General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[Springfield]

Well, looks like we are well on our way to doing nothing yet again.  

 

Doesn’t it make you guys mad to repeatedly type the same meaningless **** over and over again?

[Commander PK]

8 minutes ago, Rocky21 said:

You know the NRA won't allow that. 

 

Actually, the NRA came out after Sandy Hook and offered solutions to help fix this problem, but nobody was interested in what they had to say because it did not involve new legislation to what we already have.  

 

Like it or not our society is one that must be made secure by good people with guns.  The cat is out of the bag, and it’s not going back in.  We have to deal with the situation we have now.  

4 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Maybe we could stop fetishizing guns in American movies, television, and video games as some sort of macho extension of a man's penis. That would be a start.

 

Completely agree.  Our glorification of gangster culture could stop as well.  

[Kilmer17]

I have another idea. 

 

Lets remove all screening and security at the US Capitol and all surrounding representative buildings.  

 

I wonder how fast real change would happen then

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

Actually, the NRA came out after Sandy Hook and offered solutions to help fix this problem, but nobody was interested in what they had to say because it did not involve new legislation to what we already have.  

 

Probably have to questions suggestions from such a biased source though right? I dont know what their suggestions where to be fair. 

Just now, Kilmer17 said:

I have another idea. 

 

Lets remove all screening and security at the US Capitol and all surrounding representative buildings.  

 

I wonder how fast real change would happen then

 

Im sayin

7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Poison is designed to kill things and much easier to buy than a gun.

 

But in the interest of advancing discussion I would support banning the purchase of semi-automatics before the age of 21....after all they are not mature enough 

 

What makes them more mature after 21? The ability to legally get wasted? 

[bearrock]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

What makes them more mature after 21? The ability to legally get wasted? 

 

But it's a start.  We can try it and if it makes no difference we can revisit it.  Maybe it will make a difference

[AsburySkinsFan]

13 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Poison is designed to kill things and much easier to buy than a gun.

 

But in the interest of advancing discussion I would support banning the purchase of semi-automatics before the age of 21....after all they are not mature enough 

 Poison is probably 1000% more difficult to employee in order to kill mass amounts of people than a high-capacity firearm that I can buy at Walmart this afternoon. Stop with your false equivalency so it’s not entertaining. 

[Larry]

Disclaimer:  Haven't read the two pages of this thread that have been posted in the last hour.

 

Sorry, @Kilmer17, I guess I'm too right wing for you.  I have a problem limiting guns to single shot.  

 

To me, I think it's clear that there are some moral principles, here.  And those principles conflict.  

 

I think it's obvious that we've got too many people getting shot.  But it's also clear that any attempt to do anything about it is going to impact thousands of innocent ("innocent", in the sense of "has never shot anybody, and never will") people, for every mass shooting that they stop.  

 

It's also obvious that we will never completely eliminate them.  

 

As such, I think that every proposed gun law (or, more broadly, "any law designed to reduce the number of shootings") has to be looked at on the balance between it's impact on shootings, versus it's impact on the innocent.  

 

Just my value judgment, here.  But I think that limiting weapons to single shot places too much of a burden on "good" uses of guns.  

 

Skeet shooters have to be able to fire two rounds within a second or so of each other, when competing.  What do we do, just eliminate the sport from the US?

 

Hunters (I assume) may need to be able to fire a second round at a target, if the first round only wounds it.  

 

Self defense users need to be able to fire more than 1 round.  (Their lives may well depend on it.)  

 

Now, again, just my value judgement, I could easily get behind a law banning the sale or possession of any magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.  (We could haggle over the number,  I could see anything in the 6-12 range as being reasonable).  

[HOF44]

14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I have another idea. 

 

Lets remove all screening and security at the US Capitol and all surrounding representative buildings.  

 

I wonder how fast real change would happen then

Now thats a plan I could get behind!

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

But it's a start.  We can try it and if it makes no difference we can revisit it.  Maybe it will make a difference

 

True. No argument there. 

