After Las Vegas massacre, Democrats urge gun laws; Republicans silent
853 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52742194]no, it's not
it is literally a right, legally
and it's functionally impossible to make it not a right given the way our government operates[/QUOTE]
Nothing is impossible (well okay, fitting my own head up my ass without decapitating myself definitely is, I'm not that flexible). Rights are entirely arbitrary freedoms granted by a government, the only thing that ensures it exists is the governments willingness to acknowledge it and the peoples will to enforce that acknowledgement.
We all agree on basic human rights like not being killed or degraded. But that doesn't stop governments like the DPRK and the likes from not acknowledging such basic rights.
The right to bear arms is no different, it could easily vanish given time and cultural change. It's not an absolute, genetically wired, words-from-god "law" after all.
[QUOTE=Mud;52742241]So are you gonna play semantics until i put every gun owner under a microscope[/QUOTE]
Are you going to answer my question?
You said "most shooters". In any context that would mean Bloods/Crips incidents to things like Sandy Hook. Do you mean only mass shooters?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52742244]Are you going to answer my question?
You said "most shooters". In any context that would mean Bloods/Crips incidents to things like Sandy Hook. Do you mean only mass shooters?[/QUOTE]
For the sake of this argument yes. Do you think these are acceptable incidents because "illegal gun crimes happen too"?
[QUOTE=Talon 733;52742242]Haha i never insisted it wasnt a problem but okay keep making this stuff up to feel good about yourself, and how are terrorist attacks a differant issue? the result is still the same which is innocent dead people[/QUOTE]
Terrorist attacks are vastly fucking different from spree shooters my dude. The justification and MO is a wildly different thing. Terrorism is meant to spread fear and potentially enact political change in favour of the terrorist organisation.
Spree shooters throughout the history of the US largely just lone wolf it with no real organisation backing them or with vague or no real political goal. Terrorism happens when you've made enemies with an ideology, spree shootings happen for a vast number of reasons that can be quite hard to pin down.
[QUOTE=Cone;52742174]definitely not with things as they are. but if the problems surrounding and necessitating guns are curbed first through decades of consistently informed, nuanced, bipartisan governance, maybe. so yeah, probably not possible.[/QUOTE]
It would help if the people who are trying promote legislation were actually informed and had some idea of what they're talking about. Gun owners fight back so hard because they're tired of being demonized, they're tried of people continuously trying to erode their rights. It would help if our politicians actually pushed a honest agenda instead of trying to simply attack things because another party likes them.
Hillary is a great example, before the blood even dried on the pavement she is going on about suppressors and the NRA. Shooter didn't even have a suppressor, and to say imagine if he did is stupid. He didn't so you can pretend all day. Imagine is a drunk driver drove a tank.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0[/media]
Then you have the other issue is that most gun control bills that have been passed ban items that are not relevant to weapon functionality.
You're never going to get rid of the second amendment, trying is just a waste of effort and going to anger more people. You can't ban guns or even think about taking them back because there are people who will not do it. You can't wish away or legislate evil or crime away.
The fact some of you are so willing to give away a right and abolish an amendment because you don't use it or think it important anymore is pretty scary to me. Maybe we should get rid of the 2nd amendment then maybe when you do that get rid of the 4th amendment so the police can kick in your door and take your guns away.
I'm all for better measures to prevent crime and make sure people who own guns are accountable. But you can put in place a lot of legislation that makes gun ownership harder to obtain but the shooter here was a multimillionaire with no past history. He would have got the guns regardless of what laws or whatever you put in his way.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;52742243]Nothing is impossible (well okay, fitting my own head up my ass without decapitating myself definitely is, I'm not that flexible). Rights are entirely arbitrary freedoms granted by a government, the only thing that ensures it exists is the governments willingness to acknowledge it and the peoples will to enforce that acknowledgement.
We all agree on basic human rights like not being killed or degraded. But that doesn't stop governments like the DPRK and the likes from not acknowledging such basic rights.
The right to bear arms is no different, it could easily vanish given time and cultural change. It's not an absolute, genetically wired, words-from-god "law" after all.[/QUOTE]
It would be [I]functionally[/I] impossible in a society where there are more guns than people. You would have to phase out the right to bear arms from our firmly established code of inherent rights, forcibly and indiscriminately seize all of the weapons you can get your hands on, and then control the illegal gun trade which is in itself a fools errand when there are as many guns as there are in the country and the 3000 mile-long border we share down south is one of the most prolific illegal smuggling routes on the planet. Each of these is wildly inconceivable on its own, and compounded the probability of them all happening is statistically insignificant.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;52742231]It's only impossible because everyone keeps repeating to themselves and each other it's impossible.
