Las Vegas shooting thread moved to polyass

[Adolf Allerbush]

How about all of the folks pointing to Australia's model? There are many who may not necessarily be FOR an outright ban, but would be ok with it if it came to that, a la Conundrum.

One of the things that concerns pro-2A people about a national registration of all firearms and owners is that in the theoretical situation that a ban comes about, the government would know exactly who to talk to. It's not as tinfoil as it seems. It's exactly what could happen.

Now one thing that all of us seem to agree on (even the NRA themselves!), is that we should be working on common sense stuff like banning bump stocks and other such mechanisms. I have no use for those whatsoever, especially since bump firing is wildly inaccurate. Those gigantic capacity magazines are also pretty worthless since they're notorious for being unreliable and often can't feed worth a crap. We already have some good laws on the table like making all out automatic weapons pretty damn tough to acquire. There are already laws about felons. There are already laws about mental illness. Etc. etc. etc. We could make some improvements about implementations of such laws, sure. But I believe many pro-2A see the end game of what many anti-2A people would like to see, thus the huge divide in what to do. Tough to sort it out with both sides spewing all sorts of misinformation and misleading stats.

You grew up in San Antonio correct? Just trying to get an idea of where your fear comes from in big cities and the need to carry a handgun.

I lived in Chicago for quite a while, in some shitty areas of the city as well, and never felt like carrying a handgun would've made me safer. I was just a white dude walking around sketchy neighborhoods tho, so maybe if I had a car I would've been more worried about being carjacked.

On your NRA points, the bump stock thing is the only time in recent history, last 5-10 years or so, that I've heard them tepidly support via the media any sort of restriction on guns. Hey, it's a start though...and while it doesn't seem like it would do that much to help the situation, every little bit...or so they say.

[PNWbrit]

How about all of the folks pointing to Australia's model?

Pointing out that it worked.

Not necessarily that would be possible here.

But it and the British ban are, unless you're a complete cretin, evidence that removing guns from a society works.



Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[GeezerSteve]

One of the things that concerns pro-2A people about a national registration of all firearms and owners is that in the theoretical situation that a ban comes about, the government would know exactly who to talk to.

Or them communist Cubans and Russians parachuting into a schoolyard in the middle of Wyoming. WOLVERINES!

[Conundrum]

On your NRA points, the bump stock thing is the only time in recent history, last 5-10 years or so, that I've heard them tepidly support via the media any sort of restriction on guns. Hey, it's a start though...and while it doesn't seem like it would do that much to help the situation, every little bit...or so they say.

Heard this morning that Wayne La Pierre does not support a bump stock ban, merely tighter regulations to obtain them. What an asshole. Bump stocks serve no purpose for military (they already have full auto) and no purpose for civilians unless you consider a purpose being making a semi auto weapon into a very inaccurate fully auto weapon by skirting simple mechanical laws. FYI-a lot of people don't know this but you can bump fire an AR without a bump stock. I've done it. It's stupid.

[Buster Highmen]

How about all of the folks pointing to Australia's model? There are many who may not necessarily be FOR an outright ban, but would be ok with it if it came to that, a la Conundrum.

Australia's ban is not an outright ban on all guns.
See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...arms_Agreement

where it says:

...
The NFA placed tight control on semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, although permitted their use by licensed individuals who required them for a purpose other than 'personal protection'.
...
The law created a national firearm registry, a 28-day waiting period for firearm sales, and tightened firearm licensing rules.[7] The law requires anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm with some exceptions, be over the age of 12. Owners must be at least 18 years of age, have secure storage for their firearms and provide a "genuine reason" for doing so.[8]

Part of the problem is the NRAs reaction to any and all gun control taking over the public discourse. In particular, it portrays the image of the Australian NFA as banning all guns which just isn't true.

Anyway, I'm glad to read more nuanced positions, but I do have a hangup about the fear thing.

One of the things that concerns pro-2A people about a national registration of all firearms and owners is that in the theoretical situation that a ban comes about, the government would know exactly who to talk to. It's not as tinfoil as it seems. It's exactly what could happen.

I disagree that it's not in the interest of US citizens on the whole. And I do think the fear is a little out of order as well as bad reasoning in general.

