General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[Fresh8686]

 

http://wlos.com/news/local/reports-brevard-college-on-lockdown-due-to-credible-threat

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by Fresh8686

[tshile]

13 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

Gun owners are only like 25% of the voting population at best.

 

I just wanted to look this up.

 

30% of adults own a gun. An additional 11% say they don't own a gun, but someone who lives in their house does.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

 

 

Also interesting is that while democrats are significantly less likely to own a gun, independents are not so much. Add to that - while people who own guns could never see themselves not owning guns at a high rate, those who don't own guns could see themselves owning guns at (what i would say is) a high rate

[PeterMP]

I'd also warn again about just passing an Assault Weapons Ban.  We did that before, and there weren't significant changes in gun deaths.  Proving that fewer people died in mass shootings because less lethal guns were used is very hard to do, especially given that non-assault weapons do have advantages.

 

You end up in 10 years that you've passed a law that you can't demonstrate did any good, and gun control advocates get painted as naive people that don't understand reality by anti-gun control forces.

 

It would be far better to focus on things that are likely to demonstratively reduce gun crime/deaths.

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[No Excuses]

On a side note, youtube has finally started cracking down on InfoWars and Alex Jones.

 

They took down a video of Jones calling one of the survivors a crisis actor and issued a strike. Their current system is pretty awful though. Jones would need two more strikes in a span of three months to have his channel shut down.

 

Maybe, just maybe these companies are starting to take the first steps at getting conspiratorial garbage off the mainstream internet.

[tshile]

the obvious problem is that jones is already well known with a following and simply needs to post his videos elsewhere.

 

sure, it'll help with the next jones-wannabe, but he'll find somewhere on the internet to work from and his followers will go so long as he can reach them

[visionary]

33 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

(As far as the blue wave:

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happened-to-the-democratic-wave/

 

)

Actually it's back up again, but so far it has gone a lot better than expected for Democrats.

And attitudes across the US seem to be largely pro gun control.

What that translates to because of Republican led legislatures in the meantime is another thing though.

Edited February 27, 2018 by visionary

[Going Commando]

Good. Let them all gather in ****holes like voat so the rest of the internet doesn't have to be polluted with their vile nonsense.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kilmer17]

24 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I'd also warn again about just passing an Assault Weapons Ban.  We did that before, and there weren't significant changes in gun deaths.  Proving that fewer people died in mass shootings because less lethal guns were used is very hard to do, especially given that non-assault weapons do have advantages.

 

You end up in 10 years that you've passed a law that you can't demonstrate did any good, and gun control advocates get painted as naive people that don't understand reality by anti-gun control forces.

 

It would be far better to focus on things that are likely to demonstratively reduce gun crime/deaths.

I said this before, silly solutions (banning assault weapons, extended back ground checks, closing loopholes, no fly no buy lists etc) are ineffective because the people that propose them arent willing to do anything more than that.  They'll pass them, sit back and pat themselves on the back and blame something else the next time a mass shooting takes place.

 

That doesnt mean that we SHOULDNT do all of those things, just that they arent enough.  And it's bull**** to call them a starting people.  **** that.  Do something substantial or you are just as much of the problem as Wayne Lapierre.

[PeterMP]

19 minutes ago, visionary said:

Actually it's back up again, but so far it has gone a lot better than expected for Democrats.

And attitudes across the US seem to be largely pro gun control.

What that translates to because of Republican led legislatures in the meantime is another thing though.

 

I meant the general context of the comments there.  It goes up and goes down.  Particularly, Nate Silver's comment:

 

"natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): It is not time for them to panic, but it’s a reminder not to take anything for granted."

 

I'd be shocked if between now and Nov if the gap doesn't close back down (some).

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

20 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I said this before, silly solutions (banning assault weapons, extended back ground checks, closing loopholes, no fly no buy lists etc) are ineffective because the people that propose them arent willing to do anything more than that.  They'll pass them, sit back and pat themselves on the back and blame something else the next time a mass shooting takes place.

