Notices

Shooting on the Las Vegas Strip!

 
Old 10-04-2017, 11:23 AM
  #241  
Senior Moderator
 
oo7spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 24,812
Liked 4,358 Times in 3,134 Posts
^ I agree with brian. The chances of getting hit with a non-lethal shot that incapacitates him and let's him stand trial is too risky.
Originally Posted by stogie1020 View Post
^You are part of the problem, not the solution.

You have pro gun people here speaking very reasonably and you need to try to flaunt your moral high-holly-ness instead of engaging in actual discussion.

What SPECIFIC legislative measures do YOU propose that would prevent mass killings by someone like this?
I have heard one primary response from gun enthusiasts after this massacre regarding gun law reform: I don't want gun law reform because I like guns, and I don't want to see them become illegal. That is followed by, "if we allow ANY reform, then that will open the flood gates for uneducated law makers to go crazy." They literally stated their stance was based in fear, and then accuse those of us trying to put in place regulations based on historical events as having our stance based in fear. There is a fundamental difference about fear of change that hasn't happened, and pushing for change to reduce something that happens all the time. How is that reasonable?

There appears to be no concern for the next massacre, how we could thwart it, or how we could reduce the casualty count from the gun enthusiasts. Their debate approach makes it seem like their hard-on time at the range is more important to them than reducing the next casualty count. Instead of pushing to educate people about gun differences and sincerely trying to give some kind of ground to gun reform, they decide to reject all debate about it entirely. That will work fine as long as they are in the majority, but as soon as the attitude shifts, you can bet the gun reformers won't bother asking the gun enthusiasts what they think. It's not a debate worth having as proven over and over again.

If you are genuinely interested in my opinion on gun law reform, I posted it in the appropriate gun law debate thread in R&P yesterday.

Last edited by oo7spy; 10-04-2017 at 11:27 AM.
oo7spy is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 11:28 AM
  #242  
Needs more Lemon Pledge
 
stogie1020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 46
Posts: 52,083
Liked 1,772 Times in 1,055 Posts
^The real issue 007, is that the gun owners are not basing their position on speculative fear, but on actual (ridiculous) legislation that has been passed previously that was the knee jerk emotional reaction you describe.

Your likelihood of being shot in a mass shooting event is MUCH lower than the likelihood of stupid gun laws being passed right after one.
stogie1020 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 11:31 AM
  #243  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 11:38 AM
  #244  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
People who write / sponsor gun laws don't know shit about guns.
If they did, they'd realize how complex the issue is.
I think Obama was trying to get on track.. but he himself realized the complexity of the issue.
There's no quick fix to the issue. Like I stated before, there are areas that can be addressed.
Those areas may save lives and have a positive impact without criminalizing innocent citizens.
But it won't stop the next one.
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 11:43 AM
  #245  
Registered Member
 
wackjum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 4,296
Liked 414 Times in 216 Posts
The fact of the matter is that spree shooters are not preventable. That is the side effect of living in a society that allows guns. They are scary and very sensational, but they are a tiny fraction of actual gun deaths in the US. It is like accepting the fact that there will be hurricanes if you live near the coast or floods if you live in a bayou (like Houston).

Imagine if every time a freak accident happened in a car, we came up with legislation to prevent that specific type of accident from ever occurring again.

Europe has been reeling recently from people ramming into civilians with cars. Iraq and Saudi Arabia have experienced bombings. There are ways to commit mass murder for those determined enough.

If you can accept this answer and realize you will never be able to stamp out gun violence in the US, then we can move forward to try and limit it. I'm not being selfish, I'm just being practical. If your proposals only hurt the law abiding people, then I am not for it because it is not fair.

Just keep in mind that marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and other hard drugs have been illegal for longer than most of us have been alive. And yet, are drugs scarce? Hardly, they are everywhere.