Those who made it a right had no chance of knowing what modern society would look like and what rights would be required.[/QUOTE]
do you know what the requirements are for repealing an amendment
Guns aren't the ones that kill people, people are the problem.
We shouldn't take away guns, but when buying one, going through a full background check and mental evaluation, along with proper gun handling training and etc, should be required.
Don't punish everyone for something only a few people did. Banning guns because a few people killed others with them, is like banning knives due to people being stabbed and murdered with them, or banning cars because some crashes kill people.
A gun's sole purpose is not for killing people, that is a very ignorant thing to believe. A gun is a tool, so much like knives and such are. They can be used for self defense, getting food, having fun as a hobby, and much more.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;52741991]Here's a magical idea: stop letting people buy lethal murder weapons designed to be the most efficient lethal murder weapons for like literally no reason other than just for fun.[/QUOTE]
But how are people going to get to and from work without cars?
[QUOTE=INH;52742259]Guns aren't the ones that kill people, people are the problem.
We shouldn't take away guns, but when buying one, going through a full background check and mental evaluation, along with proper gun handling training and etc, should be required.
Don't punish everyone for something only a few people did. Banning guns because a few people killed others with them, is like banning knives due to people being stabbed and murdered with them, or banning cars because some crashes kill people.
A gun's sole purpose is not for killing people, that is a very ignorant thing to believe. A gun is a tool, so much like knives and such are. They can be used for self defense, getting food, having fun as a hobby, and much more.[/QUOTE]
So who's gonna foot the bill for expensive classes and psych evaluations... for something that's literally a right?
Not sure I like the idea of putting a founding right of this country behind a paywall essentially. Not to mention "proper training" could easily lead to de facto ban when an antigun office settles in and declares that you need 100 hrs of practice a month, or something similar.
[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;52741882]I'm all for stricter gun laws, but in this case. The guy was a model citizen was he not? he wasn't known to police and nobody suspected him, I don't think gun laws would have stopped him in this case, seems like maybe a major reform to the mental health network in America is probably needed (maybe in addition to gun laws)[/QUOTE]
Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.
[QUOTE=Mud;52742246]For the sake of this argument yes. Do you think these are acceptable incidents because "illegal gun crimes happen too"?[/QUOTE]
I don't find any shooting to be acceptable, actually. I never said that they were.
[QUOTE=INH;52742259]Guns aren't the ones that kill people, people are the problem.
We shouldn't take away guns, but when buying one, going through a full background check and mental evaluation, along with proper gun handling training and etc, should be required.
Don't punish everyone for something only a few people did. Banning guns because a few people killed others with them, is like banning knives due to people being stabbed and murdered with them, or banning cars because some crashes kill people.
A gun's sole purpose is not for killing people, that is a very ignorant thing to believe. A gun is a tool, so much like knives and such are. They can be used for self defense, getting food, having fun as a hobby, much more.[/QUOTE]
Improvements in background checks and mental health Care wouldn't have done anything to prevent or mitigate the damage done in Vegas. No amount of improvement in these aspects would make a difference when entirely unpredictable individuals with no precedent or record indicative of carrying out something like this can carry out this degree of destruction unassisted.
And while it's true that it isn't a guns "sole" purpose to kill people, it is it's primary purpose and the one it was designed for. Ignoring that is naive and dishonest.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;52742255]do you know what the requirements are for repealing an amendment[/QUOTE]
There's a legal process for this yes, but that's not the point. The real reason it will never happen is that people refuse to even consider the possibility you may have self-inflicted a problem. While the rest of the civilized world just shakes their head at you.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52742276]I don't find any shooting to be acceptable, actually. I never said that they were.[/QUOTE]
Just to make it clear, i thought what you said is a pretty good solution to mass shootings. Because it is not the legality thats the issue but it's the ease of acquisition that is the issue. But make no mistake: it's not the only solution to prevent it in my mind.
Many outlets to legally purchase guns tend to not be very thorough in their background checks and acquiring a gun with current safeguards in place are ineffective as it has shown time and time again. All solutions are long term rather than short but stricter safeguards to acquiring a firearm are a very good solution to prevent incidents like this or significantly lower them. I just dont know if mental health is the only factor in play after this so it kind of feels pointless on some level to even bother when straight up removal can achieve a similar effect. Though that is unrealistic too.
You have not convinced me in any way that a straight up ban of firearm sales will ever be an ineffective solution.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52741938]I don't think people should be allowed to have 42 cars.[/QUOTE]
So it should be illegal for someone like Jay Leno to keep a collection of historic and/or fun cars?
