Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Adrift]

The lemons in my example weren't out of season. They're readily available year around. Back in 1990 there was a "marijuana drought" that covered much of the country for a few months. Law enforcement of course took credit even putting up billboards boasting things like "If you think its dry now just wait until next year." Well, the next year there was no shortage. AFAICT there has not been anything even remotely close to it since. Experts figure the shortage was due to the larger scale smugglers and distributors shifting to more profitable, easier to transport drugs such as cocaine and the like. Others quickly filled the void to fill the demand.

Well, regardless, law enforcement does account for many a dry spell in the drug world.

[JimL]

Well, let's see:

...wait for it....
IOW, guns.

Nice own goal, Jim.

OBP, I would suggest that you try not to make a fool out of yourself in your continuous attempt to paint me as one. The quote very obviously puts the blame on both... wait for it... people, and their easy access to guns

[Jedidiah]

Libs don't care. They still want guns ban because 'guns scary!!!'.

Rabbits!!!

I think it is worse than that. They want to remove guns from private hands so the government can have more power over individuals.

[Jedidiah]

Correct. Bad people with access to guns are the problem, which, again is the reason I think a multi-pronged approach is required.

But no law will serve this purpose. Any such law will eliminate all guns from private hands regardless of the label "bad people.

[Jedidiah]

Gun restrictions haven't lowered mass shootings because it's still ridiculously easy to get your hand on a gun legally.

What about enforcing laws about use of guns in crime with really tough sentences? Limited prison space? This is part of the reason for decriminalization of drugs, even making legal taxable access available. Will this result in a large over use of drugs? Yes but it has been caused by the foolish laws that simply subsidize illegal importers and producers of drugs.

[Adrift]

But no law will serve this purpose. Any such law will eliminate all guns from private hands regardless of the label "bad people.

I think some laws can help in some areas. In other areas it'll take a concerted effort by the church. We have to hit the issue from many different angles. And as I've stated earlier, I'm okay with eliminating all guns from private hands if it means that many bad people won't have access to them.

[Adrift]

What about enforcing laws about use of guns in crime with really tough sentences? Limited prison space? This is part of the reason for decriminalization of drugs, even making legal taxable access available. Will this result in a large over use of drugs? Yes but it has been caused by the foolish laws that simply subsidize illegal importers and producers of drugs.

Sounds like you've answered your own question here. It looks like a lot of people in this thread who are against increase gun-control are in favor of legalizing hard drugs. I find that pretty astounding, but I honestly don't think its the way to go.

[Rational Gaze]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't suppressors typically used to hide muzzle flash? I mean, yeah, it wouldn't have been much quieter, but a case could be made that not being able to see the muzzle flash would have bought the shooter more time.

They discovered his position because the smoke detector alarm was set off by smoke from the gunfire. Also, the two broken windows were visible from the ground.

[Rational Gaze]

Well, I disagree. I think a ban on guns (or at least certain guns) would make a difference. It just seems like the most logical course of action, and makes perfect sense to me. If people don't have (easy) access to guns...they can't shoot people, and there's absolutely no reason for anyone to own something like an AR-15 or other assault weapons.

Yet, all the available data shows zero connection between high murder rates and the number of guns in a country, or even between the level of gun control in a country and the number of guns in said country.

For instance, I can't remember off of the top of my head whether it is El Salvador, but one of these two has a murder rate of 90.2 murders per 100,000 citizens, but has less guns than the UK. Serbia (which isn't even ranked by OECD as a 1st world nation) and Switzerland have the highest number of guns in Europe, but really low murder rates.

[Rational Gaze]

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.

Except it won't. After the 1997 handgun ban in the UK, violent crime, particularly murders, skyrocketed. Also, if you compare Australia and New Zealand, it is legal to buy certain firearms that were made illegal in Australia, yet neither country have experienced a mass shooting since the ban on said weapons in Australia went into effect.

[Rational Gaze]

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

Not to mention the fact that disarming a citizenry has always preceded stringent rises in levels of authoritarianism typically culminating in human rights abuses.

[Adrift]

They discovered his position because the smoke detector alarm was set off by smoke from the gunfire. Also, the two broken windows were visible from the ground.

In the videos I've seen, most people didn't appear to know where the shots were coming from. At 1:58 in the video embedded on this website the cops wearing body cameras clearly state that they know where the shots are coming from because, “We see muzzle blasts from the Mandalay Bay!”

[Rational Gaze]

The murder rate in the US has actually gone DOWN, as has the overall number of shootings, since roughly 1996 (again, not 100% sure since I don't have all the exact data to hand right now). And this is despite the fact that Diane Feinstein's harebrained Federal Assault Weapon Ban expired.

[Adrift]

Yet, all the available data shows zero connection between high murder rates and the number of guns in a country, or even between the level of gun control in a country and the number of guns in said country.

For instance, I can't remember off of the top of my head whether it is El Salvador, but one of these two has a murder rate of 90.2 murders per 100,000 citizens, but has less guns than the UK. Serbia (which isn't even ranked by OECD as a 1st world nation) and Switzerland have the highest number of guns in Europe, but really low murder rates.

That may be, but despite the overwhelming data presented here, I simply cannot shake the idea that no guns means no gun murders. It just makes logical sense to me. I can't explain the surveys. I don't know why they say what they say, but they simply don't make logical sense in my mind.

[Adrift]

Except it won't. After the 1997 handgun ban in the UK, violent crime, particularly murders, skyrocketed. Also, if you compare Australia and New Zealand, it is legal to buy certain firearms that were made illegal in Australia, yet neither country have experienced a mass shooting since the ban on said weapons in Australia went into effect.

Again, that just doesn't make sense to me. What would it be about taking a nations guns away from them that would make them more violent? That's just weird. Perhaps people got more violent for other reasons, and the taking away of guns was a fantastic thing because then the violence would have been even more lethal.