OT Active Shooters in Vegas

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
you know what might help (not in all cases) is real universal healthcare. With good mental hel are components. We can approach this issue from multiple fronts.
 
BrianFromWA said:
No idea if this is 100% accurate, but it is at least 25%...and in 500 posts I didn't see it brought up yet...
Click to expand...


I'm willing to venture most of them had some kind of Autism Spectrum Disorder as well.
 
Further said:
I agree that it's a number used to inflate the severity of an issue. But, that doesn't mean the issue isn't already bad.
Click to expand...

I agree, but my point is merely that I think it's a different discussion.

Yes, and we try and stop Cancer, we invest in research and outlaw certain carcinogens and regulate the use of others. Just because one issue isn't killing as many people as another issue doesn't mean it's not way the fuck out of bounds. I'm sure if you were a parent/brother/.... of one of the people slaughtered with guns than you might think that guns are an epidemic. The odds are extremely low that you will be killed by plane crash but we have miles of laws and regulations to guard our safety in the air. And in fact, we most likely would have many times more deaths from flying if we didn't regulate this form of travel. In 2016 there were 325 deaths from flying worldwide, but since cancer kills more, lets just fuck all the regulations and let chaos reign supreme.
Click to expand...

I think it's interesting that you mention airplane safety/regulation because there's two kinds of regulation. You have regulation of pilots/airlines and you have the regulation of passengers. We drastically changed our security for airline passengers after 9/11, but I thought that was a little crazy because there wasn't a breakdown in security. The terrorists had box cutters, and at that time it was perfectly legal to bring any blade under 4 inches on the plane with you. That included box cutters. So they could have merely banned any blades on the plane, but instead they spent a ton of money completely revamping security, creating an entirely new agency to oversee security, and did it really change anything? Couldn't they have just taken box cutters off the approved list? How much money did the government spend on airline safety for, as you said, 325 deaths per year worldwide? And how many of those are from single engine planes that go down due to either pilot error, or mechanical failure? There have been a ton of scandals about the TSA since 9/11. Invasions of privacy, lapses in judgement, and how much of a difference has it actually made?

This is your contention but not everyone agrees. I was listening to an interview today and the person said if all gun purchases had to be monitored then a slew of guns in a short time would have sent off warning signals and law enforcement might very well have been at least alerted that the shooter was stockpiling many guns and ammo quickly. Would that have stopped him? I don't know, but there is a chance. Or getting rid of any gun sale that isn't through a licensed dealer would knock out many people who buy on the grey market (almost 50% of all gun sales). Requiring owners to have ample locked storage for all firearms might keep more of them actually locked up instead of stolen by thieves or family members and used for murder or suicide. Hell, taking away bump stocks would have likely lessened the damage. Everyone knows we aren't going to stop all murders or mass killings or terrorist attacks, but perhaps we can mitigate the damage. If some killer can only kill 20 people instead of 40, that's actually a win. It's still atrocity but at least the damage was lessened.

I'm not sure what laws could or couldn't make an impact, but I think it's highly suspect of you to summarily proclaim they are bullshit and wouldn't stop a mass shooting. They wouldn't stop all, but I can't imagine if we approached these laws with integrity that we couldn't forge an outcome with fewer killed.
Click to expand...

How would they be monitored? All gun sales? Do you realize how much money/man power it would take to accomplish that? Who would verify if guns are stored properly? There are an estimated 300 million guns in America. How could we possibly enforce that law? I get that people are frustrated and feel helpless, but my point has always been that quickly tossing out "common sense gun laws" as the retort to mass shootings is not constructive, and it wouldn't accomplish the things that people want it to accomplish. There are so many more important things that our government could spend their money on. How about education? How about health care? How about infrastructure? I get that 11,000 people dying to guns is tragic and sad, but everything costs money. The government only has so much money it can spend. Wouldn't you rather spend that money on something that might actually address violence in America at its core? Not just the tool that is being used to carry out that violence...

here are multiple approaches that can take place at the same time. We can do a better job diagnosing mental health issues and make sure those people are covered. We can work to alleviate the social pressures in inner cities and in classroom. And, we can mitigate the negative outcomes when something does go terribly wrong.
Click to expand...

All of that costs money. and the current deficit in the US is $440 billion dollars going into 2018. Where is the money going to come from? I agree that we have to do something, but I would prefer that we do something that targets the criminals and not the law abiding citizens. It makes more sense to try to address the problem at its roots.
 