If you want to see regulation overreach, check out car safety. First it was seatbelts, then airbags, then crash protection standards, vehicle stability, backup cameras, lane departure warnings, pre-crash detection. Finally I think we've finally realized we're just not going to be able to legislate away the dangers of a 2 ton piece of metal going 60+ mph, so now the agencies are focusing on pedestrian crash safety. It will just keep going on and on because that is human nature to continually reach for the next level. This will happen with gun legislation as well.
wackjum is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 12:08 PM
  #246  
Senior Moderator
 
oo7spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 24,812
Liked 4,358 Times in 3,134 Posts
I understand we won't stop rampages or massacres. My only goal is to reduce the number of them and reduce the casualty count when they do happen. I can't think of any major gun reform that has occurred since Columbine on a national level, and the number of occurrences and the number of casualties continues to climb. The "we shouldn't do anything or we might make it worse" approach has been tried for a long time and the statistics show that it's not getting any better. It's getting worse, and there is no reason to believe it will change direction with the status quo.

If gun enthusiasts are so concerned about knee-jerk gun reform, why don't they bother coming up with their own ideas? Why not agree there is a problem that needs to try to be addressed and take the lead with educated decisions? Or why not try to educate the gun reformers so their decisions are better educated? As it is right now, sitting around and waiting for the other side to get enough momentum until they can make a change will only hurt the enthusiasts in the long run. It's a short sighted approach unless you think the other side will simply never get there.

Last edited by oo7spy; 10-04-2017 at 12:10 PM.
oo7spy is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 12:10 PM
  #247  
Moderator
 
thoiboi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 37,635
Liked 5,790 Times in 4,642 Posts
I agree..

Gun enthusiasts are obviously going to be the most knowledgeable people on the topic. I think if anyone can provide any sort of LOGICAL gun reform, it'd be them.
thoiboi is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 12:25 PM
  #248  
cameras R my crack
 
jupitersolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Fairfax, Va.
Posts: 37,613
Liked 1,066 Times in 633 Posts
Originally Posted by oo7spy View Post
I understand we won't stop rampages or massacres. My only goal is to reduce the number of them and reduce the casualty count when they do happen. I can't think of any major gun reform that has occurred since Columbine on a national level, and the number of occurrences and the number of casualties continues to climb. The "we shouldn't do anything or we might make it worse" approach has been tried for a long time and the statistics show that it's not getting any better. It's getting worse, and there is no reason to believe it will change direction with the status quo.

If gun enthusiasts are so concerned about knee-jerk gun reform, why don't they bother coming up with their own ideas? Why not agree there is a problem that needs to try to be addressed and take the lead with educated decisions? Or why not try to educate the gun reformers so their decisions are better educated? As it is right now, sitting around and waiting for the other side to get enough momentum until they can make a change will only hurt the enthusiasts in the long run. It's a short sighted approach unless you think the other side will simply never get there.
Columbine..., where two kids..., on mine altering prescribe medication...., Va Tech and Sandy Hook,, again two that were on prescribed medication, for mental issues. And who knows about this dickhead.
jupitersolo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 12:31 PM
  #249  
Moderator
 
thoiboi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 37,635
Liked 5,790 Times in 4,642 Posts
Originally Posted by jupitersolo View Post
Columbine..., where two kids..., on mine altering prescribe medication...., Va Tech and Sandy Hook,, again two that were on prescribed medication, for mental issues. And who knows about this dickhead.
How about Dylan Roof?
thoiboi is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 12:59 PM
  #250  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
To me, and other gun enthusiast may strongly object, there are major loopholes in the sale and resale of guns.
I think all transactions need to be through FFL.. even private sales.
That way every purchase is a background check.
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 01:01 PM
  #251  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
It's just a layer of protection. Assholes will always broker there way to getting guns.. but it's our due diligence.
We'll go after those brokers and it'll be easier to track those type of deals.
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 01:10 PM
  #252  
Moderator
 
thoiboi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SoCal, CA
Posts: 37,635
Liked 5,790 Times in 4,642 Posts
Sounds fine to me so far
thoiboi is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 01:32 PM
  #253  
Needs more Lemon Pledge
 
stogie1020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 46
Posts: 52,083
Liked 1,772 Times in 1,055 Posts
I don't care for the conspiracy-theory overlay, but here is a condensed audio of the LE broadcast traffic from the event:


stogie1020 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 01:39 PM
  #254  
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (5)
 
juniorbean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The QC
Posts: 28,388
Liked 1,629 Times in 994 Posts
Originally Posted by Majofo View Post
His suite seemed pretty big
Not clear if the flash bang took out a window or not though
Reports I read was that it was an 1800 square-foot suite... so if that's the case, those windows would all be the same room for sure.
juniorbean is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 02:01 PM
  #255  
Registered Member
 