[DogofWar1]

14 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I have another idea. 

 

Lets remove all screening and security at the US Capitol and all surrounding representative buildings.  

 

I wonder how fast real change would happen then

I think almost all possible major types of mass shootings have come and gone so I'm not sure even that would work:

 

Young kids - Sandy Hook

Graphic Video - this one

Huge numbers - Las Vegas

Congressmen themselves - baseball shooting.

 

Like if being right in the middle of a mass shooting doesn't change their minds, what can?  I think the response would simply be massively increased money to individual offices in order to hire private security.

[Koala]

17 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Well, looks like we are well on our way to doing nothing yet again.  

 

Doesn’t it make you guys mad to repeatedly type the same meaningless **** over and over again?

 

The fact that this shooting doesnt even warrant a new thread and has been added to the Vegas Mega thread, tells you everything you need to know, and is a microcosm of the societal response to this shooting.

 

Everything that needs to be said has already been said.
 

I dunno what the big deal is.  This is just the price we have to pay for our freedom.  I mean it sucks, but what are we gonna do, ban assualt riffles?  Overall crime is down, and even the number of people killed by assault rifle  has decreased over the past 20 years,  even though the number of assault riffles sold has increased over that time period.  Banning them wont completely eradicate the problem, so why bother?  Besides, if we banned assault rifles, then these crazies will just use bombs to kill people, I dunno why they dont already do that.   Wait, what?

[The Evil Genius]

Thoughts and prayers.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nra-politicians-20180215-story.html

 

The NRA spends almost exclusively on behalf of Republican politicians, who are steadfast in their opposition to gun-control legislation. (Center for Responsive Politics)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

33 minutes ago, Painkiller said:

 

Actually, the NRA came out after Sandy Hook and offered solutions to help fix this problem, but nobody was interested in what they had to say because it did not involve new legislation to what we already have.   

BS, the NRA talks out of both sides of their mouth. They say “enforce gun laws on the books” but they are actively weakening and defunding the enforcement of those very laws. After Vegas the NRA came out and supported the bump stock ban, then recanted. On and on

The NRA has a singular objective, advocacy for the gun industry who’s objective is the sale and proliferation of firearms domestically and internationally.

They need to be removed from this duscussion.

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Thoughts and prayers.

 

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nra-politicians-20180215-story.html

 

The NRA spends almost exclusively on behalf of Republican politicians, who are steadfast in their opposition to gun-control legislation. (Center for Responsive Politics)

 

 

I hear the Dems are good salesmen though so the problem is clear. **** your data. 

[PleaseBlitz]

33 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

 

What makes them more mature after 21? The ability to legally get wasted? 

 

There is actually a huge body of evidence that people are much more prone to making bad decisions and doing awful things before various ages.  Courts have recently started recognizing this fact.  I won't post the SCOTUS cases on this (but can if you are interested), but here is a Washington Post article that describes it a bit.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/teens-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-say-marylands-parole-system-is-unconstitutional/2018/02/06/91f2dc72-0ab5-11e8-8890-372e2047c935_story.html?utm_term=.4ba77ef64fc5

 

Quote

A central question for the Maryland Court of Appeals is whether a young person can be sentenced to life without what prison reform advocates say is any realistic chance of release. The cases follow several Supreme Court rulings that distinguish between adult and juvenile offenders, who the court says are not as culpable and have a “heightened capacity for change.”

 

The high court in 2016 prohibited mandatory life sentences for juveniles without parole and has said young offenders must have a “meaningful” chance to show they have matured and to be released.

 

Basically, the Supreme Court relied on a mountain of sociological studies that said, basically, the human brain is not totally developed until you are about 20 or 21, so people below that are prone to do bad things, but they shouldn't get life in prison.

[AsburySkinsFan]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

I hear the Dems are good salesmen though so the problem is clear. **** your data. 

Stop. I agree with what Kilmer said about the Dems being good gun sales people. Every time something happens with a gun you get a bunch of angry Dem House members ranting ignorantly about a scary looking gun and as a result gun owners go out and buy guns before they’re gone. Remember when the idea was being floated about restricting the ammo? I personally know someone with over 100,000 rounds of stored ammo.

