Las Vegas Shooting

[Stevicus]

Problems that would make enforcement of American gun control laws as ineffective as Mexican enforcement of their gun control laws?

Not necessarily, but not as easy as in Canada.

There's no straw man AFAICT. You're arguing against stricter rules than the status quo, right?

No. My original argument was that all guns around the world should be banned. If humans are unable or unwilling to do that, then it's too bad. I'm really only against the idea that only the police and military should have guns. It's an idea I'm wary of, the idea that only police and gov't should have "special rights." That's a step closer to a police state.

I can't say what you're talking about, but I've been talking about firearm deaths across the board.

In the context of the thread topic, I thought the issue was violent murder.

Exactly who do you think has been saying we should focus on guns alone?

I've seen how these discussions inordinately focus on gun control along with obvious avoidance of other causes of violence. I think a lot of it is rooted in denial since a more earnest discussion might broach too many "sacred cows" in our society.

 

[oldbadger]

Dang, someone sure wears a tight government held leash.

Well...... at least I got a bite.
Ummm..... ok ..... a nibble.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. My original argument was that all guns around the world should be banned. If humans are unable or unwilling to do that, then it's too bad.

So all or nothing? That seems unreasonable.

I'm really only against the idea that only the police and military should have guns. It's an idea I'm wary of, the idea that only police and gov't should have "special rights." That's a step closer to a police state.

Funny you should mention that, because it seems to me that US gun culture is a big part of the "police state"-ish aspects of American policing now.

Cops in the US have to deal there being a decent chance that any person they encounter could be heavily armed, which means that during, say, a traffic stop, they're on a hair trigger, ready to respond in a split second to a deadly threat from the person they pulled over. This creates high-pressure situations where errors - often fatal - happen.

IMO, a lot of the recent police shootings that have triggered huge protests wouldn't have happened if guns weren't as freely available in the US as they are.

In the context of the thread topic, I thought the issue was violent murder.

That's one type of gun death, but not the only one.

It isn't even the most significant one in terms of body count.

Mass shootings get media attention, but many times more people are killed by a pistol that they wielded themselves than by gunmen firing into crowds of strangers.

Without the data in front of me (so I may be wrong), if we did decide to focus just on murder, murder of a person by their spouse with a pistol is probably a much bigger issue than mass shootings.

I've seen how these discussions inordinately focus on gun control along with obvious avoidance of other causes of violence. I think a lot of it is rooted in denial since a more earnest discussion might broach too many "sacred cows" in our society.

If you create the impression that you're bring up other issues in order to avoid discussing gun control, you're going to get pushback.

Gun control is just one part of a larger strategy. If we're talking about, say, suicide prevention, gun control would be just one prong in a policy that might also include, for instance, better mental health care funding, anti-bullying education, suicide prevention hotlines, and addressing the social issues that drive people to suicide.

However, what often happens in these discussions is that a gun advocate says "whoa, whoa - don't talk about regulating handguns until you've done all those other things!"

Gun control can have real, significant benefits. The fact that it can have synergistic benefits when it's implemented alongside other measures doesn't chanfe this fact, and generally, when gun advocates bring those other measures up in the context of a gun control discussion, they're doing it to distract from the issue at hand.

 

[Stevicus]

So all or nothing? That seems unreasonable.

Sometimes, standing by a principle can seem unreasonable.

Funny you should mention that, because it seems to me that US gun culture is a big part of the "police state"-ish aspects of American policing now.

Cops in the US have to deal there being a decent chance that any person they encounter could be heavily armed, which means that during, say, a traffic stop, they're on a hair trigger, ready to respond in a split second to a deadly threat from the person they pulled over. This creates high-pressure situations where errors - often fatal - happen.

IMO, a lot of the recent police shootings that have triggered huge protests wouldn't have happened if guns weren't as freely available in the US as they are.