00TL-P3.2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Spring, TX
Age: 33
Posts: 11,250
Liked 1,533 Times in 1,126 Posts
Originally Posted by juniorbean View Post
Reports I read was that it was an 1800 square-foot suite... so if that's the case, those windows would all be the same room for sure.
One of the news channels showed a video from a guest about a year ago, in the same room, showing the very wide view afforded by the room. Quite a large suite.
00TL-P3.2 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 02:14 PM
  #256  
Moderator
 
Mizouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 34
Posts: 56,410
Liked 1,351 Times in 952 Posts
Originally Posted by BreezyTL View Post
How do they know that was his original target? Did they talk to him before they shot him or was it left on his note?
no ones sure yet, news mentioned he rented several rooms in the Odgen which would have overlooked the festival but might have backed out or changed his plans.
Mizouse is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 02:21 PM
  #257  
Moderator
 
Mizouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 34
Posts: 56,410
Liked 1,351 Times in 952 Posts
Originally Posted by 00TL-P3.2 View Post
One of the news channels showed a video from a guest about a year ago, in the same room, showing the very wide view afforded by the room. Quite a large suite.
ive stayed in that suite before (well not sure if the same room but similar setup)

it is YUUUGE. It's a 2 bedroom 2 bathroom suite with a foyer, living room and IIRC kitchenette.
Mizouse is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 02:28 PM
  #258  
Moderator
 
Mizouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 34
Posts: 56,410
Liked 1,351 Times in 952 Posts
Originally Posted by Majofo View Post
To me, and other gun enthusiast may strongly object, there are major loopholes in the sale and resale of guns.
I think all transactions need to be through FFL.. even private sales.
That way every purchase is a background check.
Being in Kali, everything is done at a FFL (Federal Firearm License). I have no issue with that.

not sure on current Nevada laws, but IIRC PPT (Private Party Transfers) can be "cash and carry"

Edit: quick google says that for NV starting Jan 2017 even PPT have to be done at a FFL except transfers to law enforcement acting within the scope of their employment, antique firearms, transfers to immediate family or estate/trust executors and temp transfers for competition self defense hunting or within presence of the transferor.

Last edited by Mizouse; 10-04-2017 at 02:34 PM.
Mizouse is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 02:39 PM
  #259  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
Every new sale in every state has to be through FFL filling out a 4473 and getting the okay.
Each state has different requirements appended to that sale.. cold period, licensing, etc.
I'm specifically talking about transactions outside of that. (e.g. gun shows / trader sites / ppt)
All sales should be 4473.
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 02:45 PM
  #260  
Steve
iTrader: (7)
 
BreezyTL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: SE Wisco
Age: 31
Posts: 2,762
Liked 427 Times in 335 Posts
Yes, Maj. All is okay here just a few things don't line up for me as the story unfolds.

Have they released what weapons were used exactly? Hearing all sorts of reports.
BreezyTL is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 02:50 PM
  #261  
Registered Member
 
nfnsquared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MAGA country
Posts: 11,333
Liked 1,535 Times in 1,154 Posts
Originally Posted by Majofo View Post
Every new sale in every state has to be through FFL filling out a 4473 and getting the okay.
Each state has different requirements appended to that sale.. cold period, licensing, etc.
I'm specifically talking about transactions outside of that. (e.g. gun shows / trader sites / ppt)
All sales should be 4473.
Yeah, totally agree. I hate the gun show and other sales loop holes....
nfnsquared is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 03:23 PM
  #262  
Moderator
 
Mizouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 34
Posts: 56,410
Liked 1,351 Times in 952 Posts
Originally Posted by Majofo View Post
Every new sale in every state has to be through FFL filling out a 4473 and getting the okay.
Each state has different requirements appended to that sale.. cold period, licensing, etc.
I'm specifically talking about transactions outside of that. (e.g. gun shows / trader sites / ppt)
All sales should be 4473.


that's what Nevada passed into law starting Jan 2017
Mizouse is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 03:24 PM
  #263  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,197
Liked 561 Times in 385 Posts
Originally Posted by wackjum
First of all, I am not a member of the NRA anymore. I got tired of their constant fear mongering, calls to action, and push for money. But I understand their tactic and in the face of what history has shown, and what the anti-gun crowd is pushing for, I think it is a reasonable tactic to adopt.
The NRA supported a Florida bill back in 2011 that actually barred Florida physicians from asking their patients about guns in the home. Medical science has shown that guns in the home does confer a higher relative risk of being hurt. The doctor who started asking about gun safety in the home made some gun owners uncomfortable.

