Las Vegas shooting

[ksinger]

I have been thinking about this for a bit. Maybe those with more psychology based training can lend some insight. This is a horrific act and just look at all the nonstop coverage on all news channels. Imagine you are a distraught and angry person with nothing to live for seeing all of this attention paid to a single individual. Not saying that it should not be covered but if you are on the edge of a razor and need one little push just look how famous (in their mind) you will be on your way out. This could be said for other terrible attacks as well. Do we need all of this 24/7? I know because of the internet the stuff is out there anyway but constant TV as well. I can turn the TV off but those in that place? I don't have an answer for my question. Your thoughts?

Edit - I want to hear the good stories of the heroic people and the stories of the victims, and I want to be able to cry for them so this is why I am conflicted about the coverage.

This kind of explosive violence is embedded in our war-drenched culture, from movies, to video games. I'm not sure how different the news is from the constant stream of freely consumed hyper-violence and mass murder most of us consent to watch.

Decrying the 24-hour news cycle and the interwebs, is looking at the barn door years after it got stuck open. So better to ask why there are so many angry and distraught people who must be shielded from the news, but not other things. And why these people who are supposedly on the edge, are such a danger. Could it be because of the ridiculous ease with which the angry and disaffected are allowed to arm themselves?

The thing that I don't like is what I consider to be an unseemly rush to the warm fuzzies - how wonderful they all were, how heroic the responders, blah blah, when not a single one of the dead has even had an actual funeral yet. It's too too TOO early to celebrate a damn thing. But hey, today's freneticism means we gotta get on with it, chop chop. Memorialize, mourn, get on to the next mass murder. It's such a numbing gerbil wheel after a while.

I don't cry or pray for things like this. Doing so or not does not prove how much I do or do not care. Neither of those emotions/actions changes anything. Crying merely makes me feel like shit. Physically. And I won't consent to that.

 

[redwood66]

This kind of explosive violence is embedded in our war-drenched culture, from movies, to video games. I'm not sure how different the news is from the constant stream of freely consumed hyper-violence and mass murder most of us consent to watch.

Decrying the 24-hour news cycle and the interwebs, is looking at the barn door years after it got stuck open. So better to ask why there are so many angry and distraught people who must be shielded from the news, but not other things. And why these people who are supposedly on the edge, are such a danger. Could it be because of the ridiculous ease with which the angry and disaffected are allowed to arm themselves?

The thing that I don't like is what I consider to be an unseemly rush to the warm fuzzies - how wonderful they all were, how heroic the responders, blah blah, when not a single one of the dead has even had an actual funeral yet. It's too too TOO early to celebrate a damn thing. But hey, today's freneticism means we gotta get on with it, chop chop. Memorialize, mourn, get on to the next mass murder. It's such a numbing gerbil wheel after a while.

I don't cry or pray for things like this. Doing so or not does not prove how much I do or do not care. Neither of those emotions/actions changes anything. Crying merely makes me feel like shit. Physically. And I won't consent to that.

I get that because I think there is too much violence in everything as well. But I am talking about the coverage specifically to the shooter. I am not making it about guns because we obviously have differing opinions. Guns and crazy are not the only synonymous effects or tools of violence.

 

[whitewave]

Haha, when I read Tekate's quoting of Whitewave I thought, gee how did miss that Whitewave was from Maine? OK, so Tekate's from Maine; me too!

I know lots of people here that like country music. I have one quite liberal friend that not only enjoys playing country music with his (amateur) band, he hosts a barn party every year where we all dress up with cowboy hats and boots and have a good time. I happen to like heavy metal (among other genres) myself, yet I don't have a single tattoo. I even like some of Kid Rock's old stuff, despite his politics and misogynist lyrics.

