More than 20 dead in Vegas

[TechWife]

That only works because of the nature of prescriptions. And it doesn't work particularly well. Remember I sat on a pharmacy board, and helped pass legislation to crack down on opioid abuse from both the prescriber side and street access. I wish I could say that was a success story. But it generally just makes it hard for someone back a herniated disc to get Percocet, because they aren't willing to go to the back end of the parking lot and buy out of a van. And it is an exquisitely difficult time protecting that information from being used as a legal attachment to the patient (for the protection of their freedom and unlawful search and seizure) and have it actually catch diversion, which is the bigger issue. Location of the pharmacy actually stops more illegal drug crime than the state PMP/PDMP system.

 

Ack - BED!

 

Actually, it works quite well. The number of people who take prescriptions without becoming dealers or addicts far outweighs the number of people that do. 

 

But, I'm curious. What is the difference in the nature of prescriptions and the nature of a bullet? Prescriptions are regulated because, used incorrectly, they can do serious harm to the person who takes them. Therefore, they are regulated in all phases - research, manufacture, shipping, prescribing, dispensing, consuming.

 

Would you say we shouldn't regulate medication because some people abuse the medication? It's the same rationale. 

[Barb_]

"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.

Not to mention fishing licenses. Really.

[creekland]

What does this have to do with mass murder? Straw man there - are we talking about banning all items related to accidental deaths and injuries? Why just firearms? Domestic violence is another good one - is a firearm away from the husband worth taking away the wife's ability to try and protect herself from her husband? Who is more likely to hurt someone with their gun without cause?

 

Suicide is an interesting one. Safes do seem to help with that, but how do you enforce it? And the homes with gun safes already aren't the ones seeing this issue in quite as dramatic a way. Again, trying to police someone already showing a disregard for the law and safety doesn't really catch those who are at greatest risk of offense, but those who are least likely to abuse or do violence.

 

I'm not countering anything.  I'm saying in addition to fewer mass murders, we'd have the benefit of fewer other deaths too.  There are two good reasons for much stricter gun control.

 

Legal handguns in "average" households do more harm than good.

 

In the "old days" folks didn't have the idea that going out and shooting tons of people was a "wonderful" idea.  Pandora's box is open now.  We're not going back to those days.  'Tis better if we take it on in ways we can.  Strict gun control has worked in many countries (not just islands - Europe and Canada also have fewer gun deaths per capita if I remember my stats correctly).  I see no reason at all it can't work here too.  Americans are nothing special.  We're human just like everyone else.  There will always be crime, but there can be less deadly crime.

 

Tons of people (all Americans) gasped when we mentioned our son was going to do a Study Abroad in Jordan.  Didn't we know the Middle East isn't safe???  How could we let him go there.  Even my dad said, "I thought you were the smart one!"  :glare:   Look it up folks - or look at the link I'll provide for stats.  For almost all crimes, Jordan is far safer than the US.  Americans have a warped view of things.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Jordan/United-States/Crime

 

Jordan ranks 56th in violent crime (per capita, of course).  The US is the proud winner!  Oh, and we have twice as many police officers per capita.

 

With intentional homicide, Jordan is 74th, we're 7th.  I'm sure if we try we can win that one too...  :glare:

 

The US ranks #1 in guns per hundred residents.  Jordan ranks #56.  Seems to me to be quite a correlation even in a country in the middle of some awful times going on.

 

Why can it not happen here again?  Jordan is hardly an island.  It has one port at it's southern tip.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Jordan/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Jordan/United-States/Crime

[regentrude]

I view guns as morally neutral tools.  The tool (gun) is only as good or as bad as the person using it. 

 

Adding another gun law isn't going to provide enough of a barrier to stop someone who is determined to destroy life.  

 

So how come there are significantly fewer murders per capita in countries with stronger gun control? Are people especially bad in the US and especially good in, say, Western Europe?

Are you seriously claiming it has nothing to do with the availability of weapons?

Edited October 3, 2017 by regentrude

[ktgrok]

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.

 

So nothing should ever be outlawed? Should we start producing machine guns for anyone that wants one? Home missile ranges? Sell ready made pipe bombs at the corner store, because why outlaw bombs when murder is already illegal?

[TCB]

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.

