Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Tassman]

The NRA is a lobby group for the gun manufacturers, and its effective purpose is to sell as many firearms as possible. To do that it bribes and threatens congressmen, does public propaganda, and occasionally pretends to represent gun owners.

All perfectly true. And, as a further reflection on the Las Vegas shooting, it's interesting that a white man can walk around with 23 guns, 3000 rounds of ammo and cops pay no attention but a black kid in a hoodie is routinely stopped and searched.

[Roy]

And you're correct that while gun ownership is sharply up gun violence has dropped substantially over the past few decades

It actually rose sharply then dropped back to the original level. Citing the drop while ignoring the previous rise is cherry-picking data.

[Tassman]

Unfortunately, most statistics I've seen don't support your "gut". In England, for instance, there was a massive spike in violent crime immediately after banning guns which decreased over a number years until eventually leveling off at their current pre-ban rate, so statistically speaking, there was zero change. Cities like Chicago and Washington DC saw little if any change in violent crime rates after banning guns.

You say it would dramatically decrease the severity of violent crimes? Would it? The Boston marathon bombers proved you don't need guns to create mass carnage -- and with better planning and coordination, they could have killed many more people than they did. A 2014 knife attack in China left 29 people dead and 130 injured. A 2016 knife attack in Japan left 19 dead. Then there was this year's attack by car in Spain that killed 13.

Take away a psychopath's guns and he'll just find some other way to commit his crimes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...cerning-future

[Sparko]

We saw it changed with the 18th Amendment for what many saw as good reasons which would be a benefit to the nation. Changes for short sighted reasons tend to backfire. It would be idiotic to eliminate the 2nd (in my not so humble opinion). It would do far more harm than good.

Repealing the 2nd amendment wouldn't work anyway. People would not give up their guns and you would end up with a huge black market in guns to boot. They would basically be turning most Americans into criminals and not solving anything. And in this case they would not even be able to enforce it since most police and military support private ownership of guns and would be the worst "offenders"

I think they way they would do it would be to make the manufacture of guns and ammunition illegal. Then the supply would dry up (except those who make their own) -- but they would have to do it slow enough so that they don't end up with a riot. Boiling a frog. They are already doing it by banning "assault rifles" and magazines that hold so many shells, and certain types of ammunition.

[lilpixieofterror]

The NRA is a lobby group for the gun manufacturers, and its effective purpose is to sell as many firearms as possible. To do that it bribes and threatens congressmen, does public propaganda, and occasionally pretends to represent gun owners.

[Sparko]

I'm not sure the worry is necessarily homicides (many of which I'd expect are in gang warfare--and while them killing each other certainly isn't something I'm happy about, they still signed up for "the game" rather than being a regular person who was shot), but the mass shootings. Killing one person without a gun is often not that hard if you really want to; a sharp enough knife can cause nearly instant death if you hit the right body part. But it's a lot harder to cause mass death with a knife. What's the data on mass shootings over that time period?

This was one of the worst mass shootings in history outside of a war: 59 dead.

Oklahoma bombing: 168 dead
9/11: 2996 dead.

Guns are not the problem. Evil people are the problem.

[Sparko]

Caleb Keeter, country music performer at the concert, says enough is enough, changes his mind concerning gun laws.

http://abc7ny.com/guitarist-changes-...oting/2480384/

For some people, probably many of you here, it has to affect you personally before you actually allow yourself to care and stop the stupid arguments. I'll bet if you had a family member killed or wounded at such an event, you couldn't in good conscience continue arguing in favor of less regulations.

Again, JimL, what proposed regulation would have prevented this tragedy? Please let us know.

[lilpixieofterror]

There are 391,532 legally owned machine guns in the U.S., the sale of them was only banned in 1986. If you owned them prior to that, they're legal. Same with other Military grade weapons.

So? Name 10 crimes committed with these fully automatic weapons over the past 30 years.
.

Yeah right, the government was just concerned because the assault weapons looked scary.

Yeah right, everything is just a red herring to gun nuts opposed to regulations. We've all seen the death and destruction that high capacity magazines can cause in a short period of time. The reason the nut case in the Arizona Congresswomens shooting, forget her name at the moment, but the reason that nut was stopped was because he had to change the magazine and was jumped in the process.

Too many loopholes between states. Also Background checks are only required for licenced dealers which account for only about 60 some odd percent of all gun sales. Thats 2 out of every 5 guns are sold with no background check. And straw purchases as far as I can remember only apply if the buyer is intending to re-sell to someone, if he buys it as a gift for someone, thats legal.

Source please.

They not only need be enforced, they need be strengthened, loopholes closed. People can easily by guns with fake ID"s because dealers not connected to federal and state databases etc etc.. There is also the three day Background check rule. It needs to be longer, thats how Dylann Roof was able to get his gun.

In other words, laws actually need to be enforced. Imagine that.

[Sparko]

This seems a rather big strawman. No one suggested abolishing the whole thing, just changing part of it, as has been done multiple times in the past. The argument "we don't want it to be changed" is rather fallacious if that were the case, changing it would be impossible, not merely difficult. Heck, the Second Amendment itself was a change to the Constitution, as it wasn't added until several years after ratification.

