General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[No Excuses]

The NRA has donated like 3 million dollars over the past 20 years or something for political lobbying. It's nothing.

 

Their real strength is in the rapid mobilization of their ~5 million or so members to vote and engage in political activism. 

 

It is very difficult to counter a political movement that is entirely made up of single-issue voters. You effectively need a counter to them, and I don't think there are that many single-issue anti-gun voters out there. 

 

It's why despite the fact that a lot of sensible gun control measures are highly popular amongst the public, they are hardly ever enacted these days because people aren't voting for them exclusively.

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The NRA has donated like 3 million dollars over the past 20 years or something for political lobbying. It's nothing.

 

 

 

Not sure where you are getting your information from, but it is very, very wrong (unless you meant "over each of the past 20 years").  The NRA spent over $3 million in 2016 alone, and has already exceeded that number in 2017.  So that's six million in the past year and 3/4.  

 

Edit:  The rest of your post I agree with, but I don't believe that many people really are single issue voters, generally.

Edited October 3, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[Predicto]

3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

This is the exact same song and dance we go through every time because by the time gun bans get through committees and signed the NRA has worked to gut them to the point where they are so full of loop-holes so they can continue selling their guns with seperately sold modifiers that are completely legal sold apart but when assembled renders them illegal.

 

This.  the biggest reason the 94 assault weapons ban failed was because the NRA made sure that it was unworkable and easily bypassed.  And the stupid Democrats, in their desire to get SOMETHING passed, didn't realize how badly they were getting played. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Glad to see this debate is going as well as it used to back when I was the pro-gun advocate.

 

I'd be fine with banning bump stocks.  That is about the only thing I would give in on relating to this incident.  So far, no reason to think a background check would have done anything.

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by visionary

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just now, Predicto said:

 

This.  the biggest reason the 94 assault weapons ban failed was because the NRA made sure that it was unworkable and easily bypassed.  And the stupid Democrats, in their desire to get SOMETHING passed, didn't realize how badly they were getting played. 

The realized it.  They didnt care.  They wanted so.ething they could waive to their constituents.  Politicians dont care about right or wrong.  They care about keeping power.

[Predicto]

2 hours ago, ExoDus84 said:

Nothing will change. We can argue till we're blue in the face about the sensible changes we can and should make to our firearms laws, but nothing will change. The NRA will gear up their anti-legislation wing and fire up their base by telling all their members that their freedoms are under attack ("The liberals are coming! Defend yourselves!"), throw a few more bucks at the gutless whores they purchased on Pennsylvania Avenue, who will then vote down any bills that might stem the free-flowing tap of guns (and the mass profits they produce), and we'll be right back where we are now. A few months from now, when another mass shooting happens, we'll repeat this process ad nauseam.

 

Politicians are too ****ing gutless to do anything about this, so the cycle of murder will just continue.

 

 

[Mad Mike]

6 hours ago, MartinC said:

 

Consider yourself excused.

 

And that is why we cant get anything done.

[Predicto]

26 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The NRA has donated like 3 million dollars over the past 20 years or something for political lobbying. It's nothing.

 

Their real strength is in the rapid mobilization of their ~5 million or so members to vote and engage in political activism. 

 

It is very difficult to counter a political movement that is entirely made up of single-issue voters. You effectively need a counter to them, and I don't think there are that many single-issue anti-gun voters out there. 

 

It's why despite the fact that a lot of sensible gun control measures are highly popular amongst the public, they are hardly ever enacted these days because people aren't voting for them exclusively.

 

 

On top of that, in our currently polarized society, conservatives have decided than any gun control proposal is an attack on conservative values.  It triggers the same voting response even from conservatives who don't belong to the NRA, don't own guns, and don't even want to own one.  

 

Liberals aren't nearly that cohesive (right now).  We splinter and squabble with each other over every nuance, and then don't get out to vote because the candidate is not pure enough for us.    

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just realized this is the Vegas thread.  My bad.

 

I think the majority of this discussion should move to the Gun Control thread 

[FanboyOf91]

On 10/2/2017 at 3:36 PM, FanboyOf91 said:

I'd put a c-note on "domestic violence".

 

[Llevron]

22 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The realized it.  They didnt care.  They wanted so.ething they could waive to their constituents.  Politicians dont care about right or wrong.  They care about keeping power.