Doctors fought back by saying their 1st amendment rights were being infringed. The case is just now being wrapped up in the legal system and the original Florida courts agreed with the NRA but on appeal the decision is overturned and that banning specific speech content in this manner did not pass legal scrutiny.

And in this case medical science is absolutely clear on the risk for guns at home and doctors were simply doing a public health act and doing their role as a physician and the NRA stepped in.

This is a clear example to me of how NRA is not really about gun safety (which would GROW gun ownership) but about a political agenda.

Originally Posted by wackjum
Right now my Facebook feed is full of people calling for a gun ban. So are late night TV hosts and CNN special guests columnists.

President Obama had his "common sense" gun legislations he always touted. For example, he wanted to ban people who were on the "no-fly list" from being able to buy guns. On the face of it, this seems like a very obvious thing and it would boggle the reasonable mind why anybody would oppose this. But if you take a deeper look, there are serious problems. First of all, the government is completely hush on how anybody gets on the no-fly list. For classified security reasons, they will not release the set of criteria or sources they use to compile this list. Secondly, the no-fly list had TONS of errors. I used to work at the airport from 2004 to 2005 so I saw firsthand how many errors it had. We'd have to deny boarding to these people who for all intents and purposes seemed like normal people that maybe had a common name or shared initials and a date of birth. There's no clear procedures on how to get off the no-fly list either.

The second big "common sense" gun legislation was smart gun technology which would use electronic mechanisms to identify the wielder of the gun and unlock for use. Again, another idea that sounds great to the uninitiated. But what electronic devices are 100% reliable under every conceivable situation? My laptop thumbprint unlocker barely worked so I ended up disabling it. A gun could conceivably be needed in a life or death situation and anything less than 100% reliability would be unacceptable.

Third was Obama's attempt to ban the practice of buying NFA guns through a corporation. The whole reason why people had to do the corporation thing in the first place is that local law enforcement officials would routinely deny the straight up purchase of NFA guns by individuals, so doing a corporation was the only way to get approval. Targeting NFA items for regulation is foolish since they make up such a tiny percent of gun crimes, if any (with the possible exception of Paddock, to date no known crime has ever been committed by a registered NFA machine gun). But it sounds good to go after machine guns, short barreled shotguns, and silencers.

These and other legislative attempts under the guise of "common sense" makes me certain there will be a continual erosion of gun rights. It is condescending when they call it common sense because as you can see, anything more than a casual look destroys the integrity of these measures.
I agree completely with you on the first two points. Taking away a right for being on the No-Fly list does not seem very constitutional (unless of course if someone already has a conviction that would restrict firearm ownership). Also the smart gun thing is pretty terrible as a legislated process. I'm fine with private industry coming up with this (which AFAIK failed miserably) but as you said the reliability mechanism is poor.

The NFA guns I'm a bit ambivalent about. And this gets to the fight between how much regulation becomes infringing a right and how much regluation can be had. Of course the slippery slope can go the other way and some might want to own bazookas or mortars or tanks...as long as they want to do it for enjoyment purposes and there is a safe place to do them...but obviously many modern weapons/firearms are completely banned by individual ownership.

This most recent case appears to be a data point of NFA gun being used? (I'll have to defer to much more knowledgeable gun enthusiasts regarding what this dude used...seems like he had a bump stock?)

Still I don't see why we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think we can still accept universal background checks and closing some of the gun show/private sale loop holes.

Originally Posted by wackjum
Living in America, we're just going to have to accept that there are a lot of guns out there (400 million+). I do not live in fear of dying from a spree shooter. Statistically it is still nowhere near a major cause of death in America. Just like how people in CA have accepted there will be earthquakes and FL will have hurricanes. The difference is that gun violence seems preventable but the reality is that there will always be gun violence in America.