Most of my neighbors are republicans. Many hunt and own rifles. They may also own other types of guns but haven't mentioned it to me. I got into a heated discussion with my dentist last month over whether semi-automatic weapons should be legal. (The reason it was heated was because I couldn't speak when I wanted to make a point as I had sharp utensils in my mouth. So I fumed in between the moments I could speak my mind.) It was through this conversation that I learned that my dentist collects all kinds of guns and has over 100. I left the appointment angry but later calmed down feeling that we might have been able to have a reasonable discussion under different circumstances (me not in a dentist chair having a filling replaced), and that other than that conversation I have found him to be pleasant and professional.

Yesterday I decided to switch dental practices. It's a very very small thing that I realize won't make any difference but at least I will no longer be indirectly contributing to his stockpile of weapons.

Well, how tid you vet this dentist?

 

[partgypsy]

For those who are against regulation, can someone explain to me the necessity of making legal semi-automatic weapons for hunting, target practice, or self-defense. It appears that semi-automatic weapons are relatively easily converted to automatic or near automatic weaponry. I don't understand why any private citizen would need access to this caliber of weapon. Heck in my state I can't even buy bottle rockets.

 

[redwood66]

For those who are against regulation, can someone explain to me the necessity of making legal semi-automatic weapons for hunting, target practice, or self-defense. It appears that semi-automatic weapons are relatively easily converted to automatic or near automatic weaponry. I don't understand why any private citizen would need access to this caliber of weapon. Heck in my state I can't even buy bottle rockets.

I will attempt it as long as it remains civil. If the discussion cannot be civil then it is pointless.

 

[partgypsy]

Add to that list armor piercing ammunition. And silencers.

 

[redwood66]

Add to that list armor piercing ammunition. And yes, silencers.

I am waiting for you to agree to a civil discussion. I am not going to put myself in the position of being mashed on for entertainment purposes. That would make it not worth the attempt to disuss IMO. There are probably things we agree upon and things we don't on this issue. This is a deeply emotional issue.

 

[Dee*Jay]

In the interest of making sure I understood what was being discussed I looked up what automatic vs. semi-automatic actually means. Everyone else might already know this but I didn't. Anyway, here are two explanations that I, a non-gun person, I found useful:

An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast, a semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each individual trigger-pull.

A semi-automatic weapon could be described as a civilian version of a military machine gun, one that is less capable of rapid fire. Although the firearm automatically reloads, a shooter must pull the trigger separately in order to fire another round.

BTW, I'm all for civil discourse, so if anyone wants to engage in one I'll be happy to participate. I have strong feelings on this topic but believe I can behave myself long enough to participate in a conversation.

 

[redwood66]

In the interest of making sure I understood what was being discussed I looked up what automatic vs. semi-automatic actually means. Everyone else might already know this but I didn't. Anyway, here are two explanations that I, a non-gun person, I found useful:

An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is pressed or held and there is ammunition in the magazine/chamber. In contrast, a semi-automatic firearm fires one round with each individual trigger-pull.

A semi-automatic weapon could be described as a civilian version of a military machine gun, one that is less capable of rapid fire. Although the firearm automatically reloads, a shooter must pull the trigger separately in order to fire another round.

BTW, I'm all for civil discourse, so if anyone wants to engage in one I'll be happy to participate. I have strong feelings on this topic but believe I can behave myself long enough to participate in a conversation.

I gotta go out but will be happy to discuss with you @Dee*Jay. I know this is a difficult discussion and I have never thought that people need to see it my way. But any discussion as important as this must be engaged into by adults. Strong feelings are welcome as I have them myself, but you already know that .

 

[partgypsy]

I feel that I am a pretty civil person, even though I have a feeling we disagree about gun control issues.

 

[ksinger]

For those who are against regulation, can someone explain to me the necessity of making legal semi-automatic weapons for hunting, target practice, or self-defense. It appears that semi-automatic weapons are relatively easily converted to automatic or near automatic weaponry. I don't understand why any private citizen would need access to this caliber of weapon. Heck in my state I can't even buy bottle rockets.

While I'm not someone who argues against regulation I have a background in the gun business so perhaps my insight might be helpful.

