by "haveacarortwoorthree2" (haveacarortwoorthree2)
Published 10/02/2017 at 11:44
by "haveacarortwoorthree2" (haveacarortwoorthree2)
Published 10/02/2017 at 11:44
No Tags
STARS: 0
After another horrific mass shooting incident, I don’t know what the answer is to prevent (or at least attempt to minimize) these ... things murders attacks — I don’t even know how to begin to describe what happened. Reports obviously still are coming out, but it certainly sounded like the shooter was using one or more full auto weapons, which already are illegal.
The Second Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Obviously, the words are not taken literally — as noted above, full auto weapons already are outlawed, with some exceptions. Similarly, the federal, state, and local governments also have made unlawful things like concealed carry illegal absent a permit and felon possession of a firearm while imposing other restrictions such as dealer licensing requirements and prohibiting possession in most government buildings.
So what do we do? Shrug our shoulders and say the gun this guy used already has been outlawed so we don’t need to do anything? Shrug our shoulders and say “Second Amendment”? Amend the Constitution? Politicize this and similar incidents to try to outlaw guns that weren’t even used? In Dallas last year, someone shot and killed multiple police officers using a semi-auto rifle, which is a weapon that is perfectly legal to own.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I am struggling with this horror. Sorry for rambling.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
10/02/2017 at 11:57, STARS: 7
I think what we need to do is wait for all the information to come out. What guns were used? How were they obtained? What was this guy’s motives behind the shooting? Was there anyone else involved, or was he indeed acting on his own?
As much as we’d all like to have every answer to every unknown, info will come to light as law enforcement’s investigation progresses. We’re less than 12 hours since the incident; don’t jump to any conclusions yet.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 12:03, STARS: 3
I think the problem with banning certain types of weapons is two-fold.
A) They are still available illegally
B) Their legal versions are still very deadly, shooting as fast as you can pull the trigger. On top of that illegal modifications are available.
The frustrating thing about it all is that, how do you know? How can you prevent it? It seems almost impossible to know when and where someone is going to show up with ANY kind of gun.
The sad thing is, whatever we do, we won’t know if it works for probably 10, 25, maybe more than 50 years! A concerted effort to get guns off the streets would take decades. Any change in legislation would take decades to actually start statistically significantly showing results.
The problem there is it equals a lack of interest to prove out those strategies all the while there is a powerful lobby going in what looks like to me to be the opposite direction. It seems plain that the lobby (in-part) exists to prop up the weapons industry.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
10/02/2017 at 12:03, STARS: 7
It’s messed up, it’s sad, it’s wrong, it’s tragic, I don’t know what else to say. I have my own opinions, but I’m sure that others would find fault with them. I think all fire arms sales should be regulated through national level background checks, waiting periods, require registration, and mandatory safety training. Any fire arm that is considered an assault rifle or similar should be illegal.
FYI I am a gun owner and use my rifles for target shooting and hunting. I have shot and handled numerous hand guns and they are fun for plinking but obliviously designed for self defense (shooting at people) I will probably never own one since I’m not into target shooting with hand guns.
Last word: I think open carry is a nanny for a bunch of boys who are scared of the world. The only people who should be packing openly are law enforcement.
"BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires" (biturbo228)
10/02/2017 at 12:06, STARS: 1
From first impressions, this seems to be one of those cases which has sod all to do with the 2nd amendment. If the shooter possessed an illegal firearm, then the fact that others are allowed to own legal firearms has pretty much no bearing (other than the side-effect of glorification of gun-violence, the effect of which is difficult to quantify).
Realistically, the best defence against this sort of thing is probably going to be better education available for everyone (and/or better economic prospects for people such that they can afford a better education) and government funding pumped into making the US’ mental health services better than those of your average third world country*.
*Please note that here I’m not talking about the quality of each individual mental health service. I have absolutely no doubt that each person within these organisations does a hell of a lot of good. It’s more that the number of institutions and widespread availability of mental health care available in the US is nowhere near sufficient to cater to their population.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
10/02/2017 at 12:07, STARS: 10
An entire classroom of schoolchildren was slaughtered and nothing changed. Why should we expect this to be any different?
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/02/2017 at 12:09, STARS: 5
Reports obviously still are coming out, but it certainly sounded like the shooter was using one or more full auto weapons, which already are illegal.
Incorrect. Full auto or class III weapons are legal in certain states. You need to go through a different process though. And they are not cheap, and you can’t buy one built after May of 1986.
I haven’t seen a report that’s confirmed it was a full auto weapon. It may have been a bump fire stock or something like that based on some stuff I’ve seen regarding fire rate.
I fully understand the need for increased gun control, and to some degree I support measures being introduced.
However, much like our “war on terror” the issue is not clear cut, and we are fighting against psychology. Keeping guns out of the wrong hands is a fabulous start, but it’s not like not having guns will put an end to this. There’s a more deep seated issue regarding shitty mental health.
"NJAnon" (NJAnon)
10/02/2017 at 12:09, STARS: 0
How relaxed is the security of las vegas hotels? How do you get that many guns AND ammunition in a room when there are security cameras everywhere and security guards everywhere? I realize at hotels people are loading and unloading like crazy, but that just means all the more reason especially at tourist spots to check people.
-Complacency-
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/02/2017 at 12:10, STARS: 0
Full auto is legal in some areas.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/02/2017 at 12:15, STARS: 0
Well, the SHOT show is in Vegas, as are some well stocked tourist ranges. Unless his guns were obvious, they could have just been in Pelican cases. I travel with those all the time.
"Shane MacGowan's Teeth" (shaneteeth)
10/02/2017 at 12:15, STARS: 1
I’ve seen this other places, and I don’t understand it. The guy was in a hotel room, not the casino floor. He probably took everything up in luggage. Are you saying the hotel should be checking every suitcase that every guest brings? Because that way lies madness.