Here are two articles that are genuinely worth the read:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features.../?ex_cid=538fb
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.ad3a4785c33a (this is a more concise piece written by one of the the authors of the previous piece and gives some background on herself)
I agree with you 100% as I already stated. These kinds of single-perp mass attacks, especially this dude's profile.....we do not have enough neuroscience/psychiatric science to be able to predict who will be the next mass attacker. And the vast amount of guns in the country already makes it 100% likely that future gun deaths WILL occur and unfortunately I'm sure future perps will try to top what this guy did.

The question then becomes, do we stop trying anything because there will be SOME gun deaths? There are laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc. etc. but they still happen all the time. That doesn't stop society from trying our best to reduce those numbers as much as possible.

Given the amount of guns in America and the growing population, it makes sense to continue to try to reduce gun deaths IN ALL FACETS....not just useless gun control as I agreed with you above.

The problem is that I see many pro-gun not even want to touch ANYTHING that would make them more inconvenient to own a gun even if it could be shown scientifically it can reduce gun deaths. Classic example is the NRA going against any federal funding for gun research as well as that physician gag law that I mentioned.

Now I'm not saying there are lot of studies showing effectiveness of gun control on safety, obviously this area has lot of mixed results and is very complicated with many variables.

But one thing I see is that whenever gun control is brought up, the pro-gun side will often cite how gun control doesn't actually reduce deaths/violence and that it is just a political ploy. This, to me, means that the pro-gun crowd is also reaching for the end goal of safety, security and less deaths. So with this goal in mind, as with the NRA Florida bill example above, we have good data to show that gun in homes shows higher risk for death/accidents, and so in this specific case they were simply asking about securing the gun at home to try to make the home safer...and yet it was blocked.

So it seems a very dichotomous thing. On the one hand it seems like both sides want to reduce deaths/violence/injuries...but then whenever anything that would cause inconvenient to gun ownership the argument then turns away from safety but to the right to own a gun and it also reverts back to how any gun legislation doesn't REALLY reduce any deaths.

So again if we're all about safety and security, why not both sides (especially the pro gun groups) fund massive amount of effort to see what would ACTUALLY work. But of course I think you answered this in your post below:


Originally Posted by wackjum
I don't think it is possible to compromise because it has become so emotional. By labeling something "common sense" the anti side has already implied that disagreement means you lack basic sense or are irrational.

I've discussed the NRA's M.O. They are doing what they deem is a political necessity because once the statistics are out, it could become a rallying point for legislation.

I personally think a detailed study will show no correlation between gun control and a reduction in violence. It is funny because when places like Chicago or Washington DC (places with very strict gun control measures in place, yet with very high levels of gun violence) contemplate allowing the legal possession of firearms, they talk about how the streets will run with blood. Yet cities in the South like Houston etc seem to be existing rather well with concealed carry and private gun ownership? But again, the debate has become so emotionally laden that there is no trust on either side.
I agree with the common sense label...that probably is a politically charged term for some zealots on the left and is used as a way to show irrationality on the other side.

But unfortunately you're right, both sides are so dug in to their positions that it's very hard to have even handed discussions. Both sides need to try to open up their minds and reach out to the other side.

Sad really.
nist7 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 03:25 PM
  #264  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
Originally Posted by Mizouse View Post


that's what Nevada passed into law starting Jan 2017
FFS Miz.. I'm talking nationally.
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 03:35 PM
  #265  
Registered Member
 
nfnsquared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MAGA country
Posts: 11,333
Liked 1,535 Times in 1,154 Posts
nfnsquared is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 03:45 PM
  #266  
Moderator
 
Mizouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 34
Posts: 56,410
Liked 1,351 Times in 952 Posts
Originally Posted by Majofo View Post
FFS Miz.. I'm talking nationally.
well FFS, I read as you were saying I was wrong regarding NV.

Mizouse is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 03:53 PM
  #267  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,495
Liked 2,182 Times in 1,296 Posts
The whole "gun enthusiasts are selfish and don't care" approach is rather crass. My sister was in Vegas that same weekend, and some of my close friends went to Life Is Beautiful. So it hits pretty close to home.

