Mass shooting in Las Vegas

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

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

Kellyanne Conway Blames Obama for Not Regulating Bump Stocks

She's not wrong. It was his ATF that approved them.

Trump ordering the ATF to ban them would actually be a good political move.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

She's not wrong. It was his ATF that approved them.

Trump ordering the ATF to ban them would actually be a good political move.

I dunno, his base would probably be upset that he caved to the liberal gun grabbers.

Even if they personally hate bump stocks, they would hate even more the idea of giving liberals "a win".

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I think voters should have to pass a citizenship test.

They already have. Our citizenship test is being born here... right?

[NobodyHere]

dola

Of course right after my last post the NRA releases this

BREAKING: NRA calls for ATF to review gun bump stock devices, and believes they "should be subject to additional regulations.” pic.twitter.com/DI1zDnO7qH

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) October 5, 2017

It doesn't call for a ban but for additional regulations.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

They already have. Our citizenship test is being born here... right?

I don't know if you're being snarky or not. I meant the citizenship test that immigrants have to pass in order to become citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/us/us-...rnd/index.html

ETA: The idea is that voters should have at least basic knowledge of US government and US history.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I don't know if you're being snarky or not. I meant the citizenship test that immigrants have to pass in order to become citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/us/us-...rnd/index.html

ETA: The idea is that voters should have at least basic knowledge of US government and US history.

Yes, I was being snarky, but at the same time, I don't see what this would solve. Restricting the ability of all of the citizens from voting would be an extreme civil rights violation that I feel no side of the fence would agree to... well except the far right and far left if they can determine the questions on the test.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Yes, I was being snarky, but at the same time, I don't see what this would solve. Restricting the ability of all of the citizens from voting would be an extreme civil rights violation that I feel no side of the fence would agree to... well except the far right and far left if they can determine the questions on the test.

It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a driver's license. Having an arbitrary age, with no other requirements, is absurd. While horribly wrongheaded in how it was determined, there were requirements for voting when the country was founded.

Not everyone should vote. If you can't pass a basic test showing that you understand how our system works and the purpose behind it, you don't get to have a say.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a driver's license.

So you think that certain people should be subject to laws and regulations that they have absolutely no input on / control over? No taxation without representation was a thing for a good reason.

I feel like the fact that you can literally kill someone with a motor vehicle makes me pretty ok with voting being an easier privilege to obtain.

[JPhillips]

Who writes the test?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Who writes the test?

We already have a test. (Though personally I think the questions should be a tad harder)

[JPhillips]

Why not a test about how to get a Medicare supplemental policy? Or which streets to take to avoid construction? Or how to fill out and file a Schedule A?

For most people that's more relevant to their lives than a citizenship test.

[NobodyHere]

Good luck designing THAT test

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

So you think that certain people should be subject to laws and regulations that they have absolutely no input on / control over? No taxation without representation was a thing for a good reason.

I feel like the fact that you can literally kill someone with a motor vehicle makes me pretty ok with voting being an easier privilege to obtain.

I think the privilege is too easy and a hell of a lot more important than how well someone drives. You should have to show a modicum of understanding beyond which letter is beside a name to cast a vote. Turning 18 means nothing.

Originally you had to own land, a sign of actual competence and success, to vote. The flaw wasn't the requirement, it was the racist and sexist culture surrounding it that restricted the vote to white men.

A test, like the citizenship test, is still minimal but at least it requires some semblance of understanding before voting. They can be done in whatever languages are necessary, offered for free to anyone who wishes to qualify to vote, and be renewable every 8-10 years or so. Minimal burden, minimal requirements, but not a free pass to vote simply by existing past a certain age.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Originally you had to own land, a sign of actual competence and success, to vote.

No.

The flaw wasn't the requirement, it was the racist and sexist culture surrounding it that restricted the vote to white men.

What.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

I think the privilege is too easy and a hell of a lot more important than how well someone drives. You should have to show a modicum of understanding beyond which letter is beside a name to cast a vote. Turning 18 means nothing.

Originally you had to own land, a sign of actual competence and success, to vote. The flaw wasn't the requirement, it was the racist and sexist culture surrounding it that restricted the vote to white men.

A test, like the citizenship test, is still minimal but at least it requires some semblance of understanding before voting. They can be done in whatever languages are necessary, offered for free to anyone who wishes to qualify to vote, and be renewable every 8-10 years or so. Minimal burden, minimal requirements, but not a free pass to vote simply by existing past a certain age.