"haveacarortwoorthree2" (haveacarortwoorthree2)
10/02/2017 at 12:20, STARS: 1
Yeah, I actually wrote later that “ full auto weapons already are outlawed, with some exceptions” — I’m not having the best morning in terms of clarity.
"mazda616" (mazda616)
10/02/2017 at 12:22, STARS: 0
It just sucks that this has become so...normalized. Like, another day, another shooting. Insanity.
I hate to be this way, but I’m legitimately afraid of going to concerts anymore. I just saw a notification that one of my favorite bands (Breaking Benjamin) is coming to a nearby city. My first thought was “Awesome! Let’s get tickets.” My second thought was “What if there’s a shooter?” It’s sad that the world has come to this. You never think it’ll happen until it does. I’m thinking of and praying for this nation and this world.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 12:24, STARS: 3
(and/or better economic prospects for people such that they can afford a better education)
I think this is the key to a LOT of our problems! The poorest people in this country are being FUCKED over SO DAMN HARD. It’s abundantly clear that politicians just don’t care about them, especially this administration. Every piece of legislation suggested seems to in some way be a mechanism to make the rich in this country richer, the middle class gets <1% better and the rest falls by the wayside.
What will they do with this extra money in their pockets? It’ll stay exactly there. More specifically, it’ll go into their investment portfolios, trust funds, inheritances, education for their nieces and nephews, etc etc, rich people stuff.
But what would poor people do with that money? Create actual commerce perhaps? Yes! Because they needed houses, replacement appliances, better groceries, new shoes, to pay overdue bills, etc etc etc.
Anyway, to circle back, I think a lot that is wrong with this country would be fixed by actually caring about those that are least well off. Find a way to give hope to those that have resigned themselves to a life of poverty. I think a big step toward that would be to fund their relocation and education in an area where they can thrive, rather then being stuck in their perpetual cycle of poverty with no way out. Oh and healthcare, everyone needs some damn healthcare! And your church should be the only one that can tell you not to get a procedure done, not your government. I bet our government and our churches would find a pleasant decrease in that thing you know I’m talking about, if all of the above were to be taken seriously.
I’m not saying this shooter shot people because he was poor and I am not saying the above would’ve prevented it. But I think the above would statistically improve this country on a lot of measures. Less civil unrest, more equality, less people desperate enough to reach for a gun to solve their problems. Because they have access to jobs, education and luxuries that we should all be able to enjoy.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
10/02/2017 at 12:25, STARS: 2
In 1996, the conservative government of Australia (named the Liberal Party , confusingly to Americans) did a big huge gun buyback program. It worked . We should do the same.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 12:27, STARS: 1
“I think open carry is a nanny for a bunch of boys who are scared of the world.”
I saw a kid do this in target a while ago, the fucking gun was dangling off of his basketball shorts. Basketball shorts don’t seem like a strong/stiff enough material to properly hold a gun holster. I immediately went to management and told them he made me extremely uncomfortable. Described what he looked like and where I last saw him, after which I was more than happy to get the hell out of there.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 12:28, STARS: 5
Just so everyone knows, getting a Class III license requires a nine-month background check, yearly inspections by the feds, and federal approval to bring the weapon across state lines.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 12:28, STARS: 3
A suitcase? A suitcase would probably work.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 12:35, STARS: 1
“I think what we need to do is wait for all the information to come out. “
We had a problem before this happened and we have a problem after this happened. Why are you telling us to wait? What am I waiting for? What can I do after this waiting period is over as opposed to what I can do now? What good are these details going to do us? They’ll just underscore an existing problem, it’ll just add to the statistics.
“don’t jump to any conclusions yet.”
The main and very sad conclusion to this event is that over 50 people died, tragically, due to a mass shooting, it’s happened before, it’s happened again. Again. There is no need to wait to know that this is a bad thing.
"deekster_caddy" (deekster_caddy)
10/02/2017 at 12:38, STARS: 0
My preference at this time is to see more funding put into education, identifcation and aid for mental illnesses. Imagine if some of these people had help before they reached the point where mass murder seemed like their only option.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 12:38, STARS: 0
We should do the same and so much more. But it seems to me sensible legislation keeps getting voted down. Then we go into an uproar shortly after a shooting with one side screaming “give everyone guns” the other side screaming “take away guns”. Every time we seem to land in the middle, which = not doing anything.
"Chariotoflove" (chariotoflove)
10/02/2017 at 12:40, STARS: 0
Everyone is going to do what is always done. They will look back and say, “we should have” or “we could have.”But in these cases, I’m not sure there is anything that could have been done or that we should do in the future to prevent this kind of thing. These things usually seem to come down to mental health issues, and privacy in health information is held in such confidence that there are many laws and regulations to codify it. Short of a total lockdown police state, how can we anticipate and thwart the actions of people who go off the deep end?
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
10/02/2017 at 12:40, STARS: 0
I feel as though if he had this we’d know by now. That’s a pretty easy thing for investigators to find out and would be leaked to the press almost immediately. So, the weapons were either an illegal full-auto firearm or a bump fire as mentioned above. Bump fire usually means poor accuracy, however, which wouldn’t jive with the notion that he fired 500+ rounds at a range of over 400 yrds. Maybe, but it’s unlikely from a bump fire setup.
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
10/02/2017 at 12:41, STARS: 1
Exactly. Everyone rushes to get the answers, but these things take time.
"deekster_caddy" (deekster_caddy)
10/02/2017 at 12:41, STARS: 1
Not only mental health services, but public education and awareness - usually these things need to be caught by somebody else before they can be addressed.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
10/02/2017 at 12:41, STARS: 1
Wouldn’t have stopped the paris truck attacks. wouldn’t have stopped the marathon bombings or 9/11.