Here is a perfect example of why I think the problem with gun violence is much more complex than simply passing laws:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-n...d_drunken_driver_accus.html#incart_river_home

A man with a history of drunken driving charges was arrested in a fatal crash near Salem that killed a mother and her four small children, Oregon State Police said.

Authorities lodged Favian Garcia, 27, in the Marion County Jail Monday morning on suspicion of five counts of manslaughter, felony DUI, reckless driving and driving with a suspended license, said Lt. Cari Boyd, an Oregon State police spokeswoman.

Court records show Garcia was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants in 2011 and arrested on suspicion of the same crime in July of this year. Police said the Gervais man had multiple outstanding warrants when he was detained.
Click to expand...

Here is a guy who had been convicted of drunk driving, he has a suspended license, he has outstanding warrants, but he was able to get behind the wheel while drunk and kill a family of five. He has a suspended license. He shouldn't have been able to drive. He broke the law by getting behind the wheel. He broke the law by drinking alcohol and driving. With all of the regulations and laws, this shouldn't have happened, right? But it did. There are five dead people because this guy is a piece of shit, and he doesn't care about anyone but himself. No amount of laws or regulations will prevent shitty people from doing shitty things.
 
So what happened in Vegas was just a case of extreme suicide and we shouldn't do anything about that because we can't arrest people who kill themselves.

Makes sense.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So what happened in Vegas was just a case of extreme suicide and we shouldn't do anything about that because we can't arrest people who kill themselves.

Makes sense.
Click to expand...

Extreme suicide...makes it sound like a sport.
 
Didn't the federal crazy rules just get waived? I thought I heard something about that. It was if you were getting checks from the guberment for being crazy you couldn't buy a gun. Now you can.
 
Natebishop3 said:
What should we do? Short of confiscating all guns, what law would you pass that would have prevented Vegas from happening?
Click to expand...

A law limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a year. He bought what 33 guns this year and didnt trigger any suspicion
 
Natebishop3 said:
Here is a guy who had been convicted of drunk driving, he has a suspended license, he has outstanding warrants, but he was able to get behind the wheel while drunk and kill a family of five. He has a suspended license. He shouldn't have been able to drive. He broke the law by getting behind the wheel. He broke the law by drinking alcohol and driving. With all of the regulations and laws, this shouldn't have happened, right? But it did. There are five dead people because this guy is a piece of shit, and he doesn't care about anyone but himself. No amount of laws or regulations will prevent shitty people from doing shitty things.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% that no amount of laws will prevent shitty people from doing shitty things.

I disagree with the idea that enhanced regulation will not help - and traffic deaths is an excellent subject to prove it - if you look at the US's amounts of road-deaths per miles driven - they have been continuously dropping - and the main reason for this is regulation. Since the DMV in some form has been around for-ever, the regulation changes are on the car manufacturers - but since these regulations are country-wide - there is just no easy way to buy new cars in the US that do not adhere to these regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans...dia/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png
 
Natebishop3 said:
What should we do? Short of confiscating all guns, what law would you pass that would have prevented Vegas from happening?
Click to expand...

I like Brian's idea, if you're on crazy drugs there is an additional step in your background check. Would it have stopped things? No idea. Could it help? Maybe.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I like Brian's idea, if you're on crazy drugs there is an additional step in your background check. Would it have stopped things? No idea. Could it help? Maybe.
Click to expand...

Was this guy on drugs? The problem I see with limiting rights based on that type of issue is that people just won't get treatment. They'll be afraid of having their rights taken away, so they won't talk to anyone.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Was this guy on drugs? The problem I see with limiting rights based on that type of issue is that people just won't get treatment. They'll be afraid of having their rights taken away, so they won't talk to anyone.
Click to expand...

He was prescribed valium once. Which is being used as an excuse that he was crazy and nothing can be done. Muslims evil, white people are just victims of mental illness.
 
andalusian said:
I agree 100% that no amount of laws will prevent shitty people from doing shitty things.

I disagree with the idea that enhanced regulation will not help - and traffic deaths is an excellent subject to prove it - if you look at the US's amounts of road-deaths per miles driven - they have been continuously dropping - and the main reason for this is regulation. Since the DMV in some form has been around for-ever, the regulation changes are on the car manufacturers - but since these regulations are country-wide - there is just no easy way to buy new cars in the US that do not adhere to these regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans...dia/File:USA_annual_VMT_vs_deaths_per_VMT.png
Click to expand...

