More than 20 dead in Vegas

[Leav97]

Interesting.  I wonder if they are going to just start claiming responsibility for everything.  Surely there will be some kind of trail if this has any truth to it.  

 

Well they claimed credit for one of the hurricanes so apparently yes, they can claim just about anything.

[sassenach]

My bf's parents (I grew up with this family) and a friend from FL were there. One of my classmate's friends was shot in the leg. Our phones were both blowing up in class.

 

The video is chilling.

[Barb_]

My bf's parents (I grew up with this family) and a friend from FL were there. One of my classmate's friends was shot in the leg. Our phones were both blowing up in class.

 

The video is chilling.

Have you heard from your friends?

[maize]

Well they claimed credit for one of the hurricanes so apparently yes, they can claim just about anything.

What?!? How do you claim credit for a hurricane?

[sassenach]

Have you heard from your friends?

Sorry, important detail. Yes, everyone is physically ok. Bf's dad twisted his ankle running. They all just want to get the hell out of Vegas. Fl friend says trying to fly out is a mess. I think everyone has the same idea. Bf's parents drove out.

 

I'm not sure about my classmate's friend. It sounded like a serious, but non-life threatening injury.

[shinyhappypeople]

In the one country in the world where mass killings are now so horrifyingly common, why do the majority of the American people still defend gun rights so ardently?

 

Because, though it might affect the method of terror, evil people will always find a way to destroy lives.  Ban or restrict guns and there will still be crimes (including mass murder) committed with knives, trucks, planes, bombs...  or even illegally obtained guns (we've seen how effective making certain drugs illegal has been). 

 

My heart goes out to those affected by this awful tragedy. :(

Edited October 2, 2017 by shinyhappypeople

[hornblower]

Because, though it might affect the method of terror, evil people will always find a way to destroy lives.  Ban or restrict guns and there will still be crimes (including mass murder) committed with knives, trucks, planes, bombs...  or even illegally obtained guns (we've seen how effective making certain drugs illegal has been). 

 

My heart goes out to those affected by this awful tragedy. :(

 

I don't understand why the fact that bad things might still happen is somehow a reason why we shouldn't take any action to minimize - minimize, not eliminate, minimize - carnage?

 

That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. It's like 'oh we can't make it perfect so we might as well just give up'. I mean you're drawing lines in the sand somewhere - the question is why are Americans deciding the line should be way over there, where mentally ill people can buy easily modifiable semi automatic assault weapons (and soon with suppressors! yay!) 

 

You shouldn't try to stop DPRK from having nuclear weapons either then. 

 

Heck, we shouldn't stop private individuals from having nuclear weapons.   

 

Honestly, I really don't get this level of fatalistic defeatism. Or is it anarchism? Or nihilism? I just don't get it. 

 

 

[Barb_]

I don't understand why the fact that bad things might still happen is somehow a reason why we shouldn't take any action to minimize - minimize, not eliminate, minimize - carnage?

 

That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. It's like 'oh we can't make it perfect so we might as well just give up'. I mean you're drawing lines in the sand somewhere - the question is why are Americans deciding the line should be way over there, where mentally ill people can buy easily modifiable semi automatic assault weapons (and soon with suppressors! yay!)

 

You shouldn't try to stop DPRK from having nuclear weapons either then.

 

Heck, we shouldn't stop private individuals from having nuclear weapons.

 

Honestly, I really don't get this level of fatalistic defeatism. Or is it anarchism? Or nihilism? I just don't get it.

 

 

Exactly this. Grenade launchers for everyone?

 

One cannot stand out of sight and wound or kill hundreds of people with a knife, a truck, or even easily with a bomb as I posted earlier. Planes are notoriously difficult to obtain. Illegal guns would be a whole lot more difficult to get one's hands on if there weren't so bloody many of them. State gun control laws are meaningless when anyone can just cross the border into another state to buy guns. We need laws at the federal level. We need to get rid of the God-awful number of guns in this country. There are 112 guns for every 100 people in this country. Why do we need that many guns?

Edited October 3, 2017 by Barb_

[nixpix5]

Possible. There is also a very strong anti-government movement in the part of Nevada where he lived. Finding out he was connected to something like that would not shock me.

This would make sense. He chose a country western concert. By and large, you will have a larger proportion of white, Christian conservatives at a venue such as this. Obviously not everybody of course, but statistically speaking. It seems like he was targeting a specific group.

 

What is curious was he was a millionaire. I would say he suffered from mental illness but in my eyes, anyone capable of taking a life, let alone that many falls into this category automatically. I do bristle when the news says it wasn't a terrorist attack. Why, because he is a white dude? His actions seem like an act of terrorism to me.

[nixpix5]

In the one country in the world where mass killings are now so horrifyingly common, why do the majority of the American people still defend gun rights so ardently?

Good question. I think because some people believe guns have always been tied to freedom and democracy in this country. I think they exist as a symbol of what people see as a right in America.

