cause ... because I am law abiding and the majority of legal gun owners are.

I think the argument those on the right make are fair. Most gun owners are law abiding. In that regard it's not fair they have their ability to buy guns and ammo restricted.

However, they are hypocrites. The same people want restrictions on porn. They want restrictions on what's on TV. They don't want marijuana legalized. They don't want me to be able to buy booze when I want. So if I as a law abiding citizen can't buy booze at certain times and can't buy weed despite never being arrested for anything in my life, I want restrictions on their guns.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

However, they are hypocrites. The same people want restrictions on porn. They want restrictions on what's on TV. They don't want marijuana legalized. They don't want me to be able to buy booze when I want. So if I as a law abiding citizen can't buy booze at certain times and can't buy weed despite never being arrested for anything in my life, I want restrictions on their guns.

I know regular gun owners who don't care about those listed. To be fair, I can see "older" gun owners, more religious etc. that could fall into that category. Stupid swag is 50-50 but definitely not vast majority from my experience.

Now if you are talking about politicians, then to your point its probably close to 100%.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I think the argument those on the right make are fair. Most gun owners are law abiding. In that regard it's not fair they have their ability to buy guns and ammo restricted.

However, they are hypocrites. The same people want restrictions on porn. They want restrictions on what's on TV. They don't want marijuana legalized. They don't want me to be able to buy booze when I want. So if I as a law abiding citizen can't buy booze at certain times and can't buy weed despite never being arrested for anything in my life, I want restrictions on their guns.

That's kind of a broad brush you have there.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Atocep

These are the requirements to get a driver's license in my state:

30 hours of classroom instruction (2 hours maximum per day).
6 hours of behind-the-wheel training (maximum 1 hour per day). You must FIRST have an instruction permit before you are allowed to begin this portion.
1 hour of behind-the-wheel observation.
50 hours of practice driving outside of the class, with 10 hours being driven at night. If you wish, you may use the DOL's Intermediate License Logbook to track your hours


That's on top of the written and actual driving tests. I don't think it's absurd to suggest owning a gun should require similar training. Yet I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

I would be in favor of similar requirements for people before they can exercise their right to freedom of speech when it comes to posting on my Facebook feed.

(Please don't read anything snarky into this. Nothing to do with gun control debates.)

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That's kind of a broad brush you have there.

I think it's probably pretty safe to say that a great number of Americans would like to see restrictions on stuff they don't like and more freedom for stuff that they do. That's more of a human condition issue than a partisan one.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That's kind of a broad brush you have there.

Put it this way. How many hardcore pro-2A politicians also want tons of regulations on abortions to make it near impossible to have? Most of them?

[Arles]

Here's one:
This “pro-life” Congressman was caught telling his extramarital boo to get an abortion.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Getting too close to home, back off...

I like guns I collect them like some folks collect DVDs or video games etc.

would it work if you just collected pictures of guns? Or perhaps you could just have a little VR world called "Gun shop" and you can see each gun you own and you can acquire them like pokemon. And each time you acquire a VR gun you are sent a replica of that gun you can hold while playing the game that you plug into the unit so it feels like you are firing it. Would that appease you? Just curious.

[RainMaker]

Here are my suggestions. I don't think they are asking too much from the country.

1) Violent felons who are in possession of firearms should be given stiff prison sentences. 5-10 years minimum, no questions asked.

Most of the murders in Chicago are committed by felons. Many of these felons have been arrested numerous times and had possession of a firearm. The punishment for a felon in possession of a firearm around here is a joke. Stern talking to from the judge and some probation. It's time we stopped with the free passes. Felons can't possess firearms for a reason and it needs to be enforced strictly. This alone would remove a huge chunk of potential murderers from the street. It's violent individuals who continue to show they have not left their violent side behind.

2) Stop the bullshit workarounds like these bump sticks. It breaks the spirit of the law. If someone absolutely needs to fire off 800 rounds a minute, join the military where the ammo is free.

3) Treat gun trafficking with the same vigor as drug trafficking.

4) Take straw purchasing serious. Those who purchase guns illegally for someone else should be considered accessories in the crimes those individuals commit.

Now this shouldn't hurt anyone who legally purchases guns. It won't stop all shootings but it should lower the homicide rate.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here are my suggestions. I don't think they are asking too much from the country.

1) Violent felons who are in possession of firearms should be given stiff prison sentences. 5-10 years minimum, no questions asked.

Most of the murders in Chicago are committed by felons. Many of these felons have been arrested numerous times and had possession of a firearm. The punishment for a felon in possession of a firearm around here is a joke. Stern talking to from the judge and some probation. It's time we stopped with the free passes. Felons can't possess firearms for a reason and it needs to be enforced strictly. This alone would remove a huge chunk of potential murderers from the street. It's violent individuals who continue to show they have not left their violent side behind.

2) Stop the bullshit workarounds like these bump sticks. It breaks the spirit of the law. If someone absolutely needs to fire off 800 rounds a minute, join the military where the ammo is free.

3) Treat gun trafficking with the same vigor as drug trafficking.

4) Take straw purchasing serious. Those who purchase guns illegally for someone else should be considered accessories in the crimes those individuals commit.

Now this shouldn't hurt anyone who legally purchases guns. It won't stop all shootings but it should lower the homicide rate.

I like it.

I do think #2 will difficult to craft an all encompassing law. There always seems to be a way around the CA laws.

I would also toss in some sort of mandatory initial/continued weapons training/awareness. Again, thinking the long vs short term for kids 20 years from now.

To their credit, the NRA is heavy into training/awareness. My son took their classes before I let him shoot a gun. I sat in, the training was about mechanics of how the weapon worked, the legality of owning weapons.

The parts I would add is something like lessons learn from all the craziness, what to do in an active shooter event, pictures of dead bodies and pain of families, self-awareness and how to get help if needed etc. Whatever to make an impact to a kid now so 20 years from now we may be in a better place.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

would it work if you just collected pictures of guns? Or perhaps you could just have a little VR world called "Gun shop" and you can see each gun you own and you can acquire them like pokemon. And each time you acquire a VR gun you are sent a replica of that gun you can hold while playing the game that you plug into the unit so it feels like you are firing it. Would that appease you? Just curious.

I suspect the hands-on "caressing" part is necessary

I much prefer a book over an e-reader myself. There's something about holding a book, texture of the pages as you flip them and, of course, the smell of the glue!

[whomario]

Came across this in John Oliver's repost of his video on the NRA:

The ATF’s Nonsensical Non-Searchable Gun Databases, Explained

Compare that with other "this is risky, so we need to trace/track/record this" issues.


Also:

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I suspect the hands-on "caressing" part is necessary

I much prefer a book over an e-reader myself. There's something about holding a book, texture of the pages as you flip them and, of course, the smell of the glue!

I thought that's what a penis is for.

And that's what the model version is for too.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

I thought that's what a penis is for.

And that's what the model version is for too.

Ha, I slipped up and should have used more accurate terminology. But to your point, I was referring to his rifle collection and not his "gun"

Drill Instructor: This is my rifle! This is my gun!
Recruits: This is for fighting! This is for fun!
Full Metal Jacket

[CrimsonFox]

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sen...avoid-gunfire/

Oh boy. An asshole blaming the shooting vicitims for getting shot.

and his facebook page shows a lot of guys holding guns. classy.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I like it.
To their credit, the NRA is heavy into training/awareness.

[NobodyHere]

Well conservatives finally found a way to pin this one on Obama

Kellyanne Conway Blames Obama for Not Regulating Bump Stocks