We are lucky that the people who perpetrate these attacks are crazy and dumb. If they were intelligent many more people would be dead.
"NJAnon" (NJAnon)
10/02/2017 at 12:42, STARS: 0
Well we gotta try something. We have smart people that made artificial hearts and mapped the human genome, so they can figure out some kind of idea.
To leave their procedures as is would be failing IMO.
"nermal" (nermal)
10/02/2017 at 12:44, STARS: 0
I don’t think that getting the guns & ammo into the hotel room was that difficult. Most likely they were in large duffle bags or suitcases, which pretty much everybody checking into the hotel has. No way to tell the contents without airport-style baggage scanners.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 12:45, STARS: 0
I’m sure the investigators know the gun type, but if it was an illegally-possessed fully-automatic firearm, I doubt they would release that information immediately. That would either mean someone stole or illegally sold a Class-III firearm, or it was smuggled into the USA (the Charlie Hebdo attackers used fully-automatic weapons smuggled into France).
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
10/02/2017 at 12:45, STARS: 0
That’s exactly how I feel too. Most of these guys are not mature enough to safely handle a fire arm let alone walk around in public with one.
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
10/02/2017 at 12:46, STARS: 0
I still go, but I’m always mindful of where the exits are and what my potential options are in the event that something terrible happens. I run a few scenarios through my head before the show starts so I’m as prepared as I can be. It’s part of the world we live in.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
10/02/2017 at 12:49, STARS: 0
If the banning of specific types of firearms had started back when they were passing the Brady bill, we would probably be seeing the effects today. You are correct it will take decades to remove assault rifles form the hands of US citizens. Most will never be turned in.
"Spoon II" (Spoon_II)
10/02/2017 at 12:51, STARS: 0
If you really really want to stop them, you have to do what Australia did. Check it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
"nermal" (nermal)
10/02/2017 at 12:54, STARS: 0
I think you need to separate the person from the guns, and look at each individually.
As far as the person, what’s his background? Early reports that I’ve read show he doesn’t have a criminal history, and did have a private pilot’s license. Allegedly he was going through a divorce though. Perhaps his ex liked country music? The band playing?
For the guns, speculation ranges from full-auto belt feed (technically legal, but very expensive and difficult to acquire), to a modified semi-auto with a hand crank and larger magazines (technically legal and easy to obtain in unmodified state, illegal and not very difficult to obtain in modified state).
More information is needed before directing outrage anywhere. If the person had zero history of violence or any mental distress, then how do you look for signs of impending violence and mental distress to prevent the next one?
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
10/02/2017 at 12:56, STARS: 3
You’re asking why we should wait on information to come out before deciding what our positions are on the specifics of the event? Here’s why: because jumping to the wrong conclusions based off of internet rage and rumors can make for incorrect assumptions of the events. You can have basic beliefs (“I don’t like guns”, or “We should repeal the second amendment”), but deciding what happened in your own mind before an investigation confirms facts is not logical; it’s emotional. I remember people jumping to incorrect conclusions just hours after the Pulse Nightclub shooting occurred.
No one is saying that it’s NOT a bad thing. Who the hell is saying that? All I’m saying is to wait for investigators to release information before jumping to certain conclusions about the FACTS OF THE EVENT. Everyone with a stitch of humanity knows this was a tragic event, and now we need to find out how it occurred and what to do about it to reduce the odds that it would happen again.
"NJAnon" (NJAnon)
10/02/2017 at 13:00, STARS: 1
The sad part it may never be different. it may be another “well we hope the american population in many months time will let this terrible memory fade away from their minds.” They also end up shooting themselves so we can never know why they did it.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/02/2017 at 13:01, STARS: 0
A third is dual wielding rested semiauto rifles with large cap mags. Everything I’ve heard on the weapon(s) used leads back to the same audio clip.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 13:04, STARS: 2
In the same way that flying an airliner is legal in some areas. There are a few barriers to entry.
"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn)
10/02/2017 at 13:05, STARS: 1
If the slaughter of innocent children in a classroom doesn’t change anything, then neither will this. There will be the usual calls for caution until we have all the facts, a cooling off period that is necessary to help us forget what happened. Then the finger pointing and the recriminations will begin, but, in a few weeks’ time, the only people who will remember are the families of those 58 (so far) people who were killed.
"crowmolly" (crowmolly)
10/02/2017 at 13:07, STARS: 0
Sure. You have to get your class III, locate the weapon you want built pre-86, have the thousands to buy it, and then have the thousands to feed it. Then keep up with everything and be ready for inspection.
Still legal though, and probably a bit easier than flying a private airliner.
"Mercedes Streeter" (smart)
10/02/2017 at 13:07, STARS: 1
I think all fire arms sales should be regulated through national level background checks, waiting periods, require registration, and mandatory safety training. Any fire arm that is considered an assault rifle or similar should be illegal.
Last word: I think open carry is a nanny for a bunch of boys who are scared of the world. The only people who should be packing openly are law enforcement.
And all of these measures are exceptionally reasonable. If you intend to buy a device that’s sole purpose is to end someone or something’s life, you should have to go through some basic safety and legal measures. Don’t like them, tough luck, you aren’t getting a gun (legally, at least).
I’ll toss in a psychological evaluation too. I’ve noticed that in a few of these shootings, the shooter would easily sail through the background checks, waiting periods, and safety trainings, but likely would not have passed a psychological evaluation. If you’re not of sound mind, sorry, no gun. With my depression, I wouldn’t be likely to pass a psychological evaluation. And that’s fine, if I had a gun in my house and if I ever became suicidal again, it would no longer be a “suicide attempt”...
