Mass Shooting in Las Vegas - 58 Dead at Least 515 Injured, Suspect Killed - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52739438]You think a military of few million could take on a 300 million person population? Even with all that equipment they cant face sheer numbers and deploying tanks and bombers would be the death sentence for the government.[/QUOTE] Have fun convincing more than a million of those people literally ever rebelling at once. The US military has the capability to take on several time its number, especially when only around 20% of Americans even own a gun. If people did rise up en masse for whatever reason, armed, then yeah the military will be dropping bombs. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain"]Like they've done in the past[/URL].

This is truly a punch in the stomach Breaks my heart thinking about the families destroyed by this

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52739430]But the US population isn't going to maintain a resistance against the US military. Rebels would be wiped out too quickly to maintain proper resistance, like in Afghanistan. It also isn't on the other side of the world, it's in the military's backyard, and they'd have nowhere else to leave because of unpopularity.[/QUOTE] when the military was in Afghanistan it didn't have to worry about its troops defecting and taking equipment with them

300 million people are not all capable of rebellion. Included in that number are children, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill, the hospitalized, etc.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739318]This has been beaten to death. Americans keep guns as a check on our own government. That makes the government categorically unfit to determine that firearms are a privilege. [B]We accept the additional risk that comes from this. [/B] Part of being American is accepting some measure of increased risk in return for additional freedoms. We certainly forget ourselves sometimes, but it is one of the fundamental underlying principles of who we are.[/QUOTE] The whole "We accept the additional risk that comes from this" part seems to be a silly way to shut down an argument because statsticly [B] no America doesn't[/B] [quote=Pew Research]Overall, 52% of Americans say gun laws should be stricter than they are today, while nearly as many say they are about right (30%) or should be less strict than they are today (18%).[/quote] [URL="http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/"]From Pew[/URL] Trying to say a person should change there views to suit a preconceived notion of "America" and that they should give up trying to change anything seems Amazing anti-American. [sp] Also perhaps influenced due to my pessimism but the whole keeping the government in check argument falls apart as when it was written, the citizenry and army were fairly well matched in terms of access to gear. Nowadays, I don't see people just messing with their personal strike drones or mass surveillance[/sp]

I always wonder when things like this happen whether politicans will do more than tweet condolences and prayers.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52739467]I always wonder when things like this happen whether politicans will do more than tweet condolences and prayers.[/QUOTE] Yeah some of them tweet dumb shit like Clinton

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52739467]I always wonder when things like this happen whether politicans will do more than tweet condolences and prayers.[/QUOTE] what more can they even do though????? they cant bring back the dead....

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52739438]You think a military of few million could take on a 300 million person population? Even with all that equipment they cant face sheer numbers and deploying tanks and bombers would be the death sentence for the government.[/QUOTE] What the fuck is this even? That "300 million" is an estimate the the raw number of firearms in the country (it happens to match closely to the population), with an estimated 112 firearms per 100 civilians. So already it's not them facing "300 million" people. And of those firearms how many are actually combat ready and good for warfare? A target pistol or some obscure relic of a rifle aren't going to be much use. And [I]of those[/I], how many people are genuinely going to fight back against the government? You can rule out basically half the population for being either children or too old to fight. And [B][I]of those[/I][/B], who would overlap with the military itself? Who would see the people rising up as traitors?, etc. An violent uprising in the US, with the right psychopathic manchild in power, could very well see military options deployed against it (as long as that uprising isn't white tbh). It wouldn't be a pretty fight, but it also wouldn't be one sided in favour of the uprising.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52739469]Yeah some of them tweet dumb shit like Clinton[/QUOTE] What Clinton does or does not do is irrelevant, she's a private citizen that can tweet whatever dumb shit she wants.

This is the problem with the gun topic: it's so polarized and both sides of the aisle have been made into a fucking caricature. On one end you've got the spineless, clueless liberals who wants to ban scary looking guns. On the other end are the hardline "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" NRA members who refuse to budge at all. Then we end up talking about absurd hypotheticals of government tyranny, as if discussing sensible legislation is going to lead to fucking insurgency and civil war. Can we come back down to the real world? This shitty fucking pissing match drowns out any attempt to have a serious conversation about the problems in this country.

[QUOTE=Sumap;52739466]The whole "We accept the additional risk that comes from this" part seems to be a silly way to shut down an argument because statsticly [b] no America doesn't[/b] [url=http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/views-on-gun-policy/]From Pew[/url] Trying to say a person should change there views to suit a preconceived notion of "America" and that they should give up trying to change anything seems Amazing anti-American.[/QUOTE] A lot of people who want stricter gun laws, myself included, do not want guns removed, banned, restricted but rather simply stronger background checks, waiting periods and the like.