 

I also think so many people remember when guns were incredibly common and mass shootings were not. All of my relatives as teens carried rifles in the window of their trucks. Teens went hunting, everyone learned gun safety and owned a gun. I think they argument is that there was a point in history where this wasn't happening on such a frequent basis. I remember Columbine rocking my world as a young person because I could never fathom anything like that. Over the past 10 years it has been out of control. I think people who support gun ownership wonder why the change when things were not this bad previously.

 

I am not arguing for or against here. I actually have complicated thoughts about all of it but I feel like these are two key arguments I have heard.

Edited October 3, 2017 by nixpix5

[Janeway]

In the one country in the world where mass killings are now so horrifyingly common, why do the majority of the American people still defend gun rights so ardently?

Because if we have gun control laws, the criminals are not going to follow those laws either. It was illegal for this guy to bring a gun where he brought it and it was illegal for him to shoot everyone and the particular type of guns we was using was illegal. Control laws would not get a criminal to put down his guns and say..oh my, I cannot use my gun, I guess I will just go find something else to do. Criminals are criminals. They break the law. And they will not care what gun control laws will do. 

 

Considering how many children die in drunk driving accidents or have life long illnesses and die from their parents smoking, why don't we focus some laws on something that could matter. Like making it illegal to smoke around children or in places where children go. Maybe even making cigarettes illegal all together. And labelling smoking around children what it is-child abuse. And then tackle the drunk driving issue. Drunk drivers get off all the time. They rarely do time, even when they kill. Many fatal drunk driving murders happen by repeat offenders. Why is no one concerned about these issues..issues where something could actually be done?

 

And let's get in to all the times where there was an attempted murder but someone with a gun stopped them. I wonder how many fewer people would have died in LV if someone who was not a criminal had a gun. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Janeway

[Barb_]

The guitarist for the Josh Abbott band posted this on his Facebook.

 

“I’ve been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus,†Keeter wrote. “They were useless.†He continued:

 

We couldn’t touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.

 

Enough is enough.

 

Writing my parents and the love of my life a goodbye last night and a living will because I felt like I wasn’t going to live through the night was enough for me to realize that this is completely and totally out of hand. These rounds were just powerful enough that my crew guys just standing in close proximity of a victim shot by this f—ing coward received shrapnel wounds.

 

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn’t realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

[Barb_]

Because if we have gun control laws, the criminals are not going to follow those laws either. It was illegal for this guy to bring a gun where he brought it and it was illegal for him to shoot everyone and the particular type of guns we was using was illegal. Control laws would not get a criminal to put down his guns and say..oh my, I cannot use my gun, I guess I will just go find something else to do. Criminals are criminals. They break the law. And they will not care what gun control laws will do.

 

Considering how many children die in drunk driving accidents or have life long illnesses and die from their parents smoking, why don't we focus some laws on something that could matter. Like making it illegal to smoke around children or in places where children go. Maybe even making cigarettes illegal all together. And labelling smoking around children what it is-child abuse. And then tackle the drunk driving issue. Drunk drivers get off all the time. They rarely do time, even when they kill. Many fatal drunk driving murders happen by repeat offenders. Why is no one concerned about these issues..issues where something could actually be done?

 

And let's get in to all the times where there was an attempted murder but someone with a gun stopped them. I wonder how many fewer people would have died in LV if someone who was not a criminal had a gun.

Straw man.

[eternalsummer]

What would they have done with their weapons anyway?  He was a zillion stories up.

[Barb_]

What would they have done with their weapons anyway? He was a zillion stories up.

They didn't know that at the time. It was dark and the shots were echoing. They probably assumed the shots were coming from the crowd.

[Katy]

They didn't know that at the time. It was dark and the shots were echoing. They probably assumed the shots were coming from the crowd.

 

I couldn't sleep last night, and happened to be up when they announced it.  The CBS News App on Roku switched to the local CBS station and VERY EARLY crowd interviews had several people saying they could see the flashes from more than halfway up the hotel, coming out the window.  So some police definitely knew that at least some of the shots were coming from the hotel.  Also, police generally understand echoing and that from a sniper position it will seem like there are multiple shooters even when there is only one.

[Barb_]

I couldn't sleep last night, and happened to be up when they announced it. The CBS News App on Roku switched to the local CBS station and VERY EARLY crowd interviews had several people saying they could see the flashes from more than halfway up the hotel, coming out the window. So some police definitely knew that at least some of the shots were coming from the hotel. Also, police generally understand echoing and that from a sniper position it will seem like there are multiple shooters even when there is only one.

I meant the band. I think the previous poster was wondering what good the guitarist's guns would have done against a sniper. I wondered if the band thought the shots were coming from the crowd

[creekland]

When it comes to gun control, IMO, you can't beat what Jim Jefferies has to say.  He's an Australian comedian, so says it in a comical way (albeit with a bit of fowl language some, including myself, don't particularly care for), but his point is super solid.  My kids introduced me to this video.  Even with the language, it's worth listening to (although be careful around young kids if desired).