With all that said, one day I’d love to shoot a gun. I’d love to get familiar with what I think are beautiful devices...but still, a device that should only be in the hands of a responsible human.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/02/2017 at 13:09, STARS: 0
r/guns is going in pretty deep on this today, it primarily sounds like one of those crank setups due to the variability in rate of fire. Either way, I can see bumpstocks and cranks becoming an NFA item immediately.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 13:11, STARS: 0
Cheaper than getting all of your licenses, but the background check for an ATP would be less rigorous.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
10/02/2017 at 13:14, STARS: 3
Motive? I’m just assuming “crazy people do crazy fucking things”.
It’s hard to fathom a real motive behind this one beyond “cray cray”.
The weapons, ultimately are just a tool. Effective tools, given the target rich environment, but tools nonetheless. We all have guesses, based on levels of experience and prior knowledge, but as you point out, that’s all they are. Just guesses.
This one is fucking depressing.
"Rust and Dust - Oppositelock Forever" (rustanddust)
10/02/2017 at 13:17, STARS: 0
Also could’ve been a DIY modification, there’s plenty of AR/AKs in this country that can be converted with a bit of ingenuity.
"Shamoononon drives like a farmer" (shamoononon)
10/02/2017 at 13:18, STARS: 0
I feel like people are feeding too much off of the hate, conspiracy theories, etc being posed by social media and news media. Lots of bickering and fighting. I don’t know if this is the case here. Just really sad for all involved, so innocent.
"RutRut" (RDR)
10/02/2017 at 13:20, STARS: 1
It’s currently so variable by state right now. I’m in Michigan and concealed carry which requires an 8 hour joke of a training class, fingerprints, background check through NICS and registration. Long guns get a little simpler than buying a pistol here, private purchase of a pistol you are required to go get a pistol purchase permit, aka the sheriffs office runs you through NICS and issues you a permit. We also have to drop off a pistol sales record for every handgun bought to the Sheriff Office of Records, long guns don’t.
I can’t stand the term “assualt rifle” though, the AWB in the 90s was kind of a joke since select fire had already been regulated out. It was basically a witch hunt after rifles similar to the AR or AK platform, defining features like a pistol grip, collapsible stock and bayonet lug were included in the verbiage.
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
10/02/2017 at 13:22, STARS: 0
Just saw the article about that hit USA Today. Seems like the most likely setup.
"Highlander-Datsuns are Forever" (jamesbowland)
10/02/2017 at 13:27, STARS: 2
Shooting guns is a very thrilling experience. I can’t deny it’s fun.
However they are deadly weapons, hand guns and assault rifles in particular. The first time I shot a hand gun I had the realization that the sole purpose of this gun is to shoot at people and I made a personal decision to never own a hand gun after that. I think that no matter how horrible a person is I don’t believe they should be shot, especially by me.
I think the mentally fit test would be good to but would be very difficult to evaluate and set up metrics for. Obliviously if you have depression a waiting period may be a good thing because you can’t just go out and buy a hand gun and get it done the same day. Hopefully by the time you are able to get the hand gun you have moved out of the depressed phase and no longer want to purchase the gun.
My boss parked his running car in an enclosed garage and was almost successful, an employee showed up to work and just happened to look for something in the garage and found him 9/10ths gone.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
10/02/2017 at 13:28, STARS: 0
Who knows why he did it? Some media sources are saying certain things, but until I hear the investigators say it, or see proof of the claims, I’ll be skeptical. This is also the reason why I didn’t believe that he was a Muslim convert earlier today, as a couple of news agencies were reporting. If I see proof of it, okay.
Is he crazy, or in a legal sense, “mentally deficient”? Maybe. A homicidal asshole? But of course. Hell, Ronald Reagan got shot because the shooter wanted to impress Jodie Foster. Insane.
The “tool” part of your statement is what I’m most concerned about. Were they legally-purchased semi-auto weapons that were modified to become illegal? Did he have a license to own fully-auto weapons? Would cracking down on kits to make semi-auto rifles fully automatic help prevent a repeat of this strategy? We all know the big picture of this horrible strategy. But, as they say, the devil is in the details.
And yes, depressing as all hell.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 13:29, STARS: 0
A “bit” of ingenuity is underselling the requirements. It would requite replacing the trigger, slide, firing pin, and re-enforcing at least the firing chamber to handle the speed and heat of fully-automatic firing. It would require a skilled machinist at least.
A device to mechanically pull the trigger rapidly could have also been used, but that doesn’t solve the problems with heat and jamming.
"Hammerdown" (hammerdown32)
10/02/2017 at 13:30, STARS: 0
Some Vegas hotels have metal detectors, but bringing a firearm into your hotel room as part of your luggage is completely legal. He checked in on Thursday, so I’m guessing he brought them in over time to keep suspicion low.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 13:38, STARS: 0
Again, I think unfortunately that this event is statistically irrelevant. How many shootings have we said the same thing for “wait till the facts are confirmed”.
I know the facts: this country has a problem with mass shootings. We don’t need the details from another shootings to start addressing that. Sure we can learn specifics from this shooting, but in the grand scheme of things we already know that mass shootings need to be prevented.
Sure I can incorrectly assume things about this shooting, but it doesn’t change the bigger picture.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 13:39, STARS: 0
“these things take time”
WHAT THINGS?!
We have a problem with mass shootings. It needs to be addressed, what are we waiting for? This is another in a long line of tragic events. Yes, we’ll get more specifics, we may learn valuable information, but in the grand scheme of things there’s nothing to wait for. We need to actually start passing sensible legislation.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 13:40, STARS: 0
Yeah because we have this thing called “grandfathered in”, sometimes it just doesn’t make sense.
"yamahog" (yamahog)
10/02/2017 at 13:41, STARS: 0
casual reminder:
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 13:42, STARS: 0
Yes, I often think what could have happened if I had confronted him about it. 99% chance he’d simply get upset that I dare question his rights but never pull the gun, but there is that 1% chance.