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52739452]Have fun convincing more than a million of those people literally ever rebelling at once. The US military has the capability to take on several time its number, especially when only around 20% of Americans even own a gun. If people did rise up en masse for whatever reason, armed, then yeah the military will be dropping bombs. [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain"]Like they've done in the past[/URL].[/QUOTE] I have doubts most of the military would be keen on murdering US Citizens.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739400]Yes, if everyone magically rose up, it wouldn't matter if they were armed. That isn't how a rebellion works. Only a portion of the population is driven to the point of armed rebellion. For that to work, firearms are necessary.[/QUOTE] So the few "armed rebels" should get to decide for the many? Is it acceptable to shoot senators because you don't agree with them now? I don't understand how this equates to more "freedom" at all. Advocating for domestic terrorism in a civilized society just seems ridiculous. [QUOTE=OvB;52739397]These kinds of guns are already incredibly difficult for law abiding people to get, on top of being extremely expensive. How many more hoops is an acceptable amount of hoops?[/QUOTE] Training, and mental health assessments seem like pretty basic steps. It's not even really about weapons like this as much as the overall picture. Switzerland's system seems like a good example of how to have a society that can exist peacefully with guns.

[QUOTE=Garry #2;52739473]what more can they even do though????? they cant bring back the dead....[/QUOTE] I dunno but treating it like a completely unavoidable tragedy is silly

[QUOTE=Svinnik;52739326]lawmakers are retarded when it comes to gun laws and they fall for scare tactics, don't believe in them too much for example this [IMG]https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/16n_rifles_ipad-525x300.jpg[/IMG] nothing really different other than some scary accessories are not allowed, the gun still works about the same as it did before the law was passed[/QUOTE] They even banned some things that don't even exist, and some basically cosmetic features. Like heat a shield on the barrel, even though that's basically a matter of convenience and in no way affects the function of the gun. And pistol grips on rifles and shotguns tend to make a gun harder to handle, not easier. It's the greatest nothing political pork barrel feelsie points act i can thin of, it's such a farce.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52739480]This is the problem with the gun topic: it's so polarized and both sides of the aisle have been made into a fucking caricature. On one end you've got the spineless, clueless liberals who wants to ban scary looking guns. On the other end are the hardline "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS" NRA members who refuse to budge at all. Then we end up talking about absurd hypotheticals of government tyranny, as if discussing sensible legislation is going to lead to fucking insurgency and civil war. Can we come back down to the real world? This shitty fucking pissing match drowns out any attempt to have a serious conversation about the problems in this country.[/QUOTE] You are aware we've been compromising on our rights for the better part of a century right? All "common sense, sensible regulation" When have gun owners received any positives to infringements on the 2nd? Is it really that hard to see why we dont want anymore? I really dont wanna post the cake comic this early but I reckon I can if I have to

