Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[lilpixieofterror]

Oh stop with the bs Lilpix, you couldn't care less about solutions.

Some 560 people or so were killed or injured in this attack, 59 so far dead, so don't tell me there are no solutions.

No one is suggesting we take everyones guns away and starting an armed rebellion. How many of these attacks where many innocent people are murdered is it going to take to wake you up. If this particular mad man didn't have these gun modifying components, which btw are legal, he wouldn't have had the firing power to kill and maim all those people.

I'm pretty sure if your mom was there and was shot in the head and killed you'd change your tune. But, in your case I could be wrong about that.

[lilpixieofterror]

Does anybody think that repealing the 2nd Amendment and following up with gun confiscations wouldn't lead to a second Civil War?

It would depend how they would go about it.

[Terraceth]

Does anybody think that repealing the 2nd Amendment and following up with gun confiscations wouldn't lead to a second Civil War?

I don't; there might be some violence, but it's hard to see an outright civil war. Though that's not what was being discussed anyway. It was about repealing the 2nd Amendment so that stricter gun control laws could be enacted, sweeping confiscations weren't being advocated, at least as far as I could tell.

It's not like the removal of the Second Amendment suddenly makes guns illegal. It just means the issue is actually up for debate in terms of passing laws--I don't think the current government, for example, would suddenly decide to do much to encroach current gun rights. Although, admittedly, if you could get the 2/3 of congress needed to repeal it, that would definitely be a pretty big portion of congress that would obviously be interested in limiting said gun rights.

[JimL]

You're a terrible mind reader, Jim.

How do you know?

She didn't.

Ya, she did. "the only way something like this can be prevented is to search every home in the U.S. and take every gun you come across"

How do you propose doing away with guns? You think everyone will just meekly give them up?

Thats the problem with you gun nuts, you've got it in your heads that gun control regulations means we want to take all your toys away.

How many disastrous consequences to knee-jerk reactions will it take for you to stop proposing knee-jerk reactions?

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.

You have evidence he had "these gun modifying components" legally? He could've done plenty of damage with explosives, too (which he had, and gun control laws wouldn't touch).

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

What kind of sick, twisted logic is that? "Someone close to me was killed by a gun, so guns should be taken away from me." THINK, Jim.

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!

[rogue06]

That's fantastic, though the newest Pew Research points out that while homicides have leveled off there has been an uptick in suicides. Now imagine how many fewer gun-related homicides and suicides would exist without guns altogether? I mean, I understand that the picture you're attempting to paint is that more guns means less gun violence, but that doesn't make any sense at all. Correlation does not equal causation. The reduction in gun violence could be due to all sorts of things. Maybe the people who'd go out gunning people down are too busy now playing video games... Who knows.

Gun-related suicides? Maybe. The number of suicides? No.

As I mentioned to Starlight when he brought that line up...

Reduction of gun suicides was actually a major motivation behind a tightening of gun control laws here in NZ about a decade ago.

It doesn't look like it had much of an effect in the overall suicide rate.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24277[/ATTACH]

I also noticed that New Zealand has the highest suicide rate among adolescents of any developed country. And the suicide rate among 15 to 24 year olds is basically twice the rate we have here in the U.S.

And then there is Japan, where getting your hands on a firearm is extremely difficult, which has a suicide rate of 15.4 per 100,000^[1] as compared to 12.6 for the U.S.

Belgium, which also has strict gun control laws (which did nothing to stop the terrorists who struck Paris -- and who got their weapons -- including a grenade launcher! -- in Belgium), has a suicide rate of 16.1 per 100,000.

Other countries with strict gun control laws yet high suicide rates include Poland (regarded as having some of Europe's strictest gun control laws) with a suicide rate of 18.5, Russia (also with strict gun control^[2]) with a suicide rate of 17.9, and South Korea (again, a country with strict gun control laws) with a suicide rate of 24.1 (nearly double the U.S.).

So, to be honest, the gun-suicide card is really little more than a red herring.










1. The rate used to be much higher but in recent years their government has spent a small fortune trying to reduce it.

2. And a much higher homicide rate as I explained to JimL yesterday

Much stricter than in the U.S. And while the U.S. has something like 10 times more firearms in civilian hands than does Russia the homicide rate here is roughly half of what Russia experiences.

[rogue06]

In this day and age, I don't believe armed resistance against the federal government is going to accomplish much, not unless you have some fighter jets and a nuclear arsenal on your private property.

Tell that to the Afghans.

[rogue06]

I'm going to say that, yes. It would. Or at the very least, it would dramatically limit the severity of violent crime. That's just my gut feeling on the subject. It seems very sensible to me.

Your gut feelings fly in the face of the available evidence. The availability of firearms has risen dramatically since the 1990s while the rate of gun related violence (and violent crimes overall for that matter) took a nose dive during the same period.

0000000000000cg1a.jpg

[rogue06]

I'm not the left. I'm just a Christian. When people are hurt, I hurt for them, and while I harbor no resentment for people who love their guns, it seems to me that more hurt has come from our national obsession with them than not. I look at other nations with stricter laws, and they're not having the same issues we are. I don't think getting rid of all guns is the only path forward. I don't think it's the one thing that will solve all crime, but I do think it could be a part of a greater solution.

^[1]. This was verified by a study conducted by the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys which found that there has been a 25% drop in the number of prosecutions of firearm violation cases by the Justice Department recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) than the Bush Administration did.