I assume this must coming from your problem with non high school graduates voting? If not, it is safe to assume all high graduates have had to demonstrate a modicum of understanding in civics.
If that’s not enough, then shouldn’t the burden be on the teaching, not the student?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a driver's license. Having an arbitrary age, with no other requirements, is absurd. While horribly wrongheaded in how it was determined, there were requirements for voting when the country was founded.

Not everyone should vote. If you can't pass a basic test showing that you understand how our system works and the purpose behind it, you don't get to have a say.

Yes, there were requirements, you had to be white, male, landowner. You really aren't selling me on this.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

We already have a test. (Though personally I think the questions should be a tad harder)

Really? REALLY?

Show me the test because if you are talking about the citizenship test I have heard it isn't that easy.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I assume this must coming from your problem with non high school graduates voting? If not, it is safe to assume all high graduates have had to demonstrate a modicum of understanding in civics.
If that’s not enough, then shouldn’t the burden be on the teaching, not the student?

If you think most high school graduates understand the basics of the US government then you're far more trusting than I am. I've looked at the citizenship test and I'd be shocked if 20% of my family and high school friends could pass it. I'm sure some areas are better than that, but not many. The ignorance of the absolute basics is widespread.

26% of people surveyed could name the 3 branches of our government. That's just naming them, not even saying what they do.

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news...ent/105995974/

If you can't do something as simple as name the branches of the government and what they do, you don't get to vote.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Why not a test about how to get a Medicare supplemental policy? Or which streets to take to avoid construction? Or how to fill out and file a Schedule A?

For most people that's more relevant to their lives than a citizenship test.

Should the test be given yearly? Because I know lots of old people that are surely incompetent now that were perfectly intelligent when they were younger. I'm sure they would love for us to vote away all their rights and services.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

I think the privilege is too easy and a hell of a lot more important than how well someone drives.

Since when did voting become a privilege and not a right? What the actual fuck...?

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Since when did voting become a privilege and not a right? What the actual fuck...?

Since literally the beginning of the country, that's when. The standard then was completely out of whack, but not the concept. If it's a "right" then why do people have to way until the arbitrary age of 18?

[Drake]

I support the Bill of Privileges.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

If you think most high school graduates understand the basics of the US government then you're far more trusting than I am. I've looked at the citizenship test and I'd be shocked if 20% of my family and high school friends could pass it. I'm sure some areas are better than that, but not many. The ignorance of the absolute basics is widespread.

26% of people surveyed could name the 3 branches of our government. That's just naming them, not even saying what they do.

https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news...ent/105995974/

If you can't do something as simple as name the branches of the government and what they do, you don't get to vote.

Most people who pass a high school government class do not have a basic understanding of government? That’s just silly, and I don’t think really your point.

What I don’t understand is the realsionship between knowing the 3 branches of government and being a qualified voter. Please explain.
Because I know, a family that can’t pay its rising medical costs, or a family with a child in the military or a victim of gun violence will have a lot more passion and vested interest in laws and lawmakers, than someone who happens to know the 3 branches and their function.
I just don’t see how personal experiences and honest effort (law abiding) are somehow dismissed for an ability to memorize.
Why not base car insurance on dmv test scores only and dismiss all experience then?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Really? REALLY?

Show me the test because if you are talking about the citizenship test I have heard it isn't that easy.

The US government says the pass rate is above 90%, and I bet many of the applicants didn't have the benefit of a US education where they teach this stuff.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The US government says the pass rate is above 90%, and I bet many of the applicants didn't have the benefit of a US education where they teach this stuff.

Very true, but they also study for this test and are trying to accomplish a very important goal.

If we were to have a random sample of Americans take the test it would probably be a lower score. Now if they had a chance to study and prep I bet it would be higher but from my understanding, the test isn't "easy".

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Very true, but they also study for this test and are trying to accomplish a very important goal.

If we were to have a random sample of Americans take the test it would probably be a lower score. Now if they had a chance to study and prep I bet it would be higher but from my understanding, the test isn't "easy".

And if they studied then they might learn a thing or two about American government which is a good thing.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Really? REALLY?

Show me the test because if you are talking about the citizenship test I have heard it isn't that easy.

I'm assuming it's this one:

Questions for the Naturalization Test

Oral test, not multiple choice; 10 of the 100 questions asked; get six of the ten right to pass. Reportedly 91% success rate on the exam. In addition, seniors who have been in the country legally for 20 years only have to learn a fraction of the questions to choose from.