 

Strangely enough many other countries manage to have less gun violence. Why do you immediately reject out of hand that something could be done? Why is it that some can not even admit that these events are largely an American problem and then look at why that might be so? The first step to solving anything is admitting you have a problem. America you have a problem.

[Barb_]

Strangely enough many other countries manage to have less gun violence. Why do you immediately reject out of hand that something could be done? Why is it that some can not even admit that these events are largely an American problem and then look at why that might be so? The first step to solving anything is admitting you have a problem. America you have a problem.

America, we have a problem.

[goldberry]

The only way to stop them and save the country "is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth," she says.

 

"Fist of Truth" is not a euphemism for firearms or gun violence. That's rather reaching. Do you seriously think that's what it meant?

 

I really like that video, because it points out some very important truths about the cycle currently being perpetuated of outrage and hate and violence and more outrage and hate and violence being self volitional with the current narrative.

 

And you don't think that video is perpetuating outrage and hate?  With the extreme us versus them narrative?  If they were really concerned about stopping the cycle, why would they contribute to it with a video like this?

 

Yes, I seriously think that is exactly what was meant in the video.  When I first saw that video months ago I was both horrified and frightened that an organization whose role should be promoting responsible gun ownership would pit Americans against each other like that.  There is nothing in that video worth liking.

 

never mind...

Edited October 3, 2017 by goldberry

[Guest]

Strangely enough many other countries manage to have less gun violence. Why do you immediately reject out of hand that something could be done? Why is it that some can not even admit that these events are largely an American problem and then look at why that might be so? The first step to solving anything is admitting you have a problem. America you have a problem.

 

You're not seriously suggesting that the U.S. is the only country were people are murdered, are you? Or the only country with mass murderers?

[mathnerd]

"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.

 

 

I think that there are no ethical concerns in tracking the bullets fired from a gun. We track web site hits, monitor people's browsing habits using cookies, our credit card purchases, our movie watching preferences, our grocery bills, our health issues are all tracked - why not track the bullets fired out of a gun?

 

This post led me to google a bit. There is a proposal for "micro stamping" the cartridge - where identifying information is etched into the cartridge when the bullet is fired - in California. Apparently the proposal is under litigation at this time.

[fraidycat]

You're not seriously suggesting that the U.S. is the only country were people are murdered, are you? Or the only country with mass murderers?

When I went to school, less =/= none.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

What does this have to do with mass murder? Straw man there - are we talking about banning all items related to accidental deaths and injuries? Why just firearms? Domestic violence is another good one - is a firearm away from the husband worth taking away the wife's ability to try and protect herself from her husband? Who is more likely to hurt someone with their gun without cause?

 

Suicide is an interesting one. Safes do seem to help with that, but how do you enforce it? And the homes with gun safes already aren't the ones seeing this issue in quite as dramatic a way. Again, trying to police someone already showing a disregard for the law and safety doesn't really catch those who are at greatest risk of offense, but those who are least likely to abuse or do violence.

 

How many mass shootings has Australia had since they toughened their gun control laws?  What about Scotland after they made their changes?

 

And strangely enough they don't have prolific black markets either....

[creekland]

You're not seriously suggesting that the U.S. is the only country were people are murdered, are you? Or the only country with mass murderers?

You need to Google "gun deaths by country" or "mass murders by country" and see the discrepancy that comes up per capita. It's eye opening. I would do it for you, but I am off to bed now.

[goldberry]

 

This post led me to google a bit. There is a proposal for "micro stamping" the cartridge - where identifying information is etched into the cartridge when the bullet is fired - in California. Apparently the proposal is under litigation at this time.

 

Every possible solution that has ever been proposed has been fought tooth and nail (and dollar) every step of the way.  Remember the handguns that would only work for the owners, imprinting or something?  They were not even allowed to be sold, the shop owners received too many death threats.  WTH?  Death threats for selling a gun that some gunowners might actually want to buy. Enough pressure to take them off the market.  

[TCB]

You're not seriously suggesting that the U.S. is the only country were people are murdered, are you? Or the only country with mass murderers?

 

Mass shootings, mass shootings of school children happen with far greater frequency in America than in other countries. That's what I'm suggesting. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I have never understood the "well, they'll just build bombs if we make guns harder to get" argument.  Well if that happens then we can ****ing figure it out, but let's at least make the ***holes work at killing us instead of making it simple.