"atfsgeoff" (atfsgeoff)
10/02/2017 at 13:47, STARS: 0
No special license required to own, just to manufacture with intent to sell (and you can only sell newly manufactured machine guns to government entities), or make a business out of buying/selling them.
Just a $200 tax stamp per machine gun, and some fingerprints along with a form sent to the BATF. But because the machine gun registry was closed in ‘86, even the cheapest stamped steel POS sub guns that cost $3 to make, now cost $5000+ to buy. Fixed supply, ever-growing demand.
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
10/02/2017 at 13:48, STARS: 1
The marathon bombing that killed how many people in a crowded area?
The 9/11 attacks that unlike the endless mass shootings that followed resulted in actual changes in procedure to make future attacks impossible?
The Nice (not Paris) attack that is leading authorities to install bollards and barriers in crowded public spaces?
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 13:51, STARS: 2
I would call a nine-month background check, annual inspections, and having local police know who you are and exactly what you own as more than “fingerprints and forms.”
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
10/02/2017 at 13:52, STARS: 1
That’s really casual.
(nothing else shows, was there supposed to be something else?)
"yamahog" (yamahog)
10/02/2017 at 13:53, STARS: 2
cursesssssssss it was this picture
"Thomas Donohue" (tomonomics)
10/02/2017 at 13:54, STARS: 0
Vegas hotels (and most others) are a non-stop parade of large luggage bags, beer-filled coolers, trade-show equipment, and golf club travel bags.
I imagine most of what he had could have been brought to his room in two trips (or less) using just a full size luggage roller, a golf bag, and a rolling cooler.
He was staying there for ~four days I think. Nothing would look suspicious as all.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
10/02/2017 at 13:54, STARS: 0
nice try, but a gun ban doesn’t prevent anyone from building homemade explosives out of cooking implements nor does it prevent anyone from buying a chemistry textbook.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
10/02/2017 at 13:56, STARS: 1
Since it seems you’re inferring that you don’t need the details to demand stronger laws on firearms, I’ll suggest the following:
If you want to be SUCCESSFUL at getting a better deal to help prevent a similar future event, then you absolutely need to know the facts. If you want to give a CONVINCING argument that people can agree with, then you absolutely need to know the facts. Let’s face it: The “Mass shootings are bad, so we should repeal the 2nd Amendment/be more stringent with who can buy guns/do away with assault rifles” hasn’t done much in the past. And that’s not a knock on you or anyone that would make the argument, it’s just the facts.
If the rifles were indeed fully automatic from the manufacturer, then working to limit those would stand a better chance of success. If they were altered to become fully automatic, then trying to get that banned (or greatly increase the legal ramifications of manufacturing/selling those pieces) would have a higher chance of becoming law. The other side will know the facts, and they’ll out-debate you on those details.
Blanket statements and big picture debates are great on twitter, but if you want actual change, yeah, the details and specifics are important.
"atfsgeoff" (atfsgeoff)
10/02/2017 at 13:58, STARS: 0
No need for skilled machining on most autoloader platforms, oftentimes you can simply file down the edge of a semiautomatic sear, and turn it into a full-auto-only firearm (no select-fire switch though, that makes things much more complex). Mechanically speaking, a fully automatic firearm is actually much simpler than a semiautomatic.
An off-the-shelf AR or AK semiauto rifle doesn’t actually need reinforcement of the firing chamber or barrel to fire full auto. In fact, M16 (select-fire military spec) barreled upper receivers are
readily available over the counter
, as they are not even considered firearms without the lower receiver.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 14:04, STARS: 0
I’m arguing that whatever we find in this particular shooting is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We’ve investigated plenty of these shootings. We know that sometimes the guns are legal, sometimes illegal. Sometimes a blend if illegal parts were added to a legal gun. We know that sometimes these shootings are racially motivated, sometimes simply hatred, often times mental instability, etc etc.
We unfortunately have had so many mass shootings that I do NOT need the details from this one. Correction, politicians/lawmakers/activists should NOT need the details from this one to know the problems that need to be addressed, there is already PLENTY of data out there from previous shootings. This shooting being so large me skew some statistics one way or another, but it won’t significantly change the way we (try to) approach this problem.
"atfsgeoff" (atfsgeoff)
10/02/2017 at 14:04, STARS: 0
I know guys who’ve been approved in 3 months or less, and haven’t been visited by the BATF in over a decade to “inspect” their squirt guns.
And “local police” is a misnomer, you simply need to notify your choice of chief law enforcement officer to your locality, be it your chief of police, sheriff of your county, or even your local district attorney. It’s all frankly rather theatrical for a piece of metal that’s statistically less likely to kill someone than a bucket.
"Gamecat235" (Gamecat235)
10/02/2017 at 14:06, STARS: 1
Message received, agreed with, and an apology for the way over generalized statements above.
all I was trying to convey was that I cannot fathom a narrative here which doesn’t involve deep rooted physiological issues which manifested in a seriously abnormal manner.
I absolutely agree that everyone should be careful to equate these things on any level. And I thank you for reminding me of the casual nature of my association / verbiage.
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
10/02/2017 at 14:08, STARS: 1
No, bans on explosive materials prevent people from building homemade bombs. Attempted Times Square car bombing? Failed to detonate. Attempted Lower Manhattan bombing? One failed to detonate, one did no injuries. The Shoe Bomber: failed to detonate. Marathon bombing: two bombs kill three people in a densely packed area.
It is very difficult to actually make a bomb, even if you have detailed instructions. The vast majority either fail to detonate or the makers get arrested because, you know, buying materials to make a bomb tends to raise some eyebrows. That’s by design. Explosives have been tightly regulated and controlled since the Bath School bombing in the 20s. After the Oklahoma bombing, materials needed to make bombs became even more tightly controlled.