 

And thats the sad truth in all this. 

[MartinC]

18 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

 

And that is why we cant get anything done.

 

No it’s not.

 

First of all I reject the false equivalency that people who want to legislate gun control to reduce the appalling death toll in this nation that results from mass ownership of firearms are as much of a problem as people who reject giving up their ‘freedom’ or ‘righs’ that result in this death toll. That both sides need to compromise. 

 

Second the NRA and a hard core of gun activists have zero interest in compromise. They resist any change and are actively trying (and succeeding) in either pushing back existing legislation or finding ways around it.

 

The majority who see this madness needs to, has to, end have to make their voices heard and impose that will on the minority. That’s how democracy is supposed to work.

 

Now if you read my other posts in this thread you will see I am not arguing for total bans and I accept there needs to be nuance. But for anyone saying “Your never taking my automatic weapons and magazines’ (which is what the poster I responded to said) - sorry I’m past trying to reason with that.

 

 

[Mad Mike]

3 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

No it’s not.

 

First of all I reject the false equivalency that people who want to legislate gun control to reduce the appalling death toll in this nation that results from mass ownership of firearms are as much of a problem as people who reject giving up their ‘freedom’ or ‘righs’ that result in this death toll. That both sides need to compromise. 

 

Second the NRA and a hard core of gun activists have zero interest in compromise. They resist any change and are actively trying (and succeeding) in either pushing back existing legislation or finding ways around it.

 

The majority who see this madness needs to, has to, end have to make their voices heard and impose that will on the minority. That’s how democracy is supposed to work.

 

Now if you read my other posts in this thread you will see I am not arguing for total bans and I accept there needs to be nuance. But for anyone saying “Your never taking my automatic weapons and magazines’ (which is what the poster I responded to said) - sorry I’m past trying to reason with that.

 

 

 

First. That is NOT what the poster said. YOU quoted...
 

Quote

Because unlike most gun enthusiasts in this country, I AM willing to discuss the issue of gun ownership and attempt to somehow find middle ground and compromise. But if all the anti-gun crowd has is "nobody needs ARs, period," then consider me out of the convo.  

ARs are *not* automatic weapons. 

Bottom line...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html
 

Quote

In 2009, in a declaration made as part of the court case Heller v. District of Columbia, which challenged D.C.’s assault weapons ban, NRA research coordinator Mark Overstreet reported that, from 1986 to 2007, at least 1,626,525 AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles were produced and not exported from the United States. Overstreet suggested that you could use trends in NICS background checks to project future sales of AR-15-style rifles. As of Nov. 30, 2012, the total number of NICS background checks increased by 50.4 percent since the end of 2007. If the number of AR-15 rifles increased similarly, then that means there are at least 2,446,294 AR-15 rifles currently available in the United States.

That's a conservative estimate of 2.5 million ARs in the US. That does not count AKs or other "assault weapons". It's probably not too farfetched to think there are 4-5 million "assault weapons" in the US.

Considering that most of the owners of such guns are the most die hard guns rights advocates. Realistically. How many people do you think will give them up? Because from what I've seen you would probably have to kill most of them first. It would literally start a civil war. Are you willing to pay that price?

If such a ban is so important to you that you are not going to compromise to get better background checks, close loopholes, and better regulate gun shows. Then right or wrong, you are the reason nothing will change.
 

[visionary]

 

[MartinC]

6 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

 

First. That is NOT what the poster said. YOU quoted...

 

 

Yes it is.

 

8 hours ago, youngchew said:

I'm sorry a few dozen mentally unstable people did horrible things with their ARs.  But I'll never hand mine over.  EVER.  I have 75 and 90 round drums for my AK47 and my AR15 simply because I want them, and it's my right to own them. 

 

 

[MartinC]

15 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

Considering that most of the owners of such guns are the most die hard guns rights advocates. Realistically. How many people do you think will give them up? Because from what I've seen you would probably have to kill most of them first. It would literally start a civil war. Are you willing to pay that price?
 

 

Well what the experience from Australia say is pretty much all of them. There will be some edge cases who take to the hills. I think the vast majority will pout and demonstrate and raise hell but ultimately will remain law abiding citizens who get on with their lives.

 

As for civil war I just don’t accept that will happen. Again we are not talking about total bans on firearms here, but restrictions on things like magazine size, rate of fire, etc etc. If people want to fight a war over things like that we are all screwed anyway.