 

And yes, we own guns in our household but we also support stricter gun control laws.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Every possible solution that has ever been proposed has been fought tooth and nail (and dollar) every step of the way.  Remember the handguns that would only work for the owners, imprinting or something?  They were not even allowed to be sold, the shop owners received too many death threats.  WTH?  Death threats for selling a gun that some gunowners might actually want to buy. Enough pressure to take them off the market.  

 

Actually it's even worse - the NRA has effectively ended a lot of the research on smart gun technology.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Mass shootings, mass shootings of school children happen with far greater frequency in America than in other countries. That's what I'm suggesting. 

 

There isn't even a close second.

[swimmermom3]

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. 

 

Katie, sending :grouphug: and :001_wub:  your way. It's the gun owners who have no room to make any changes that drive those of us in the middle towards voting for total gun control. When a gun owner appears to have no empathy for humanity, but a huge need for more ammo, I am gone.

[Barb_]

There isn't even a close second.

There isn't even a close second on number of guns per capita. Serbia is number 2 at under half the number of guns we have per 100 people. Same with Yemen. Number 4? Cyprus at 1/3 the number of guns we have per capita.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There isn't even a close second on number of guns per capita. Serbia is number 2 at under half the number of guns we have per 100 people. Same with Yemen. Number 4? Cyprus at 1/3 the number of guns we have per capita.

 

And #2 and #3 have been or are active war zones.

 

[Barb_]

And #2 and #3 have been or are active war zones.

 

Exactly.

[MBM]

The NRA is an extremely powerful lobby. Lobbies are essentially how groups get their legislation passed.

[Guest]

You need to Google "gun deaths by country" or "mass murders by country" and see the discrepancy that comes up per capita. It's eye opening. I would do it for you, but I am off to bed now.

I don't find comparing statistics from a large country with 260,000,000 people to countries with the population equal to one city or state in the large country to be helpful, because there are going to be more of something by virtue of its size. Hopefully, that made sense.....it's late.

 

Also, like I said before, changes by legislation here are limited because of our constitutional right to own guns. Private gun ownership has been part of our culture since the 1600's.

[Barb_]

I don't find comparing statistics from a large country with 260,000,000 people to countries with the population equal to one city or state in the large country to be helpful, because there are going to be more of something by virtue of its size. Hopefully, that made sense.....it's late.

 

Also, like I said before, changes by legislation here are limited because of our constitutional right to own guns. Private gun ownership has been part of our culture since the 1600's.

In the 1600's we hung thieves in the public square and burned witches at the stake. Also slavery. We can rid our culture of gun violence in the same way. We just have to want to do it.

[TCB]

I don't find comparing statistics from a large country with 260,000,000 people to countries with the population equal to one city or state in the large country to be helpful, because there are going to be more of something by virtue of its size. Hopefully, that made sense.....it's late.

 

Also, like I said before, changes by legislation here are limited because of our constitutional right to own guns. Private gun ownership has been part of our culture since the 1600's.

 

The figures are per capita so they are comparing like with like.

[Joker]

What I know for certain is that I'm sick of it. It hurts. I woke this morning to my kids telling me we had ANOTHER mass shooting. That those words came out of their mouths hurt me. We then had to wait to hear from our family in Vegas. Four of them (one on my side of the family and three from dh's)  were on the strip but not in that area. We were lucky. 

 

I often hear that when you know better, you do better. We know better but we're not doing better. It's no okay. 

[Sneezyone]

I'm not countering anything. I'm saying in addition to fewer mass murders, we'd have the benefit of fewer other deaths too. There are two good reasons for much stricter gun control.

 

Legal handguns in "average" households do more harm than good.

 

In the "old days" folks didn't have the idea that going out and shooting tons of people was a "wonderful" idea. Pandora's box is open now. We're not going back to those days. 'Tis better if we take it on in ways we can. Strict gun control has worked in many countries (not just islands - Europe and Canada also have fewer gun deaths per capita if I remember my stats correctly). I see no reason at all it can't work here too. Americans are nothing special. We're human just like everyone else. There will always be crime, but there can be less deadly crime.

