General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[Burgold]

I don't think it's possible to be knee jerk or opportunist after the 18th incident this year or after letting hundreds of incidents go by last year. That idea that reacting to this event and not the cummulative trend is ridiculous. I mean sure, you don't quarantine a town after one guy gets the sniffles, but you might just after half a million drop dead of something that has clearly been proven infectious.

[Springfield]

5 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

How can you not believe it?

What evidence were you working with that indicated that ANYTHING would be different after this school shooting?

 

My own naïveté, I suppose.

 

I haven’t seen a report of one congressman suggesting any change.  Granted, most of my news has come from tweets on this thread.  But it seems like there is exactly nothing.  Nothing.

[Sticksboi05]

8 hours ago, Llevron said:

I wonder.....

 

Can we all at least agree that the reason the NRA and the GOP fight so hard for gun rights is because of the money and NOT because of your perceived (real or otherwise) right to have a gun? Or is that still arguable? 

 

Honest question, feel like we are fighting an unwinnable battle if we can agree on any set of facts here. 

 

Kids are targets now. They weren't really in the 90's that I could remember. They are targets now though. Soft ones. 

 

We just didn't have the same level of information access that we do now so we hear about everything now and it makes us think the country is more dangerous than it was in the past.

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

My own naïveté, I suppose.

 

I haven’t seen a report of one congressman suggesting any change.  Granted, most of my news has come from tweets on this thread.  But it seems like there is exactly nothing.  Nothing.

The murdering of kindergaden children at Sandy Hook didn’t change anything. If we can kill small children with no changes then there isn’t much that’ll change things. 

 

Want to know why?

Because the policy makers know that they won’t pay a price for doing nothing, and in fact they will pay a greater price if they do something. All because their contituients are those represented here and are willing to sacrifice our children for their false religious divine right to own firearms.

[nonniey]

11 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

Is there not a way we can remove constitutional amendments or something?

 

I thought it was a living and breathing document that could be amended?

Think a different tact needs to be taken since restricting access/ownership beyond current restrictions really isn't an option that will be implemented in this country.  How about approaching this the way we approached accidental vehicle deaths (we didn't ban cars we made them safer)?  We could start adding safety requirements to new gun manufacturing. One method could be requiring smart gun technology there are lots of different methods and tech in this area and we could expend resources to bring this tech to maturity.

 

 

Example from (Wiki) - "TriggerSmart has developed a personalized childproof smart gun using radio frequency identification (RFID) technology. Basically, only the authorized user can fire the weapon and the gun is safe in the hands of a child or an intruder in the home. Triggersmart is an Irish company that patented and achieved a working prototype of a smart gun, or "personalized gun", that uses radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology.^[10] TriggerSmart has also patented and developed Wide Area Control ( WAC) where weapons can be remotely enabled and disabled using various wireless protocols. Safe zones can be created around schools and airports so that only authorised guns can operate in the designated area. Alternatively, when authorized guns leave the authorized area they can be tracked and disabled outside the safe zone. GPS and GSM capability can be added so data regarding, where and when, fired can be recorded and electronic notifications be sent to authorized partners. WAC can also be employed to help prevent Green on Blue fire or so called 'Friendly fire'. "

 

One thing that definitely isn't working is shouting at each other every time a crime like this occurs.

[Springfield]

2 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

The murdering of kindergaden children at Sandy Hook didn’t change anything. If we can kill small children with no changes then there isn’t much that’ll change things. 

 

Want to know why?

Because the policy makers know that they won’t pay a price for doing nothing, and in fact they will pay a greater price if they do something. All because their contituients are those represented here and are willing to sacrifice our children for their false religious divine right to own firearms.

 

Youd figure some safe districts would pass some laws to challenge the constitution.  You know, States rights and all.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

Youd figure some safe districts would pass some laws to challenge the constitution.  You know, States rights and all.

With the current SCOTUS....not likely. 

Too many justices that are sympathetic to the NRA. 

Nothing changes any time soon.

Buckle up I believe it gets worse before it gets better.

[zoony]

49 minutes ago, MartinC said:

Your explaining what you believe in, not why.