 

Part I:

 

 

It's been a while since I've listened to it, so one might need Part II as well:

 

[Pawz4me]

Because if we have gun control laws, the criminals are not going to follow those laws either. It was illegal for this guy to bring a gun where he brought it and it was illegal for him to shoot everyone and the particular type of guns we was using was illegal. Control laws would not get a criminal to put down his guns and say..oh my, I cannot use my gun, I guess I will just go find something else to do. Criminals are criminals. They break the law. And they will not care what gun control laws will do.

 

Considering how many children die in drunk driving accidents or have life long illnesses and die from their parents smoking, why don't we focus some laws on something that could matter. Like making it illegal to smoke around children or in places where children go. Maybe even making cigarettes illegal all together. And labelling smoking around children what it is-child abuse. And then tackle the drunk driving issue. Drunk drivers get off all the time. They rarely do time, even when they kill. Many fatal drunk driving murders happen by repeat offenders. Why is no one concerned about these issues..issues where something could actually be done?

 

And let's get in to all the times where there was an attempted murder but someone with a gun stopped them. I wonder how many fewer people would have died in LV if someone who was not a criminal had a gun.

Good grief. Do you not realize there were plenty of armed LEOs in the immediate area even before the shooting started? You actually think there was a big event like that in the middle of a large city and no armed police officers were around? How would more guns have helped? He'd barricaded himself in a room 32 floors up. It took a trained SWAT team to get in the room..

[Guest]

Good grief. Do you not realize there were plenty of armed LEOs in the immediate area even before the shooting started? You actually think there was a big event like that in the middle of a large city and no armed police officers were around? How would more guns have helped? He'd barricaded himself in a room 32 floors up. It took a trained SWAT team to get in the room..

Also, the concert-goers had NO IDEA where the shooting was even coming from. Bullets were raining down. It's not like, had the concert-goers had their own weapons they would have stopped, looked directly at the neighboring casino, and accurately shot the shooter. Geez.

[swimmermom3]

Honest question.  If not the majority, why is there no reform?  

I feel as if I'm missing something obvious.

 

In the US, the right of a gun owner to have an extra box or an an extra 10,000 boxes of ammo supersedes the right of a child or 20 some, to go to school and not be gunned down.

 

The right of a gun owner to walk to through a suburban mall packing a long gun because - well, I am not really sure why - supersedes the right of the mall shoppers to not get gunned down and to make it home safely to their families.

 

The right of a gun owner to collect as many weapons as possible in his apartment with no responsibility to store the guns safely or to have any training supersedes the rights every one of one of the 59 people massacred and the 527 people who were injured in Las Vegas. They are nothing but spit on the pavement compared to gun owners and their rights.

 

We won't give up one box of ammo, require gun safes, or training classes because our right to have them no matter how irresponsibly we behave trumps everything, including peoples lives.  With the NRA actively encouraging gun owners to go after the left and people that disagree with them - with their guns - we are lost as a country.

 

[ktgrok]

 

 

These are not straw man arguments - give me some concrete answers that would be 'enough' to prevent evil and death, as though that isn't a given of the condition of this world and the people in it. Go for it - I'll give thoughtful, realistic solutions serious consideration as someone coming from the opposite side for debate.

 

Ideally, like if I ran the world? You'd have to be part of an organized group (like the militia the 2nd amendment was about), either at a state or county level. you'd have to do a certain amount of training with the group before being eligible to buy a gun, and prove proficiency and knowledge. Then you'd have to keep up your certification by continuing a certain number of hours of training a year (think similar to national guard, but again on a county level or state level). If the group thinks you are not capable of responsibly owning a gun, you don't get one. (with appropriate levels of appeal so one guy with a bad attitude can't stop you.)

 

And stricter laws about gun storage, to minimize gun theft. Including proving you have a safe before you can purchase a weapon. 

 

None of this will eliminate gun violence but it could save at least some lives, if not a lot of lives. Without trampling the 2nd amendment. 

[Kalmia]

Wait, back the truck up. Where has the NRA ever called for its members or citizens to take up arms against other citizens to prove a point? I somehow don't think I missed that newsletter... the stance of responsible gun owners, and lifetime NRA members such as ourselves, has always been to defend oneself against violence and NEVER instigate it.

 

You're blaming every gun owner for one person's evil actions. Why? Do you, in intellectual honesty, think a change to the laws in Vegas or the surrounding states would have prevented this? Which laws?

 

Right here is where the NRA preps its members for violence against their fellow citizens. The "they" they mention is pretty clearly liberals.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/30/controversial-nra-video/441506001/

 

 

It is very easy to look at international statistics and see the difference between gun violence in other nations and ours. The only argument one could make for "if we made assault weapons illegal, criminals would still get them and perform mass killings" is that there is something so profoundly sick in our American culture that we can't expect to be safe from our fellow citizens no matter how many weapons we ban so we shouldn't bother.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Kalmia

[TechWife]

What lives would that save though? Where can you show that membership with an organization (but apparently not local shooting clubs or the NRA...?) would prevent loss of life? Would it stop black market firearms? The incidence of theft of legally obtained firearms as a percentage of the whole of firearms sales and ownership is very low - I want to say less than 5%? And that's without gun safe laws.