A lot of these shootings are the result of routine traffic stops that got out of hand. Perhaps if greater restrictions were put on place to prevent their willy nilly traffic stops, that might help. Or at the very least, they should be limited to only the specific traffic violation and barred from doing anything more than that.

It has little to do with cops being on a hair trigger, since they're the ones with the weeds up their butt overzealously pursuing minor violations. One of the things that came out after Ferguson was that the local govt was going after minor violations to collect fines solely to raise revenue. This, among other things, is what raises tension and creates animosity between the police and citizenry.

That's one type of gun death, but not the only one.

It isn't even the most significant one in terms of body count.

Mass shootings get media attention, but many times more people are killed by a pistol that they wielded themselves than by gunmen firing into crowds of strangers.

Without the data in front of me (so I may be wrong), if we did decide to focus just on murder, murder of a person by their spouse with a pistol is probably a much bigger issue than mass shootings.

Most in this thread have commented on the use of assault weapons which can be converted to automatic and fire hundreds of rounds.

If you create the impression that you're bring up other issues in order to avoid discussing gun control, you're going to get pushback.

Gun control is just one part of a larger strategy. If we're talking about, say, suicide prevention, gun control would be just one prong in a policy that might also include, for instance, better mental health care funding, anti-bullying education, suicide prevention hotlines, and addressing the social issues that drive people to suicide.

However, what often happens in these discussions is that a gun advocate says "whoa, whoa - don't talk about regulating handguns until you've done all those other things!"

Gun control can have real, significant benefits. The fact that it can have synergistic benefits when it's implemented alongside other measures doesn't chanfe this fact, and generally, when gun advocates bring those other measures up in the context of a gun control discussion, they're doing it to distract from the issue at hand.

Well there's also the matter of practical politics. The reality is that guns will NEVER be banned in America. The gun control advocates keep running their heads against a brick wall. They might as well call for a worldwide ban, just as I would. Failing that, then what other option is there, other than deal with the other issues related to that.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Clearly untrue given recent events. Where everything he had there was legal, legally obtained and legally modified. Nobody needs that kind of firepower, and if you think you deserve it, then doubly you shouldn't have it

Ok tell me what gun law would have prevented the Vegas nut from killing a mass of humanity. Wait I will make it easier for you. What gun law would have prevented the Vegas nut from killing a mass of humanity USING FIREARMS?

You see Diggital artist emotions are what rules the gun control advocates thinking most of the time. So the emotional argument you present (above) is the same as many others here, by that I mean GA present false, irrational illogical arguments that are usually devoid of factual vetting. Your defense and reasons for even more gun control is the same as the others in this thread just worded differently. There are no amount of laws that will prevent what happened in Vegas! That man was hell bent on being infamous, and wanted to kill as many people as possible. A zillion gun laws can not stop someone that wants something badly enough. Another reason your argument fails is that Gun advocates are not God or the supreme court of the USA. So just as I can not tell you you do not need this or that, especially if the items ownership is constitutionally protected!!!!, you can not judge what I need or don't need. Actually YOU (or anyone else) would be jailed if they stopped me from exercising my my constitutional rights being exercised. Do you know machine guns, full auto are legal? The government knew it would get spanked in court if they tried to ban them. So just like pot they created complicated paper work tax stamps and expensive hoops to jump through. The point is they are legal and protected because the gov knows all firearms including 20 mil cannon are legal and they would lose in court trying to completely ban them. As long as I am a legal law abiding guy I do deserve and have the right to keep and bear arms. The constitution does not say the right to keep and bear MOST arms ...it says arms

Lastly I am not totally opposed to some new laws not because they would do one bit of good, I would agree to them just to appease and to comfort those that are truly scared they might win the lottery and get shot with a bump stock equipped .223 instead of a plain ole .22 or .223 five shot rifle. Ahhh' even those five shot magazine guns are easily modified to hi cap though ~ Lastly one BIG reason gun owners are against ANY new gun laws or gun control is the left or gun control advocated are not happy with an inch they want the mile we don't trust them as much as they don't trust us.