[abdcskins]

54 minutes ago, FanboyOf91 said:

 

 

 

Sounds like a real asshole.

 

Short tempered....no surprise.  I wouldn't be shocked to learn that he had lost hundred of thousands of dollars gambling in the months leading up to this.  Then perhaps issues with his girlfriend.  Who knows....it doesn't take much to set off an emotionally/mentally unstable guy.  I'm also guessing this person was undiagnosed bipolar or something along those lines.  There are so many mental health diagnoses it would be hard to pinpoint.  To just say he had anger issues I don't think is enough.  The human brain is a complex thing.

[TheGreatBuzz]

44 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

If people want to fight a war over things like that we are all screwed anyway.

We elected Trump as president and you think we arent already screwed?  

[Llevron]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

We elected Trump as president and you think we arent already screwed?  

 

Hello darkness my old friend 

[MartinC]

Just now, TheGreatBuzz said:

We elected Trump as president and you think we arent already screwed?  

 

A fair point well made. 

[PleaseBlitz]

53 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

That's a conservative estimate of 2.5 million ARs in the US. That does not count AKs or other "assault weapons". It's probably not too farfetched to think there are 4-5 million "assault weapons" in the US.

Considering that most of the owners of such guns are the most die hard guns rights advocates. Realistically. How many people do you think will give them up? Because from what I've seen you would probably have to kill most of them first. It would literally start a civil war. Are you willing to pay that price?

If such a ban is so important to you that you are not going to compromise to get better background checks, close loopholes, and better regulate gun shows. Then right or wrong, you are the reason nothing will change.
 

 

38 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Well what the experience from Australia say is pretty much all of them. There will be some edge cases who take to the hills. I think the vast majority will pout and demonstrate and raise hell but ultimately will remain law abiding citizens who get on with their lives.

 

As for civil war I just don’t accept that will happen. Again we are not talking about total bans on firearms here, but restrictions on things like magazine size, rate of fire, etc etc. If people want to fight a war over things like that we are all screwed anyway.

 

So here is the compromise position (which I'm sure you will both hate).  Okay, there are 4 million assault rifles in the country (not that I actually believe for one second figures that come from the NRA's research produced for a court case).  One:  Define them however you want (I would define it as "rifles capable of firing some number of bullets in a minute"), and ban their sale and manufacture so that number stops going up.  If you currently own one, you can keep it.  This is fully in line with the second amendment, we are just drawing the line of what is a "reasonable restriction" in a different place.  

 

Two, institute a very generous nationwide buyback program.  The g'ment can't "take yer guns" or any other property of yours without fair compensation anyways due to the Takings Clause of the 5th amendment.  But, make the payments like 200% of fair market value.  A lot of people who aren't true gun nuts will probably take the opportunity to make a few thousand dollars. 

 

Three:  Better background checks, close loopholes, private sales etc.  All that common sense **** that the NRA can't abide b/c it hurts the profits for gun manufacturers.

 

End result:  No, this will not prevent ALL mass shootings.  It will prevent a lot of them though because right now, some future mass murderer is kind of thinking about killing a ****load of people, but hasn't committed yet and hasn't yet amassed his arsenal.  That guy will be **** out of luck .... meaning he'll only be able to use handguns or slower-action rifles/shotguns, which will at least give potential victims a chance, which, it's ****ing sad to say, would be significant progress. 

[skinsmarydu]

2 hours ago, Predicto said:

 

 

On top of that, in our currently polarized society, conservatives have decided than any gun control proposal is an attack on conservative values.  It triggers the same voting response even from conservatives who don't belong to the NRA, don't own guns, and don't even want to own one.  

 

Liberals aren't nearly that cohesive (right now).  We splinter and squabble with each other over every nuance, and then don't get out to vote because the candidate is not pure enough for us.    

A-****in'-men. 

[MartinC]

^. That would be a start. 

 

But let’s face it folks based on all the comments from GOP ‘leadership’ (I use the term loosely) today there is very little chance of any meaningful change.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, MartinC said:

^. That would be a start. 

 

But let’s face it folks based on all the comments from GOP ‘leadership’ (I use the term loosely) today there is very little chance of any meaningful change.

 

It was just a proposal, I was not suggesting that it has any chance of happening.