General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[tshile]

Here's the segement i heard this morning:

Listen to: For The First Time In Years, Shops Have More Guns Than Buyers

 

[Burgold]

18 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

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.

I think Kilmer and I are relatively close. I think an assault weapon ban is not enough. I think we need a comprehensive strategy that's designed to impact gun violence somewhat now, but really our aim should be at changing gun culture ten years or twenty years down the road. The thing about a gun ban only technique is that if we go after a punishment only theory of behavior modification what typically happens is that you see a short term reduction in behaviors followed by a spike which is often worse than baseline (the behaviors that preceded the intervention). So, we need to address the issues on many fronts and in many real ways.

 

We ought to address the issue of gun violence like we did cigarettes. People still smoke. Too many still smoke, but the numbers are way down and the "cool" factor of smoking has changed significantly. I'd like to see an economic approach to dealing with guns. I think that a sin tax makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'd like to see a sociological approach, an educational approach, a mass media approach, a law enforcement approach, a psychiatric approach, and a myriad of other strategies all in use.

 

As Peter points out banning specific guns is a strategy that fails. Now, limiting a class of weapons might be effective, but I don't think we should focus solely on that.  We also have to address mental health, we have to address responsible gun behavior (training, storage, effective civilian use). I'd like us to look at new minimum ages and better background checks. I'd like us to seriously study the issue as a health risk. I'd like to bring in the stake holders to see where their concerns lie and how to incorporate that into a defensive plan.

 

The gun problem is complex and I suspect that there are actually several different gun problems going on simultaneously. The treatment strategy needs to be nimble therefore. Just as you don't treat a snakebite in the same way you treat a concussion, we probably need to address mass shootings differently than we address armed robberies, drug violence and other gun related issues. Likewise, we need to deal with the suicide by gun issue too. There are way too many people killing themselves via guns in this country and the number of suicides would be far, far lower if guns were not at hand.

 

But as with smoking, the idea will not be to stop everyone from smoking everywhere at all times. The idea will be to reduce and prevent death. It's not something that can happen overnight, but it is something that can be accomplished. First though, we have to be willing to do something... at least something more potent than sending our "thoughts and prayers" to the victims.

[twa]

How does a sin tax on guns differ from a poll tax?

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by visionary

[PeterMP]

44 minutes ago, Burgold said:

We ought to address the issue of gun violence like we did cigarettes. People still smoke. Too many still smoke, but the numbers are way down and the "cool" factor of smoking has changed significantly. I'd like to see an economic approach to dealing with guns. I think that a sin tax makes a hell of a lot of sense. I'd like to see a sociological approach, an educational approach, a mass media approach, a law enforcement approach, a psychiatric approach, and a myriad of other strategies all in use.

 

Having grown up with 2 parents that smoked for years after the science was clear that smoking was bad for, the fundamental problem is that many smokers disliked smoking, while most gun owners like owning guns.

 

My parents struggled with quitting for years even after they committed to it, especially my dad.  So while they were smokers, they also understood that smoking was bad for them, wanted to see its spread limited, and were willing to vote for politicians that were voting against their own (at least short term) economic self-interest (as smokers paying the cigarette tax).

 

That isn't the case with gun owners and as such, you can expect a legislative and legal battle that you didn't get with smokers (which realistically, I suspect puts the idea in the same place as Kilmer's.  Good idea, but no way it passes anytime soon and meanwhile people are being killed).

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[Burgold]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

That isn't the case with gun owners and as such, you can expect a legislative and legal battle that you didn't get with smokers (which realistically, I suspect puts the idea in the same place as Kilmer's.  Good idea, but no way it ever passes and meanwhile people are being killed).

Perhaps, but perhaps not. It's possible that we are nearing a changing point where public opinion sways. The response to the Florida school shooting was different than to the previous school shootings or the last hundred (I wish I was exaggerating) mass shooting events. There does seem to be a sway, at least in the polls, where gun owners are starting to look at this issue differently and conceding that we need to do something. Government is often the slowest to change. I look at the changes in affect when it comes to smoking, homosexuality, mixed marriages, and a host of other factors. 

 

Cultural change is slow, but it is possible. The first step is to take a first step.

[PeterMP]

46 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Perhaps, but perhaps not. It's possible that we are nearing a changing point where public opinion sways. The response to the Florida school shooting was different than to the previous school shootings or the last hundred (I wish I was exaggerating) mass shooting events. There does seem to be a sway, at least in the polls, where gun owners are starting to look at this issue differently and conceding that we need to do something. Government is often the slowest to change. I look at the changes in affect when it comes to smoking, homosexuality, mixed marriages, and a host of other factors. 

 

Cultural change is slow, but it is possible. The first step is to take a first step.

 

Well, I think the nature of the attack on LV was different so the response is, but at least after Sandy Hook, CT was able to pass some reasonable gun control measures without the attached the arm the teachers law and CO too after Columbine (and other states in both cases).

 

FL wasn't even able to do that and things on the national level have stalled.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/gun-bill-analysis/index.html

 

And certainly, Trump isn't going to hold anybody's feet to the fire on gun control.

 

(I'll point out that with gay rights and inter-racial marriage, Supreme Court decisions were key to those changes.  At least for now, the Supreme Court is leaning the other way on this issue.  If there is some sudden change in the Supreme Court that changes things.)

Edited February 27, 2018 by PeterMP

[visionary]

Jesus Christ....