; {>

 

[ADigitalArtist]

You see Diggital artist emotions are what rules the gun control advocates thinking most of the time. So the emotional argument you present (above) is the same as many others here, by that I mean GA present false, irrational illogical arguments that are usually devoid of factual vetting.

You mean like this entire defensive rant? You seem no less emotional in your advocacy. And pretty light on anything but reductionism and equivocacy.

There are no amount of laws that will prevent what happened in Vegas! That man was hell bent on being infamous, and wanted to kill as many people as possible. A zillion gun laws can not stop someone that wants something badly enough.

Which is no more sound an argument than saying a dedicated enough crazy will get their hands on napalm and we therefore shouldn't bother regulating it. After all, he could have found another way to kill people.

YOU (or anyone else) would be jailed if they stopped me from exercising my my constitutional rights being exercised.

Speaking of highly emotional irrationality.
First of all, you are not a well regulated militia. Second of all, the constitution is not an unchanging document and can and will be amended as it has in the past. Thirdly, even the most generous interpretation of the constitution does not justify amassing enough firepower to kill hundreds of people. Nor does it protect all forms of arms, nor should it.

Once again, I'm telling you as an ethical, sane person, that if someone believes they should be able to legally have what that man had, then they're not an ethical or sane person.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm telling you as an ethical, sane person, that if someone believes they should be able to legally have what that man had, then they're not an ethical or sane person.

That's a tad sanctimonious.
I believe that he should have a legal right to what he had.
The problem is what he chose to do with them.
Am I therefore unethical or insane?

 

[oldbadger]

That's a tad sanctimonious.
I believe that he should have a legal right to what he had.
The problem is what he chose to do with them.
Am I therefore unethical or insane?

We have had mass killers here, and their homes were nearly always found to contain masses of weapons, and so this condition could be treated as a 'tell'.

PS, only those who amass old steam engines are truly dodgy or daft.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have had mass killers here, and their homes were nearly always found to contain masses of weapons, and so this condition could be treated as a 'tell'.

Not always true here.
But there were other "tells".
In the news....
Vegas Shooter’s Girlfriend Claims He Would Scream ‘Oh My God!’ In Bed

If mass murderers aren't yelling "Allah u akbar", then it's "Oh my God!", eh.

PS, only those who amass old steam engines are truly dodgy or daft.

No argument here.
This month, I'm picking up another steam engine.....a Hamilton Corliss exhibition model.
It's similar to this one....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sometimes, standing by a principle can seem unreasonable.

I don't think you're standing on principle; I think you're suggesting an impossible standard so that you can put forward what you actually want as a fallback position.

A lot of these shootings are the result of routine traffic stops that got out of hand.

And a big part of why they get out of hand is that the officer approaches the car with the mindset that the people inside it might try to kill him with little to no warning... and rightly so, considering the reality of US gun ownership and carrying practices. This is understandable on the part of the cop, but ends up creating a situation that has huge potential for error and increases the likelihood that errors will be fatal.

Perhaps if greater restrictions were put on place to prevent their willy nilly traffic stops, that might help. Or at the very least, they should be limited to only the specific traffic violation and barred from doing anything more than that.

It has little to do with cops being on a hair trigger, since they're the ones with the weeds up their butt overzealously pursuing minor violations. One of the things that came out after Ferguson was that the local govt was going after minor violations to collect fines solely to raise revenue. This, among other things, is what raises tension and creates animosity between the police and citizenry.

This a good example of what I was talking about before: personally, I think it's a bad idea for police departments to be able to use fine collection as a revenue generation tool, but I also recognize that you're only bringing it up here to deflect and distract from the role that a lack of proper gun controls plays in this issue.

Most in this thread have commented on the use of assault weapons which can be converted to automatic and fire hundreds of rounds.

Yes - and maybe getting rid of these weapons can be a "quick win," but any measure that doesn't address handguns or suicide isn't addressing the core of the gun problem.