 

Tons of people (all Americans) gasped when we mentioned our son was going to do a Study Abroad in Jordan. Didn't we know the Middle East isn't safe??? How could we let him go there. Even my dad said, "I thought you were the smart one!" :glare: Look it up folks - or look at the link I'll provide for stats. For almost all crimes, Jordan is far safer than the US. Americans have a warped view of things.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Jordan/United-States/Crime

 

Jordan ranks 56th in violent crime (per capita, of course). The US is the proud winner! Oh, and we have twice as many police officers per capita.

 

With intentional homicide, Jordan is 74th, we're 7th. I'm sure if we try we can win that one too... :glare:

 

The US ranks #1 in guns per hundred residents. Jordan ranks #56. Seems to me to be quite a correlation even in a country in the middle of some awful times going on.

 

Why can it not happen here again? Jordan is hardly an island. It has one port at it's southern tip.

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Jordan/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime

 

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Jordan/United-States/Crime

This was the same reaction we got to moving to the Middle East. Stats be damned, the US is exceptional (exceptionally violent). Now my kids and DH don't want to move back!

[Sneezyone]

It may well be time to publicly revisit the 2nd amendment in its current form. A vocal opposition movement may be what it finally takes to push the nation toward more sensible policies. Until the 2nd is amended, we'll continue to get BS 'this is the price of freedom' arguments.

[Twolittleboys]

I just don't get those of you saying gun control doesn't work. Obviously, it works - all over the world. This is not a theoretical or philosophical question.

 

When I say it works I don't mean that there is no more evil/violence. Of course there is. People get illegal guns. They use other methods. But it is much more difficult to get illegal guns and other methods are less effective. Isn't it worth saving some lives even if you can't save all? I would much rather some crazy person kills three people by slashing their throats with a knife or injures two with an axe than someone killing over 50 and injuring another 500 with a gun (and no special skills for using it).

 

And when I say "gun control" I don't mean the right to have a gun needs to be eliminiated completely. Why not chose a handful of weapons (small handguns, some hunting rifle) and after a decent background check anyone can own a couple? That would be plenty for hunting/defending/killing vermin etc.

 

Yes, it would limit people's freedom but we enact rules and laws that restrict freedom all the time. That is how society works. 

[8circles]

It may well be time to publicly revisit the 2nd amendment in its current form. A vocal opposition movement may be what it finally takes to push the nation toward more sensible policies. Until the 2nd is amended, we'll continue to get BS 'this is the price of freedom' arguments.

 

I don't even understand why people would be so willing to pay it. Even if this truly were the price of freedom - Good Lord, I wouldn't pay it. How freaking free are you when your likelihood of being shot is so high? Should we comfort ourselves that at least those people who like to shoot for fun are allowed to unfettered? And people can have 10 different guns for 10 different kinds of jobs because that's what you need for that rugged Midwestern living?

 

On an average day, 93 Americans are killed by guns. On average, 7 of those are children/teens.

On an average day, 50 women are shot to death by intimate partners.

America's gun homicide rate is 25 times that of other developed countries.

AS OF October 1, 2017, THIS YEAR: 

99 KIDS KILLED 

159 KIDS INJURED

11 ADULTS INJURED

4 ADULTS KILLED

 

That ANYONE is willing to pay THAT price to have the "freedom" to own guns & shoot easier than women can get certain healthcare just because they like it, I will never understand. & worse, when it's  Xian who willingly pays that price? Jesus take the wheel, please Jesus...

 

ETA: The unbelievable part is, what most people are asking for isn't no guns at all, it's adding safety measures to allow people to do their hobbies & exercise their right while keeping the rest of the public safe. Will gun owners have to give a little? Yup - why anyone with a beating heart would be unwilling to is beyond me.

Edited October 3, 2017 by 8circles

[ktgrok]

Katie, sending :grouphug: and :001_wub:  your way. It's the gun owners who have no room to make any changes that drive those of us in the middle towards voting for total gun control. When a gun owner appears to have no empathy for humanity, but a huge need for more ammo, I am gone.

 

Thank you. and yeah, I can like having the ability to shoot at the range, and defend myself if need be, and still want tighter gun control. I have hoops I have to jump through to get a car, but I do it. If there were more hoops to jump through to own my guns, I would do it gratefully. I'm willing to have some hassle if it saves even one person's life. 