 

Its difficult sometimes to peel away the layers of why we believe in something or have formed an opinion. On some level it’s emotional not logical. On this issue I believe many of the supporters of 2A do so on an emotional level because it’s tied to their own self image of what it is to be an American (or a conservative?) and what makes them different from people who are not.

 

 

I will bite, and also tie back to your comparison of gun violence in europe vs the US

 

True, we do have more gun violence.  It is and always will be the case.  On the other hand, we dont have the blood of Stalins 25 million bodies on our hands.  A systemic problem allowed by a culture of obedience and collectivism.  Nor do we have the blood of the holocaust on our hands, enabled by a culture of granting authority to government in order to quell fear

 

People never like to hear it but that is why the framers introduced the second ammendment.  People will have the power to form militias as a defense against tyranny.  So when you wonder about the why, i would tell you that if you were raised in europe it probably doesnt make a lot of sense.

 

Step 1 of these events is to strip the attackers of all noteriety.  Do not show their face, their name, their agenda, or their manifesto.  The FBI came under a tremendous amount of criticism when they published the unabombers manifesto... but nobody questions news outlets barage of info about the motivations and political leanings of these monsters?  I do not understand why we allow this.  

 

I also appreciate the reasoned discussion

[nonniey]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

Youd figure some safe districts would pass some laws to challenge the constitution.  You know, States rights and all.

Chicago, DC and some other localities have tried that (and been shot down) but no States right do not trump the Constitution (nor should they).

[Popeman38]

Even if you can find a way to get 2/3 of both the House and Senate, you still need 34 states to ratify. NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, OK, AK, MO, ME, WV is all it would take to prevent that. ND, SD, MT, WY. It is almost impossible to see ANYTHING garnering 2/3 in both chambers and 3/4 of the states. You need 38 states. 

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

Even if you can find a way to get 2/3 of both the House and Senate, you still need 34 states to ratify. NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, OK, AK, MO, ME, WV is all it would take to prevent that. ND, SD, MT, WY. It is almost impossible to see ANYTHING garnering 2/3 in both chambers and 3/4 of the states. You need 38 states. 

Yup, how many more bodies will it take?

[MartinC]

42 minutes ago, zoony said:

 

True, we do have more gun violence.  It is and always will be the case.  On the other hand, we dont have the blood of Stalins 25 million bodies on our hands.  A systemic problem allowed by a culture of obedience and collectivism.  Nor do we have the blood of the holocaust on our hands, enabled by a culture of granting authority to government in order to quell fear

 

There was no shortage of guns in private hands in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany for that matter. Both regimes were enabled by their control of and support by their military and internal security police. If any rouge US Government in the future could count on the support of the US military and law enforcement then would any number of guns in private hands make a blind bit of difference?

 

I find the argument of private gun ownership as insurance against a tyrannical Government very difficult to accept.

 

Quote

 

People never like to hear it but that is why the framers introduced the second ammendment.  People will have the power to form militias as a defense against tyranny.  So when you wonder about the why, i would tell you that if you were raised in europe it probably doesnt make a lot of sense.

 

I certainly acknowledge the cultural issue here. As someone born and brought up outside the US there is absolutely a difficulty in understanding this at an emotional level.

 

 

[Bang]

Boy, step away for a few hours, and then you need to read a few hours to make sure you aren't being repetitive to something al;ready discussed...

I think I'm thinking more like Nonniey here..   shouting at each other isn't getting anywhere, no one is budging, and no one will.

I am definitely for smart-gun tech but New ****ing Jersey let the NRA write a law that (if i recall right) says that once a single smart-gun is sold in the US, than ALL of New Jersey gun sales HAD to be smart-gun technology. Poison pill legislation. As plain as day.

A gun seller in Maryland .. maybe 7 years ago? Started to try to sell them and got death threats.

 

Another unbelievable development in this ..  someone please explain WHY the NRA is against this technology, and WHY so-called 'conservative' polticians allow th restriction on a CHOICE of how to exercise one's right like that?

If i have small kid, maybe i WANT to buy a smart-gun.

Maybe you are not and don't want to buy a smart-gun. Why should either of us be restricted by the choice of the other? Why can't BOTH of us go in the same store and buy whichever one we want? (passed checks assumed.)