Legality of semi-auto weapons.
This is a very broad category that includes shotguns, "plinking" guns (sport shooting at improvised targets), small and large game rifles. It also includes the military style weapons that most think of when the category is brought up. The uses of the military style (AR/M4 and AK platform) weapons are varmint hunting/eradication, plinking and combat style competition shooting. I'm not getting into the home defense aspect as most of these weapons are more metal pacifiers than working tools.

Semi auto as a class is legal without special restriction. Full auto, more than one round fires with each pull of the trigger, is legal with the proper paperwork. The process of converting a semi to a full auto is not particularly easy and is generally illegal. That said, there has been a semi legitimate to underground industry in building conversion parts, kits and instructions for individuals to alter weapons. The Waco raid that went so badly was initiated by shipping records of parts needed to convert military style weapons.Rotary devices and bump stocks are designed to get around the prohibition on full auto (Class III weapons).

Discussions of caliber are generally meaningless as the US does not prohibit any calibers smaller than .50. For any military caliber, there are multiple civilian examples with similar ballistics.

Understand that within the gun community, "need" is rarely discussed. It is the "right" to own these weapons that is being defended. There is the subgroup that truly believes that black helicopters are going to attack them, there are those that believe that prohibiting military platform weapons is the first step in prohibiting all and some that are just small government strict constructionalists. Sprinkle a few anarchists on top and you have the conservative wing of gun owners. You don't see the guys with $100.000 English shotguns, collections of Colt revolvers or $10,000 benchrest target guns being interviewed.

The only argument for AP ammo was that it was cheap surplus.

 

[ksinger]

While I'm not someone who argues against regulation I have a background in the gun business so perhaps my insight might be helpful.

Legality of semi-auto weapons.
This is a very broad category that includes shotguns, "plinking" guns (sport shooting at improvised targets), small and large game rifles. It also includes the military style weapons that most think of when the category is brought up. The uses of the military style (AR/M4 and AK platform) weapons are varmint hunting/eradication, plinking and combat style competition shooting. I'm not getting into the home defense aspect as most of these weapons are more metal pacifiers than working tools.

Semi auto as a class is legal without special restriction. Full auto, more than one round fires with each pull of the trigger, is legal with the proper paperwork. The process of converting a semi to a full auto is not particularly easy and is generally illegal. That said, there has been a semi legitimate to underground industry in building conversion parts, kits and instructions for individuals to alter weapons. The Waco raid that went so badly was initiated by shipping records of parts needed to convert military style weapons.Rotary devices and bump stocks are designed to get around the prohibition on full auto (Class III weapons).

Discussions of caliber are generally meaningless as the US does not prohibit any calibers smaller than .50. For any military caliber, there are multiple civilian examples with similar ballistics.

Understand that within the gun community, "need" is rarely discussed. It is the "right" to own these weapons that is being defended. There is the subgroup that truly believes that black helicopters are going to attack them, there are those that believe that prohibiting military platform weapons is the first step in prohibiting all and some that are just small government strict constructionalists. Sprinkle a few anarchists on top and you have the conservative wing of gun owners. You don't see the guys with $100.000 English shotguns, collections of Colt revolvers or $10,000 benchrest target guns being interviewed.

The only argument for AP ammo was that it was cheap surplus.

Seriously, the unicorn* just waltzed in, sat down and started to type after I read him your post. I didn't ask or anything. I did hold my breath though. He's done this exactly twice now since I've been on PS.



* aka - husband, or the vulcan. And he did not actually waltz. He was in his hayseed guise, wearing coveralls and looking for a way to avoid mowing.

ETA - OMG. I just got whopped upside the head (figuratively speaking). NOT coveralls PLEASE. Bib overalls. Mechanics and plumbers wear coveralls, farmers wear overalls. (His family are farm people) He thinks this should be part of the test to get an Okie driver's license. Clearly my Okie cred is damaged in his eyes.