SaveSave

[Elizabeth86]

The gun this guy used wasn’t just a gun. It was an automatic weapon, the purpose of which is to kill or shoot as many targets as possible in as short a time as possible. That is

 

not simply ‘owning a gun’.

Ok so this guy owned an illegal gun? If you take guns away, it only takes guns away from law abiding citizens like me and my dh we feel we need to keep our family safe. If guns were banned, crazy people would still get guns, they dont care about the law and then we wouldnt have a gun to defend ourselves. Trying not to get too out of line here. Edited October 3, 2017 by Elizabeth86

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Ok so this guy owned an illegal gun? If you take guns away, it only takes guns away from law abiding citizens like me and my dh we feel we need to keep our family safe. If guns were banned, crazy people would still get guns, they dont care about the law and then we wouldnt have a gun to defend ourselves. Trying not to get too out of line here.

 

No offense, but you make it seem like access to guns is the only thing between us and a "Mad Max" type of scenario.  Yet when I look at other countries with stricter gun control, what I see is lower murder rates.  Why do you believe we are not capable of achieving the same?

Edited October 3, 2017 by ChocolateReignRemix

[Pawz4me]

Deleted because CR addressed it better than I did, and w/o the snark. 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by Pawz4me

[creekland]

I don't find comparing statistics from a large country with 260,000,000 people to countries with the population equal to one city or state in the large country to be helpful, because there are going to be more of something by virtue of its size. Hopefully, that made sense.....it's late.

 

Also, like I said before, changes by legislation here are limited because of our constitutional right to own guns. Private gun ownership has been part of our culture since the 1600's.

 

No, it doesn't make sense.  How is it different?  The numbers are per capita, meaning averaged out.  Just because the population of one country is smaller or larger has no bearing.  Those are just borders.  Jordan's population is about equivalent to Virginia's.  Wanna guess which place has less dangerous gun stats?

 

This article sums up a bit using actual data on whether guns help us during crimes:

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/slightly-blighty/201601/does-owning-gun-protect-you

 

"If the main reason North Americans believe in owning a firearm is for self-protection then they may need to be aware that the actual deployment of such a weapon during a crime as a protective act is in fact very rare—even in a society which is so awash with armaments.

The evidence is that guns feature much more in the commission of crimes than in personal defense. Even when they are actually used as an act of personal protection – the evidence is not at all strong that they are of that much use.

Part of the reasons for these findings may lie in better understanding the micro-psychology of such criminal incidents in terms of how they actually occur and escalate, combined with the possibility of accessing a gun in such circumstances.

This appears very different to what Hollywood films depict, and maybe there’s a clue as to the North American affection for guns."

 

I guess gun owners envision themselves as Hollywood heroes, stopping whatever crime comes their way when in reality, that happens about as often, maybe less, than winning the lottery (something many Americans are also certain will happen to them).  They totally overlook all the risks of gun ownership from suicide in that depressing moment, accidentally shooting a friend (has happened locally more than once, even to a family I know personally and not via school), and accidentally shooting an intruder who isn't a criminal.  

 

Americans put up with an amazing amount of violence and somehow it's "better."   :glare:   Sometimes it seems pretty obvious why we don't rank all that highly in "smarts."  

Edited October 3, 2017 by creekland

[Guest]

The problem of comparison between private-gun-free (or almost free) countries and the USA is a little bit the homogeneity issue, but mostly honestly who we are.

 

 

As I said upthread, you can not simply disarm the whole population when that population lives under the auspices of the largest, most powerful war machine the world has ever seen, one that is increasingly spilling over to the civilian police force.

 

People who truly think that THAT state--the war machine state-- can just take away privately owned weapons (of any type) and presto-chango, we'll be safer... you guys. We won't. Violence is in the atmosphere here and our boys breathe it from the moment they are born.

 

The single biggest bodily threat from violence in the US still springs from the same source. I UNDERSTAND and agree that guns make it easier. But tunnel vision about it doesn't help....