[stevew]

Man. I watched a bunch of bump stock vids. I'm not a gun guy, but I watch a ton of gun vids. Professionals and Target shooters, and hell people that just want to mess around, that's cool. Watching bump stock vids I don't really see how that's even different than a fully automatic gun. The fire rate is nuts. They probably shouldn't have been legal ever..if machine guns are not legal

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

26% of people surveyed could name the 3 branches of our government. That's just naming them, not even saying what they do.

I wonder to what degree that question is skewed by people answering "the President, the Congress, and the Supreme Court" rather than "the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches" and being counted wrong because the branches encompass larger complements than just those bodies.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by stevew

Man. I watched a bunch of bump stock vids. I'm not a gun guy, but I watch a ton of gun vids. Professionals and Target shooters, and hell people that just want to mess around, that's cool. Watching bump stock vids I don't really see how that's even different than a fully automatic gun. The fire rate is nuts. They probably shouldn't have been legal ever..if machine guns are not legal

The only non military scenario where you need a bump stock would be if you're living in a real world version of Hitchcock's 'The Birds'. Even in a Zombie Apocalypse scenario you need head shots.

[CU Tiger]

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.

Nah, I enjoy shooting them.
I also have 8 vehicles. I drive them all. I don't collect just to say I have them.

I'm actually incredibly encouraged by the NRA showing at least a modicum of compromise here. Could this be the first step toward reasonable reform?

[NobodyHere]

Now for a brief trip back to the original subject matter:

Vegas Shooter's Girlfriend Says He Would Lie in Bed Moaning, Screaming

This does bolster my "He had a brain tumor like the Texas clocktower shooter" theory.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by Drake

I support the Bill of Privileges.

Nice, which one of those first 10 were about voting? The later ones were to stop voting discrimination based on race or gender.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Most people who pass a high school government class do not have a basic understanding of government? That’s just silly, and I don’t think really your point.

What I don’t understand is the realsionship between knowing the 3 branches of government and being a qualified voter. Please explain.
Because I know, a family that can’t pay its rising medical costs, or a family with a child in the military or a victim of gun violence will have a lot more passion and vested interest in laws and lawmakers, than someone who happens to know the 3 branches and their function.
I just don’t see how personal experiences and honest effort (law abiding) are somehow dismissed for an ability to memorize.
Why not base car insurance on dmv test scores only and dismiss all experience then?

If you don't know how the government works then how can you vote in a manner that best suits it? If you can't name the 3 branches of government, then how can you know their functions and know which branch should be responsible for the changes you want to see enacted?

If you can't be bothered to know the very minimal basics then why should I think you're taking things seriously enough to contribute?

[Groundhog]

I'd say knowing how the government (actually) works is an incentive not to vote, unfortunately.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Now for a brief trip back to the original subject matter:

Vegas Shooter's Girlfriend Says He Would Lie in Bed Moaning, Screaming

This does bolster my "He had a brain tumor like the Texas clocktower shooter" theory.

Heard some stuff about him snapping at her in a Starbucks at the Reno casino where she used to work. Definitely sounds like something was going wrong and I wonder if his snapping was when it was diagnosed or if he never got it checked.

[stevew]

Have they said anything about what this guy's finances look like right now? Just wondering if he had basically scraped the bottom of his roll add didn't feel like there was much left to live for. Couple that with men aggressive personality, or at least what seems like one, and he may have just bottomed out and embraced his darkest fantasies. I know he sent her something like a hundred k to buy a house in the Philippines, but I'm wondering if that was maybe the last of what he had left.

[dave731]

Paddock was FBI arms dealer and part of an illegal sting operation being carried out by FBI trying to catch ISIS terrorists here in the US. He was paid the week before (money wire) and was selling at the Mandalay Bay. He was there but ISIS discovered who he was and FBI had to cover this disaster up or be prepared to answer for illegally supplying ISIS weapons. Look at the amount of weapons this guy had. He was selling them, not shooting them all. Multiple accounts of multiple shooters but the FBI knows the public will buy "the lone wolf" because we always do.

2+2=4....not 1

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

If you don't know how the government works then how can you vote in a manner that best suits it? If you can't name the 3 branches of government, then how can you know their functions and know which branch should be responsible for the changes you want to see enacted?