At the same time I am trying to take a logical approach to the whole situation. My anger is with the gunman alone at least until any new details arise. There is no fear here. I live in a state that is probably unanimously ranked bottom 5 for gun owners. If I cared about guns that much, I probably wouldn't live here.

Originally Posted by Majofo View Post
To me, and other gun enthusiast may strongly object, there are major loopholes in the sale and resale of guns.
I think all transactions need to be through FFL.. even private sales.
That way every purchase is a background check.
This is how I've purchased all of my guns. It is inconvenient but not bad at all really.
Sometimes shall issue concealed carry permit requirements are a little too lax, but I don't know all the details between every state.

What gets gun enthusiasts ticked off is every time a mass shooting happens, everyone groans in anticipation of harsher gun laws. That's because guns are looked at first and foremost, and sometimes they're the only thing looked at. As others have mentioned, it's a complex issue. We should spend more on research into gun violence as well as preventative methods. To me, prevention entirely is infinitely better than reducing casualties. This is why I feel restrictions on gun accessories is so useless and why I don't think it will reduce casualties. A person hellbent on massacring people won't care for laws. A bullet button meant to delay reloads is easily defeatable or removed entirely. But politicians think it makes these public safer, somehow.
Costco is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 03:54 PM
  #268  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
Well you can't read good
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:00 PM
  #269  
Alright, alright, alright
 
Legend2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 12,013
Liked 1,651 Times in 1,086 Posts
Originally Posted by nfnsquared View Post
The left does not want full scale gun confiscation.
His point that a AR15 is not a military grade weapon is also wrong, it's identical in everything but full auto or 3 burst capability.
Shapiro has so many lies and mistruth in his counterpoint it's virtually worthless.
This video is junk.

Last edited by Legend2TL; 10-04-2017 at 04:02 PM.
Legend2TL is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:02 PM
  #270  
Moderator
 
Mizouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Las Vegas
Age: 34
Posts: 56,410
Liked 1,351 Times in 952 Posts
Originally Posted by Majofo View Post
Well you can't read good
that's cause the smart Asian genes skipped over me
Mizouse is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:03 PM
  #271  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,197
Liked 561 Times in 385 Posts
The left: "Gun loving nutjobs don't care about people/safety. They just want their guns."

The right: "Gun hating retards don't care about people/safety. They just want to ban guns/2A"

Rinse and repeat.

A sad state of affairs that is not productive and stifles true research/study and discourse that may cause something effective to be done.

The Ben Shapiro video explemplifies this exactly. I have no doubt both want to see nothing more than reduction in these kinds of deaths. But because they differ so much on policy and politics, that it becomes a shit sling fest of the left and the right calling each other heartless/retards and then the actual intention/effort to see what can be done is lost.
nist7 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:07 PM
  #272  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
Originally Posted by Mizouse View Post
that's cause the smart Asian genes skipped over me
Can't count good neither..

Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:14 PM
  #273  
Alright, alright, alright
 
Legend2TL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 12,013
Liked 1,651 Times in 1,086 Posts
Originally Posted by nist7 View Post
The left: "Gun loving nutjobs don't care about people/safety. They just want their guns."

The right: "Gun hating retards don't care about people/safety. They just want to ban guns/2A"

Rinse and repeat.

A sad state of affairs that is not productive and stifles true research/study and discourse that may cause something effective to be done.

The Ben Shapiro video explemplifies this exactly. I have no doubt both want to see nothing more than reduction in these kinds of deaths. But because they differ so much on policy and politics, that it becomes a shit sling fest of the left and the right calling each other heartless/retards and then the actual intention/effort to see what can be done is lost.
, before it became a political lobbyist organization, the NRA actually worked with government on enacting gun control.
The 1934 and 1968 laws were supported by the NRA.
The NRA actually worked government to help craft a bill after Sandy Hook, but the more conservative gun organization (Heritage Foundation?) killed that plan with their lobbying.
Legend2TL is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:21 PM
  #274  
Registered Member
 
wackjum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 4,296
Liked 414 Times in 216 Posts
This is a two part post to keep my ideas organized.

Here's my ideas on gun regulations. The first two are things we could implement tomorrow and would get no complaints from me.

1) Universal background checks. That means all guns being transferred need to go through a FFL who will do the background check and presumably charge a service fee and keep the records.