 

What benefit would ongoing certification prove over the existing structure?

 

And what happens if the group tries to rescind ownership without justification? Where are the checks and balances?

What do you propose to solve the problem of continued mass shootings? 

[Barb_]

The correct response to this isn't gun control. Why do we always have to run this round and round every time an evil man decides to give his evil vision with that particular tool? Are we banning cars when people get mowed down or pressure cookers when they're used as bombs?

 

If giving up the ability to protect myself meant that there would never be a need for me to defend myself from someone doing me harm and never an issue with a government abusing their power? Sure, I'd be for gun control. But as long as there is an imperfect world, corrupt governments, and evil men? I'm keeping as much ability to fight against them and protect myself and my family as I can.

 

Remember when I linked the story last week about the church shooting, and he armed usher who protected the congregation and held off the criminal? That was important and isn't cancelled out by this act of evil. Taking his gun wouldn't have saved lives, because the criminal would have still used his. Why does his gun need controlling?

 

And, serious question, what amount of gun control is 'enough' to satisfy you who think my family should jump through more hoops, despite absolutely no criminal action at all, so this guy might have a slightly harder time killing people? Our guns are all purchased through legal channels, we have permits, we have limits and wait periods on purchases and volume of ammunition in one go, we have training. They're stored in a way we are comfortable with that keeps our family safe.

 

What else? Do we need government raids to make sure nobody is stockpiling beyond some appropriate amount? More limits on the type of firearms? Now remember, this guy had 72 minutes. He could have likely killed as many people with a normal hunting rifle because he had time and the automatic wouldn't have mattered. Caliber limits? He didn't use a particularly heavy caliber and we'd like to still be able to stop bears and moose. Felony checks? Already in existence and this guy wasn't a felon.

 

I hear all sorts of angry calls for gun control, but what is enough to satisfy you? What happens when people die by other means? Is it okay so long as it isn't a firearm in the hands of a private citizen? When it's only your government that has access to all the force and armaments? That hasn't exactly gone over well over the course of history but it is a good way to control the population.

 

These are not straw man arguments - give me some concrete answers that would be 'enough' to prevent evil and death, as though that isn't a given of the condition of this world and the people in it. Go for it - I'll give thoughtful, realistic solutions serious consideration as someone coming from the opposite side for debate.

Speaking for myself? Im not looking for enough. I'm looking for a beginning. I'm looking not to lose ground as legislation is pending to remove the prohibition of silencers and allow people to carry concealed weapons across state lines that control concealment.

 

As I posted on the political board, if my government is hell-bent on controlling its citenzenry with tanks, bombs, prisons and a corrupt justice system, there isn't anything any of us can do about it. If it comes to the point where I actually need a gun to protect myself from my government, a gun won't be enough to protect me.

[Barb_]

Also, the only response to continued gun violence is gun control.

[ktgrok]

What lives would that save though? Where can you show that membership with an organization (but apparently not local shooting clubs or the NRA...?) would prevent loss of life? Would it stop black market firearms? The incidence of theft of legally obtained firearms as a percentage of the whole of firearms sales and ownership is very low - I want to say less than 5%? And that's without gun safe laws.

 

What benefit would ongoing certification prove over the existing structure?

 

And what happens if the group tries to rescind ownership without justification? Where are the checks and balances?

 

It would weed out impulse purchases. It would mean if you want to have a gun you can't just play gangster, you need to be serious about it. It would put you in situations where others would interact with you on a regular basis, and hopefully spot if you are mentally unsound. Mostly, it would make weapons something that takes time and effort to get and have, as opposed to the current status where they are about on par with buying cold medicine. 

 

And laws CAN work. It certainly isn't easy to get fully automatic weapons thanks to laws and programs, which is why they are not often used in crimes. Too expensive and difficult to get. That worked. (this MAY have been an automatic weapon today, but that hasn't be determined yet. If so, it would be the exception to the rule. More likely they used a cheap modification like a hellfire trigger system on a semi auto weapon). Other regulations could work too. Not to eliminate gun crime, but reduce it. 

 

I know you take gun ownership seriously, I'd like all people who own guns to do so. And I'm a gun owner. 

[Barb_]

What lives would that save though? Where can you show that membership with an organization (but apparently not local shooting clubs or the NRA...?) would prevent loss of life? Would it stop black market firearms? The incidence of theft of legally obtained firearms as a percentage of the whole of firearms sales and ownership is very low - I want to say less than 5%? And that's without gun safe laws.

 

What benefit would ongoing certification prove over the existing structure?