So before we start passing new laws does it not seem reasonable that we actually start enforcing the laws on the books and begin prosecuting those who willfully lie on federal forms trying to illegally obtain firearms?












1. A similar thing happened during the Clinton Administration. After working so hard to pass the Brady Law and the the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (which prohibited firearms based on their appearance rather than functionality) in 1993 and 1994 respectively of the 23,000 cases that had been referred for prosecution by the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives only arrested 56 people. One of Janet Reno's top aides even testified that they weren't all that interested in such prosecutions (enforcing the laws just passed). They appeared more interested in passing even more laws (which they would likely not enforce either).

[rogue06]

Does anybody think that repealing the 2nd Amendment and following up with gun confiscations wouldn't lead to a second Civil War?

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

[JimL]

Well, you may not include emotions in your decision making process, but I doubt you actually use your own head either. There are many laws that can help to prevent mass shootings, and many a state has already adopted them. For intance, off the top of my head we can ban the sale of military grade firearms, assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We can ban the sale of modifying components which basically turn semiautomatic weapons into machine guns. Require universal background checks, outlaw gun trafficking, straw purchases, prohibit the sale to the mentally ill, etc etc. There are others that I can't think of at the moment and you can argue the value of this one or that one if you like, but you don't know since we haven't done it.

[rogue06]

Well, you may not include emotions in your decision making process, but I doubt you actually use your own head either. There are many laws that can help to prevent mass shootings, and many a state has already adopted them. For intance, off the top of my head we can ban the sale of military grade firearms, assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We can ban the sale of modifying components which basically turn semiautomatic weapons into machine guns. Require universal background checks, outlaw gun trafficking, straw purchases, prohibit the sale to the mentally ill, etc etc. There are others that I can't think of at the moment and you can argue the value of this one or that one if you like, but you don't know since we haven't done it.

Military grade firearms have been all but banned with few exceptions since 1934. That might explain why in the intervening 83 years they have only been used something like three times in the commission of crimes.

"Assault weapons" as opposed to assault rifles was a made up term used to restrict firearms based not on how lethal they are but on their appearance. If they looked scary they were added to the list with absolutely no thought to function. This is why manufactures simply made a few cosmetic changes to get around the laws. This was why weapons like a Thompson Contender (a single shot firearm which you literally have to break open and extract the spent cartridge and put in another one) was deemed an "assault weapon."

High capacity magazines is another red herring given how quick and easy it is to change them. Moreover they tend to make the firearm clumsy and, especially in the case of handguns, unbalanced. I don't know about you but as for me, if someone is shooting at me I would rather that he was using something that makes his weapon considerably less accurate.

I agree with you about some of the things out there that can be used to allow a semi-automatic weapon fire at much higher rates. I would have no problem seeing bump stocks (apparently used by the Las Vegas shooter) banned. If you've ever used one they greatly reduce accuracy but if you're firing into a large crowd that really does not matter.

Background checks are already required and straw purchases are already illegal.

As I noted in post #173 one thing we really need is for the laws already on the books to be enforced.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, you may not include emotions in your decision making process, but I doubt you actually use your own head either.

There are many laws that can help to prevent mass shootings, and many a state has already adopted them.

And yet, they still keep happening.

For intance, off the top of my head we can ban the sale of military grade firearms,

assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

We can ban the sale of modifying components which basically turn semiautomatic weapons into machine guns.

Require universal background checks,

Already required, by federal law.

outlaw gun trafficking, straw purchases,

Already illegal.

...prohibit the sale to the mentally ill, etc etc.

So your plan is to violate their rights? Nice because most mentally ill people are not dangerous Jimmy. Why should the be treated like common criminals?

There are others that I can't think of at the moment and you can argue the value of this one or that one if you like, but you don't know since we haven't done it.

[rogue06]

Apparently Hillary is now going around saying that the NRA is responsible for this tragedy because all they care about is selling as many guns as possible. Unless I'm mistaken the number of firearms that the NRA has sold in the last 10 or even 20 years is exactly zero.

[Starlight]

Apparently Hillary is now going around saying that the NRA is responsible for this tragedy because all they care about is selling as many guns as possible. Unless I'm mistaken the number of firearms that the NRA has sold in the last 10 or even 20 years is exactly zero.

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.

[JimL]

Military grade firearms have been all but banned with few exceptions since 1934. That might explain why in the intervening 83 years they have only been used something like three times in the commission of crimes.

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.
.

"Assault weapons" as opposed to assault rifles was a made up term used to restrict firearms based not on how lethal they are but on their appearance. If they looked scary they were added to the list with absolutely no thought to function. This is why manufactures simply made a few cosmetic changes to get around the laws. This was why weapons like a Thompson Contender (a single shot firearm which you literally have to break open and extract the spent cartridge and put in another one) was deemed an "assault weapon."

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

High capacity magazines is another red herring given how quick and easy it is to change them. Moreover they tend to make the firearm clumsy and, especially in the case of handguns, unbalanced. I don't know about you but as for me, if someone is shooting at me I would rather that he was using something that makes his weapon considerably less accurate.

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.

I agree with you about some of the things out there that can be used to allow a semi-automatic weapon fire at much higher rates. I would have no problem seeing bump stocks (apparently used by the Las Vegas shooter) banned. If you've ever used one they greatly reduce accuracy but if you're firing into a large crowd that really does not matter.

Good, we agree.

Background checks are already required and straw purchases are already illegal.

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.

As I noted in post #173 one thing we really need is for the laws already on the books to be enforced.

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.