Now one thing that all of us seem to agree on (even the NRA themselves!), is that we should be working on common sense stuff like banning bump stocks and other such mechanisms. I have no use for those whatsoever, especially since bump firing is wildly inaccurate. Those gigantic capacity magazines are also pretty worthless since they're notorious for being unreliable and often can't feed worth a crap. We already have some good laws on the table like making all out automatic weapons pretty damn tough to acquire. There are already laws about felons. There are already laws about mental illness. Etc. etc. etc. We could make some improvements about implementations of such laws, sure. But I believe many pro-2A see the end game of what many anti-2A people would like to see, thus the huge divide in what to do. Tough to sort it out with both sides spewing all sorts of misinformation and misleading stats.

I really don't see misinformation spread by the pro gun control crowd as much as I see fearmongering on the part of the anti gun control crowd.

Please give this a few moments of consideration:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americ...ics/index.html

Anyway, in the large, I think a lot of US citizens agree we have a gun problem. That's a good place to start.

[GeezerSteve]

Heard this morning that Wayne La Pierre does not support a bump stock ban, merely tighter regulations to obtain them.

More specifically, the current NRA position is that they will not oppose ATF reviewing a mid-level manager's letter decision finding bump stocks as not violating existing statutes. The reasoning of the letter is that the bump stock does not change the mechanism of the semi-automatic, and is this not within the ban of existing statutes. AFAICT the mid-manager's letter was based on a reasonable interpretation of existing statutory law.

Note that the NRA statement came out contemporaneously with Kellyanne Conway blaming Obama for the Las Vegas massacre.

This is nothing more than typical NRA politics: Blame Obama and give Trump an opportunity for bragging rights.

[Conundrum]

Just so y'all don't think I want to take your guns, I'm logging off to take two bolt actions and one lever action rifle and 100 rds to the desert to do some shooting. Have a nice afternoon.

[MontuckyFried]

Please don't twist my words. I'm not for an all out firearm ban. I would be okay with a ban on certain firearms. Hi cap mags, bump stocks, semi autos without a proveable hunting purpose. Not sure exactly what I would be okay with but I think it all merits discussion at this point. The US gun culture is too loose in my opinion.

Twisting your words? Perhaps wasn't specific enough? Here is your direct quote:

If a majority calls for an all out ban, give me what I paid for them and I'll show up at the collection site to turn them in.

As I said, some people (like yourself) may not be FOR a ban, but would be ok with it if it came to that.

[Conundrum]

And I'm not for banning hand guns. I'm for more regulations regarding them. If a majority calls for an all out ban, give me what I paid for them and I'll show up at the collection site to turn them in. I don't feel the same way for my hunting rifles-but they are bolt actions.

I also have some semi auto handguns. Highest mag capacity of 8. If the law required me to turn them in with fair compensation or register them, I would.

Twisting your words? Perhaps wasn't specific enough? Here is your direct quote:

If a majority calls for an all out ban, give me what I paid for them and I'll show up at the collection site to turn them in.

As I said, some people (like yourself) may not be FOR a ban, but would be ok with it if it came to that.

Maybe I wasn't clear but here's what I actually wrote, convenient that you left the handgun and bolt action words off. I'm in no way in support of banning bolt action rifles nor do I want hand guns banned. If banning hand guns is the compromise, I don't have that much of an attachment to them. Rifles that I hunt with is another story. I will be very clear this time-I DO NOT SUPPORT an all out firearm ban. I DO support tighter regulations as a compromise as our current system is severely fucked.

[Mofro261]

I meant to post this earlier: RE gun regulations.

Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...026-0/fulltext

Background
In an effort to reduce firearm mortality rates in the USA, US states have enacted a range of firearm laws to either strengthen or deregulate the existing main federal gun control law, the Brady Law. We set out to determine the independent association of different firearm laws with overall firearm mortality, homicide firearm mortality, and suicide firearm mortality across all US states. We also projected the potential reduction of firearm mortality if the three most strongly associated firearm laws were enacted at the federal level.


Methods
We constructed a cross-sectional, state-level dataset from Nov 1, 2014, to May 15, 2015, using counts of firearm-related deaths in each US state for the years 2008–10 (stratified by intent [homicide and suicide]) from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System, data about 25 firearm state laws implemented in 2009, and state-specific characteristics such as firearm ownership for 2013, firearm export rates, and non-firearm homicide rates for 2009, and unemployment rates for 2010. Our primary outcome measure was overall firearm-related mortality per 100 000 people in the USA in 2010. We used Poisson regression with robust variances to derive incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% CIs.