Oh, and I'm informed that "varmint guns" is an actual designation - either from the NRA (back when they were about sports rather than ideology) and or the National Benchrest Association.

 

[Dee*Jay]

It's not often you see the use of "varmint"!

Hello to the Unicorn.

 

[Tekate]

Dang Sharon, so sorry!!! It is probably terror attack.. thoughts are with you for sure

Kate

Well, it seems we can't live anywhere. Closer to home, I am sure you are aware of this attack....in my "hometown" . I am IN looking IN.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/terrorism-charges-edmonton-attacks-1.4316450

Sharon

 

[redwood66]

Hello to the Unicorn!

I agree with everything he said. I am in the slippery slope category though. Only because of the expanse of government already into our lives. I also think that the media portrays pro gun people like the fringe idiots he described without talking to normal gun owners. I don't care about AP ammo because we reload our own. Silencers might be preferable in hunting situations because I have hearing issues but I probably would not care. I read that they backed off on it anyway.

I never use anything more than a 20 rd magazine because bigger does not allow the use of my bipod. Long range target shooting is my hobby. But we have both revolver and semi automatic handguns. I enjoy them all but do not have an emotional attachment to weapons, they are tools.

 

[redwood66]

I feel that I am a pretty civil person, even though I have a feeling we disagree about gun control issues.

You are but I have had bad experiences here with just jumping in and I am not going to do it any longer. No disrespect ever meant to you. My concern was someone taking an opportunity to take their anger out on me if I tried to discuss it. This is a terribly touchy subject and any discussion is made worse by horrible events like Vegas.

Disagreeing is great and I would never expect you to agree. It's the nasty that I am concerned about. Not that you are.

 

[redwood66]

I was out and on my phone when I responded to ksinger's Unicorn. I have a bit more to add.

As far as full autos and conversions, bump stocks, etc. this is not needed by the general public. There are pre 1986? ban full autos that can be bought but the process and background check/periodic checks plus the exorbitant cost puts it out of reach for most people. Sure I could get my Class III license and have things normal people don't have but I have no desire or funds to spend on that kind of endeavor. Bump stocks ought to be illegal and it is already illegal to modify your regular semi auto to full auto. I do know that building a weapon like the AR-15 is popular because there are so many different accessories that people want, foregrips, stocks, picatinny rails to hold flashlights or scopes. Think of it as a solitaire ring and you want different bands or wraps to add to it. This is a terrible analogy but nothing else comes to mind at the moment. I don't even like the AR platform and my favorite rifle is my trusty Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle. It is simple and the mechanism is from the M1 Garand which has been around since before 1924. It is also reliable and one that ranchers have been using to protect livestock for decades.

I hope this helps and anyone is more than welcome to ask questions.

 

[Calliecake]

We ALL are to blame because we allow this to happen. Our countries obsession with guns has been insane for years and we have sat back and watched this happen for way too long. Our country lacks common sense.

How hard would it be to limit the number of bullets in a magazine and make it illegal to possess a gun that can cause this type of harm. They are good for nothing other than killing people. You can't use them for hunting. You don't need to shot someone 20 times to protect yourself.

I could be wrong @Redwood but I heard the NRA didn't show up for the meeting the day they were going to discuss silencers because that was the day the Republican Senator was shot on the baseball field.

Can you imagine how any more people would have died yesterday if the guns had silencers. Dealing with the noise is part of using the gun. if you don't like the noise buy headphones or dont shoot the gun. At what point do other peoples rights become as important as the gun owners? I'm really not trying to be argumentative. This just seems like common sense to me.

 

[whitewave]

I don't think there are silencers for semi-automatics...

 

[redwood66]

We ALL are to blame because we allow this to happen. Our countries obsession with guns has been insane for years and we have sat back and watched this happen for way too long. Our country lacks common sense.

How hard would it be to limit the number of bullets in a magazine and make it illegal to possess a gun that can cause this type of harm. They are good for nothing other than killing people. You can't use them for hunting. You don't need to shot someone 20 times to protect yourself.