 

And what happens if the group tries to rescind ownership without justification? Where are the checks and balances?

Do you know what would stop the illegal trafficking and sales of firearms? A vast reductions in the number of firearms in this country. There are just too many.

[creekland]

Lest we not forget, should we actually get decent gun laws (meaning "average" citizens do NOT need guns - at all - esp handguns and assault rifles) one would also save oodles of other innocent lives from vastly decreasing accidental shootings.  It's not just making it more difficult for evil folks to do evil.  Far more folks die from guns than are saved by having them - even in ordinary situations.

 

I suppose it's a bit like universal health insurance.  Too many people buy the line that "Well, it might work elsewhere, but it can't work in the US."  To that, I say bull----. Let's find a country that has done a decent job with it - say - Australia - and copy what they did.  Folks still hunt.  Olympians still compete.  Far less murder, accidental shootings, and mass killings.

 

And even if one wants their guns so the military can't take over... exactly what is even an assault weapon going to do against a tank or drone or bombs or...  If the military were to "turn bad," I hate to break it to ya, but we're cooked either way.

 

For basic stats only dealing with kids (and a little with spouses):

 

https://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.WdLxT2hSzIU

 

• In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.
• An emergency department visit for non-fatal assault injury places a youth at 40 percent higher risk for subsequent firearm injury.
• Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.
• Among children, the majority (89%) of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.
• People who report “firearm access†are at twice the risk of homicide and more than three times the risk of suicide compared to those who do not own or have access to firearms.
• Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.
• Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning — 90 percent die compared to 34 percent and 2 percent respectively. About 90 percent of those that survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.
• States implementing universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods prior to the purchase of a firearm show lower rates of suicides than states without this legislation. To read more about suicide and firearms, click here.
• In states with increased gun availability, death rates from gunshots for children were higher than in states with less availability.
• The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths among children are related to child access to firearms — either self-inflicted or at the hands of another child.
• Studies have shown that states with Child Access Prevention (CAP) laws laws have a lower rate of unintentional death than states without CAP laws.
• Domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly with a gun in the home. An abusive partner’s access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide eight-fold for women in physically abusive relationships.

[ktgrok]

 

Seriously now, which laws would finally do it? If you ban every gun death would not be averted. Murder wouldn't stop. MASS murder wouldn't end. I get the anger and helplessness in the face of such awful deeds because I feel it too, but just doing something to feel like you're in control doesn't actually fix the issue.

 

No one says stricter gun regulation would end all crime, all evil, all murders. But it would save SOME lives. Maybe a lot of lives. It would matter. 

[Barb_]

That's a little like saying we may as well not bother to fight cancer. Why bother trying? It's an evil that exists and always has. Cancer defeats everything we throw at it. We may as well give up and not bother looking for answers.

 

Look, people are animals. We have base and uncivilized natures. If we've learned anything this year, it's that if we allow our worst natures to be unleashed it's very difficult to rein things back in again. But we have to keep trying. We don't draw and quarter people anymore. We don't send them to the guillotine. We don't burn them at the stake. We've overcome some of what you'd call our evil natures. I would argue that structure and social mores are exactly what we need to overcome our worst impulses.

[swimmermom3]

Good question. I think because some people believe guns have always been tied to freedom and democracy in this country. I think they exist as a symbol of what people see as a right in America.

 

I also think so many people remember when guns were incredibly common and mass shootings were not. All of my relatives as teens carried rifles in the window of their trucks. Teens went hunting, everyone learned gun safety and owned a gun. I think they argument is that there was a point in history where this wasn't happening on such a frequent basis. I remember Columbine rocking my world as a young person because I could never fathom anything like that. Over the past 10 years it has been out of control. I think people who support gun ownership wonder why the change when things were not this bad previously.

 

I am not arguing for or against here. I actually have complicated thoughts about all of it but I feel like these are two key arguments I have heard.

 

I grew up with guns in the house (for livestock issues only) and ds and I spent six months in a part of the country where everyone had guns and yet, we never felt uncomfortable or wary.  Something has shifted in the attitude of gun owners or perhaps the population of gun owners has shifted. I never used to be for eliminating guns, but did feel that like cars or even alcohol purchases, there should be some common sense restrictions, like perhaps what Switzerland embraces.  But because gun owners have no limitations and really do appear to not give a damn about the carnage, I am no longer feeling so friendly.  The "f-you all, it's all about US and our rights " attitudes are getting really old. There is an utter ugliness that I don't remember existing before. It's pushing me to the edge.  It's a demographic that gives the appearance of total irresponsibility and lack of empathy. 527 wounded? 58 dead? Whatever. "I am a responsible gun owner; I didn't do the shooting. It's not my problem."  No, it's not your problem, but your apathy and unwillingness to have any compromise of any kind are.