Findings
31 672 firearm-related deaths occurred in 2010 in the USA (10·1 per 100 000 people; mean state-specific count 631·5 [SD 629·1]). Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0·39 [95% CI 0·23–0·67]; p=0·001), ammunition background checks (0·18 [0·09–0·36]; p<0·0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0·16 [0·09–0·29]; p<0·0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10·35 to 4·46 deaths per 100 000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1·99 per 100 000, and firearm identification to 1·81 per 100 000.


Interpretation
Very few of the existing state-specific firearm laws are associated with reduced firearm mortality, and this evidence underscores the importance of focusing on relevant and effective firearms legislation. Implementation of universal background checks for the purchase of firearms or ammunition, and firearm identification nationally could substantially reduce firearm mortality in the USA.


Funding
None.

No SINGULAR event or law will keep a determined individual from using a weapon for violence, be it a random targeted event, a violent crime, or self infliction. But COLLECTIVELY, a number of deterrents can drastically lower the probability of that event occurring. Does that require compromise on freedoms? Maybe to some extent- but it is a small minority of vocal gun owners concerned with the gov't coming to take their guns compared to all of the rest of us paying the costs associated with gun violence.

[Grape_Ape]

Pointing out that it worked.

Not necessarily that would be possible here.

But it and the British ban are, unless you're a complete cretin, evidence that removing guns from a society works.

We just have too many fucking cretins here.

[Mofro261]

We just have too many fucking cretins here.

Have you been to Australia?

It was more or less founded on cretinism.

[jackstraw]

Or them communist Cubans and Russians parachuting into a schoolyard in the middle of Wyoming. WOLVERINES!

It really has to suck living in constant fear like so many of these people do. Then you get the, "but what if..." Yeah, what if I drop dead of a heart attack, a venomous bite, a bike accident, and my biggest fear...Chuck Norris.

[summit]

Because we need gun reform, not reform fantasy.

If we blow this opportunity to ban assault weapons, it's partly because we scared away millions of people who own basic pistols and shotguns with the threat of over reaching.

Right now we should focus on the guns and gear in that hotel room. Back ground checks, fire arms licenses etc would not have prevented any of this (not that we don't need to stiffen those too, we do). But getting rid of 100rd mags, bump stocks, and assault weapons would have saved 90% of the lives.

We have to focus on this example, if we can't, then We will never get anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

So if gear is at fault and banning the tool is the solution, why ban what was on that room? They kill the smallest number. Pistols are the weapon used in the vast majority of gun crime. I'm not arguing to ban pistols, but I am questioning what seems like a knee jerk.

[Grape_Ape]

Have you been to Australia?

It was more or less founded on cretinism.

...and yet they found out how to fix the gun issue and we are flailing in the wind with the fucking NRA calling the shots.

[Bobby Stainless]

So if gear is at fault and banning the tool is the solution, why ban what was on that room? They kill the smallest number. Pistols are the weapon used in the vast majority of gun crime. I'm not arguing to ban pistols, but I am questioning what seems like a knee jerk.

I have been saying this for pages. Pistols will solve gun violence. Banning assault weapons will solve mass shootings, or at least lower the number killed.

The number killed doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the satisfaction of doing something in response to so many people losing their lives. We have to do something while it is fresh, and that would be outlawing the items in that room.

I think they should be added to Class 3 status, but the crunchies on TGR don't understand that shit, so its hard to communicate.

Yep. As suspected, BD is just mentally slow. He's one of those guys (mostly republican) who poo-poo things until that thing affects HIS life.

Just look at his existence as a used car salesman. What a waste...but at least he makes a shitload lying to people!

I at least kept the conversation going, in spite of dumb comments like yours.

There is now a pretty good discussion, for people who care to act like an adult. Which is rare, when you add in the anonymity of a screen.

Do you really think I wake up bummed about having to decide what super car to buy or sell? Please go fuck your self, with the personal attacks.

It's time to grow up.

[MultiVerse]

The number killed doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the satisfaction of doing something in response to so many people losing their lives.

I'm not sure that's the only or even the main reason. It's more likely something to do with the shocking nature of these events, imagining themselves in a similar situation, that compel on the one hand some people to ask for more regulation and on other hand for some people to stockpile guns. For example, surveys suggest that an increasing number of gun owners are buying weapons because they feel that the world is becoming more dangerous whereas in the past gun ownership, as a percentage, was more closely tied to sporting use.