But that's a different kind of fix. You're talking about people dying from accidents. Adding new technology to make cars safer to drive. Cars are not designed specifically to kill people. They're meant for transportation, so it's easier to fix problems. People are being thrown from cars? Add seatbelts. People are dying from impact? Add airbags. Etc etc etc.

Guns are designed to hurt/kill. That's what they're made for. So it's not a design flaw. It's a user flaw. When you start looking at user flaws with cars, things like speeding or drunk driving, it's a much more difficult resolution. We try to pass laws. We try to hand out harsh punishments. Hell, we tried prohibition. The best way to deal with alcoholics is address the underlying issue, which is alcoholism. We don't blame the cars.

So what is the underlying issue with gun violence?
 
Chris Craig said:
A law limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a year. He bought what 33 guns this year and didnt trigger any suspicion
Click to expand...

This would require a number of things to make it possible.

#1 You'd have to pass universal background checks on all firearm sales in America - whether they're a private seller or from a shop.

#2 You'd have to have a national registry (which will never happen) because you have no idea where the guns are, when they were last sold, etc. If I bought a gun years ago and sold it to a buddy, we could say it happened before the law was passed to avoid the background check.

#3 who tracks the number of guns you have purchased? The ATF? The state?

#4 okay, you are now suspicious of a dude who bought 33 guns.... what now? Do you track him? Put a team on him? Is it the FBI? The ATF? How long do you follow someone until you call it off?
 
Natebishop3 said:
But that's a different kind of fix. You're talking about people dying from accidents. Adding new technology to make cars safer to drive. Cars are not designed specifically to kill people. They're meant for transportation, so it's easier to fix problems. People are being thrown from cars? Add seatbelts. People are dying from impact? Add airbags. Etc etc etc.

Guns are designed to hurt/kill. That's what they're made for. So it's not a design flaw. It's a user flaw. When you start looking at user flaws with cars, things like speeding or drunk driving, it's a much more difficult resolution. We try to pass laws. We try to hand out harsh punishments. Hell, we tried prohibition. The best way to deal with alcoholics is address the underlying issue, which is alcoholism. We don't blame the cars.

So what is the underlying issue with gun violence?
Click to expand...

I agree and maybe once Tesla/Google/Apple have perfected the self driving car they will work on the self shooting gun.

"Alexa, kill 50 people."
 
Natebishop3 said:
But that's a different kind of fix. You're talking about people dying from accidents. Adding new technology to make cars safer to drive. Cars are not designed specifically to kill people. They're meant for transportation, so it's easier to fix problems. People are being thrown from cars? Add seatbelts. People are dying from impact? Add airbags. Etc etc etc.

Guns are designed to hurt/kill. That's what they're made for. So it's not a design flaw. It's a user flaw. When you start looking at user flaws with cars, things like speeding or drunk driving, it's a much more difficult resolution. We try to pass laws. We try to hand out harsh punishments. Hell, we tried prohibition. The best way to deal with alcoholics is address the underlying issue, which is alcoholism. We don't blame the cars.
Click to expand...

The whole point is that regulation has helped reduce a problem - and dismissing regulation as a non-starter is just stupid. There must be some kind of regulation that will help - but it can not be on a city by city or state by state level, it must be federal.

There was a large cry how Chicago's tougher gun laws did not help - but when you look at police data - Chicago gets a lot of it's guns from Indiana - where this tough regulation does not exist - where a federal law would have likely helped.

So what is the underlying issue with gun violence?
Click to expand...

I would suspect that it is that too many unqualified people have easy access to guns.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I agree and maybe once Tesla/Google/Apple have perfected the self driving car they will work on the self shooting gun.

"Alexa, kill 50 people."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that disgruntled google worker with the secret project, is like, "I'll show all of you."
 
Natebishop3 said:
But that's a different kind of fix. You're talking about people dying from accidents. Adding new technology to make cars safer to drive. Cars are not designed specifically to kill people. They're meant for transportation, so it's easier to fix problems. People are being thrown from cars? Add seatbelts. People are dying from impact? Add airbags. Etc etc etc.