Well there's also the matter of practical politics. The reality is that guns will NEVER be banned in America. The gun control advocates keep running their heads against a brick wall. They might as well call for a worldwide ban, just as I would. Failing that, then what other option is there, other than deal with the other issues related to that.

Options besides all the options that have been implemented and demonstrated to be workable in other countries, you mean?

Never say never. Attitudes change. While I agree that there isn't a whole lot of political will now in the US for serious gun control, I recognize that a lot of this is the result of NRA lobbying and donations, and they probably won't be around to stir up angry sentiment forever. And eventually, if the American people get bombarded with "freedom" rhetoric long enough, I think they'll start to question whether bleeding control kits, working in a bulletproof box, or invasive "bag checks" by private security companies, and all the other things they have to deal with because of gun culture are really marks of a free society.

 

[esmith]

Never say never. Attitudes change. While I agree that there isn't a whole lot of political will now in the US for serious gun control, I recognize that a lot of this is the result of NRA lobbying and donations, and they probably won't be around to stir up angry sentiment forever. And eventually, if the American people get bombarded with "freedom" rhetoric long enough, I think they'll start to question whether bleeding control kits, working in a bulletproof box, or invasive "bag checks" by private security companies, and all the other things they have to deal with because of gun culture are really marks of a free society.

That's right this is a free society.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's right this is a free society.

"I have no privacy at a football game because they have to check for guns. I feel that I can't go to big concerts because I'm afraid of another mass shooting. My kid has to walk through a metal detector at his school to make sure he isn't carrying a weapon. When I get pulled over, the cop is ready to shoot me dead if I make a wrong move because I might be armed. I work in a literal cage made of bulletproof glass... but I have my gun, so I'm free."

Odd sort of "freedom," that. It's pretty much unrecognizable as freedom outside the US.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't think you're standing on principle; I think you're suggesting an impossible standard so that you can put forward what you actually want as a fallback position.

Well, you may want to take some of your own advice and respond to what I say rather than what you think I'm saying. You're only guessing here, and the problem with guessing is that most of the time it is wrong.

And a big part of why they get out of hand is that the officer approaches the car with the mindset that the people inside it might try to kill him with little to no warning... and rightly so, considering the reality of US gun ownership and carrying practices. This is understandable on the part of the cop, but ends up creating a situation that has huge potential for error and increases the likelihood that errors will be fatal.

See, this is why I'm not getting your position at all. You completely ignore the overall context of such situations and focus solely on "THE GUN" itself. You also keep accusing me of going off on tangents and trying to "distract and deflect" from that position, because that's the only card you hold (or the only card you're willing to play). You're getting frustrated because I'm not confining the argument to the parameters that you want to impose.

This a good example of what I was talking about before: personally, I think it's a bad idea for police departments to be able to use fine collection as a revenue generation tool, but I also recognize that you're only bringing it up here to deflect and distract from the role that a lack of proper gun controls plays in this issue.

Can you give me a good reason as to why you consider this as "deflection" and "distraction"?

Yes - and maybe getting rid of these weapons can be a "quick win," but any measure that doesn't address handguns or suicide isn't addressing the core of the gun problem.

If there is a "gun problem," then it's because guns exist. Humans invented the damn things centuries ago, and our industrial ingenuity and technical skill has continually made them better and more efficient killing tools.

Options besides all the options that have been implemented and demonstrated to be workable in other countries, you mean?

As I said, comparing countries is not helpful in this discussion, since every country is different and has its own specific problems which may not apply in other countries. You say that I'm trying to distract and deflect, but when you bring up other countries, then you're doing the same thing. We're talking about America, not Canada or Australia. I sincerely hope that you can understand this.

Never say never. Attitudes change. While I agree that there isn't a whole lot of political will now in the US for serious gun control, I recognize that a lot of this is the result of NRA lobbying and donations, and they probably won't be around to stir up angry sentiment forever. And eventually, if the American people get bombarded with "freedom" rhetoric long enough, I think they'll start to question whether bleeding control kits, working in a bulletproof box, or invasive "bag checks" by private security companies, and all the other things they have to deal with because of gun culture are really marks of a free society.