 

[TechWife]

Jesus coming back. Come now, do you really believe the continual evil in the hearts of men can be stopped by their own corrupt governments and laws? Look over the course of history - periods of war punctuated by briefer periods of peace. This is just one way people die, and it is tragic and frustrating and infuriating. I wish there was indeed a way to prevent evil men from acting out their wickedness against others, with guns and twisted laws and medical implements and suicide vests and chlorine gas and machetes and forced labor camps and all the other awful ways we pervert God's goodness in creation. But Cain killed Abel and it wasn't with a gun. The guns simply aren't the problem, except that they're a tool available here for selection by a big portion of the population, including that small segment who want to hurt others with them. How do you control what comes from the hearts of men?

 

Seriously now, which laws would finally do it? If you ban every gun death would not be averted. Murder wouldn't stop. MASS murder wouldn't end. I get the anger and helplessness in the face of such awful deeds because I feel it too, but just doing something to feel like you're in control doesn't actually fix the issue.

 

Is it an accurate reflection of your thoughts that there is nothing we do can stop mass shootings? It sort of seems like you're dodging the question unless that's what you believe. Should just give up and accept this as a way of life because people are sinful? Why have any laws at all, then? Criminals are just going to break them. 

 

I'm honestly trying to wrap my mind around your position and I just can't get there. 

 

If everyone would please note that both Arctic Mama and I are Christians and for us, the spiritual aspects of any issue is very important. We believe that sin/evil is a spiritual issue that has real, sometimes tangible consequences. Please respect our beliefs. 

 

Arctic Mama  - if you'd rather continue by PM, I'm open to that. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by TechWife

[Guest]

Australia is geographically isolated, and can control who and what comes in more easily than here. The U.S. has two very open and vastly long borders, which are a constant source of crime and violence. As long as there are drug cartels and dealers, organized crime, gangs, etc., there will be guns in this country. Confiscating guns like Australia did is a goal of U.S. progressives, but it just will not work to the same effect here.

 

Having said that, it is disturbing that this guy was able to buy so many guns, and so much ammo. There is definately room for restricting that kind of stockpiling.

 

ETA I know that no one on this thread has suggested confiscating guns (I don't think) but I bring it up because it seems to be the goal of many.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Fifiruth

[Barb_]

How many is the correct number? How do you enforce it on the law abiders AND the criminals? A reduction in one group doesn't really follow a reduction in the other at this point in our history. Pre-internet and with a less massive goods transit network it would have worked, but there are simply too many conexes going in and out of too many ports to really effect that at this point, from my understanding. And that wouldn't stop someone intent on circumventing legal channels from obtaining a firearm, and those are the murderers.

Hundreds of thousands fewer than there are now. If you missed my post earlier, I'll repeat it. There are 112 guns for every 100 men, women, children and infants in this country. And gun manufacturers are still producing them. That fact is indisputable and indefensible/

[ktgrok]

You can't really stem the black market by putting less firearms in circulation in the US is because this isn't the only country producing them. With the internet and global commerce there really isn't a good way to fix that. And cutting off the legal supply wouldn't really dry up the illegal supply in any meaningful way - there are plenty in circulation and confiscating them from legal registered owners wouldn't touch that supply, or the countries from which it is fed (Mexico, Russia, etc).

 

 

 

And yet we DID do this with fully automatic weapons. It did work. 

 

But it has to be on a federal level, not piecemeal. That is a big reason that gun regulations on a state or city level don't work..it's too easy to bring them in from the next city over. 

[8circles]

Oh my God. I'm sick. 

 

Apparently Jesus has come back to all other developed countries, but not the US.

 

ETA: And, I'm 100% OK with people finding a new hobby so other people won't die.

Edited October 3, 2017 by 8circles

[Joker]

The correct response to this isn't gun control. Why do we always have to run this round and round every time an evil man decides to give his evil vision with that particular tool? Are we banning cars when people get mowed down or pressure cookers when they're used as bombs?

 

If giving up the ability to protect myself meant that there would never be a need for me to defend myself from someone doing me harm and never an issue with a government abusing their power? Sure, I'd be for gun control. But as long as there is an imperfect world, corrupt governments, and evil men? I'm keeping as much ability to fight against them and protect myself and my family as I can.

 

Remember when I linked the story last week about the church shooting, and he armed usher who protected the congregation and held off the criminal? That was important and isn't cancelled out by this act of evil. Taking his gun wouldn't have saved lives, because the criminal would have still used his. Why does his gun need controlling?

 

And, serious question, what amount of gun control is 'enough' to satisfy you who think my family should jump through more hoops, despite absolutely no criminal action at all, so this guy might have a slightly harder time killing people? Our guns are all purchased through legal channels, we have permits, we have limits and wait periods on purchases and volume of ammunition in one go, we have training. They're stored in a way we are comfortable with that keeps our family safe.