Guns are designed to hurt/kill. That's what they're made for. So it's not a design flaw. It's a user flaw. When you start looking at user flaws with cars, things like speeding or drunk driving, it's a much more difficult resolution. We try to pass laws. We try to hand out harsh punishments. Hell, we tried prohibition. The best way to deal with alcoholics is address the underlying issue, which is alcoholism. We don't blame the cars.

So what is the underlying issue with gun violence?
Click to expand...

But that IS a design flaw. Let's redesign guns to not hurt or kill people... but to give the people shot an orgasm. Mass shootings would no longer be a problem.

barfo
 
barfo said:
But that IS a design flaw. Let's redesign guns to not hurt or kill people... but to give the people shot an orgasm. Mass shootings would no longer be a problem.

barfo
Click to expand...

Maybe people will be willing to buy guns with automatic shot suppressor if they came with leather and AC?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
I agree and maybe once Tesla/Google/Apple have perfected the self driving car they will work on the self shooting gun.

"Alexa, kill 50 people."
Click to expand...
Don't know about this President, but the last two Commanders-in-Chief said we (the military) couldn't.
 
BrianFromWA said:
Don't know about this President, but the last two Commanders-in-Chief said we (the military) couldn't.
Click to expand...

1437010694-quadgun.gif
 
Natebishop3 said:
#1 stop counting suicides when we talk about gun violence. It's not part of this discussion that we're having, it's a completely different discussion entirely, but anti-gun people include it because it makes the stats look worse.

#2 realize that in a country of 323 million people, we're going to have homicides. We're going to have accidents. We're going to have deaths. According to the CDC, 2,626,418 people died last year from a number of different causes. Think about that.... 2.6 million people died last year. 44 thousand of those were from suicide. Cancer and heart disease were BY FAR the biggest killers. Just under 600k died from cancer and around 623 thousand from heart disease. Just a little over 11k deaths from guns in homicides. 11 thousand people in a country of 323 million. It's not an epidemic. The odds are extremely low that you will be killed by a gun. It's not even one of the top two things that could kill you. Why aren't we more concerned about our health? Obesity, and especially childhood obesity, IS an epidemic in this country.

#3 realize that "common sense gun laws" are bullshit. They wouldn't stop a mass shooting. It's not even a bandaid. It's a placebo. The Las Vegas shooter had no criminal record, so he passed his background checks with flying colors. He had no history of mental illness. He had money, so he could buy as many guns as he wanted. He thoroughly planned this attack out, so no amount of waiting period would have stopped him. So what law exactly are people hoping would have prevented Las Vegas from happening?

#4 We need to be addressing the cause of gun deaths, no the method with which they were carried out. Whether it's someone who commits suicide, or someone who does a drive by shooting, or someone who shoots up a school. There's a reason why they did it, and that reason is not guns. They're not shooting people because of guns, they're shooting because they're pissed off at the world. They're pissed off at their classmates, they're pissed off at the government, they're pissed off at their spouse or their parents, they're depressed, etc. Guns are not the reason. They're merely the tool. Similarly, the terrorist attack in Nice, France had nothing to do with trucks. It was someone carrying out an attack in the name of Islam, and his truck was the tool with which he was using to carry it out.
Click to expand...

GREAT Post.
 
Questions for those of you who think banning all firearms would help gun violence:

What percentage of gun crime criminals obtained the gun used, legally?

If you ban guns and force citizens to turn them over, do you actually expect the criminals to turn theirs in as well?

After answering questions one, and more importantly, two, Please answer this third question:

Are you actively trying to disarm the good people and only arm the bad people?????????????????


 
theprunetang said:
Good post. The last paragraph is one of the more reasonable things I've read on this subject.
Click to expand...

Well it goes to the original intent Madison had in offering the 2nd amendment. The right to bare arm in defense of your person and rights comes from Natural
law. I know Madison referred to it often as the Smithsonian has his copy of the Law of Nations on display. Madison made numerous notes in the margin of this book. Of course the final product (the amendment) got modified as you see it today in order to please his colleges. The right still survives even though the purpose is submerged.

It seems like pure logic too, every person has a the natural right to defend himself and those he protects. No logical right to possess the means to mount a successful offense against others.
 
barfo said:
But that IS a design flaw. Let's redesign guns to not hurt or kill people... but to give the people shot an orgasm. Mass shootings would no longer be a problem.

barfo
Click to expand...
Where have you been dude? An orgasm gun has already been created.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top