2) Gun safety/handling course before the purchase of your first gun.

Next up are ideas that I would implement as effective tools to curb gun violence, but can also potentially be abused by the government. I will not knowingly help sow the seeds of my own destruction so without assurances, I can't support them. But since we're speaking theoretically:

3) Computerize the ATF gun database. Currently when people go to buy a gun, they fill out a Form 4473. Then the store calls in the purchase using the form's info. If the sale is approved, the store records the sale in their books and keeps the form. And that's it. There is a law that specifically forbids the ATF from computerizing this. So when a gun trace is requested, it takes weeks if not months for the ATF to come back with info on a particular gun.

4) Permit the study of gun statistics by the CDC and other agencies so that we can more specifically target problem areas with the assurance that this information will not be used arbitrarily or capriciously.

Finally, you can't legislate morality, but gun stores/gun owners/gun enthusiasts need to take gun control seriously. This means if you're a gun store owner, don't sell 86 guns to the same person in the same transaction. Just because you can and you see the dollar signs doesn't mean you should. Gun owners and enthusiasts need to stop being crass about the other side's genuine concerns. This means you don't say, "my gun control is my finger" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Enthusiasts need to acknowledge that in the wrong hands, a gun is dangerous. But it also anti-guns need to acknowledge that in the right hands, guns are neutral or benevolent.


And in case you are wondering, 86 guns in a single transaction is a true event that happened in a particular gun store that has been found to supply almost 1/3 of all guns recovered in crimes in Chicago.
wackjum is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:24 PM
  #275  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
Majofo is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:38 PM
  #276  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,197
Liked 561 Times in 385 Posts
Originally Posted by wackjum View Post
This is a two part post to keep my ideas organized.

Here's my ideas on gun regulations. The first two are things we could implement tomorrow and would get no complaints from me.

1) Universal background checks. That means all guns being transferred need to go through a FFL who will do the background check and presumably charge a service fee and keep the records.

2) Gun safety/handling course before the purchase of your first gun.

Next up are ideas that I would implement as effective tools to curb gun violence, but can also potentially be abused by the government. I will not knowingly help sow the seeds of my own destruction so without assurances, I can't support them. But since we're speaking theoretically:

3) Computerize the ATF gun database. Currently when people go to buy a gun, they fill out a Form 4473. Then the store calls in the purchase using the form's info. If the sale is approved, the store records the sale in their books and keeps the form. And that's it. There is a law that specifically forbids the ATF from computerizing this. So when a gun trace is requested, it takes weeks if not months for the ATF to come back with info on a particular gun.

4) Permit the study of gun statistics by the CDC and other agencies so that we can more specifically target problem areas with the assurance that this information will not be used arbitrarily or capriciously.


Thanks for providing some thoughts in this. I appreciate it...especially coming from someone who actually knows and is knowledgeable about guns.

The fact that there is even a need for permission to study the phenomenon is absolutely amazing to me. Like what the fuck is this. Are some people so afraid that studies are going to be misused against their own beliefs that they don't even want the facts? Or even more problematic...that they are afraid their own beliefs will be contradicted by science/facts that they don't want to begin the discovery process anyway....


Originally Posted by wackjum
Finally, you can't legislate morality, but gun stores/gun owners/gun enthusiasts need to take gun control seriously. This means if you're a gun store owner, don't sell 86 guns to the same person in the same transaction. Just because you can and you see the dollar signs doesn't mean you should. Gun owners and enthusiasts need to stop being crass about the other side's genuine concerns. This means you don't say, "my gun control is my finger" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Enthusiasts need to acknowledge that in the wrong hands, a gun is dangerous. But it also anti-guns need to acknowledge that in the right hands, guns are neutral or benevolent.

And in case you are wondering, 86 guns in a single transaction is a true event that happened in a particular gun store that has been found to supply almost 1/3 of all guns recovered in crimes in Chicago.
Very interesting and something I've been wondering about as well: The idea that gun control can be done at the point of sale...by the seller of the gun.

But I can guarantee that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen if a gun store refused to sell a gun to someone who was legally qualified.

One thing that I was talking to someone about when the Orlando club shooting happened...is that they were able to find out and actually talked to the store owner who sold that dude his gun(s). And a thought struck me. What if that store owner refused to sell the gun?