Why do you seem to think that guns are a weapon of first resort and that people will just move on to bombing, when it’s exactly the opposite that’s the case.
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
10/02/2017 at 14:14, STARS: 0
It is pretty easy to rent a uhaul though
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
10/02/2017 at 14:17, STARS: 0
We both agree that lawmakers shouldn’t need the details.
But the other side will use the details. and thus, both sides must.
"For Sweden" (rallybeetle)
10/02/2017 at 14:18, STARS: 1
The WSJ has an update: some of the guns were fully automatic.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/las-vegas-suspect-likely-used-automatic-rifle-in-massacre-1506966716
"Honeybunchesofgoats" (honeybunche0fgoats)
10/02/2017 at 14:18, STARS: 0
It’s pretty easy to install bollards and barricades wherever there are large gatherings of people. New York does it absolutely all of the time.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 14:32, STARS: 0
Both sides? Being what? The lawmakers and lobbyists?
The fact that sensible legislation on not murdering people can be lobbied against, the fact that there can be opposing points of view on it is just insane to me. The fact that we should even need the details of yet another shooting to do something about this problem is so deeply saddening.
It’s likely going to take decades for any legislation to have a significant effect, and we are so painfully slow at starting the clock on it. Some legislation might have no affect, or god forbid the opposite effect. But we don’t even seem to be trying (very hard).
"My bird IS the word" (mybirdistheword)
10/02/2017 at 14:32, STARS: 0
That hasn’t been my experience at most events. regardless, banning guns will not stop mass killings. I will fully admit they are a weapon of convenience, and I am against removing the NFA and other laws, but a weapons ban will be wholly ineffective.
"DipodomysDeserti" (dipodomysdeserti)
10/02/2017 at 14:49, STARS: 2
This is partially incorrect. You need a Class III license to sell NFA weapons, not to buy them. You have to fill out an ATF Form 4 at a “class three dealer” and purchase a NFA tax stamp for each NFA weapon. You used to be able to avoid the background check by buying and filling out the form 4 using a corporation. This applies to machine guns, SBRs and SBSs.
Source: I’ve actually done this
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
10/02/2017 at 14:52, STARS: 2
It didn’t really work, or at least, the efficacy is being debated. Take a look at the following graph. Note the downward trend.
Seems like a good trend, right? Well, the Australian firearm ban happened in 1996, the last quarter of the graph. The downward trend started long before the ban was implemented.
Most deaths by firearm are suicide, but most outlets report “firearm deaths” as an aggregate so they can make the statistics seem worse. That graph above starts at about 0.7 homicides per 100,000 people. In comparison, the suicide death rate by firearm in Australia was roughly 5 times higher (3.5/100k) and suicides by other methods were about 10 times higher (7.5/100k).
In short, both homicide by firearm and suicide by firearm started declining in 1980, a full 16 years before the buyback program. Most of the news touting the success of the program ignores the years before the ban.
"Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever" (superchan7)
10/02/2017 at 15:06, STARS: 0
I have no skin in the gun game. I have very little interest in tools of destruction and death. That said, my opinion isn’t going to influence the active and responsible gun owners and users in the US.
Ideally I would like very strict licensing along with mental and physical competency tests, perhaps annual. If you are not of sound mind and physical shape, you should not get to keep your license and your guns. Each gun and each S/N should be tracked to a legitimate owner on a national database.
It blows my mind that driving and cars are so strictly regulated, but very little oversight for a tool with no practical purpose other than killing.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
10/02/2017 at 15:08, STARS: 0
Just because the downward trend existed before the buyback, doesn’t mean that the buyback didn’t work to continue the trend. There’s nothing to say that the trend would have continued without the buyback.
An argument could be made that, in theory, the buyback should have accelerated the downward trend, but on the other hand, it’s just as reasonable to propose that the buyback was necessary to continue the downward trend.
The fact of the matter is, there is no compelling argument to be made in favor of the continued overly-permissive firearms regulations in the US. There are only arguments in favor of maintaining the current regulatory environment:
BUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT SAYS I CAN KEEP MAH GUNS, GIMME ALL THE GUNS, I NEED DEM GUNS. CONSTITUTION WOOOOOO!
False claims about more guns somehow reducing crime, with questionable statistics that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
Neither of these is an acceptable argument.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
10/02/2017 at 15:37, STARS: 0
There are always people in the gun control debate that are more stringent than others (on both sides of the issue). Some want zero prohibitions, others want a complete repeal.
So, we’ve been talking about this, but I’d like to know, in your opinion, what should be done. A complete repeal, and all guns taken away? A ban on automatic weapons? Semi automatic weapons? Military style rifles (like AR-15s)?
No judgement on my end, and I’m certainly not trying to start an argument. Just a conversation.
"haveacarortwoorthree2" (haveacarortwoorthree2)
10/02/2017 at 15:43, STARS: 0
Driving isn’t very regulated in the US. Once you get a license, which is relatively easy to do, off you go. Sure, there are speed limits and such given the state’s police power, but I wouldn’t really call those strict regulation.
Cars really aren’t that regulated either. A new car design, once it meets fed govt (and California) regulations, is good to go. Some states have once a year car inspections, some states let you drive around in whatever ancient crapcan you can afford. Insurance? Sure, you’re supposed to have it almost everywhere, but a lot of people don’t have any or have very minimal insurance.
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
10/02/2017 at 15:45, STARS: 2
“Just because the downward trend existed before the buyback, doesn’t mean that the buyback didn’t work to continue the trend.”
You seems to grasp that there may not be a causal relationship between the buyback and the trends.
“There’s nothing to say that the trend would have continued without the buyback.”
Whoops. I spoke to soon. Perhaps you don’t understand.