 

It's true that no one here (or few-- we all know many of us would love to ban all guns lol) is currently advocating for removing all guns from all citizens. And most Americans simply want common-sense measures taken around gun laws. [And for the bat-sh** crazy NRA to get a freaking GRIP dang.] But! That gets lost in the conversation, doesn't it? Particularly when things like yesterday happen and all the common-sense measures that are likely to ever be on the table here wouldn't have actually prevented it. That's why we get what I am calling tunnel-vision around the issue of guns because the world is nuts and WE NEED A WIN. We need to DO something. We need our spineless, bought, sold, and paid-for legislators to get off their duff, thumb their benefactors and HELP PEOPLE NOW NOT LATER. And while we wait for that help to materialize, more people are hurt every day--at home and abroad. 

 

It's painful to come to terms with the fact that this stuff is just in the air. If it were a repub v. demo. issues, we could vote it away. But it's not, so we can't. And that sucks.

[Guest]

It may well be time to publicly revisit the 2nd amendment in its current form. A vocal opposition movement may be what it finally takes to push the nation toward more sensible policies. Until the 2nd is amended, we'll continue to get BS 'this is the price of freedom' arguments.

I don't think that our society needs more hateful, angry, and inevitably violent protests and movements right now. We need to work on creating a culture of peace, harmony, and cooperation.

[Barb_]

Ok so this guy owned an illegal gun? If you take guns away, it only takes guns away from law abiding citizens like me and my dh we feel we need to keep our family safe. If guns were banned, crazy people would still get guns, they dont care about the law and then we wouldnt have a gun to defend ourselves. Trying not to get too out of line here.

Banning guns outright is off the table.

 

If we were to make it so it's harder get a gun, and we were to remove a large percentage of guns already circulating, then even a crazy person would find it harder to get hold of the 10 or 15 or 23 weapons he needs to massacre a city full of people. **

 

As creekland posted above, a gun in the home puts your family more at risk than no gun at all. I know that seems counterintuitive but humans are bad at assessing risk. We fear the unknown assailant crawling through the window but not the very real scenarios of accidental shooting or impulse homicide/suicide or an intruder getting hold of a weapon and turning it on its owner. We fear situations we have no control over even if we are statistically in greater danger in a scenario we feel we have under control.

 

**ETA: 42. Now they know he had 42 firearms stockpiled in his hotel room and home. A family's hand gun is no match for the crazies. America is in an unwinnable arms race against itself.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/02/las-vegas-suspect-weapons-guns-explosives

Edited October 3, 2017 by Barb_

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

Thank you. and yeah, I can like having the ability to shoot at the range, and defend myself if need be, and still want tighter gun control. I have hoops I have to jump through to get a car, but I do it. If there were more hoops to jump through to own my guns, I would do it gratefully. I'm willing to have some hassle if it saves even one person's life.

Save

Save

I have several gun owning friends like this too. They agree more gun control is needed.

[Barb_]

I don't think that our society needs more hateful, angry, and inevitably violent protests and movements right now. We need to work on creating a culture of peace, harmony, and cooperation.

Considering the topic, that is a breathtakingly ironic statement.

[hornblower]

Ok so this guy owned an illegal gun? If you take guns away, it only takes guns away from law abiding citizens like me and my dh we feel we need to keep our family safe. If guns were banned, crazy people would still get guns, they dont care about the law and then we wouldnt have a gun to defend ourselves. Trying not to get too out of line here.

 

It appears it wasn't an illegal weapon. Current info is that he used a fully legal weapon and a device called a bump stock - many of which are also legal. Someone from a gun owner lobby himself said:

 

"the lead engineer for gun access group Defense Distributed, puts it more simply: "Converting a semi-automatic to fully automatic is very, very easy," he says. "At the end of the day, machine guns are easy to make."  source

 

 

those of you asking what gun control in my mind would look like: 

 

massive gun buyback program to get them off your streets, out of your cars, out of your homes. Part of the reason that they're easy for criminals to get is that they're lying around all over the place; that's why any limits on criminals have not been working. Shrugging that criminals keep getting them while you leave them essentially on the front lawn is really dodging the issue. 

 

total ban on handguns for non law enforcement  (with exemption for target practice club members; those weapons have to used and stored at a range only, not at home; club membership must include a criminal records check; clubs subject to regular inspections making sure weapons are stored on site and not permitted to leave premises

 

huge fines and jail time for violations of gun control laws

 

no semi automatic long guns for civilians 

 

extensive permit applications, wait times, criminal and mental health screens,  and limits on how many regular long guns can be kept at home, and those must be stored in a locked safe 

 

no concealed carry and no open carry in any urban areas; in my world, only weapons for civilians in a home are for protection from wildlife or if you're hunting.