 

That doesnt mean that we SHOULDNT do all of those things, just that they arent enough.  And it's bull**** to call them a starting people.  **** that.  Do something substantial or you are just as much of the problem as Wayne Lapierre.

 

Nationally, closing the loopholes in background checks would almost certainly result in a decrease in gun deaths, especially if coupled with better enforcement of straw purchase laws currently on the books.

 

Obviously, it wouldn't stop all gun deaths and I don't think it would make a significant impact on mass killings, but I'd pretty comfortable in saying that it is very likely in 10 years we'll be able to point to such a law as something decreased gun deaths.

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Nationally, closing the loopholes in background checks would almost certainly result in a decrease in gun deaths, especially if coupled with better enforcement of straw purchase laws currently on the books.

 

Obviously, it wouldn't stop all gun deaths and might not even make a significant impact on mass killings, but I'd pretty comfortable in saying that it is very likely in 10 years we'll be able to point to such a law as something decreased gun deaths.

I dont deny or dismiss that.  I'm saying that if that is ALL that we do, it's a failure.  And as we've seen for decades, that's just about the most extreme thing anyone in power even proposes.  No thanks.  I dont want to see smug politicians congratulating each other for such a minor thing.

 

So maybe I am dismissing it.....

[Fresh8686]

49 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

I just wanted to look this up.

 

30% of adults own a gun. An additional 11% say they don't own a gun, but someone who lives in their house does.

 

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/

 

 

Also interesting is that while democrats are significantly less likely to own a gun, independents are not so much. Add to that - while people who own guns could never see themselves not owning guns at a high rate, those who don't own guns could see themselves owning guns at (what i would say is) a high rate

 

The below link gave me a range between 22-25%

https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/
 

And your last part isn't really surprising, given gun culture and the empowerment people seem to feel by owning a weapon. Most people don't want to give up tools that afford them power, especially when they might feel powerless without them (motivation comes from both sides, the empowerment and the fear of losing it).

 

[visionary]

 

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont deny or dismiss that.  I'm saying that if that is ALL that we do, it's a failure.  And as we've seen for decades, that's just about the most extreme thing anyone in power even proposes.  No thanks.  I dont want to see smug politicians congratulating each other for such a minor thing.

 

So maybe I am dismissing it.....

 

Well, I guess I'd go back to my other point in that until there's a significant demonstrable electoral penalty for Republicans that is greater than what they will face in primaries (which I think will probably take at least 2 years) for voting against gun control, I think at most you are going to be able to do something along the edge.

 

Expecting some great step forward at this point in time just isn't realistic (I guess if you have somebody or collective of people that are willing to dump a huge amounts of money into the gun control lobbying effort that weren't putting to liberal causes already that changes things, but people that already most likely going to vote Democrat voting Democrat isn't really going to change the situation.)

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

 

Well, I guess I'd go back to my other point in that until there's a significant demonstrable electoral penalty for Republicans that is greater than what they will face in primaries (which I think will probably take at least 2 years) for voting against gun control, I think at most you are going to be able to do something along the edge.

 

Expecting some great step forward at this point in time just isn't realistic (I guess if you have somebody or collective of people that are willing to dump a huge amounts of money into the gun control lobbying effort that weren't putting to liberal causes already that changes things.)

If the penalty is losing to Democrats like the ones who have done nothing about guns every time they've had the chance, then is it really any different?

 

 

[Fresh8686]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont deny or dismiss that.  I'm saying that if that is ALL that we do, it's a failure.  And as we've seen for decades, that's just about the most extreme thing anyone in power even proposes.  No thanks.  I dont want to see smug politicians congratulating each other for such a minor thing.

 

So maybe I am dismissing it.....

What would you like to see happen?

 

I'm thinking a three prong approach, but I'd be open to adding to it.

 

-Ban weapons that exceed certain thresholds of muzzle velocity, rate of fire, and magazine capacity.
-Universal Background Checks across all modes of sale.

-Dynamic restrictions or restraints on weapons when there are mental health issues present that deal specifically with violent ideations, impulse control, isolation/weak social bonds, and anger (including domestic abuse).

