Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Sparko]

As I previously noted

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.

exactly. Jimmy keeps saying "we are not trying to take away your guns we just want to regulate them" - well, they are ALREADY regulated. Didn't do a durn thing to stop this guy.

And he is wrong about buying guns and giving them as gifts. I think the only ones you can do that with would be hunting rifles or shotguns - something you can buy without needing a permit and the required background check. I was asking my brother to get me a pistol for a Christmas present and he told me he couldn't because it is illegal (he's a cop)

[rogue06]

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

Really?

0000000000000cg1a.jpg

[rogue06]

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.

As I pointed out to Starlight back in March:

Does it really have to be pointed out that many of the worst incidents of terrorism in this century didn't involve firearms?

• 9/11, USA (2996 killed and 8900 wounded): hijacked planes using box cutters
• Bali, Indonesia 2002 (202 killed and 209 wounded): bombings
• Madrid, Spain 2004 (191 killed and 1876 wounded): bombings
• London, England 2005 (56 killed and 784 wounded): bombings
• Mumbai, India 2006 (209 killed and 714 wounded): bombings
• Al-Adnaniyah and Al-Qataniyah, Iraq 2007 (520 killed and approximately 1500 wounded): bombings
• Baghdad, Iraq 2016 (324 killed and 225 wounded): bombings and arson

And the last I checked France's stringent gun control laws didn't stop the mass shootings in Paris in 2015 where 137 were killed and 352 wounded. Almost all of the worst massacres involving firearms were done by paramilitary groups conducting raids on villages and camps -- things no form of gun control could prevent.

I missed one of the biggest there, the Yazidi communities bombings in Iraq killing up to 2996 people in 2007. It involved four organized suicide bombs attacks in Kahtaniya and Jazeera -- both towns in Yazidi. I also left out the 224 killed in the downing of the Russian Metrojet Flight 9268 over the Sinai in 2015 and the Sadr City, Iraq bombings on November 23, 2006 where 215 died.

I could have gone back to the 20th century and also included such attacks as Air India Flight 182 where 329 people were killed by a bomb, the Cinemax Red in Abadan in central west Iran where at least 422 were killed when four men set fire to the building after barring all the exits and the Russian apartment building bombings in Moscow, Volgodonsk and Buynaksk where 293 were killed. And I guess we can also add the Beirut barracks bombing where 303 were killed.

Again, no firearms used.

[DesertBerean]

Just saw an update about how casinos are said to have made 200 reports on the activities of the shooter including large transactions. I don't know casinos. ... anybody know what this means to the investigation at all? I know casinos are regulated but what does this mean?

[Roy]

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

Really?

0000000000000cg1a.jpg

Really. Deliberately selecting an outlying value as the start point for a chart in order to obtain a misleading trend is a classic lying-by-statistics technique. Climate change deniers do it by starting their data with the abnormally high temperatures in 1998; you've done it by starting your data with the abnormally high gun homicide rate of 1993. This becomes obvious if you extend your chart back another 20 years or so.

You used to know better than this.

846px-Ushomicidesbyweapon_svg.jpg

[rogue06]

Really. Deliberately selecting an outlying value as the start point for a chart in order to obtain a misleading trend is a classic lying-by-statistics technique. Climate change deniers do it by starting their data with the abnormally high temperatures in 1998; you've done it by starting your data with the abnormally high gun homicide rate of 1993. This becomes obvious if you extend your chart back another 20 years or so.

You used to know better than this.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24282[/ATTACH]

Interesting that your chart shows the same massive drop since the 1990s. The reason that decade was picked was it also corresponds to when the ownership of firearms started to sharply rise. It is the subject of FBI studies and a PEW report -- but then I guess they were just cherry picking data as well

[seer]

You used to know better than this.

Nonsense Roy, the point was that there was a large increase in gun ownership since 1993, close to 50% with no increase in gun violence, just the opposite. The lowest gun violence since the early 70s as a matter of fact.

[Teallaura]

Talk about causing a dramatic increase in gun-related violence. Exactly what those who support it say they are trying to curb.

Lawlessness is not a valid counter argument. It also utterly undermines the idea of the average gun owner being a law abiding citizen.

I don't support abolition - even though it would be my personal preference - but this is a really bad argument against it.

[Teallaura]

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.

I admit I don't care much for the NRA - but lobbying is perfectly legal. If you can prove bribery, that is illegal and both the NRA and the congressmen in question are subject to legal penalty.

This is an argument from hate - what good do you really think it does besides flag waving for abolition?

[Sparko]

Lawlessness is not a valid counter argument. It also utterly undermines the idea of the average gun owner being a law abiding citizen.

I don't support abolition - even though it would be my personal preference - but this is a really bad argument against it.

The average gun owner who is a law abiding citizen believes he has the right to own a gun and the constitution says the government can't take it away from him. So if the government tries to take it away from him, guess what? He won't be giving it up. And if the government tries to take it by force (which I doubt since the people in the military and police ARE those same guys who own guns privately) he would likely fight to keep his guns. The very REASON for the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from overreaching and trying to take away our rights.

[Teallaura]

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

And on what planet would manufacturers not also be owners? The odds that most manufacturers aren't also members (corporate and individual) are next to nil.

SL's argument is stupid - this isn't an improvement.

[Teallaura]

The average gun owner who is a law abiding citizen believes he has the right to own a gun and the constitution says the government can't take it away from him. So if the government tries to take it away from him, guess what? He won't be giving it up. And if the government tries to take it by force (which I doubt since the people in the military and police ARE those same guys who own guns privately) he would likely fight to keep his guns. The very REASON for the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from overreaching and trying to take away our rights.

If the Constitution is amended to repeal that right then no, he is no longer law abiding when he resists. The premise is the hypothetical repeal, remember?

Also, the second wasn't incorporated until fairly recently - most of this wasn't actually true until then. Until incorporation, states had every right to regulate and even to abolish. None of them were politically dumb enough for a complete abolition although a few came close, however.

[Teallaura]

Just saw an update about how casinos are said to have made 200 reports on the activities of the shooter including large transactions. I don't know casinos. ... anybody know what this means to the investigation at all? I know casinos are regulated but what does this mean?

I'm not sure but I doubt it. Casino reporting has a lot to do with financial transactions and not criminal background checks. If he frequented casinos, and spent a lot, then it would be expected that he'd be reported a lot. Doesn't actually mean much, if I understand it correctly.

[TheWall]

Yeah about that whole only recently incorporated thing president Adams bought his own galleon in the 1700s.

[rogue06]

Lawlessness is not a valid counter argument. It also utterly undermines the idea of the average gun owner being a law abiding citizen.

I don't support abolition - even though it would be my personal preference - but this is a really bad argument against it.

Merely responding to a question. Not forwarding it as a reason.