Las Vegas shooting

[lyra]

That's an amazing and disturbing video @Elliot86 . Thanks for sharing. Unbelievable. There are so many variables to this issue. I'm learning a lot.

I really hope some compromise can happen.

 

[arkieb1]

Who is a dickhead and who can/may/will become a dickhead is impossible to determine. People have repeatedly stated that you can't control people so the only thing to do is control guns. I like the idea of limits to the number and type one can own, locking up sporting guns at sporting facilities when not in use, and a few other things suggested here and in other venues. There is no easy solution and a multi-prong approach is needed to limit the number of gun deaths in this country.

I agree it IS difficult to determine who the "dickheads" are and a normal person like this guy might become mentally unstable for no apparent reason. The point was that all of your society accepts there are people that want to kill other people living within the US and easily accessible guns make it easier to do that. If there are less guns overall and less of certain types of guns available to less people other than ones with a long proven history of being able to use them responsibly, and certain types of guns can only be used in certain places then it's a start to limit the access of the former, and again the point I was making perhaps badly is if the majority of the good gun owners will have to suffer tighter restrictions because of this for the greater good of everyone. Rather than this being some type of us versus them sh@*fight, they get on board and do it in order to keep their guns.

The rest of the Western world cannot believe how easy it is to get a gun in the US despite pro gun people saying it isn't. And I think many of the decent gun owning people acknowledge there is a problem here, so it's about sitting down calmly with both sides and working out solutions rather than spinning wheels doing nothing, getting nowhere and waiting until this happens again (which inevitably it will). I'm a realist we both know that guns are such a huge part of your culture for some people you are never going to easily get rid of them all, so I agree a multi pronged approach that actually listens to both sides and has some give and take on both sides is what is needed to actually get somewhere.

 

[Arkteia]

You know, we have to do something with the culture. Another example - we are attacking the "rape culture", and while men of my generation might still say something inappropriate, the millennials seem to be way more respectful of women; as to generation Z, I am raising one - I don't know how they will turn out, but they appear well aware of what is appropriate, and what is not. So teaching, educating, changing attitude works. Slowly, but it does.

I think we have to deal with the whole culture. Is it some macho insecurity that makes one carry a gun? How do guys view guns? Why is it appropriate to pose next to the animal you killed - bad enough that you killed it, but why advertise it?

I think the culture needs to change. It is quite possible. It is not about just these psycho mass murderers. I guess there always will be a certain percent of psychopaths. But what about the story that I have read recently, about a young girl getting into her grandma's purse, looking for candies, finding a gun and shooting herself? The grandma doted on the child. Her life is ended as well. What about the father in TN (I think) who accidentally shot his beloved 22-year old son while cleaning his gun? It is the culture of eating with the gun on the table, sleeping with the gun under your pillow, cleaning your gun in the presence of your beloved ones and carrying a loaded gun in your purse. A gun is an extreme way of protection, not a commonplace one.

 

[arkieb1]

Arkteia - I've been reflecting on this the last few days and on the surface while gun ownership is part of your cultural identity for some people carved out by your constitution, I've been thinking about the ways gun ownership is different to Australia.

The climate and hunting is one of them, we have a much warmer climate in most of Australia for example, we don't have the same types of animals that you hunt either. We have more of our population concentrated in cities will less of a need to ever own guns here. Maybe some of the Canadians might step in here and comment on differences, because they are much more similar geographically to you.

We also have far less people that use guns for sport or recreationally, banning them for most citizens I think reduced the number of people that wanted or needed to use them recreationally. In the US there are just so many guns, I don't think any of the other Western countries that got rid of them actually had as many guns per head of population, and as we are both suggesting other countries did not have this complex social and cultural attachment, this underpinning thought process that if they are taken away it is a major loss of a basic set of rights that you do.

 

[OreoRosies86]

That's an amazing and disturbing video @Elliot86 . Thanks for sharing. Unbelievable. There are so many variables to this issue. I'm learning a lot.

I really hope some compromise can happen.

Me too. Something has got to give.

 

[azstonie]

I have to scan and show my driver's license to buy SUDAFED and 'the guvmint' has a list of HOW MANY I bought.

I've never killed or maimed anyone with my decongested nasal passages.

 

[azstonie]

A lot of the gun fans seem to live in sparsely populated areas where they don't have to concern themselves with mass shootings on a acale the rest of us in metro areas have to.