 

What else? Do we need government raids to make sure nobody is stockpiling beyond some appropriate amount? More limits on the type of firearms? Now remember, this guy had 72 minutes. He could have likely killed as many people with a normal hunting rifle because he had time and the automatic wouldn't have mattered. Caliber limits? He didn't use a particularly heavy caliber and we'd like to still be able to stop bears and moose. Felony checks? Already in existence and this guy wasn't a felon.

 

I hear all sorts of angry calls for gun control, but what is enough to satisfy you? What happens when people die by other means? Is it okay so long as it isn't a firearm in the hands of a private citizen? When it's only your government that has access to all the force and armaments? That hasn't exactly gone over well over the course of history but it is a good way to control the population.

 

These are not straw man arguments - give me some concrete answers that would be 'enough' to prevent evil and death, as though that isn't a given of the condition of this world and the people in it. Go for it - I'll give thoughtful, realistic solutions serious consideration as someone coming from the opposite side for debate.

 

Yet we're supposed to believe a travel ban on certain populations is good for us and will make us safer. If banning certain people would make us safer it seems banning guns (which I actually don't think is necessary) would help our current problems here with mass shootings. 

 

I will not just buy that there is nothing we can do. I admit I don't know what it is but I just can't fathom giving up and accepting there is nothing to be done. 

[Barb_]

And my counter is that if you cannot prevent something evil on a mass scale, you allow people to handle it on a micro scale. Liberty is you choosing a gun and not making your neighbor make the same choice. Getting rid of all the guns makes a vulnerable population, but nothing I have seen in my limited life has shown it to make a safer population. Because there is always another weapon, another way to hurt.

 

Janitorial strength ammonia and nails, anyone? Broken bottles? Truck bumpers? Child armies? Mass starvation? There are always ways to hurt. Does a person have to make themselves vulnerable to whoever is stronger than them because you're afraid of what might happen if someone breaks the law with that liberty? Our days are numbered and we all will die, it's true. Would a gun free public be safer from the terrors that steals their life away than one that is armed?

Yes, a gun free republic would be safer than what we have now. The fewer guns in the hands of the population the fewer mass murders, the fewer people harmed when someone loses a temper, the fewer accidental shootings, the fewer deaths from domestic violence. The vulnerable is largely who winds up on the blood spattered end of gun violence.

 

Liberty is attending a concert or university or school or theater feeling relatively confident that an armed gunman is going to trap you and end your life.

[ktgrok]

Australia was what I was getting at. Japan proves the point too. No borders helps immensely, as does a homogenous population. Less homogenous and that starts to break down as tensions increase and violence with it.

 

I agree the stockpiling is disturbing, but he didn't buy it in one go. How do you prevent someone from going one box at a time? That's how we build our ammo stores, because of shipping limits. Registering ammo purchases would be a total headache to administer, all ethical concerns aside.

 

Heck, I have to go through more hoops to buy cold medicine than to buy ammo. there is a problem there. 

[ktgrok]

Yes, we have about as many guns as kid, and we have a lot of kids. Different tools for different jobs.

 

How many is the right number? Why should they stop producing them? Going to a used-only market would only exacerbate the off book under the table purchase issue, not improve it...?

 

Stopping production is what made fully automatic weapons so freaking expensive. Which limits who can have them and what they can do. Which has kept them out of the hands of criminals for the most part. It worked. 

[ktgrok]

Federal holds times on purchasing aren't a bad idea. I can concede those. I don't mind gun safes either, though they can't be at the expense of concealed carry or home defense, and the latter can be a rub in some cases (for quick access).

 

Ammo limits are tough tough. Especially when an active shooter can go through 25-50 boxes a week at the range. Even my casual self and my two oldest girls can put away two boxes apiece in one afternoon with some targets. How much is too much on that? Do we account for different types in the limits, like a certain number of each caliber or a total amount per person? And then how do you enforce it?

 

Off the top of my head, you could have it be unlimited if puchased and used at the range. So, different ways of buying....you pay a fee at the range and use it there. or more feasibly, you use whatever you use, then check out and pay on the way out? What's being used AT the range isn't being used to stockpile. 

 

Just a thought. 

[ktgrok]

Some places have year inspections to be sure you do have a safe. 

 

In a safe or on your person should be the rules. 

[TechWife]

Registering ammo purchases would be a total headache to administer, all ethical concerns aside.

 

 

Pharmacists do this all the time.  They record every single dose of a prescription drug that is dispensed and who gets it There are even some medications that have to be physically counted every single day at a minimum.

 

Pharmacies also keep identifying information, such as address, birthdate, phone number, medical diagnoses and prescriber information on every single patient that receives medicine. They have to track lot numbers of medications received from their distributors - all the way down to which patients get prescriptions from which lots.  Prescribers have their own licensing and identification process that they must go through and keep up to date as well, with both the state they practice in and the DEA. 

 

In comparison, it sounds like a piece of cake to track ammo purchases. There can't possibly be as many different types of ammunition as there are mediations in the US. 