 

if your area is unsafe, you need a crime prevention program, social workers and a well trained and staffed police force - not armed civilians. Pay your taxes, build your communities - that's what civilization is about. 

 

limits on how much ammunition can be purchased at a time and large taxes on it to discourage use 

 

programs to change the optics. Smoking was sexy. Now it's not. Tobacco had a huge lobby behind it. People armed with data about preventable deaths eventually won. I think this can be won too. Not overnight but it can be. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[8circles]

The problem of comparison between private-gun-free (or almost free) countries and the USA is a little bit the homogeneity issue, but mostly honestly who we are.

 

 

As I said upthread, you can not simply disarm the whole population when that population lives under the auspices of the largest, most powerful war machine the world has ever seen, one that is increasingly spilling over to the civilian police force.

 

People who truly think that THAT state--the war machine state-- can just take away privately owned weapons (of any type) and presto-chango, we'll be safer... you guys. We won't. Violence is in the atmosphere here and our boys breathe it from the moment they are born.

 

The single biggest bodily threat from violence in the US still springs from the same source. I UNDERSTAND and agree that guns make it easier. But tunnel vision about it doesn't help....

 

It's true that no one here (or few-- we all know many of us would love to ban all guns lol) is currently advocating for removing all guns from all citizens. And most Americans simply want common-sense measures taken around gun laws. [And for the bat-sh** crazy NRA to get a freaking GRIP dang.] But! That gets lost in the conversation, doesn't it? Particularly when things like yesterday happen and all the common-sense measures that are likely to ever be on the table here wouldn't have actually prevented it. That's why we get what I am calling tunnel-vision around the issue of guns because the world is nuts and WE NEED A WIN. We need to DO something. We need our spineless, bought, sold, and paid-for legislators to get off their duff, thumb their benefactors and HELP PEOPLE NOW NOT LATER. And while we wait for that help to materialize, more people are hurt every day--at home and abroad. 

 

It's painful to come to terms with the fact that this stuff is just in the air. If it were a repub v. demo. issues, we could vote it away. But it's not, so we can't. And that sucks.

 

I *absolutely* agree with you. But it's hard to really talk about it here because people would be reporting posts left & right. I've tried before & my hand was slapped. It also gets political *real* fast. 

 

When people are so quickly and strongly persuaded by someone "who has the balls" to be an ass to not only his fellow citizens but the rest of the world, it seems pretty impossible to overcome.

 

I think the gun issue is very do-able if people can find their inner humanity instead of grandstanding on their rights.

[Barb_]

Hornblower, I'm quoting this part because I think it needs to be said twice.

 

those of you asking what gun control in my mind would look like:

 

massive gun buyback program to get them off your streets, out of your cars, out of your homes. Part of the reason that they're easy for criminals to get is that they're lying around all over the place; that's why any limits on criminals have not been working. Shrugging that criminals keep getting them while you leave them essentially on the front lawn is really dodging the issue.

 

total ban on handguns for non law enforcement (with exemption for target practice club members; those weapons have to used and stored at a range only, not at home; club membership must include a criminal records check; clubs subject to regular inspections making sure weapons are stored on site and not permitted to leave premises

 

huge fines and jail time for violations of gun control laws

 

no semi automatic long guns for civilians

 

extensive permit applications, wait times, criminal and mental health screens, and limits on how many regular long guns can be kept at home, and those must be stored in a locked safe

 

no concealed carry and no open carry in any urban areas; in my world, only weapons for civilians in a home are for protection from wildlife or if you're hunting.

 

if your area is unsafe, you need a crime prevention program, social workers and a well trained and staffed police force - not armed civilians. Pay your taxes, build your communities - that's what civilization is about.

 

limits on how much ammunition can be purchased at a time and large taxes on it to discourage use

 

programs to change the optics. Smoking was sexy. Now it's not. Tobacco had a huge lobby behind it. People armed with data about preventable deaths eventually won. I think this can be won too. Not overnight but it can be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

I *absolutely* agree with you. But it's hard to really talk about it here because people would be reporting posts left & right. I've tried before & my hand was slapped. It also gets political *real* fast. 