The thing I find aggravating at all these arguments over gun control is that most of the proposed solutions are downright impracticable. "Get rid of gun culture, fetishization of guns, etc." - How do you propose we do that? Guns are in movies, television, video games, books, etc. Do we make laws limiting how guns can be displayed in media? Do we run ads demonizing gun owners? Do we make kids in school chant "guns are bad" right after the US anthem? The end result here is basically limiting freedom of speech, expression, artistic integrity over the [I]hope[/I] that people will stop enjoying this super cool thing. It goes into the territory of banning violent video games, which as we know does jack shit to curb violence. There's plenty of media showing the harmful effects of guns from gang violence, domestic violence, suicide, etc., just as there's plenty of kickass thriller movies with action stars shooting people in the face. You can't force people to believe something without literal propaganda and I think most people would draw the line at controlling thoughts. "Make guns illegal" - Okay, do you know what that involves? Somehow confiscating all available weaponry in America, meaning you'd have to know everyone who has a gun, and then [I]come and take it from their cold, dead hands[/I]. You'd need to destroy over 300 million guns located over nearly 4 million sq. miles of territory. You'd end up leaving over [URL="https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/americas-gun-business-numbers-n437566"]260,000 people in the industry unemployed, over $1.5 billion in annual profit gone. [/URL]. Then, you'll make the already impressive black market for guns explode and (speculation) we'll most likely have much more gang violence and crime like the Prohibition era did once we tried to outlaw alcohol. This, of course, [URL="https://www.wired.com/2015/06/i-made-an-untraceable-ar-15-ghost-gun/"]won't solve people just making their own guns with some google searching, a $1500 3D printer and the ability to read instructions[/URL], or just using a lathe and some tools. These guns won't dissappear, people won't give them up willingly, and people won't stop making them. Gun control can be sensible but right now the extreme measures we already have aren't solving everything. "Make getting guns harder" - Just makes people who want to get them but fail to do so legally seek out illegal methods instead. [URL="http://www.handgunlaw.us/"]Getting a gun license (especially a concealed carry) isn't a simple thing depending on the state[/URL] - even having a simple misdemeanor on file can completely prevent you from getting a gun. It costs money to get the license, depending on the state you need to take a training course, you can't have been hospitalized for mental illness in the past 60 months, etc. Besides, crimes like the spree committed here are already breaking a shitload of laws so it's not like the tons of laws we have now were any deterrent. Background checks are definitely something that needs improvement but that veers into government surveillance, HIPAA, privacy, and tons of other issues as well asrequiring somebody at the FBI to actually bother to look at the applications and approve/deny instead of passing the buck due to the shitloads of people seeking approval. "Monitor high risk people to prevent them from getting guns" - We're already worried about the NSA now, do you want to increase government surveillance or give the police more authority to nose through your privacy? We can't just monitor every gun owner or somehow be omnipresent and know who's unhinged or who's planning something without violating civil liberties. This guy slipped through the cracks. Unless every place you go to has TSA level security and metal detectors at every entrance somebody is going to get. The only real solutions we can try are to improve mental health care, which means improving health care in general, because when it costs $120 to see a therapist once for an hour, and your insurance won't cover a dime unless you hit your $8000 deductible and then they'll only cover 50%, it's tough getting people to get serious illness checked out, let alone something "minor" like horrible depression or untreated mental illnesses like schizophrenia. People ostracize those with mental illness, and unfortunately it's kind of a primal survival tactic that uneducated people are going to default to. You can't see that someone is ill, but your reptile brain knows to stay away, when in reality the best thing to do is offer support and companionship. Men are much less likely to get help for mental health, and older americans are also much less likely to seek it out. It's partly men being afraid to show weakness, it's partly uneducated beliefs about mental health, it's partly family/social ostracization, it's partly "I can handle this by myself", it's partly "meds will change my personality/who I am so I won't take em" and it's partly the huge cost to even get help and the "nebulous" effects of it to the uninformed. This is a slow process that's going to take generations to change how people view mental health, and healthcare gets cheaper more and more people are going to forgo getting the help they need. Sorry for the long post/aggressive tone, but we get a ton of armchair experts who think they know the bandaid solution to fix everything. This is a complex issue that takes time and cooperation and people trying to slap bandaid fix over bandaid fix start making people want to cooperate less and less. Te goal is to prevent gun violence, which is simplified to just preventing violence, and most sane, happy, safe and successful people have no reason to shoot 400 people.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52739501]You are aware we've been compromising on our rights for the better part of a century right? All "common sense, sensible regulation" When have gun owners received any positives to infringements on the 2nd? Is it really that hard to see why we dont want anymore? I really dont wanna post the cake comic this early but I reckon I can if I have to[/QUOTE] Compromising on your rights? The American gun culture is one of, if not [i]THE[/i] least restrictive in the West. The government is so weak and bought by the arms industry they couldn't even pass a universal background check bill, [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html"]which has 85% public support[/URL], after the massacre of children at Sandy Hook. So please, spare me your victim complex. I'm sure you're going to bring up the assault weapons ban, or that time Democrat X said something retarded about suppressors and barrel shrouds. No, I don't agree with them and those policies are retarded. And yes, I am aware in this specific case, a universal background check probably wouldn't have stopped this guy. What I'm saying is we can't even discuss the basics, the bare minimum, [I]that a majority of the American public supports[/I], without the conversation being twisted into "a gross violation of our constitutional rights!" America has a gun problem. America has a mental health problem. It's not one or the other, it's both. This is the only developed nation where this kind of shit happens on a regular basis and it's going to keep happening until we sit down and have a serious conversation about it. And that's never going to happen so long as we continue to put on this embarrassing circus act of zingers and strawmen.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739489]So the few "armed rebels" should get to decide for the many? Is it acceptable to shoot senators because you don't agree with them now? I don't understand how this equates to more "freedom" at all. Advocating for domestic terrorism in a civilized society just seems ridiculous. [/QUOTE] By the time enough of the population is willing to reach open rebellion, the overwhelming majority of the population is most likely unhappy. No, shooting a senator because he does something you disagree with is not okay. You shoot them when they do something that violates the rules and balances set forth, like refusing the abdicate power when appropriate, or declaring themselves above the law. Basically: Disagreeing with them because of how they vote on a topic like abortion, gun control, or same sex marriage doesn't result in any sort of breach of contract. Even if their votes are bullshit and against the constitution, we have the supreme court to make the legal determination and handle that appropriately. Them deciding that they are above the law and get to have sex with children, or that all of the gold in the country now belongs to them, or that they are leader for life? That earns revolt because the mechanisms in place to handle that aren't capable of countering that sort of bullshit. It isn't the unreasonable concept that you are making it out to be.