[QUOTE=TestECull;52742306]So it should be illegal for someone like Jay Leno to keep a collection of historic and/or fun cars?[/QUOTE]
Those "fun" cars are absolute murder machines! they kill everyone by polluting the environment!!
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.[/QUOTE]
You do understand that for a lot of people that "hobby" is sacred right? There are tons of people who would rather die than give up their guns. If you think the people who showed up to Charlottesville is the extent of it you've only seen the tip of the iceberg. People take the 2nd amendment very seriously, for reasons especially like today where we have the potential of a repressive government. For the government to do such a thing would only vindicate the fears of thousands of Americans, and it would serve to only ignite the powderkeg we're currently sitting on that it's the political divide in America.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.[/QUOTE]
So basically punish 100,000,000+ people for the insane acts of <30k?
Brilliant logic. While we're at it lets also heavily restrict who can buy diesel fuel, and how much they can buy. All you need to kill even more people is to rent an Isuzu NPR from Ryder, buy a couple hundred gallons of diesel, get a few hundred pounds of ammonia based fertilizer, and hop on Google to reenact the OKC bombing. We cant have that, now can we, so lets fuck over millions of innocent and law abiding people because an extreme minority cant control themselves!
Here's a better and more practical idea: Mandate high rise hotels fit their facilities with windows capable of resisting a .308 indefinitely. That would have stopped this guy cold, and it wouldnt inconvenience and punish a third of the country to do so.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.[/QUOTE]
If the law of the land ever changes to something like what you describe here, do you really think people will blindly obey? I'll be building guns in my garage and giving them away, just because I can.
[QUOTE=Mud;52742303]
You have not convinced me in any way that a straight up ban of firearm sales will ever be an ineffective solution.[/QUOTE]
What about the majority of gun owners who don't run around shooting people? Should they lose their hobby because of people like this? Does that sound fair to you?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
[/QUOTE]
Bolt action rifle are still magazine fed. You're speaking of detachable magazines in semi automatic rifles. Some hunting rifles are also semi automatic with no detachable magazines. You're basically asking for a ban on everything.
Which will never happen
One thing I will never understand is the fact that in the States a gun is required to guarantee your safety. In other parts of the globe it's the goverment / departments. I would need that to be explained to me. Is it mentality or just that system wouldn't work in the States?
[QUOTE=PaChIrA;52742328]What about the majority of gun owners who don't run around shooting people? Should they lose their hobby because of people like this? Does that sound fair to you?[/QUOTE]
It being fair or not is not relevant to me at all. I own guns too, most of my family does but i do not deny the fact that it sounds like a very effective solution. That is what matters to me.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.[/QUOTE]
Sounds good, when do we tackle restrictions on, what, vehicle speed, pool depth, knives, for sure. Alcohol too. Too many calories in meals. All im asking for is common sense table corner regulations, so they're not too sharp when people bang ybeir heads on them.
Archaic amendments need to be tackled, as well, I reckon you're right. The 14th makes us a target for illegal immigrants- who have definitely killed people. I doubt the writers could have forseen how big of an issue illegal immigration would become, after all.
Sure it sounds a little unreasonable, but you gotta realize man, I'm thinking of the children here. It's worth it if it saves just one life, right?
Come to think of it, I reckon the government aught to be able to check in on peoples emails and communication- the right to privacy simply isn't worth the lives it could save, or the crimes it could stop. The key thing to think about here is the lives it could save, keep in mind. Remember- its for the children. Don't be unreasonable now.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Laws prohibiting the number of weapons one could own, the type of weapons one could purchase, and the type of aftermarket accessories legally able to be added to those weapons would have severely hampered his ability to carry out this attack.
The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.
Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles, suitable for hunting, and to revolver weaponry suitable for self defense. Prohibit the private sale of existing magazine fed weapons, as well, and seize and destroy any weapons found in which the owner cannot provide proof of original ownership.
Violence can still be perpetrated with the above weapons, but not [I]nearly[/I] with the same rapidity or coverage as seen in our deadliest shootings. While it may still be possible to acquire magazine fed weapons [I]illegally[/I], it adds several barriers and complications. You must be able to locate a black market dealer, you must deal with the imminent risks of involving yourself with violent criminal enterprises, you must have substantially more money on hand to purchase what you're trying to purchase, what you're trying to purchase may be damaged or unreliable due to the lack of quality control or care before it fell into your hands, if ownership of such weapons is illegal it also increases the risk of discovery and arrest, if you are discovered with a weapon that may have already been "hot" before you purchased it, you could find murder charges appended to your illegal arms charges, etc, etc.