 

[lyra]

As I've said, I grew up around guns. My parents actually brought me hunting with them when I was a baby. Probably with no hearing protection, and out in the elements. The laws were lax, as someone else shared about their experiences. Guns in gun racks in pick-up trucks during hunting season was the norm. My dad's gun case had a lock, but glass display panels. It was a rural area and we had a farm with horses separate from the house where we lived in town. Hunting was a huge thing, but, it was done a lot for economic reasons. Groups shared the meat, and it lasted through the winter. Locals didn't hunt bears, it was considered cowardly. Tourists came and shot bears.

As an adult, I've only lived in large cities. The west coast was a disturbing place when I moved there, immediately after serial killer Clifford Olsen was jailed. Kids went missing and were never found even after that time. I got a job once because a teen boy killed 6 members of his immediate family and I didn't learn this until years later. The mother had worked in that office.

We moved to the Toronto area, where there is more gang violence, but it's isolated, and to be blunt, they mostly always just kill each other. When I mentioned crossfire, I was thinking of the Jane Creba case. She was killed at 15 and 6 people wounded during a gang shootout on the street in downtown Toronto. Then yes, there are neighbourhoods to avoid, unfortunately they have a prominent university right in the middle of one, which my eldest daughter attended.

Things are changing here. As Trump tightens immigration and travel, we get increased immigration which causes a portion of society to be all up in arms. There is more and more racism here, and it's partly blamed on the influence of the US. Whatever happens there has a trickle down effect here. Our politics are different. All our parties are more liberal that the democrats. Our conservatives are not nearly as conservative. Religion is separate from government completely, and is on the decline. TMI?

 

[Arkteia]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1728741360490680&id=908009612563863

Scary.

 

[Arkteia]

Arkteia - I've been reflecting on this the last few days and on the surface while gun ownership is part of your cultural identity for some people carved out by your constitution, I've been thinking about the ways gun ownership is different to Australia.

The climate and hunting is one of them, we have a much warmer climate in most of Australia for example, we don't have the same types of animals that you hunt either. We have more of our population concentrated in cities will less of a need to ever own guns here. Maybe some of the Canadians might step in here and comment on differences, because they are much more similar geographically to you.

We also have far less people that use guns for sport or recreationally, banning them for most citizens I think reduced the number of people that wanted or needed to use them recreationally. In the US there are just so many guns, I don't think any of the other Western countries that got rid of them actually had as many guns per head of population, and as we are both suggesting other countries did not have this complex social and cultural attachment, this underpinning thought process that if they are taken away it is a major loss of a basic set of rights that you do.

You know, I wonder if the idea of having a warehouse of guns "for protection" dates back to westerns, these "indie" movies when a whole batallion on horses attacks a farm. It is not what might realistically happen nowadays, even in case of the break and entry, so I do not understand the need for "many" guns. But it probably is in the culture and history.

I once went to Winchester House in San Jose, California. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House

It belonged to Sarah Winchester, the widow of William Winchester, the inventor of winchester gun that, as the saying went, "conquered the West". The widow was left very wealthy and likely suffered from some mental illness. A medium in Boston told her that she was persecuted by the souls of the people her husband's gun killed. So she was advised to go to the West and start building a house where the souls would get lost in the passages... and never finish it. The house is a very curious structure, a testament to human fears.

But, it also holds a collection of different Winchesters. Every year they had a new model. I think the whole obsession with different models of guns dates back to that time. It is an old tradition and like Sarah Winchester was the prisoner of own fears, the people who collect stocks of guns might be subconsciously suffering from deep-rooted, possibly history-based, fears, that turned it all into one gigantic Winchester house.

 

[Rhea]

This is an interesting article in WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...3edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html

Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site.

Article:

I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

Bullshit. a) Britain has always had tighter gun control laws than the US. Certain weapons have never been legal for the general population, hence less mass shootings to start with. b) Britain acted THE FIRST time there was a school shooting and tightened gun control massively. c) most of the deadliest mass shootings in the US have been over the last approximate 30 years. That's a time period where both Australia and Britain have had strict gun control so no direct comparison can be made. We have no idea what mass shootings would be like in Australia or Britain had gun control not been tightened. Both countries did something in 1996 BEFORE it got to the point where the US is. If the US had acted in the 1996, or thereabouts chances are 9 of the 10 deadliest US shootings in the last 90 years would have turned out differently.