 

it makes ZERO ****ING SENSE.  NONE. Explain why the NRA gives a **** what KIND of gun I buy? Even if they want to come right out and say they are a lobby for sales, THIS SHOULD PLEASE THEM. It's a whole new marketing opportunity for ****'s sake.

 

Unless you are paranoid and think all of this smoke over Russian manipulation of the NRA is simply so Americans will keep killing one another and pulling apart at the seams as a result.

 

But i guess you'd have to be paranoid or somethin'.

 

~Right?

Edited February 16, 2018 by Bang

[Popeman38]

1 hour ago, MartinC said:

 

Your explaining what you believe in, not why.

 

Its difficult sometimes to peel away the layers of why we believe in something or have formed an opinion. On some level it’s emotional not logical. On this issue I believe many of the supporters of 2A do so on an emotional level because it’s tied to their own self image of what it is to be an American (or a conservative?) and what makes them different from people who are not.

 

i may be wrong. I was trying to test my assumption. 

 

I echo the thanks for your constructive engagement in this thread though. 

Sorry, was driving home. I described both what and why I believe what I believe. There is no concrete why, because it is an opinion. I have studied U.S. history, read extensively, and researched this issue (2nd Amendment). I have had lengthy discussions over coffee and beer with older and younger lawyers who shared and disagreed with my opinion.

 

Want to hear a surprising fact?  I believe in the right to private ownership of firearms. I served in the Army and carried a weapon on foreign soil. I don’t own a single firearm any longer. I don’t need one for my life. I live in a subdivision. I don’t hunt. I don’t fear the apocalypse. I don’t need a firearm. 

[Springfield]

17 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Chicago, DC and some other localities have tried that (and been shot down) but no States right do not trump the Constitution (nor should they).

 

But states could possibly make their gun rights as tight as those locales though.

 

Im grasping at straws at this point.  It’s pitiful.

[twa]

Just now, Bang said:

 

 

Another unbelievable development in this ..  someone please explain WHY the NRA is against this technology, and WHY so-called 'conservative' polticvians allow th restriction on a CHOICE of how to exercise one's right like that?

 

 

FWIH it fears remote deactivation by the govt ......or the Russians.

 

Not sure what you mean about politicians restricting it(besides the Jersey thing which does not prevent you buying it elsewhere AFAIK)

[bearrock]

40 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Not if enough people vote into office enough politicians prepared to do it its not. 

 

 

What if it is?

 

I mean while it would technically be possible to amend the constitution, it seems practically impossible given the level of support required and the state ratification.  Now if confiscation of all guns were the only way to eliminate or at least meaningfully reduce gun violence, yeah we have to try it and have that fight.  But I'm not convinced that total ban is the only way given the example of countries like Swiss (where it seems like much more training, screening, and responsibility goes into it)

 

12 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

There was no shortage of guns in private hands in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany for that matter. Both regimes were enabled by their control of and support by their military and internal security police. If any rouge US Government in the future could count on the support of the US military and law enforcement then would any number of guns in private hands would make a blind bit of difference?

 

I find the argument of private gun ownership as insurance against a tyrannical Government very difficult to accept.

 

 

I totally agree with this and the notion that freedom loving citizens would stand up to the tyranny of the ruler with their private stockpile of guns is an antiquated one.  What's one supposed to do against tanks, jets, helicopters, etc with semi autos and hand guns?  What stands between US and tyranny aren't guns in the hands of the populous.  If some bloodthirsty tyrant were to get a hold of the US government and if such tyrant was willing to literally kill massive amounts of people to get an iron grip on his power and if the military simply followed those orders without standing up to such unjust and illegal orders, private militias won't be worth a damn.   The minute we conceded that government could (and should) be better armed than the citizens, right to bear arms provides no protection against tyranny.  (I just want to clarify that such is the way it should be.  I'm not advocating that private citizens should have the right to have nuclear weapons or tanks or some such)

[Burgold]

41 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Think a different tact needs to be taken since restricting access/ownership beyond current restrictions really isn't an option that will be implemented in this country.  How about approaching this the way we approached accidental vehicle deaths (we didn't ban cars we made them safer)?  We could start adding safety requirements to new gun manufacturing. One method could be requiring smart gun technology there are lots of different methods and tech in this area and we could expend resources to bring this tech to maturity.