 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Fresh8686 said:

What would you like to see happen?

 

I'm thinking a three prong approach, but I'd be open to adding to it.

 

-Ban weapons that exceed certain thresholds of muzzle velocity, rate of fire, and magazine capacity.
-Universal Background Checks across all modes of sale.

-Dynamic restrictions or restraints on weapons when there are mental health issues present that deal specifically with violent ideations, impulse control, isolation/weak social bonds, and anger (including domestic abuse).

 

Yes.  All of that.

 

Plus ridiculous and intrusive testing to buy a gun.  Including an annual mental fitness and physical capability test.  Complete restriction on re sale of guns.  Dont close the gun show loophole, close all gun shows.

 

I dont want to ban guns.  I just want to make it so ****ing hard to own one that almost nobody does it.

[PeterMP]

3 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

If the penalty is losing to Democrats like the ones who have done nothing about guns every time they've had the chance, then is it really any different?

 

 

 

One less person killed by a gun is one less dead person in my book.

 

The all or nothing approach gives you nothing, which just means more dead people.

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[Kilmer17]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

One less person killed by a gun is one less dead person in my book.

That to me is the cop out position that Dems have taken for years.  "At least we did more than nothing".  

 

 

[PeterMP]

59 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Yes.  All of that.

 

Plus ridiculous and intrusive testing to buy a gun.  Including an annual mental fitness and physical capability test.  Complete restriction on re sale of guns.  Dont close the gun show loophole, close all gun shows.

 

I dont want to ban guns.  I just want to make it so ****ing hard to own one that almost nobody does it.

 

That isn't going to get to a vote, much less pass, and even if it did pass, the current Supreme Court would strike it down.

 

Meanwhile, lives are being lost unnecessarily.

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[Elessar78]

42 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont deny or dismiss that.  I'm saying that if that is ALL that we do, it's a failure.  And as we've seen for decades, that's just about the most extreme thing anyone in power even proposes.  No thanks.  I dont want to see smug politicians congratulating each other for such a minor thing.

 

So maybe I am dismissing it.....

Seems to me you are saying:

 

Don't pass a (assault weapon) ban BECAUSE you probably do nothing more than that. 

 

You might be able to cite some laws that go unenforced but the vast majority of laws are enforced. 

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, Elessar78 said:

Seems to me you are saying:

 

Don't pass a (assault weapon) ban BECAUSE you probably do nothing more than that. 

 

You might be able to cite some laws that go unenforced but the vast majority of laws are enforced. 

No.  Im saying don't stop at an assault weapon ban and pretend it does anything of real importance.  It should be part of a bigger policy, but not a stand alone celebratory event.  That's the problem.  The right wing politicians dont want to do anything.  And the left wing politicians dont want to do anything that would have a real affect.

[tshile]

50 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

 

The below link gave me a range between 22-25%

https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership-in-america-in-three-charts/
 

And your last part isn't really surprising, given gun culture and the empowerment people seem to feel by owning a weapon. Most people don't want to give up tools that afford them power, especially when they might feel powerless without them (motivation comes from both sides, the empowerment and the fear of losing it).

 

From your article:

"Only a quarter of Americans own guns, according to numbers from General Social Survey and Gallup in 2013."

 

I was listening to NPR this morning and they said that over the 8 years of Obama there were a few big sale times due to various events, where the gun manufacturers made a ton of money. So i wouldn't be surprised if the numbers went up a few points from 2013 to 2017 (when the pew study i linked was done.)

 

On that note, the big part of the NPR segment this morning is that guns are super cheap right now with lots of get x free (where x might be another gun, ammo, or parts for the gun like extra magazines or a scope) because they all went into overdrive in 2016 thinking that there'd be a huge run on guns once Clinton was elected.  Instead, trump was elected, gun sales went flat, and now you can get AR-15s for 50% what you could a few years ago.

 

They also said Remington (200 year old gun company) has just filed for bankruptcy proection.