[GeezerSteve]

So if gear is at fault. . . .

It is my practice to stop reading when I see an absurd opening clause such as this. Pro tip: Fault for a crime of intent cannot be assigned to inanimate objects.

For the adults: Mofro nailed it. The issue is lessening the opportunity for nutcases and bad people to kill innocent people with firearms. That can be done in several ways, e.g., licensing for gun and ammo purchases, universal background checks, banning certain firearms designed primary to kill lots of people in a short period and revoking the GOP-controlled Congress's recent rollback of regs restricting gun sales to people receiving disability because they are found to be mentally deficient. Each of these actions would result in fewer gun deaths of innocent people.

Imagine that: Trump and Congress are unable to pass legislation re HC and many other issues, but they manage to successfully team up to kill existing regulations restricting the sale of firearms to mentally ill people.

[hatchgreenchile]

Hunting participation numbers are down big time, I’ve read close to 50% since the 70s. That’s an awful lot of people no longer purchasing firearms (also keep in mind that many hunting firearms are passed down within the family)

[XXX-er]

I have been saying this for pages. Pistols will solve gun violence. Banning assault weapons will solve mass shootings, or at least lower the number killed.

The number killed doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the satisfaction of doing something in response to so many people losing their lives. We have to do something while it is fresh, and that would be outlawing the items in that room.

.

sounds ^^ so Canadian eh, next you will be drinking yer milk out of plastic bags?

around here if you go out to a gravel pit some guy will be shooting 22's with the kids or maybe throwing clays but you never see handguns or assault style weapons, the only guns you see are for hunting gives the gun thing a whole different feel IMO

but I think the mere crumb you are likely to see down there is the bump stock being outlawed

maybe high capacity mags?

[WTF is dat]

Beerdrinker : Claims he wants a mature discussion, then tells us we are acting like kids on a playground, calls big Steve old, sarcastically calls big Steve a “wise man” and then insinuates we want more gun violence this year for a point to be proven. Then says he “hates bleeding hearts” and calls them “fakes” and then calls Grape Ape’s comments “dumb” and tells him to grow up.



Nice

[Bobby Stainless]

but I think the mere crumb you are likely to see down there is the bump stock being outlawed

maybe high capacity mags?

Bump stocks will def go. The NRA has already gotten on board with that.

The super hi cap mags, maybe. Over 30.

[Bobby Stainless]

Beerdrinker : Claims he wants a mature discussion, then tells us we are acting like kids on a playground, calls big Steve old, sarcastically calls big Steve a “wise man” and then insinuates we want more gun violence this year for a point to be proven. Then says he “hates bleeding hearts” and calls them “fakes” and then calls Grape Ape’s comments “dumb” and tells him to grow up.



Nice

Pretty restrained. I can get pretty fucking mean, if that would help things.

You're a child.

[garyfromterrace]

Fuck. The brother I met at Scottie's place?

Glad he's ok mate.

And yeah.. fuck 'em.

Yeah, same bro...

[Adolf Allerbush]

I have been saying this for pages. Pistols will solve gun violence. Banning assault weapons will solve mass shootings, or at least lower the number killed.

The number killed doesn't seem to be the issue. It's the satisfaction of doing something in response to so many people losing their lives. We have to do something while it is fresh, and that would be outlawing the items in that room.

I think they should be added to Class 3 status, but the crunchies on TGR don't understand that shit, so its hard to communicate.



I at least kept the conversation going, in spite of dumb comments like yours.

There is now a pretty good discussion, for people who care to act like an adult. Which is rare, when you add in the anonymity of a screen.

Do you really think I wake up bummed about having to decide what super car to buy or sell? Please go fuck your self, with the personal attacks.

It's time to grow up.

To be clear you've been saying for pages that because gun violence/death numbers over the course of 3/4 of 2017 are down compared to the entire year of 2016 that we should do nothing. If that's not what you meant then you need to think about how you convey your viewpoint here.

Now, your point on handguns is a good one...at least it seems like it is. Thing is, at a minimum, I would like to see congress appropriate some money to study gun violence in a non-partisan way so we can come to some solutions. No way that happens tho.

Most people aren't looking to outlaw all guns (I assume that's what you meant by "items") that were in that room FWIW.