 

[arkieb1]

Bullshit. a) Britain has always had tighter gun control laws than the US. Certain weapons have never been legal for the general population, hence less mass shootings to start with. b) Britain acted THE FIRST time there was a school shooting and tightened gun control massively. c) most of the deadliest mass shootings in the US have been over the last approximate 30 years. That's a time period where both Australia and Britain have had strict gun control so no direct comparison can be made. We have no idea what mass shootings would be like in Australia or Britain had gun control not been tightened. Both countries did something in 1996 BEFORE it got to the point where the US is. If the US had acted in the 1996, or thereabouts chances are 9 of the 10 deadliest US shootings in the last 90 years would have turned out differently.

This;
http://junkee.com/the-nra-reckons-a...a-to-go-****-itself/61143#uWEEDFcbWQ6WPUO7.01

Did you all see the NRA has announced that they agree to legislation of the restriction of bump stocks. One small step.....

 

[House Cat]

Guys, guys, guys. I have the solution. Instead of taking away guns or making them SO HARD TO GET (haha!) we need standard-issue bulletproof vests for every citizen to wear WHENEVER they are in a school, commercial or government building with more than 10 people inside, stadium, concert venue, shopping mall, etc. Minor inconvenience, and a small price to pay for all the enthusiasts out there who need more than 1-2 guns per person/per household.

Also, each citizen or facility (haven't fleshed this all out yet, npi) should be equipped with a gunshot wound first aid kit, and in public schools there should be a basic training class for a. how to handle mass shootings, and b. how to field dress gunshot wounds/save lives.

Problem solved!

While making dinner two nights ago, I had the honest thought that soon, we would be clothing our children in Kevlar helmets and vests. It would be the only way to keep them safe. I went through the whole scenario in my head of how the first kids to do it would be thought of as freaks, but soon, it would catch on and before we knew it, all children would be wearing the gear at all times.

Then, all of us would be wearing this protection and it would be considered fashionable.

Then I realized, it was probable that the weapon that was used in vegas could penetrate Kevlar.
...

 

[Rhea]

@arkieb the link is not found. Please try again?

ETA: Think I found it by googling Junkee The NRA Reckons
http://junkee.com/the-nra-reckons-a...e-australia-tells-nra-to-go-****-itself/61143

 

[House Cat]

This;
http://junkee.com/the-nra-reckons-a...a-to-go-****-itself/61143#uWEEDFcbWQ6WPUO7.01

Did you all see the NRA has announced that they agree to legislation of the restriction of bump stocks. One small step.....

I kind of feel like this is a small, meaningless bone that they will throw to us...nothing more. This is a "here you go, now shut up." Gesture.

They will do nothing more. This isn't a first step into progress. This is the only step they will ever take. That's my prediction.

 

[arkieb1]

@arkieb the link is not found. Please try again?

ETA: Think I found it by googling Junkee The NRA Reckons
http://junkee.com/the-nra-reckons-a...e-australia-tells-nra-to-go-****-itself/61143

Sorry no clue the link works sometimes for me but not always I can cut and paste some of it, the article is a few years old but still applicable;

"In an effort to debunk this crazy idea that fewer guns equals less gun violence, the NRA have published an article on one of its many websites claiming that Australia’s anti-gun laws were imposed against the will of most Australians and are actually making the country less safe. Tastefully titled ‘Australia: There Will Be Blood’, the article — which has been brought to people’s attention by theHerald‘s Nick O’Malley — claims John Howard’s anti-gun laws “robbed Australians of their right to self-defense and empowered criminals,” and that “there is now a growing consensus among impartial researchers that disarming Australia’s citizens did not make them safer”.

As you may have gleaned, that is a big ol’ pile of cowshit and the NRA are talking out of their arses. There have been a grand total of zero (0) mass shootings in Australia since those laws were passed, compared to the dozens that have transpired in America in the same time period.

More prosaically, gun-related deaths in Australia have fallen by around 7.5 percent every year since the laws were passed, and America’s gun homicide rate was 370 times higher than Australia’s in 2010-11. Somewhat miffed at the NRA’s inexplicable omission of these facts, people have begun raising them on social media using even more swear words than I have."

It then has a number of twitter posts where Aussies tell the NRA to F*@# off. That is the gist of it. And actually we have had one gun related massacre since it was written two of the general public and one terrorist were all killed.