I could be wrong @Redwood but I heard the NRA didn't show up for the meeting the day they were going to discuss silencers because that was the day the Republican Senator was shot on the baseball field.

Can you imagine how any more people would have died yesterday if the guns had silencers. Dealing with the noise is part of using the gun. if you don't like the noise buy headphones or dont shoot the gun. At what point do other peoples rights become as important as the gun owners? I'm really not trying to be argumentative. This just seems like common sense to me.

Silencers are not a big deal to me. I wear hearing protection but for me the silencer might be useful for hunting because you don't wear hearing protection normally when in the woods. You want to hear what is going on around you. Gunfire without hearing protection is very harmful to your hearing. Silencers make most rifles less accurate at long distances.

The vote on silencers was canceled because of the Scalise shooting and I heard it is canceled again because of Vegas.

Your comment about don't shoot the gun is your opinion and nothing I say will change your mind. And I don't care to, but it is number 2 in the Bill of Rights. It is your right not to buy or shoot a gun. This is where the emotion of people against guns takes over. Not being argumentative.

Here is a bit of info on if the previous ban on "assault" weapons worked as intended.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

[redwood66]

I don't think there are silencers for semi-automatics...

There actually are and the .223 rd is popular for it. The barrel needs to be threaded for one and you must pay/buy a tax stamp and have it registered.

 

[Calliecake]

@Redwood. I think you took my remark the wrong way (or I may not have said it correctly). All I meant was wearing ear protection is a small price to pay if it can prevent others from being hurt or killed. I'm really not trying to start an argument with anyone. You are correct, I do get emotional when these types of senseless shootings happen.

No where in the constitution does it say you should be able to shoot 600 people in a matter of minutes. At some point common sense has to come into play. The people who were injured and died had rights too.

 

[redwood66]

@Redwood. I think you took my remark the wrong way (or I may not have said it correctly). All I meant was wearing ear protection is a small price to pay if it can prevent others from being hurt or killed. I'm really not trying to start an argument with anyone. You are correct, I do get emotional when these types of senseless shootings happen.

No where in the constitution does it say you should be able to shoot 600 people in a matter of minutes. At some point common sense has to come into play. The people who were injured and died had rights too.

I probably misunderstood you. Sorry. I thought you meant no guns.

I would like to ask what is your idea of common sense and what would you like done?

Did you understand my point about silencers now? I can try to explain it better if not.

 

[OreoRosies86]

It isn't the 1700s anymore. Clearly the US is not in any way handling their rights responsibly. We have a staggering amount of gun deaths. No victim of gun violence didn't have the right to life. The right to live trumps the right to own a f****** gun, and if you don't agree with that I don't know what to do with you.

Edit: my comment got cut off. I would absolutely like to see harsher and steeper penalties for those who obtain fire arms illegally, especially if they use those fire arms not just to harm, kill, or threaten, but at all. But again, what is that supposed to accomplish given how many of these rampage style murderers commit suicide. Maybe we should confiscate everything we can, drive the price of ammunition to $20,000 a bullet, and carry muskets. If we want to act as though laws in the 1700s still absolutely apply then let's use what they were using. Carry a single shot musket and drag a cannon around. You'll stick out like a sore thumb.

 

[Calliecake]

I probably misunderstood you. Sorry. I thought you meant no guns.

I would like to ask what is your idea of common sense and what would you like done?

Did you understand my point about silencers now? I can try to explain it better if not.

I'm in the camp that silencers will cause even more murders, therefore I'm against them. I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. I would like to see all these guns that can kill many people in seconds become illegal. I also think a clip should only hold 6 bullets. If someone is coming to attack you 6 bullets should stop them. Firing off 20 bullets in a minute is insane to me. When the constitution was written it was impossible to shoot many people in a matter of a minutes. They were using muskets.

I don't think it's any surprise my wish would be for all guns to be outlawed.
I realize that will never happen in this country. I think both sides need to compromise so what we saw yesterday doesn't happen again.