The same reasons that lead you to say “there’s nothing to say the trend would have continued without the buyback” are the reasons that we cannot say that the buyback worked. There’s no evidence of a causal relationship!
I’ve been through this argument before. So I’ll just hit the highlights.
Here in the U.S. people are far, far more likely to die from something other than a firearm and when they do die by firearm, it is far more likely that they do so by their own hand.
When a firearm is used to kill someone, it is much more likely to be a handgun than a rifle. So-called “assault” rifles are still classified as rifles. It’s even more common for people to kill other people with their bare hands, a blunt object, or a knife than with a rifle.
You shouldn’t trust the media. You should trust me. Go look up the statistics for yourself. A good place to start is the Center for Disease Control. You will find the numbers in the National Vital Statistics reports.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
10/02/2017 at 16:00, STARS: 0
You’re right, there is not a direct causal relationship and it’s not possible to prove 100% that the Australian gun buyback was a success vs. not doing it, because not doing it didn’t happen so we can’t compare it.
BUT.
You know what didn’t happen? A reversal, or slowdown, of the downward trend in gun violence. At the very least, the Australian buyback didn’t have any adverse impact on gun crime. The observable evidence, at the very least, says that it won’t make things worse, and it could make things better.
I’m all about costs vs. benefits. The benefit of potentially lowering gun crimes outweighs the cost of infringing on the second amendment, the modern I GET TO HAVE ALL THE GUNS interpretation of which has only existed since roughly the 1970s, thanks to the gun lobby.
Spare me the “don’t trust the media” nonsense.
"Chan - Mid-engine with cabin fever" (superchan7)
10/02/2017 at 16:02, STARS: 0
The roads are constantly policed for registration expiry and traffic violations (nevermind the actual incentive to do so), and cars are regularly tested for emissions.
To me that sounds like more than what is being done to ensure that guns and their owners are in proper shape.
"Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs" (yowen)
10/02/2017 at 16:37, STARS: 0
In my opinion? I think guns have no place in ANY public spaces unless it’s for hunting. Or carried by law enforcement. But knowing that will cause an uproar I’m certainly open to a compromise.
Certainly to start I’d like to see tighter gun control, stricter background checks, perhaps waiting periods for non-hunting weapons, stricter control of resale (the used market). If we’d keep the possibility of a concealed permit, I think it should be expensive and I think the training should be very extensive.
I’d also like laws to be the same across the country. That’ll probably cause an uproar too.
I’d like to see investments in education, gun buyback programs, no-questions-asked gun turn-ins, and no being grandfathered into anything. If you have a gun that according to current law you no longer meet the requirements to own it, I think you should be required to get up to date on the requirements.
It’s my understanding some background checks that could easily be run, aren’t currently being run. In this day and age it’s got to be so easy to at least run the most thorough possible check against all relevant databases.
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
10/02/2017 at 16:59, STARS: 1
Ah, but we CAN compare it to something! Take a look at the trends in homicide rates in the U.S. over the same time period. Notice something interesting? The homicide rate over the same time period fell about the same amount in the U.S. as it did in Australia.
So, the observable data shows that the homicide rate fell in two different countries, one which instituted a weapons ban, and one which did not.
Go figure.
I should say that I had a mistype in my previous post. You shouldn’t trust the media and you shouldn’t trust me. People have a way of skewing the results to support their arguments, especially the media. Just look at how the media likes to show the downward trend in homicide rates following the ban in Australia, but they ignore the same downward trend before the ban.
Hell, even you are making arguments about what it could do while ignoring the numbers. Did you realize that the non-firearm suicide rate in Australia went UP after the ban? Someone using flawed logic would conclude that banning firearms in Australia just caused an increase in suicides.
By the way, suicide by firearm did decrease after the ban - at the same rate it was decreasing before the ban.
"PatBateman" (PatBateman)
10/02/2017 at 17:12, STARS: 0
I can get with most of those items, with the exception of expensive CHLs. For lack of a better word, I find it classist. One could also argue disparate impact against certain minority groups.
However, there are plenty of people, both public and private citizens, that wouldn’t.
When I was in college studying for a Fire Science degree (I ended up with a Management BBA), one of the classes I took revolves around the history and reasoning behind fire codes. Basically, damn near every major building and fire code was a result of some major tragedy. The lessons learned from each disaster translated into new laws that were enacted to prevent it from reoccurring.
In my very humble opinion, the same should be true with each major mass shooting. For example, I thought that, after Sandy Hook, it should be mandatory to have biometric gun safes for storing AR-15s, considering the shooter stole his mom’s gun, shot her, and then went on and... Other possible regulations could have been made as well.
If you want to know where I’m coming from when I say that I’m interested in the details of this shooting, it’s because that is where we start finding out where the system went wrong and figure out how to have the best chances of preventing it the next time. Hell, if this turd got his guns at gun shows, it might just be the driving force behind a limitation on those shows.
"BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires" (biturbo228)
10/02/2017 at 17:14, STARS: 1
Absolutely agreed, and that last paragraph is key. I’m not saying that poverty and lack of healthcare and welfare were the causes of this specific case, or are even the only causes that matter. More that they’re things that should be being done anyway, with tons of other benefits, that would also help reduce this sort of thing.
"BiTurbo228 - Dr Frankenstein of Spitfires" (biturbo228)
10/02/2017 at 17:26, STARS: 1
Absolutely. I actually work for the NHS here in the UK and there’s a big drive on mental health at the moment. Parity of Esteem is the name for it, with the idea that mental heath should be accorded the same importance as physical health. A big part of that is to try and change the stigma around mental health. People bang on at you to go to the doctor when something’s physically wrong, why not when your mental health isn’t right?
I’m not holding the NHS up as the pinnacle of care here, there are a a hell of a lot of problems with it (only some of which is funding). However, change around mental health is somethig i feel we’re getting right at the moment :)
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
10/02/2017 at 17:37, STARS: 0
Your graph is the overall homicide rate in the US, not the firearm homicide rate.
