Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Sparko]

They aren't ignoring it - they're reporting that investigators are still looking for a possible motive. Nobody seems to have any idea what it might have been. He was apparently a very private guy, and his girlfriend says she had no idea this was coming.

I hope they find something, otherwise this is going to turn into another conspiracy theorist's dream, like the JFK assasination. They will be speculating about it for decades.

[Mountain Man]

I hope they find something, otherwise this is going to turn into another conspiracy theorist's dream, like the JFK assasination. They will be speculating about it for decades.

Oh, people have already begun speculating. One popular theory is that Paddock was an arms dealer who got caught in a deal gone wrong, was killed, and then his attacker opened fire on the crowd before making his escape. A parallel to that is that the FBI was running a sting operation, and Paddock's cover was blown... and so on. Supposedly when the media interviewed Paddock's brother and the reporter inquired about Paddock's line of business, the brother said, "He's an ar-", paused, and then went on to say something else. Of course the conspiracy nuts take this as proof positive that the brother was about to say, "He's an arms dealer." I don't know. I haven't seen the interview.

[Sparko]

Oh, people have already begun speculating. One popular theory is that Paddock was an arms dealer who got caught in a deal gone wrong, was killed, and then his attacker opened fire on the crowd before making his escape. A parallel to that is that the FBI was running a sting operation, and Paddock's cover was blown... and so on. Supposedly when the media interviewed Paddock's brother and the reporter inquired about Paddock's line of business, the brother said, "He's an ar-", paused, and then went on to say something else. Of course the conspiracy nuts take this as proof positive that the brother was about to say, "He's an arms dealer." I don't know. I haven't seen the interview.

Obviously he was hired by the liberal gun control lobby, who wanted an excuse to ban all guns - once he had done his job, they assassinated him to tie up loose ends.

[Mountain Man]

Obviously he was hired by the liberal gun control lobby, who wanted an excuse to ban all guns - once he had done his job, they assassinated him to tie up loose ends.

Believe or not, that has been seriously proposed by some people.

[seer]

Believe or not, that has been seriously proposed by some people.

You mean that is not true?

[rogue06]

On 2nd thoughts, maybe it isn't. Maybe it is more people buying guns, but considerably less gun-owners being willing to admit they own them.

Is the meme that the US government is planning to confiscate everyone's guns spreading so well that people are hiding them and buying back-ups?

When you have politicians talking about bans and even confiscation (though usually through things like buy back programs rather than going house to house) it will certainly cause some people to deny that they own them. That would indeed explain why a poll could show that ownership is decreasing while every other indication (FBI background checks and the like^[1]) showing that there has been a dramatic increase.













1. Such as data from a 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report indicating that the number of firearms in private hands went from roughly 185 million in 1993 to a projected 357 million in 2013 (that's more firearms than there are living in the U.S.). Since 2013 set a record for sales (which was beat in 2015, which was in turn beat in 2016 and that record may in turn be beat in 2017) that number is probably if anything low.

[Sparko]

You know, if they want to prevent incidents like this from happening, perhaps they should ban tall buildings so nobody can shoot from them. And ban outdoor concerts so nobody can be shot by a sniper. Better yet, outlaw public gatherings of more than 10 people at a time. That will cut down on mass shooting casualties a great deal.

[Roy]

You know, if they want to prevent incidents like this from happening, perhaps they should ban tall buildings so nobody can shoot from them. And ban outdoor concerts so nobody can be shot by a sniper. Better yet, outlaw public gatherings of more than 10 people at a time.

Careful, you're giving them ideas. IIRC there have been governments that banned gatherings of more than x people...

[Sparko]

Careful, you're giving them ideas. IIRC there have been governments that banned gatherings of more than x people...

Well we have that pesky constitution again though, the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It's like those founding fathers thought of everything.

But they didn't think of tall buildings so we can still ban them!

[Roy]

Well we have that pesky constitution again though, the first amendment.

It can be repealed like the 18th was!

[Sparko]

It can be repealed like the 18th was!

Easier to ban buildings over 2 storeys.

KNOCK DOWN THAT HOTEL, Mr. President!!

[Zymologist]

The difference now is that the firearms manufacturers have spent the last 50 years creating propaganda to fill the US public's mind with to try to argue that the right to bear arms was an individual right to carry a gun, which Rogue parrots in his ongoing quest to have as many of his fellow citizens die via guns as possible.

seer, you're a prophet. I could never have guessed that someone would provide such a merry example within three hours!

[Sparko]

seer, you're a prophet. I could never have guessed that someone would provide such a merry example within three hours!

thus his name "Seer"

[JimL]

What I was responding to was your insistence on a particular meaning of a nuanced phrase in the 2nd Amendment. Your response here is tantamount to forfeiting on that debate.

Well you may be right, its actually a debated issue even unto this day by scholars so I'm not going to get into debate over that. But the Founding Fathers weren't gods and the Constitution, written in conjunction with the times, isn't writ in stone, even though many Constitution nuts seem to think it was.

I think there is a good argument to be made that not even governments should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. I'd be fine with nobody possessing nuclear weapons.
If the people cannot be trusted to possess nuclear weapons, then they cannot be trusted to control a government that possesses nuclear weapons either (they could elect someone worse than Trump!). Any "common sense" regulation of arms for the people should, by common sense, be applied equally to their government, following a reasonable, and prudent, principle that the people, as a whole, ought to be able to arm themselves at least as well as their government. Otherwise we ought to abandon the ideas of a free country, and of self government.

Thats a good point, and I agree, but it isn't practical concerning the current circumstances. If you agree that a line must be drawn somewhere, such as with nuclear weapons, then we should be able to come to a more reasonable conclusion as to where that line should be drawn in the interests of helping to save the lives of innocent people out to watch a movie, see a concert, or go to the mall.

[seer]

Fun fact: Bump-stocks were declared legal under Obama's administration. oopsie.

Yeah, I heard that - strange...