 

 

[Mr. Sinister]

I'm just glad more people are being vigilant when warning signs are present and threats are being made. Still keep thinking about the one close to where I live, in Clarksburg. That little ****head would've slaughtered tons of people.

Edited February 27, 2018 by Mr. Sinister

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Long n Left]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

FL wasn't even able to do that and things on the national level have stalled.

 

This is the reason Florida is so ****ed up:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas-pro-gun-policies

[TheGreatBuzz]

7 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

.  Even people that are not fans of the NRA (e.g.  @TheGreatBuzz) have not moved.  He's not posted much, but the little that he did post made it clear. 

 

Only because I am deployed.  I am very passionate about the subject and usually very involved in the conversation.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

9 hours ago, LD0506 said:

 

 

Fine assholes, we'll play your game for now, let's ramp up background checks and psychological assessments for gun owners in a national database. I'm willing to bet that an awful lot of you beer swilling, wife beating, neighbor threatening Morlocks will get your arsenals seized right off the bat.

 

Yeah, somehow I suspect the gun nuts really have not put much thought into pushing the government into checking out every gun owner who hasn't broken a law, but they've had a complaint or two, so they can decide whether to take away their guns and block them from purchasing any. 

[PeterMP]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah, somehow I suspect the gun nuts really have not put much thought into pushing the government into checking out every gun owner who hasn't broken a law, but they've had a complaint or two, so they can decide whether to take away their guns and block them from purchasing any. 

 

The current Supreme Court would strike that down.  They aren't worried.

 

You can't take away somebody's rights based on hearsay and innuendo.

Edited February 28, 2018 by PeterMP

[PCS]

 

[Larry]

12 hours 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.

 

Just speaking for myself, I absolutely would not expect an assault weapons ban (even a mythical one that worked) to have any dent in overall gun deaths.  Simply because they represent such a tiny fraction of gun deaths.  

 

Might reduce deaths in mass shootings.  But then, those are such a relatively small sample that I'd expect a lot of "noise" in the year-to-year figures.  

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

[twa]

10 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Yeah, somehow I suspect the gun nuts really have not put much thought into pushing the government into checking out every gun owner who hasn't broken a law, but they've had a complaint or two, so they can decide whether to take away their guns and block them from purchasing any. 

 

I suspect liberals haven't put much thought into policies that shield juveniles from arrest or police records.

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/02/27/the-broward-sheriffs-juvenile-arrest-conspiracy-might-actually-be-true/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

 

Nor to some of their social programs

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2018/02/27-deadliest-mass-shooters-26-one-thing-common/#ttTc1uUUz0X5XE3T.99

 

Or to policies disarming demonstrably good people.

 

 

[visionary]

Edited February 28, 2018 by visionary

[tshile]

seems weird to announce you're going to ban a weapon, but not for 3 years.  won't people just go buy them now....?

[visionary]

25 minutes ago, tshile said:

seems weird to announce you're going to ban a weapon, but not for 3 years.  won't people just go buy them now....?

Maybe it’s a concession to gun owners/hunters. Good point though. Hmmm.  Might be worth checking up on this to find some more details.

 

 

Hmmm, no explanation about waiting so far...though I did see another article or two with mostly with same info.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-gun-ban-semi-automatic-weapons-anders-brevik-shooting-florida-school-massacre-a8232106.html

Quote

A ban on semi-automatic weapons in Norway was proposed by the minority right-wing government last year, but senior politicians now believe they have enough support to pass the law.

 

Peter Frolich, a Conservative member of parliament’s standing committee on judicial affairs, told AFP: “Today, it has become clear that there is a parliamentary majority in favour of the government’s proposal. Semi-automatic weapons will therefore be banned in Norway.” 

He explained that the ban took a long time to be put in place as many hunters in the country used semi-automatic weapons, although the law may include be some exemptions for those involved in shooting sports.

Quote

Automatic weapons are already banned from being sold in Norway.

 

The country has relatively strict gun laws and requires a license to own a firearm, clear reasoning as to why it is needed, as well as a clean criminal record. 

 

 

Hmmm, is this the main reason?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/norway-semi-automatic-weapon-ban_us_5a9652cee4b0e6a523029513

Quote

Quoting a Norwegian lawmaker, AFP reported Tuesday that the Scandinavian nation is planning to ban semi-automatic weapons by 2021 — a year that also marks the 10-year anniversary of the 2011 mass shooting on Norway’s Utoya island.

 

 

Quote

 

Norway has a relatively high rate of gun ownership, mostly for hunting and use in outdoor sports; but save for Breivik’s rampage in 2011 — which was the country’s deadliest attack since World War II — the nation boasts low levels of gun violence. 

 

The rate of gun deaths in Norway was 1.22 per 100,000 people in 2014, compared with 10.54 per 100,000 in the United States. The country has not had a mass shooting since the 2011 attack.

 

Norway has some the world’s strictest firearms legislation, including robust background checks and laws mandating the secure storage of guns and ammunition. According to an earlier Guardian report, many categories of guns, including automatic weapons and certain handguns, are also banned.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by visionary

[Fresh8686]

http://www.euronews.com/2018/02/28/norway-to-ban-semi-automatic-weapons-from-2021
 

From this article, it also mentions "The ban, which has been proposed by the country’s centre-right government, also seeks to limit the number of firearms people can own." So people can't necessarily stock-up, however the bigger question I have, is will people have to give back any restricted guns once that 2021 deadline arrives? It seems they will have special dispensations for sport shooting, but what about for people outside that allowance?