 

When people are so quickly and strongly persuaded by someone "who has the balls" to be an ass to not only his fellow citizens but the rest of the world, it seems pretty impossible to overcome.

 

I think the gun issue is very do-able if people can find their inner humanity instead of grandstanding on their rights.

 

I'm generally in favor of Americans grand-standing about rights. This is a place where we can still do that, and I think that's a great thing to keep an iron grip on, even when I personally think they're dead-wrong.

 

Talking about it *here* (or most "theres") in political terms is essentially fruitless. People are persuaded to change their minds on a regular basis, true, but not if we make it about political parties. But I would think that, since I think both our political parties perpetuate the status quo, which is violent and dehumanizing :-D  So grain of salt here for everyone that inevitably disagrees.

 

As to who has the balls to do whatever... death at the hands of psycho men is a problem in this country regardless of what color everyone's tie is at any given moment.

 

So I think it's a political issue only insofar as everything is political when we solve our collective problems by political means. But that the problem is both intensely personal in nature, as well as transcendent of current political fashions.

[maize]

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?

For range shooting, sell the ammo at the range and don't allow it to be taken out.

[8circles]

I'm generally in favor of Americans grand-standing about rights. This is a place where we can still do that, and I think that's a great thing to keep an iron grip on, even when I personally think they're dead-wrong.

 

Talking about it *here* (or most "theres") in political terms is essentially fruitless. People are persuaded to change their minds on a regular basis, true, but not if we make it about political parties. But I would think that, since I think both our political parties perpetuate the status quo, which is violent and dehumanizing :-D So grain of salt here for everyone that inevitably disagrees.

 

As to who has the balls to do whatever... death at the hands of psycho men is a problem in this country regardless of what color everyone's tie is at any given moment.

 

So I think it's a political issue only insofar as everything is political when we solve our collective problems by political means. But that the problem is both intensely personal in nature, as well as transcendent of current political fashions.

I agree with you that it crosses political lines. All that is required to Shut down conversation is people taking offense at non-political comments, saying they're political. Happens all the time.

 

Feel free to get to the conversation going. I'd love to participate or at least follow along.

[Guest]

There are so many reasons why the steps listed above are a horrible idea. *sigh*. My brain’s time limit on trying to seriously address such proposals expired last night. We go round and round on this every few months and it does no good.

 

Suffice to say, I’m really glad you ladies aren’t making the laws at present, and the rest of us get a vote. Stating my reasons and objections and premise aren’t going to change minds on here, so I won’t bother. To vastly simplify it you’re looking at a correlation to the problem and not the cause. Guns aren’t the real issue, and they do serve a real purpose in securing and maintaining freedom. Why else do you think they’ve been confiscated by dictators and werent permitted to be owned by slaves?

 

This discussion is akin to dreaming up utopia, where if we only make the right choices there will be an acceptable number of deaths by only acceptable means, and all the problems will be solved with absolutely no unintended consequences. And when it gets to insulting intelligent of your opposition or claiming it’s some fascination with Hollywoood and hero culture, you’ve missed it completely.

 

Maybe not on the bolded, but if YOUR conclusion about the cause is "fallen world, it's part of God's plan" and you want to talk about it, you're going to have to do better than that. This is America, after all.

[maize]

Not cost effective, and we don’t just shoot at the range, we CC, hunt, and hobby shoot outside of the range on occasion. Keeping and controlling ammo only at the range also limits hobbies like reloading, not to mention it isn’t cost effective, makes it difficult to shop among brands with very different characteristics, AND the biggest issue of all - it makes the ranges an easy centralized target for theft.

You mentioned how many rounds you go through at the range as a reason not to have limits on ammunition sales/stockpiling. You don't go through that many rounds when hunting (I hope!).

 

Not cost effective? That is maybe one price we have to pay. Mass shootings are most certainly not "cost effective" for our society.

 

Target for theft? Banks are a target for theft. We deal with that hazard.

[Guest]

I agree with you that it crosses political lines. All that is required to Shut down conversation is people taking offense at non-political comments, saying they're political. Happens all the time.

 

Feel free to get to the conversation going. I'd love to participate or at least follow along.

 

Certainly does! I had a comment deleted last week that struck me as totally bananas.