The Bill of Rights was added as a clarification. The rights in it already belonged to the people, because what the constitution does is put limits on the government NOT the people. But people were (rightly) worried that by not specifying certain rights, that this would be swept under the rug and the government would eventually claim that if a right is not specified it doesn't apply. So they added the Bill of Rights to the constitution to make sure that would not happen. So no, I don't think it would be a good idea to now remove the bill of rights from the constitution. First, it should not eliminate the rights of the people, but people unfamiliar with what the constitution is and how it was formed, similar to you, would think it did and give the government powers it doesn't have.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - notice it doesn't give anyone the "right" to own guns, it says the that the government can't take that right away. We already have it. by default. If you take away the 2nd amendment it doesn't let the government take our guns. It just pisses people off.

[Sparko]

Regulating guns, and the sale of guns, is not a knee jerk reaction and there would be no disastrous consequences excepting in your mind that is.

They are already regulated. now what?

[Bill the Cat]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...cerning-future

[rogue06]

The NRA is a lobby group for the gun manufacturers, and its effective purpose is to sell as many firearms as possible. To do that it bribes and threatens congressmen, does public propaganda, and occasionally pretends to represent gun owners.

Meanwhile in the real world the NRA is a lobby for gun owners not manufacturers.

[One Bad Pig]

Regulating guns, and the sale of guns, is not a knee jerk reaction and there would be no disastrous consequences excepting in your mind that is.

Immediately after a mass shooting, that's the very definition of a knee jerk reaction.

Yeah, its been reported thats what he used and yes, they are legal, where have you been?

Not reading every single story on the shooting, that's where. You made the assertion. Surely you can support it.

No one said that guns should be taken away from you idiot. Thats part of the problem, you gun nuts have been brainwashed by the gun lobby to think that regulating guns and the sale of guns means the government is going to outlaw guns altogether and come take them away from you. THINK, OBP!

The idea of gun control is to make guns more difficult to acquire, keep, and use. The burden of this is inevitably placed on those who actually obey the law - that would be lilpix in this example. Your turn to think.

[rogue06]

There are 391,532 legally owned machine guns in the U.S., the sale of them was only banned in 1986. If you owned them prior to that, they're legal. Same with other Military grade weapons.

Which are kept securely locked away. As I noted since 1934 they've been used something like three times in the commission of crimes.

Yeah right, the government was just concerned because the assault weapons looked scary.

Snicker like an idiot if you want but the fact is that Senator Feinstein (the author of the bill) and her staff got a gun catalog and flipped through it picking out the firearms based solely on appearance not on how they functioned. This was how single-shot firearms like the aforementioned Thompson Contender got included. This was why gun control lobbies went apoplectic when manufactures simply made a few simple cosmetic changes (like changing the color of the stock from black to brown or removing a bayonet lug^[1]) to the firearms so they wouldn't be included.

As the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence admitted, "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."

So yes Jimmy, by concentrating on the appearance of the firearm they were banning scary looking firearms.

Yeah right, everything is just a red herring to gun nuts opposed to regulations. We've all seen the death and destruction that high capacity magazines can cause in a short period of time.

We've all seen the death and destruction that regular capacity magazines can cause in a short period of time as well. How often have you read about the shooter simply reloading his weapon again and again during a mass shooting. And the Las Vegas shooter had an arsenal where he could simply swap out from one gun to another without even having to bother to reload.

So yes Jimmy, high capacity magazines don't have any effect except to unbalance the firearm and make it less accurate.

Too many loopholes between states. Also Background checks are only required for licenced dealers which account for only about 60 some odd percent of all gun sales. Thats 2 out of every 5 guns are sold with no background check.

AFAICT, that statistic (which is nearly 25 years old and severely out-dated) was based by including a number of sales made before background checks became mandatory and even the Washington Post noted that number was obtained by rounding up and because the survey sample was so small (251 people) it could just as well been rounded down to 30%.

The take away is that statistic comes from an out-dated study that was flawed from the start.

And straw purchases as far as I can remember only apply if the buyer is intending to re-sell to someone, if he buys it as a gift for someone, thats legal.

FWIU, if you are buying it for someone else it does not matter if you give it or sell it -- it is still illegal.

They not only need be enforced, they need be strengthened, loopholes closed. People can easily by guns with fake ID"s because dealers not connected to federal and state databases etc etc.. There is also the three day Background check rule. It needs to be longer, thats how Dylann Roof was able to get his gun.

Let's start with enforcing the present laws. If the government won't enforce them why would you think they would enforce any new laws? And according to James Comey while he was still the FBI director, Roof's ability to obtain a firearm had nothing to do with how long the background process was but because the FBI made, in his words, a "mistake"











1. Exactly how many folks have been assaulted by a bayonet attached to a rifle any way?

[rogue06]

Again, JimL, what proposed regulation would have prevented this tragedy? Please let us know.

As I previously noted

Last night I watched several shows that covered the shooting on various networks. The few times when someone who claimed that tougher gun control was the answer was specifically asked what piece of gun control legislation would have prevented this they either went silent or changed the subject.

Folks like Jimmy here are primarily demanding things that are already covered by the law. But as I noted in post #173 the government is not bothering to enforce the laws we already have in place which is a real problem. It just seems to be simple common sense that we need to start enforcing the laws already in place rather than passing new legislation if that too will be ignored.