Attitudes may change, but they can go in any direction. At the present time, gun control is a dead duck, politically speaking. Whatever political capital and energy being expended by the gun control advocates to focus only on "THE GUN" is totally wasted when it could be used for more practical proposals which focus on the goal of reducing violence (including suicides). "THE GUN" is just a process, a tool. The goal should be to reduce violence, and there may be other ways of accomplishing that and making our society safer.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That's a tad sanctimonious.
I believe that he should have a legal right to what he had.
The problem is what he chose to do with them.
Am I therefore unethical or insane?

I believe that is as unethical and senseless an argument as saying people should be able to legally have napalm or a nuke, so long as you don't do anything funny with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe that is as unethical and senseless an argument as saying people should be able to legally have napalm or a nuke, so long as you don't do anything funny with it.

Clearly, you're either unethical or insane to disagree with me.
(Note mischievous response to highlight the irony.)

He didn't have napalm or nuclear weapons, & no one has
yet (that I've seen) argued that he should have those.
He had a large number of legally modified semi-auto rifles.
I hereby call "Straw man!"

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Clearly, you're either unethical or insane to disagree with me.
(Note mischievous response to highlight the irony.)

He didn't have napalm or nuclear weapons, & no one has
yet (that I've seen) argued that he should have those.
He had a large number of legally modified semi-auto rifles.
I hereby call "Straw man!"

It's not because they disagree with me, but because they protect an unhealthy system that is killing people for insensible reasons.

To straw man would be to assume that I was saying he did have a nuke or napalm instead of addressing the obvious statement that most (sane ) people believe there is a limit to what people should be free to own vs public safety, and a call to question how many lives can be lost before it becomes wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not because they disagree with me, but because they protect an unhealthy system that is killing people for insensible reasons.

So you say.
But I'm included in the group, ie, those supporting his right to own what he had.
Thus, your pronouncement of us as either unethical or insane is inappropropriate
when merely disagreeing about the law & public policy.

The best way to discuss this issue is to avoid name calling & personal criticism.

To straw man would be to assume that I was saying he did have a nuke or napalm instead of addressing the obvious statement that most (sane ) people believe there is a limit to what people should be free to own vs public safety, and a call to question how many lives can be lost before it becomes wrong.

You're the one who introduced the ridiculous notion of napalm
& nuclear weapons ostensibly as something we'd argue for.
Straw man.
As for your question about how many lives can be lost.....specious.
There is no quantifying such a thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Clearly, you're either unethical or insane to disagree with me.
(Note mischievous response to highlight the irony.)

He didn't have napalm or nuclear weapons, & no one has
yet (that I've seen) argued that he should have those.
He had a large number of legally modified semi-auto rifles.
I hereby call "Straw man!"

So there should be a line. The question, then, is where that line should be.

 

[Revoltingest]

So there should be a line. The question, then, is where that line should be.

It's a tough call. And it's constitutionally murky.
But I'm comfortable with stricter regulation of full auto & effectively full auto (eg, "bump
stocks") than semi-auto. I also favor more training required of gun owners, particularly
those who carry in public. (I think this gives me enemies on both sides of the debate, eh.)

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Thus, your pronouncement of us as either unethical or insane is inappropropriate
when merely disagreeing about the law & public policy.

So you say.

You're the one who introduced the ridiculous notion of napalm
& nuclear weapons ostensibly as something we'd argue for.

No I didn't. In fact, the opposite. I assumed you'd be opposed to owning nukes and napalm and used it to highlight that people shouldn't be able to own things that cause massive amounts of death for no real purpose.

As for your question about how many lives can be lost.....specious.
There is no quantifying such a thing.

Yet clearly you do, as there is a line between nukes and napalm which is not okay and insensibly large amounts of guns regularly used in massive violence. I'm asking where that line is.