Say they did refused. This means that at the point of sale, the store owner has violated an american citizen's 2A rights (again, if otherwise the person was legally able to buy a gun under current law). And if this happened then I would imagine gun rights groups and the NRA coming down hard on that store for infringing the 2A?

Last edited by nist7; 10-04-2017 at 04:41 PM.
nist7 is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:39 PM
  #277  
Registered Member
 
wackjum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 4,296
Liked 414 Times in 216 Posts
As for the comments that I, individually or as part of the larger gun crowd, am being selfish... I find that to be condescending, disrespectful, and uncalled for. Similarly, with comments like this:

hard-on time at the range is more important to them than reducing the next casualty count
What can I even say to this. You have taken no efforts to understand why anybody would ever find anything interesting about a gun. I also own 500 hp+ cars. I honestly have no idea why anybody needs anything more than 200 hp. But in the end, I am thankful I have the means to drive such cars and experience them. I don't make judgment calls on what I think other people should or should not be able to enjoy. Why do you think you have that privilege?

I hardly even shoot. I shoot about once every other month with my carry pistol to maintain proficiency. Sometimes I go to the range for precision long range shooting because I find it to be a challenge and fun (the last time being in 2016). I've even taken a few rifle, shotgun, and handgun classes taught by former military and police officers so I could learn more about what they go through, and what it takes to really handle a weapon the way they are meant to be handled.

But by far the most common reasons I've gone shooting is bringing non-shooters to the range. Much like at Cars & Coffee when somebody gets to sit behind the wheel of a Lamborghini, it is the same effect when I take people shooting. Guns are such a huge part of our lives now being featured in video games and movies, yet many people will never get to experience it on their own. We should be thankful we live in a country free enough that allows its civilians to experience such a thing.

But even despite all that, I will willingly give up my guns if somebody could assure me that I and my family will be protected. But if you can't assure that, then I will fill that gap and provide for my own security.

I will not willingly give up my interest, my security, and my investment so that pipe dreams of a gunfree society can be pursued. The reality is that there are 400+ million guns in the US so we need to learn to live with them. If bad guys can get a gun anytime they wanted to, then I should be able to lawfully acquire guns as well.
wackjum is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:40 PM
  #278  
Registered Member
 
nfnsquared's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MAGA country
Posts: 11,333
Liked 1,535 Times in 1,154 Posts
Originally Posted by Legend2TL View Post
...His point that a AR15 is not a military grade weapon is also wrong...
He's exactly right about the AR15. It's not a military grade / mil spec weapon. Period.

Originally Posted by Legend2TL View Post
...Shapiro has so many lies and mistruth in his counterpoint it's virtually worthless.
So many lies and mistruths? Really? What are they? Since there are so many, it should be easy for you to rattle them off. Let's hear them....
nfnsquared is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:45 PM
  #279  
Registered Member
 
wackjum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 4,296
Liked 414 Times in 216 Posts
Originally Posted by nist7 View Post
Very interesting and something I've been wondering about as well: The idea that gun control can be done at the point of sale...by the seller of the gun.

But I can guarantee that this is a lawsuit waiting to happen if a gun store refused to sell a gun to someone who was legally qualified.

One thing that I was talking to someone about when the Orlando club shooting happened...is that they were able to find out and actually talked to the store owner who sold that dude his gun(s). And a thought struck me. What if that store owner refused to sell the gun?

Say they did refused. This means that at the point of sale, the store owner has violated an american citizen's 2A rights (again, if otherwise the person was legally able to buy a gun under current law). And if this happened then I would imagine gun rights groups and the NRA coming down hard on that store for infringing the 2A?
A gun store has the legal and moral duty to not sell a gun in a transaction they are not comfortable with. All the amendments, including the 2nd, are only restraints on government power (with certain narrow exceptions that apply to private action like hotels refusing service on the basis of one of the protected statuses). So a customer does not have recourse against a gun store that refuses to do business with them.
wackjum is offline  
Old 10-04-2017, 04:54 PM
  #280  
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
 
Majofo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Waffles, BU
Posts: 83,247
Liked 9,968 Times in 7,339 Posts
Wacky

Majofo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.