 

That’s what it means that the Dems are good salespeople. Their actions and rhetoric scare gun owners who in response buy guns. Does the NRA fan the flames? You betcha but the Dems usually don’t do themselves any favors on this issue.

Edited February 15, 2018 by AsburySkinsFan

[Springfield]

If Dems were elected in a large enough number then it’s possible that they change the rules.  Then perhaps gun sales go down for once.

 

The Dems sell guns argument is dumb because they’ve never been able to do anything since this became a problem.

[Fresh8686]

How likely do y'all think the possibility would be, that a lobbying group or coalition of people impacted by gun violence and school shootings could grow to over time rival the political power of the NRA?

Maybe even get some cross-synergy with the women's movement or cross sections of MAAD. It shouldn't need to take 40 years to develop like the NRA did, and with the more school shootings you have, the more of a passionate and active (and LOUD) base of voters, they'd be able to harness. I've seen some stats where like 36% of the US Population owns guns, and I can't help but think people should be able to mobilize a larger majority than that to pressure politicians into line.

Would you build off existing groups like the below? Or would we need something completely new?
https://everytown.org/

https://giffords.org/

[Llevron]

@PleaseBlitz Im actually extremely interested if you have time to share the cases. I think its relevant to the topic not sure about others. 

 

I mean a meaningful first step could be to limit the ages to 21. I reacted with snark to begin with, but if it is proven scientifically and through study that the brain is in fact more easily influenced to do bad things between the ages of 18-20 versus 21 then that sounds like a very good first step to me. 

 

Sorry @twa

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

How likely do y'all think the possibility would be, that a lobbying group or coalition of people impacted by gun violence and school shootings could grow to over time rival the political power of the NRA?

Maybe even get some cross-synergy with the women's movement or cross sections of MAAD. It shouldn't need to take 40 years to develop like the NRA did, and with the more school shootings you have, the more of a passionate and active (and LOUD) base of voters, they'd be able to harness. I've seen some stats where like 36% of the US Population owns guns, and I can't help but think people should be able to mobilize a larger majority than that to pressure politicians into line.

Would you build off existing groups like the below? Or would we need something completely new?
https://everytown.org/

https://giffords.org/

 

I think 100%.  Everytown and Gabby Giffords organization are closely tied, pretty well funded, and very well organized.  I think people have bigger fish to fry (so to speak) right now with Trump, but their influence will continue to grow.  

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Stop. I agree with what Kilmer said about the Dems being good gun sales people. Every time something happens with a gun you get a bunch of angry Dem House members ranting ignorantly about a scary looking gun and as a result gun owners go out and buy guns before they’re gone. Remember when the idea was being floated about restricting the ammo? I personally know someone with over 100,000 rounds of stored ammo.

 

That’s what it means that the Dems are good salespeople. Their actions and rhetoric scare gun owners who in response buy guns. Does the NRA fan the flames? You betcha but the Dems usually don’t do themselves any favors on this issue.

(Wasnt calling out Kilmer, Spiff's logic would be the target here) 

 

But you dont find it disingenuous at all to blame the Democrats for the sales of guns, quoting their actions and rhetoric? Come on. Please show me the scary democrats that are rushing these people into stores. 

 

 

You really telling me that the Dems are the problem here? 

[PleaseBlitz]

12 minutes ago, Llevron said:

@PleaseBlitz Im actually extremely interested if you have time to share the cases. I think its relevant to the topic not sure about others. 

 

I mean a meaningful first step could be to limit the ages to 21. I reacted with snark to begin with, but if it is proven scientifically and through study that the brain is in fact more easily influenced to do bad things between the ages of 18-20 versus 21 then that sounds like a very good first step to me. 

 

Sorry @twa

 

Sure.  Posted below.  I'll just note that, after these cases came down, every person in every state that was sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile obtained the right to a parole hearing.  I am currently involved in helping a guy present his case to the MD parole board, so I care about this stuff quite a bit. 