But that doesn’t even really matter.
Everything you’ve said so far is some form of statistical argument for why a proposed restriction on guns might not achieve its intended effect.
You’ve yet to provide any argument in favor of why more guns are a good thing.
The second amendment is not an acceptable reason.
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
10/02/2017 at 20:46, STARS: 1
Yep, I grabbed the wrong graph. It doesn’t make a difference. They show the same trend.
I have have numbers on my side. So far, you’ve produced nothing which refutes my position.
While I might agree to some restrictions on handguns (since they are used to kill more people than any other kind of gun), restricting access to rifles is useless. Even though this event was bad, let’s remember that more people have been intentionally killed with other objects, from bare hands to cars and even planes.
Being scared isn’t an acceptable reason for taking away my rights.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
10/02/2017 at 21:35, STARS: 0
The only thing your numbers support, at best, is a claim that proposed restrictions on guns might not reduce gun violence as much as desired by those who want to impose those gun restrictions.
It doesn’t even really matter what numbers you throw up to support that claim. It’s the same claim: “I want to keep my guns and you taking them away might not reduce gun crime, so I get to keep my guns.”
That’s a stupid fucking argument, because gun restrictions could very well still reduce gun crime, even by your own reasoning. But you and other second amendment enthusiasts always come back to IT’S MY RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS YOU CAN’T TAKE THEM.
Fuck what you think your rights are. You’re wrong.
The right of private individuals to own firearms without restrictions is not guaranteed by the second amendment. Second amendment enthusiasts’ twisting around of the wording of the amendment doesn’t mean that it actually intended to produce unrestricted firearm ownership.
The simple truth is that guns’ purpose is to shoot things, and when you shoot people they get injured or die. There is no redeeming value to them. Restrictions are a small start. Anything that gets rid of some guns is an improvement.
There are no numbers you can string together that will change this. I don’t give a goddamn what you mistakenly believe your rights are.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
10/02/2017 at 22:11, STARS: 0
The fact that sensible legislation on not murdering people can be lobbied against,
Who the fuck is lobbying against not murdering people and what kind of sickos do you hang out with ?!?! The fact that you’re trying to argue murder should be legal completely invalidates anything you have to say.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
10/02/2017 at 22:14, STARS: 0
For example, I thought that, after Sandy Hook, it should be mandatory to
have biometric gun safes for storing AR-15s, considering the shooter
stole his mom’s gun, shot her, and then went on and... Other possible
regulations could have been made as well.
And what would that have done? He killed her, he had access to her fingers to open it...
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
10/02/2017 at 22:16, STARS: 1
Thankfully, there are duly appointed members of our nation’s highest court, people trained in interpreting law, who disagree with you and agree with me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
10/02/2017 at 22:16, STARS: 0
A device to mechanically pull the trigger rapidly could have also been
used, but that doesn’t solve the problems with heat and jamming.
But 10 different guns do.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
10/02/2017 at 22:23, STARS: 0
The second amendment is not an acceptable reason.
I hope the feds come and toss you in the gulag for your heresy, since the first amendment doesn’t mean anything to you.
"BigBlock440" (440-4bbl)
10/02/2017 at 22:34, STARS: 0
To me that sounds like more than what is being done to ensure that guns and their owners are in proper shape.
If there were public places where guns were able to be used, shooting ranges and such, that would make sense (and they are in those places, can’t have more than 3 shells in your shotgun during any bird season, etc.), but there are absolutely zero regulations on buying and driving a car if you keep it on private property.
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
10/02/2017 at 23:05, STARS: 0
My mom tried to protect her home with a shotgun, but it was too big and unwieldy for her to use safely. It was the third time the thieves attempted to break in. She had to put the operator on speaker so she could hold the shotgun properly. Despite yelling several warnings, the thieves didn’t leave until the sheriff turned down the driveway. They got away by running through the woods.
She bought a pistol and signed up for CCL classes the next day.
There were no more attempted break-ins after she started practicing with her pistol in the yard (she owned 5 acres). The would-be thieves took themselves out of the equation later that year. One stabbed the other. One died, the other went to jail. They were her neighbors.
She wouldn’t have liked having to do it, but she wouldn’t have hesitated to shoot them if they had made it through the door. I’m thankful they were too stupid to go through a window.
"Textured Soy Protein" (texturedsoyprotein)
10/03/2017 at 00:18, STARS: 0
No, they don’t agree with you.
Both of those cases are about the inability of state state and local governments not being able to override a federal constitutional amendment. In both cases, a local jurisdiction attempted to, essentially, outlaw guns entirely. When a local jurisdiction tries to entirely ban something that is protected by a constitutional amendment, the constitutional amendment takes precedence. Essentially, that the state/local restrictions violate the due process clause of the 14th amendment .
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
This is constitutional law 101.
The McDonald & Heller decisions do not, however, mean that all gun restrictions are unconstitutional. From Heller:
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
These decisions are both controversial. They were 5-4 decisions, and the majority opinions in both cases invoked a supposed fundamental right to self defense, in spite of there being no language in the second amendment about self defense.
You know what’s not prevented by the due process clause of the 14th amendment? The federal government changing laws, or repealing an amendment. Amendments have been repealed before and they can be repealed again. The federal government is within its rights to ban firearms entirely by repealing the second amendment.
Politically, that’s just not what the Republican party wants to do, and they’re in control. But the modern interpretation of the second amendment supposedly protecting all forms of firearm ownership has only been around since the 70s. As recently as 1972, the Republican party platform contained the following language :
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
If there was enough of a political consensus that guns are in fact bad, the federal government could certainly do something about it. The right to own firearms is far from inalienable.