There was a company about four years ago that began producing smart guns. They were pretty cool. They could only be fired by the owner and people the owner approved to handle the gun using thumbprint ID technology. I thought it was a pretty cool idea, but the NRA and the gun crowd went ballistic. A number of gun shops that tried to carry the item fielded pretty serious death threats and protests outside their doors. Eventually, they became to scared to carry the item.

 

I haven't kept track of the story so I don't know if things had changed, but when a gun designer did try to make a gun that a child couldn't accidentally take and use... gun users said, "Hell no!"

 

Edit: Bang is faster than I am.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Burgold

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, Burgold said:

There was a company about four years ago that began producing smart guns. They were pretty cool. They could only be fired by the owner and people the owner approved to handle the gun using thumbprint ID technology. I thought it was a pretty cool idea, but the NRA and the gun crowd went ballistic. A number of gun shops that tried to carry the item fielded pretty serious death threats and protests outside their doors. Eventually, they became to scared to carry the item.

 

I haven't kept track of the story so I don't know if things had changed, but when a gun designer did try to make a gun that a child couldn't accidentally take and use... gun users said, "Hell no!"

 

Edit: Bang is faster than I am.

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/24/325178305/a-new-jersey-law-thats-kept-smart-guns-off-shelves-nationwide

 

Quote

A gun that fires only in the hands of its owner isn't science fiction anymore. A so-called smart gun is already on sale in Europe. But you won't find it on store shelves in this country — in part because of an obscure New Jersey law that's had unintended consequences for the rest of the nation.

Basically, the Childproof Handgun Law of 2002 says that once "personalized handguns are available" anywhere in the country, all handguns sold in New Jersey must be smart guns within 30 months.

 

The goal of the law was to spur "research, development and manufacture" of smart guns, according to its sponsor, New Jersey state Sen. Loretta Weinberg. But in practice, supporters and critics of the law now agree, that has not been the case.

 

"It actually doesn't matter if the gun has been sold," says David Kopel, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "If there's just one available for sale anywhere in the United States, then that triggers the handgun ban. So who would want to sell a smart gun knowing that, by doing so, they'd be imposing a handgun ban on New Jersey?"

 

A few gun retailers have tried. Recently, one shop in California and another in Maryland announced they would stock the Armatix iP1, a German-made gun that only fires if the owner is wearing a special watch.

 

In an unusually personal video message that he posted on Facebook in May, Andy Raymond, the co-owner of Engage Armament in Maryland, explained why he wanted to sell the gun. "I thought that if you got people who never wanted [a gun] or didn't want one in their house because of their kids ... getting at it," Raymond said, "that if they bought a gun, that that's a good thing."

 

The response was quick and intense. Both Engage Armament and the California store were flooded with angry calls and messages from people who consider the New Jersey law an infringement of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Raymond says he received multiple death threats. Both stores quickly backed down on their plans to sell the Armatix gun.

 

I just think there is so much stupid in this story

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kosher Ham]

On 2/15/2018 at 9:31 AM, AsburySkinsFan said:

The AR is just a style of firearm, it’s highly modular meaning that the parts are highly customizeable and interchangeable. If you outlaw the AR another modification will take its place. 

 

The key to it is semi-auto, high capacity.

 

You realize that an actual Tommy Gun would be legal right ? 

Not only that but I don't see them taking peoples weapons, I see them stopping selling them. 

The ones you have already would still be legal. 

 

 

[visionary]

 

[bearrock]

It's one thing for a politician to say that gun control is not the answer.  Well then let's figure out what damn answer is.  If your answer is more armed security at schools, then put your money where your mouth is sponsor a legislation that would massively fund increased security at every school in America.  If your answer is thoughts and prayers, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.   Actually, screw it.  I hope the door hits upside the head about a million times on the way out.

[twa]

20 calls to the cops and another to the FBI?

[AsburySkinsFan]

How many guns was Alyssa worth?

I mean she had a foreign sounding name, but she was on a club soccer team and loved her mom...how many is a 14 year old attractive young soccer player worth?

 

Who will start the bidding?