 

Roper v. Simmons.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/opinion.html

 

Quote

Rejection of the imposition of the death penalty on juvenile offenders under 18 is required by the Eighth Amendment. Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit “a narrow category of the most serious crimes” and whose extreme culpability makes them “the most deserving of execution.” Atkins, 536 U. S. at 319. Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. Juveniles’ susceptibility to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U. S. 815, 835. Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. See Stanford, supra, at 395. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character.

 

Miller v. Alabama

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/460/opinion3.html

 

Quote

 To start with the first set of cases: Roper and Graham establish that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing. Because juveniles have diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform, we explained, “they are less deserving of the most severe punishments.” Graham, 560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). Those cases relied on three significant gaps between juveniles and adults. First, children have a “ ‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility,’ ” leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking. Roper, 543 U. S., at 569. Second, children “are more vulner- able . . . to negative influences and outside pressures,” including from their family and peers; they have limited “contro[l] over their own environment” and lack the ability to extricate themselves from horrific, crime-producing settings. Ibid. And third, a child’s character is not as “well formed” as an adult’s; his traits are “less fixed” and his actions less likely to be “evidence of irretrievabl[e] deprav[ity].” Id., at 570.

     Our decisions rested not only on common sense—on what “any parent knows”—but on science and social science as well. Id., at 569. In Roper, we cited studies showing that “ ‘[o]nly a relatively small proportion of adolescents’ ” who engage in illegal activity “ ‘develop entrenched patterns of problem behavior.’ ” Id., at 570 (quoting Steinberg & Scott, Less Guilty by Reason of Adolescence: Developmental Immaturity, Diminished Responsibility, and the Juvenile Death Penalty, 58 Am. Psychologist 1009, 1014 (2003)). And in Graham, we noted that “developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds”—for example, in “parts of the brain involved in behavior control.” 560 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17). [ 5 ] We reasoned that those findings—of transient rashness, proclivity for risk, and inability to assess consequences—both lessened a child’s “moral culpability” and enhanced the prospect that, as the years go by and neurological development occurs, his “ ‘deficiencies will be reformed.’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 18) (quoting Roper, 543 U. S., at 570).

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Commander PK]

14 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

BS, the NRA talks out of both sides of their mouth. They say “enforce gun laws on the books” but they are actively weakening and defunding the enforcement of those very laws. After Vegas the NRA came out and supported the bump stock ban, then recanted. On and on

The NRA has a singular objective, advocacy for the gun industry who’s objective is the sale and proliferation of firearms domestically and internationally.

They need to be removed from this duscussion.

 

The NRA is part of this discussion whether you like it or not.  

 

“Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.”

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/21/nra-full-statement-lapierre-newtown

 

Wayne LaPierre after Sandy Hook in 2012 6 years ago.  The NRA had a solution, but it wasn’t the solution you were looking for.  

 

The NRA has repeatedly stated they want maximum penalties for those who commit crimes with guns leaving the rights of law-abiding citizens alone.  

 

[Larry]

8 minutes ago, Llevron said:

You really telling me that the Dems are the problem here? 

 

But they make such effective boogymen.  

 

(The people pushing those buttons?  They're completely blameless.  It's the straw man they're attacking, that's the real problem.)  

Edited February 15, 2018 by Larry

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, Llevron said:

@PleaseBlitz Im actually extremely interested if you have time to share the cases. I think its relevant to the topic not sure about others. 

 

I mean a meaningful first step could be to limit the ages to 21. I reacted with snark to begin with, but if it is proven scientifically and through study that the brain is in fact more easily influenced to do bad things between the ages of 18-20 versus 21 then that sounds like a very good first step to me. 

 

Sorry @twa

 

I don't think there is any clear cut off at any given age for everybody, but there is a lot of research that shows, especially in males, in general the brain is still developing, changing, and maturing into the early 20s.

Edited February 15, 2018 by PeterMP