A childhood friend of mine and their family was up against the front barrier when the shooting started and managed to make it out safely. I can't imagine what it was like for everyone there, beyond traumatizing.

[QUOTE=Mud;52739416]how is it exploiting anyone when it's a simple fucking fact about a thing that just happened and keeps happening. How come we don't say it's exploitation when the subject of such events involves a group of people that's mostly disliked on this forum? oh its only exploitation when its convenient to your worldview i guess[/QUOTE] So when Tudd posts statistics about Muslim extremist terrorist attacks right after the lorry attack at Nice you think that's ok? It's distasteful. Don't be daft and pretend it's ok at all to push politics during tagedies. People call it out everytime tragedies happen and some idiot tries to push a worldview. Also lol convenient to my worldview you're chasing at shadows. How is asking you to reaffirm your argument without exploiting the recently deceased pushing a worldview?

[QUOTE=Mitsuma;52739385]I never understood this idea. When did this fear of the government that needs to be kept in check mentality start? Always makes it sound like one day they just decide to send the military after civilians and the only way to prevent that is with having a gun in the hand every every citizen.[/QUOTE] When the country was founded specifically under the intent to found a state that would (in theory) be resistant to the social class systems and miscellaneous tyranny in europe that everyone came to the new world to escape. While also emphasizing it's philosophical foundations in the divine nature of the individual, and a rejection of any form of caste system. It's literally America's founding principal. And given that it took until a fundamental shift in the nature of society, states and communication itself for things to degenerate, i have no trouble calling it a success. And with what we know the state is getting up to with the NSA and international conspiracies, starting with the banana republic shenanigans in the '50's, i'd say there's never been a greater need for principals along the lines of "the state must never be trusted and it's the citizen's duty as a member of society to resist it's tyranny." It's also a product of a time when it would take a month to actually marshal any state forces to outside aggressors, at which point they could have already have taken over a substantial amount of land and established some sort of base of operation, making any state backed response more difficult. Whereas if most every citizen was armed in little local divisions they could effectively delay/deter whatever foreign force until the country could put together an effective official army to answer. So it was an idea with two primary functions, though the latter has become irrelevant. [QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52739430]But the US population isn't going to maintain a resistance against the US military. Rebels would be wiped out too quickly to maintain proper resistance, like in Afghanistan. It also isn't on the other side of the world, it's in the military's backyard, and they'd have nowhere else to leave because of unpopularity.[/QUOTE] the october revolution in russia that toppled the interim government and founded the soviet union was an act of less than two dozen people storming the parliment. I know it's not directly comparable but the idea that an active force of even 10,000,000 coordinated individuals couldn't have an effect in a situation like that isn't very reasonable. And that's presuming the military acts as one unified force with unquestioning loyalty to a state which presumably has fundamentally demonstrated it's malevolent nature to the public, and would have absolutely no problem in butchering their own people. Which is basically so unlikely as to be impossible.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;52739474]What the fuck is this even? That "300 million" is an estimate the the raw number of firearms in the country (it happens to match closely to the population), with an estimated 112 firearms per 100 civilians. So already it's not them facing "300 million" people. And of those firearms how many are actually combat ready and good for warfare? A target pistol or some obscure relic of a rifle aren't going to be much use. And [I]of those[/I], how many people are genuinely going to fight back against the government? You can rule out basically half the population for being either children or too old to fight.[/quote] I based my 300 million number very loosely off the population of the US. I'm aware it's more than that but I didn't feel the need to get extremely specific about fit adults vs children/elderly with these silly scenarios. I'm aware that guns can't be used without someone holding them, unless you form some kind of rube goldberg device. [QUOTE=hexpunK;52739474] And [B][I]of those[/I][/B], who would overlap with the military itself? Who would see the people rising up as traitors?, etc. An violent uprising in the US, with the right psychopathic manchild in power, could very well see military options deployed against it (as long as that uprising isn't white tbh). It wouldn't be a pretty fight, but it also wouldn't be one sided in favour of the uprising.[/QUOTE] Last time I looked there was about 3 million US military personnel, so not a big overlap and they're still hilariously outnumbered even if only 50 million people in the US rise up to fight, and I doubt many people would follow through on their selective service letter.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;52739537] "Make getting guns harder" - Just makes people who want to get them but fail to do so legally seek out illegal methods instead.[/QUOTE] See, I get your point about that, but you could say that about literally anything in the world. Just because there's still a way for someone to do a bad thing, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be disallowed.