 

[arkieb1]

I kind of feel like this is a small, meaningless bone that they will throw to us...nothing more. This is a "here you go, now shut up." Gesture.

They will do nothing more. This isn't a first step into progress. This is the only step they will ever take. That's my prediction.

I feel like the tide of public opinion (because of this mass shooting) is forcing them into doing something but yes, maybe it's a smoke and mirrors type ploy where they are seen to be doing something to appease all those calling for something to be done, time will tell.

 

[jaaron]

But no database of regular gun owners because people who own guns should not be treated as criminals. Known criminals absolutely. They have made choices that deem their rights should be abridged. .

I have never understood this argument. If you have a car, you're in a database for basically the exact same reason as you would be for a gun: you're in possession of something that can cause damage to property, or damage and death to yourself or others. The government goes further in this instance, in requiring you to be insured for exactly this reason. No-one considers that treating people as criminals. Logically, not emotionally, how is this different?

 

[redwood66]

I have never understood this argument. If you have a car, you're in a database for basically the exact same reason as you would be for a gun: you're in possession of something that can cause damage to property, or damage and death to yourself or others. The government goes further in this instance, in requiring you to be insured for exactly this reason. No-one considers that treating people as criminals. Logically, not emotionally, how is this different?

I will attempt to answer but I am sure it is not what you want to hear. I am not emotional other than terribly heartbroken for the people in Vegas.

Because a registry is against the law in the 1986 Brady Act.

Section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically bars federal agencies from retaining “any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system,” and it prohibits the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions” of those who pass the background check.

If you have passed a background check why do you need to have your name on a list with the federal government that includes everything you own? The Bill of Rights does not say anything about drivers licenses and individual states can (and do) have a registry if they like, that is what a republic is all about. There is no federal registry of drivers licenses, states maintain that information, so the drivers license argument does not hold water. Nor does the insurance requirement because it is different in all states (does Virginia even require it?). Furthermore, how would that stop anyone from doing what this sick person did in Vegas? Or any other mass shooting where the guns were purchased legally or illegally? If you can prove to me that it will stop these acts then I will sign up otherwise I don't need to be in a database at the federal government. They already have enough info on me. If people want change in their state they need to talk to their elected officials.

And - gun owners don't trust anti gun politicians or people who think like they do. Now repealing the 2nd Amendment would be near to impossible because any BoR change requires 2/3rds in each house of Congress, sig. of the president, and ratification by at least 38 states. Still politicians play to their base, many that likely don't know the process, by saying things like this:

I know this is old but it pertains and I don't think she has changed her mind.

 

[Calliecake]

I kind of feel like this is a small, meaningless bone that they will throw to us...nothing more. This is a "here you go, now shut up." Gesture.

They will do nothing more. This isn't a first step into progress. This is the only step they will ever take. That's my prediction.

I couldn't agree more @House Cat The only reason they are even throwing a bone is they are afraid it will hurt the Reoublicans in the next Election.

@Rhea You are so correct. Had our country done something after Columbine we would not be in the situation we find ourselves now. There are many selfish people in our country. They only care about how something will effect them and the hell with the greater good for all. We see examples of it here on a daily basis on Pricescope. They go on and on about protection as if ISIS is coming to their town in Idaho.

Guns are deadly weapons. They are not toys. Our laws need to change. No one is trying to take away the 2nd Amendment. Why on earth would anyone be against apply some common sense to keep tragedies like this from happening. You don't need multiple guns to protect yourself and I do understand why @Redwood would want a gun for protection. I would probably feel l needed it to if I worked as a prison guard. But shooting a gun while you are on horse just sounds like a very cruel thing to do to the animal.

 

[redwood66]

I would probably feel l needed it to if I worked as a prison guard. But shooting a gun while you are on horse just sounds like a very cruel thing to do to the animal.

No one knows what I did for work unless I tell them. It's not about that. Guns are not toys you are right.