 

[Dancing Fire]

BTW, I'm all for civil discourse, so if anyone wants to engage in one I'll be happy to participate. I have strong feelings on this topic but believe I can behave myself long enough to participate in a conversation.

A civil liberal on PS?...and I thought a green diamond was rare...

 

[Arcadian]

I'm on deadline so missed much of the conversation.

I don't agree with silencers outside of military use. They have a cool factor for some (too many) and there are states you can get them. Personally I use active ear protection when I'm shooting.

You can get a silencer in Florida, but you can pay a lot of money for it. If you have that money, they don't mind taking if from you. I don't know all the rules around it as I find them particularly abhorrent.

I think one thing that gets overlooked is that some of the gun laws is state by state. They use the federal mandate and stack on top of that (or not!) Nevada isn't the only state that has lax gun laws. The states can make decisions if they allow certain types of weapons and even clip sizes, and even how heavy the trigger has to be.

@Calliecake I think that some consideration has to be taken for bullet size. Hand guns and rifles are different in a lot of ways and the loading platform also different.

 

[AGBF]

ETA - OMG. I just got whopped upside the head (figuratively speaking). NOT coveralls PLEASE. Bib overalls. Mechanics and plumbers wear coveralls, farmers wear overalls. (His family are farm people) He thinks this should be part of the test to get an Okie driver's license. Clearly my Okie cred is damaged in his eyes.

It isn't just an Oklahoma thing, ksinger. Your post jostled something inside my head. My mother (born and bred in Connecticut as was her mother) used to say "overalls". It didn't mean only denim pants with a bib, however. I think it meant any warm pants (trousers for you Brits). She would say things like, "Don't go out without your your overalls!". We wore a lot of corduroy back in those days. I remember a lot of corduroy pants. At any rate, I miss her, even though she probably hasn't said that to me in over 50 years!

Deb

 

[Calliecake]

Hello to the Unicorn!

I agree with everything he said. I am in the slippery slope category though. Only because of the expanse of government already into our lives. I also think that the media portrays pro gun people like the fringe idiots he described without talking to normal gun owners. I don't care about AP ammo because we reload our own. Silencers might be preferable in hunting situations because I have hearing issues but I probably would not care. I read that they backed off on it anyway.


Not trying to be argumentative @Redwood but in your post above you mentioned government in our lives too much. All I could think about was how the republicans were acting like FMEA and the EPA were not worth putting money into and they cut money from both, Along comes 3 hurricane and guess what, we need all the money originally in the budget and more. People were worried about the drinking water in Houston and Puerto Rico. We need both FMEA and the EPA. These agencies are set up for all our good. We also have learned form the past that we cannot count onCorporations doing the right thing as far as what the put in our water and the air we breath.

Pat Robertson made the most disgusting comment after the shootings this week saying this happened because of our countries disrespect for Trump, God and the nation anthem. I didn't hear this idiot saying maybe god was trying to tell us we better put more money into FMEA after the 3 hurricanes

 

[Calliecake]

My post was added to Redwood post above for some reason.

I made a comment to @Redwood stating that Government was too unvolved in our lives. I'm not trying be to argumentative here

Republicans felt we were putting too much money into FMEA and EPA and cut these budgets. Along come 3 hurricanes that are going to cost more than anyone could have guessed. The point I'm trying to make is that these government agencies are for our good. People in Houston snd Puerto Rico are concerned about their water quality. We already know from the past that we cannot trust corporations to do the right thing as far as what they put in our water and our air. We need these agencies for our protection and we need them funded adequately. Look at the drinking water in Detroit.

Pat Robertson made the most disgusting comment after the Vegas shootings. He said the shooting happened because of our countries disrespect for Trump, God and the Nation Anthem.
I didn't hear him sayinh that maybe God was trying to tell us to wake the hell up and plan for national disasters after 3 hurricanes. Government agencies are there for a reason,