[QUOTE=Vegetable;52739562]See, I get your point about that, but you could say that about literally anything in the world. Just because there's still a way for someone to do a bad thing, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be disallowed.[/QUOTE] Define bad thing in this scenario, because i'm reading "guns are objectively bad to own" out of this.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52739559]I based my 300 million number very loosely off the population of the US. I'm aware it's more than that but I didn't feel the need to get extremely specific about fit adults vs children/elderly with these silly scenarios. I'm aware that guns can't be used without someone holding them, unless you form some kind of rube goldberg device. Last time I looked there was about 3 million US military personnel, so not a big overlap and they're still hilariously outnumbered [b]even if only 50 million people in the US rise up to fight[/b], and I doubt many people would follow through on their selective service letter.[/QUOTE] This is... a very optimistic estimate. At best.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739545]By the time enough of the population is willing to reach open rebellion, the overwhelming majority of the population is most likely unhappy. No, shooting a senator because he does something you disagree with is not okay. You shoot them when they do something that violates the rules and balances set forth, like refusing the abdicate power when appropriate, or declaring themselves above the law. Basically: Disagreeing with them because of how they vote on a topic like abortion, gun control, or same sex marriage doesn't result in any sort of breach of contract. Even if their votes are bullshit and against the constitution, we have the supreme court to make the legal determination and handle that appropriately. Them deciding that they are above the law and get to have sex with children, or that all of the gold in the country now belongs to them, or that they are leader for life? That earns revolt because the mechanisms in place to handle that aren't capable of countering that sort of bullshit. It isn't the unreasonable concept that you are making it out to be.[/QUOTE] More reasonable methods exist these days. The US is also setup to have several layers of protection against that sort of thing, with the various judiciary branches being able to override each other.

[QUOTE=Vegetable;52739562]See, I get your point about that, but you could say that about literally anything in the world. Just because there's still a way for someone to do a bad thing, that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be disallowed.[/QUOTE] The issue is that we already have pretty strict laws, but they're failing to prevent such violence. Law abiding gun owners are unlikely to commit gun crime. [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/"]80% of gun crimes are committed by someone who unlawfully obtained the gun.[/URL] 30% of these guns were stolen. Straw purchases - which is already illegal - is where the bulk of these illegal guns come from. Legal gun owners rarely commit gun crime, so who is this regulation going to stop?

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52739542]Compromising on your rights? The American gun culture is one of, if not [i]THE[/i] least restrictive in the West. The government is so weak and bought by the arms industry they couldn't even pass a universal background check bill, [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html"]which has 85% public support[/URL], after the massacre of children at Sandy Hook. So please, spare me your victim complex. I'm sure you're going to bring up the assault weapons ban, or that time Democrat X said something retarded about suppressors and barrel shrouds. No, I don't agree with them and those policies are retarded. And yes, I am aware in this specific case, a universal background check probably wouldn't have stopped this guy. What I'm saying is we can't even discuss the basics, the bare minimum, [I]that a majority of the American public supports[/I], without the conversation being twisted into "a gross violation of our constitutional rights!" America has a gun problem. America has a mental health problem. It's not one or the other, it's both. This is the only developed nation where this kind of shit happens on a regular basis and it's going to keep happening until we sit down and have a serious conversation about it. And that's never going to happen so long as we continue to put on this embarrassing circus act of zingers and strawmen.[/QUOTE] You still have explained [I]why[/I] I should even bother discussing it when the only thing that gun owners have ever received in return for rights taken away is the vague promise of "Well, you get to keep some! (That we'll try to take later) Why should I accept new anti-gun legislation when no compromise has ever titled my way, even a little?