If you can't be bothered to know the very minimal basics then why should I think you're taking things seriously enough to contribute?

It seems you are confusing our representative system with direct democracy.

Oh well, enough of a thread jack...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

dola

Of course right after my last post the NRA releases this

BREAKING: NRA calls for ATF to review gun bump stock devices, and believes they "should be subject to additional regulations.” pic.twitter.com/DI1zDnO7qH

— NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) October 5, 2017

It doesn't call for a ban but for additional regulations.

Grain of salt: Wayne LaPierre once testified before Congress - when he was VP of the NRA - that he supported universal instant background checks for gun sales. "No loopholes, ever," were either his precise words, or close enough as makes no difference.

He no longer supports that.

So, I mean, set your expectations low on this one. Why risk being disappointed?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

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

Kellyanne Conway Blames Obama for Not Regulating Bump Stocks

/waggles hand

Had the Obama Administration directed the ATF to regulate them, Congressional Republicans would have gone apeshit over an extra-constitutional usurpation of Congressional authority.

You know, like they did for virtually every other executive action he took.

So while the base of the criticism is legitimate - that the Obama Administration did not attempt to restrict the manufacture or sale of the devices - it's a little bit disingenuous of her to suggest that, had he done anything, Congress would have just shrugged and said 'okay.'

Remember, Congressional Republicans' entire focus for eight years was on denying Obama a win. Any win. On anything. We had nearly two dozen schoolkids murdered at Newtown under Barack Obama, and Republican Congressmen went 'meh' and went back to stroking themselves while reading "Big Guns."

Don't delude yourself on this one: the reason there's even a shot at seeing "bump stocks" regulated or banned in the aftermath of Vegas is tripartite:

1) the victims were white country music fans. AKA, more likely to be Republicans than not.

2) Within the larger context of the gun control debate, it's the least offensive-to-the-NRA regulatory action Republicans can take and still claim they did something. I mean, yes, the fact that they're doing anything at all is kind of amazing (if it happens), but the NRA has given them cover on this, so they can attempt to appear to be Doing Something Like Adults without actually addressing the 90% of the iceberg that lurks underwater.

3) Blame-Obama politics. You're already seeing some of it with the mention of Obama's ATF, but that'll go up to 11 if Congress passes this bill and Trump signs it. "HE didn't do anything but WE did. He *wanted* those people to die!!!one1!" It's red meat for the base, and heading into the '18 midterms anything that distracts the base from the ACA repeal dysfunction is good for them, politically speaking.

[CrimsonFox]

oh dear...(or oh deer)...

The "Thoughts and Prayers" episode of Bojack Horseman couldn't be any better (or worse) timed...

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

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.}

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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?

Oh, I'm not saying it's not an idea that makes sense, just looking at the political ramifications of it and the fact that this latest outrage ignores the overwhelming majority of somewhat-preventable gun violence.

And yeah, now the Rs are introducing a bump-stock bill themselves, it appears. That makes more sense. I'm not sure what Feinstein was thinking.

[Groundhog]

But what about all those folks that collect bump-stocks and don't go on murderous rampages? Hardly seems fair.

[CrescentMoonie]

Just a reminder that while the discussion always turns to distraction about definitions, we have got to make real changes right now.

U.S. Has 31st Highest Rate Of Gun Violence In The World : Goats and Soda : NPR

[Arles]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

Just a reminder that while the discussion always turns to distraction about definitions, we have got to make real changes right now.

U.S. Has 31st Highest Rate Of Gun Violence In The World : Goats and Soda : NPR

Come on, we are better than Iraq!

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Arles

Come on, we are better than Iraq!

This one is a little more fair. Nothing for the US to be proud of but just because they don't have guns doesn't mean people aren't being murdered in other countries.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by panerd

This one is a little more fair. Nothing for the US to be proud of but just because they don't have guns doesn't mean people aren't being murdered in other countries.

I dare say this makes this merely makes the first graphic look worse Because this would make a not naturally murderous population extremely and needlessly prolific when it comes to gun-related homicides simply because it's so easy to accomplish.
(even aside from there not being, unless i am missing it, any countries comparable in "culture" behind it. Admittedly it is a strange selection anyway, missing big ones and including utterly obscure ones)

[bhlloy]

Seriously. The USA, just slightly more safe than the Ukraine and Lebanon. Think we've got our slogan for the next tourist board advert there.

[NobodyHere]

Why is Puerto Rico so high?