 

Asking a business owner to keep track of their inventory is not an unreasonable request. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by TechWife

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I grew up with guns in the house (for livestock issues only) and ds and I spent six months in a part of the country where everyone had guns and yet, we never felt uncomfortable or wary.  Something has shifted in the attitude of gun owners or perhaps the population of gun owners has shifted. I never used to be for eliminating guns, but did feel that like cars or even alcohol purchases, there should be some common sense restrictions, like perhaps what Switzerland embraces.  But because gun owners have no limitations and really do appear to not give a damn about the carnage, I am no longer feeling so friendly.  The "f-you all, it's all about US and our rights " attitudes are getting really old. There is an utter ugliness that I don't remember existing before. It's pushing me to the edge.  It's a demographic that gives the appearance of total irresponsibility and lack of empathy. 527 wounded? 58 dead? Whatever. "I am a responsible gun owner; I didn't do the shooting. It's not my problem."  No, it's not your problem, but your apathy and unwillingness to have any compromise of any kind are.

 

This is what I'm seeing. Love grown cold, from being unwilling to compromise on guns, to despising people who are peacefully and lawfully protesting, to death threats toward public figures on the Internet, to white supremacist rallies, to bullying unto death among schoolchildren...

 

I'm not saying the world is worse than it's ever been. But there are dark periods in the course of human events, and I believe we are in one right now. Ignorance, selfishness, apathy.

 

What does that have to do with legislation? Well, John Adams warned us. He said we would have to be a self-governing, moral people, or our form of government would not work. If we will not restrain ourselves, the state will have to do it, that's just how it works. Anarchy should not be an option. But there are the three: self-government, fascism, or anarchy. America needs to choose. Again.

[Barb_]

I even have to show my ID and register to buy sudafed

[Barb_]

Right. They could just blow you up instead. You're focusing on the wrong target, Barb. I get the impulse, but you're not solving the root issue. You're just changing the implement. And long term, you're betting people are in more danger from that guy down the street than the tides of nations. History just doesn't back that up.

 

We won't agree, but as mentioned I have to go to bed. Take care and goodnight 🌙

I know you said you were going to bed, but bombs are difficult to implement. They don't kill as many people in one go as weapons can. They are hard to smuggle in and place undetected. And bombs aren't an argument against controlling the deadliest weapon available to the greatest number of people. Small children, disgruntled husbands and ex-coworkers, gang members, road-range perpetrators and I would argue, most mass murderers aren't going to default to bombs to accidental or purposely kill other people. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Reducing violence is the goal, even if we cannot completely eradicate it Edited October 3, 2017 by Barb_

[shinyhappypeople]

 

I don't understand why the fact that bad things might still happen is somehow a reason why we shouldn't take any action to minimize - minimize, not eliminate, minimize - carnage?

 

That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. It's like 'oh we can't make it perfect so we might as well just give up'. I mean you're drawing lines in the sand somewhere - the question is why are Americans deciding the line should be way over there, where mentally ill people can buy easily modifiable semi automatic assault weapons (and soon with suppressors! yay!) 

 

You shouldn't try to stop DPRK from having nuclear weapons either then. 

 

Heck, we shouldn't stop private individuals from having nuclear weapons.   

 

Honestly, I really don't get this level of fatalistic defeatism. Or is it anarchism? Or nihilism? I just don't get it. 

 

 

This is going to have to be quick, because my computer keeps crashing but, in a nutshell:

 

I think we view guns differently.

 

I view guns as morally neutral tools.  The tool (gun) is only as good or as bad as the person using it.  Sometimes it feels like  people subconsciously begin viewing the gun almost as a co-conspirator.  

 

Murder is already illegal.  Shooting at people (except for self-defense) is also already illegal. Adding another gun law isn't going to provide enough of a barrier to stop someone who is determined to destroy life.  

 

So, those are my thoughts in a nutshell.  

 

Peace.

 

p.s. I'm not anarchist, fatalistic, or nihilistic.  I lean pretty libertarian, though.

[regentrude]

I agree the stockpiling is disturbing, but he didn't buy it in one go. How do you prevent someone from going one box at a time? That's how we build our ammo stores, because of shipping limits. Registering ammo purchases would be a total headache to administer, all ethical concerns aside.

 

"Ethical concerns"??? What is the ethical issue about tracking weapon ownership?

 

We register motor vehicles. We tax the possession of motor vehicles. We require people to carry insurance for the case that somebody is hurt by their motor vehicle. 

 

We track medication purchases. There are data bases that track whether a patient tries to stockpile controlled substances. 

 

Keeping track of weapons and ammunition is not more of a headache than either of the above. Plus, in contrast to medications, people who find it too cumbersome can simply choose not to purchase firearms - people who need prescription medication do not have this luxury.

[Barb_]

This is going to have to be quick, because my computer keeps crashing but, in a nutshell:

 

I think we view guns differently.

 

I view guns as morally neutral tools. .

So are a flame thrower, a grenade launcher and a machine gun. Are you okay with those? Edited October 3, 2017 by Barb_