The horses wear hearing protection as well. It is a huge amount of training and does not hurt them in the least. I am an animal lover and would never do anything detrimental to them. I don't shoot animals for sport either.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Just another day in America. Just a sampling from one local news site in CT.

http://wtnh.com/2017/10/06/prosecutor-police-killing-of-armed-man-was-justified/

http://wtnh.com/2017/10/05/vehicle-struck-during-shooting-on-interstate-95-in-milford/

http://wtnh.com/2017/10/04/oxford-man-arrested-for-shooting-at-tree-after-argument-with-worker/

http://wtnh.com/2017/10/05/man-charged-after-shooting-self-in-leg-in-movie-theater/

http://wtnh.com/2017/10/06/woman-charged-with-fatally-shooting-sleeping-man/

 

[whitewave]

I couldn't agree more @House Cat The only reason they are even throwing a bone is they are afraid it will hurt the Reoublicans in the next Election.

@Rhea You are so correct. Had our country done something after Columbine we would not be in the situation we find ourselves now. There are many selfish people in our country. They only care about how something will effect them and the hell with the greater good for all. We see examples of it here on a daily basis on Pricescope. They go on and on about protection as if ISIS is coming to their town in Idaho.

Guns are deadly weapons. They are not toys. Our laws need to change. No one is trying to take away the 2nd Amendment. Why on earth would anyone be against apply some common sense to keep tragedies like this from happening. You don't need multiple guns to protect yourself and I do understand why @Redwood would want a gun for protection. I would probably feel l needed it to if I worked as a prison guard. But shooting a gun while you are on horse just sounds like a very cruel thing to do to the animal.

Do you own or have you ever owned a gun?

Do you realize the columbine shooters got their sawed off guns illegally? What would we do? Make illegal gun transactions even more illegal? Double illegal?

 

[t-c]

I will attempt to answer but I am sure it is not what you want to hear. I am not emotional other than terribly heartbroken for the people in Vegas.

Because a registry is against the law in the 1986 Brady Act.

Section 103(i) of the Brady Act specifically bars federal agencies from retaining “any record or portion thereof generated by the [NICS] system,” and it prohibits the “registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions” of those who pass the background check.

I don't think the Brady Act is carved in stone. A new law that allows a gun/gun owner registry can be passed. Heck, even the constitution can be amended.

 

[redwood66]

I don't think the Brady Act is carved in stone. A new law that allows a gun/gun owner registry can be passed. Heck, even the constitution can be amended.

Please see the rest of my post where all of this is addressed.

 

[chrono]

Nothing is going to change. That's all I know.

 

[whitewave]

Nothing is going to change. That's all I know.

Probably not.

 

[lyra]

Has anyone else read Richard Preston's Demon in the Freezer? He details how biological warfare is fairly easy to accomplish anywhere, anytime. It could simultaneously take out major cities in the US, collapsing infrastructure. No gun is going to save anyone from that threat, and the worst part is, it's fairly simple to do.

I think it's okay to have a handgun for protection, although it's more a peace of mind than a reality in many cases, because it's supposed to be kept locked up. But I agree, I don't see the need for anyone to have multiple guns capable of high(er) output. I will never think of it as a NEED. It will always be a DESIRE or even a LUXURY. Being able to defend oneself is a RIGHT, even with a gun. But nowhere does it say you need a whole armoury. JMO.

 

[OreoRosies86]

I couldn't agree more @House Cat The only reason they are even throwing a bone is they are afraid it will hurt the Reoublicans in the next Election.

@Rhea You are so correct. Had our country done something after Columbine we would not be in the situation we find ourselves now. There are many selfish people in our country. They only care about how something will effect them and the hell with the greater good for all. We see examples of it here on a daily basis on Pricescope. They go on and on about protection as if ISIS is coming to their town in Idaho.

Guns are deadly weapons. They are not toys. Our laws need to change. No one is trying to take away the 2nd Amendment. Why on earth would anyone be against apply some common sense to keep tragedies like this from happening. You don't need multiple guns to protect yourself and I do understand why @Redwood would want a gun for protection. I would probably feel l needed it to if I worked as a prison guard. But shooting a gun while you are on horse just sounds like a very cruel thing to do to the animal.

I would never as a civilian have guns anywhere near an animal let alone my children or others.

 

[t-c]

Has anyone else read Richard Preston's Demon in the Freezer? He details how biological warfare is fairly easy to accomplish anywhere, anytime. It could simultaneously take out major cities in the US, collapsing infrastructure. No gun is going to save anyone from that threat, and the worst part is, it's fairly simple to do.

I haven't read the book, but is it really? I would think you'd need a containment unit and people with some skill at handling infectious material. These bad guys would likely have as high or a higher likelihood of infecting themselves before they could send it out in the wild.