Furthermore, even the aforementioned legal civilian firearm types (revolvers, bolt actions, etc) should require a comprehensive criminal and medical background check, with anybody discovered to have a history of criminal behavior or psychological disorders being permanently and irrevocably barred from owning firearms.
Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby, because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.
I also find no stock in the constitutional defense for gun ownership in this regard, as the constitutional right to gun ownership came at a time in which its creators couldn't even [I]conceive[/I] of the weapons of mass destruction we have on the shelves of every gun store in the country today. That archaic amendment is fully incompatible with modern society. As for having the firepower to rebel against the state? Grow up, tbh.[/QUOTE]
I don't think I've ever read a post with more loaded wording on FP before. "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "magazine fed assault rifles" (is this the new term the media is going to start using?).
Legal limits on how many weapons you can own would be horrible.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]The shooter had 9 guns in his hotel, and owned a total of seventeen. Many of the weapons he owned, and the ones he committed his attack with, were magazine-fed assault rifles. He also owned high capacity magazines, and he had legal aftermarket trigger modifications that simulated fully automatic fire. All of this was legally owned.
If he had not had multiple "fully automatic" assault rifles with high capacity magazines, he could not have carried out his attack. It's as simple as that.[/QUOTE]
A Mini-14 with a shoestring wrapped around the charging handle will do the exact same thing without being an 'assault rifle' or requiring aftermarket modifications.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Prohibit the sale of magazine fed weapons to civilians. Restrict them to shotguns and bolt-action rifles[/QUOTE]
Do you know what a 'bullet button' is? Like, you realize California (for example) already heavily restricts magazine-fed weapons, and it's done basically nothing? Any shotgun or bolt-action rifle has a magazine, the difference between a detachable and non-detachable one is easily abused and exploited.
You say revolvers should be okay- how long do you think before someone makes a double-action revolver (ie semi-auto rate of fire) with easily-swapped high-capacity cylinders?
We have decades of direct evidence that trying to legislate on cosmetic features and specific functionality is trivially easy to circumvent by an industry dedicated to exploiting loopholes. You are de facto admitting this, because you're posting in response to aftermarket accessories which are intended as a workaround to restrictions on full-auto weaponry.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]Yes, I know, this pisses all over your fun little hobby, but your fun little hobby isn't worth the level of death and despair those taking advantage of it are responsible for in this country. I don't give a lick if legal and law-abiding gun owners are inconvenienced and have to find a new hobby,[/QUOTE]
Is the fun of having a beer with your friends worth the thousands of people killed every year by drunk driving or the side effects of alcohol? Don't go down this 'no hobby is worth lives!' line unless you're willing to see it through to its logical conclusion, because there are [i]plenty[/i] of things we already tolerate in society that have lethal side effects (on completely innocent bystanders) as a direct consequence of their availability.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52742275]because they chose a hobby glorifying instruments of death, and those instruments are being used to their intended purpose to horrifying effect on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]
Oh kindly fuck off with this invective. I target shoot with a rifle designed explicitly for paper punching. It is not an 'instrument of death', I don't 'glorify' it, and if someone went and shot up a school with the same model it certainly wouldn't be used to its 'intended purpose'. Your baseless emotional rhetoric adds nothing to this conversation.
[QUOTE=viper shtf;52742326]If the law of the land ever changes to something like what you describe here, do you really think people will blindly obey? I'll be building guns in my garage and giving them away, just because I can.[/QUOTE]
Not as big of a problem as it's made out to be. They're going to be unreliable, inaccurate, low in capacity and anybody who sees them or hears about them will instantly recognize them as illegal.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;52742217]The problems typically brought up that "necessitate" guns like poor mental health and extreme poverty had nothing to do with the Vegas incident. No amount of improvements in any of those factors will prevent shootings like this one from occuring so long as individuals are capable of as much destruction as they are.[/QUOTE]
i agree, but i'm saying that while limiting that destruction is the end goal, it's not politically tenable until those others problems are dealt with. guns saturate every aspect of American culture and it's gonna be a tedious and winding path to fixing that - hopefully preventing statistically anomalous shootings like this one.
[QUOTE=Scot;52742067]funnily enough if you can't buy a gun you can't fire bullets into a crowd at will
[/QUOTE]
yeah, but you can stab people, or blow them up, or drive a truck in to them.
I'm not pro gun, but at a point I don't want people to restrict guns and then except that to be the big fix that's causing these attacks to happen, and then ignore deeper issues.
yeah, if he didn't have a gun it's doubtful he'd kill as many people as he did, and I don't think civilians should have access to these types of firearms, but I don't think a gun was the deciding factor between him carrying out an attack and not carrying out an attack.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.