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

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739582]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] Really the biggest form of rebellion these days would be to replace characters akin to McConnell with those akin to Sanders in both senate and congress. Whatever can be done to get people who would vote for reforms of elections to something akin to ranked choice and making district mapping done by reputable non-partisan groups.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739582]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] What reasonable methods? I pointed out scenarios where the reasonable methods stop applying. The idea is that those work mostly on faith. They work because we believe that they work. The judicial branch isn't the one in charge of the military. They have huge amounts of legal authority, but zero mechanism for enforcement. We have all these great checks and balances that generally work pretty well, but as a last ditch option, we have one final check on the government in the event that the normal checks and balances fail. Also of importance is that a rebellion against the federal government isn't the only scenario here. You have countless smaller the governments to contend with. You also don't necessarily need a rebellion, a riot may be all that is necessary with smaller regional powers. Government at every level has a very good reason not to fuck with the social contract in the US.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;52739041]Sorry but if now, when the crisis is fresh and clear in our minds, is not a good time to discuss vital political change...then when is?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=redBadger;52739067]The good time to talk was when children were gunned down at Sandy Hook. Really don't know when the wake up call will be if there ever is one.[/QUOTE] No let's not. Trying to use a tragedy to ram through politically motivated legislation while the bodies are still fresh should be completely unacceptable. During events like these, legislators and politicians tend to have knee jerk reactions which make atrocities like the Patriot Act and Guantanamo Bay possible. [QUOTE=Tetracycline;52739041]Also, I would NOT be surprised if a suppressor DID in fact make it quiet enough to cause a couple seconds of confusion as opposed to the obvious *BANG* of the guns.[/QUOTE] Please understand that suppressed weapons are still going to go bang at over 100 decibels and the majority of bullets still travel at high enough speeds to break the sound barrier. Suppressors can only reduce the amount of decibels by so much. It just helps to reduce the volume enough so that firing a weapons wouldn't cause as much hearing damage as standing in front of a jet while trying to take off. It would be very hard not to hear continuous fire from a machine gun pointed anywhere in your general direction even if it were suppressed.

Your 2nd amendment makes more sense, when it was introduced, people were carrying muskets and so was the government. Now, you got guns, but then the armed forces got an armada of weapons, I don't see it so practical by today's standards.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52739596]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?[/QUOTE] Are you seriously asking me [i]why[/i] we need to discuss anything in a thread about the deadliest mass shooting in US history? You look at this tragic loss of human life, shrug your shoulders and say "what a shame," then move on? I think the onus is on [i]you[/i] to explain to me why we shouldn't do anything. Lives are on the line, man. Your "they're coming to take away my guns," narrative is selfish, paranoid malarkey that shuts down any attempt to have a conversation. If your right to own a firearm unrestricted is more important than the lives of hundreds of innocent people, then I really don't know what else to say to you.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739600]What reasonable methods? I pointed out scenarios where the reasonable methods stop applying. The idea is that those work mostly on faith. They work because we believe that they work. The judicial branch isn't the one in charge of the military. They have huge amounts of legal authority, but zero mechanism for enforcement. We have all these great checks and balances that generally work pretty well, but as a last ditch option, we have one final check on the government in the event that the normal checks and balances fail. Also of importance is that a rebellion against the federal government isn't the only scenario here. You have countless smaller the governments to contend with. You also don't necessarily need a rebellion, a riot may be all that is necessary with smaller regional powers. Government at every level has a very good reason not to fuck with the social contract in the US.[/QUOTE] The scenarios you pointed out are unreasonable. How do all of the judicial branches fail in such a way to allow said guy to declare himself above the law, and him not be forcibly removed by the rest of the government? So your primary concern here is a military coup?

I hate to say it but I've become rather desensitised to this shit happening. But the moment that I read that there were 560 causalities I just had to take a moment to think.

[QUOTE=Morgen;52739652]The scenarios you pointed out are unreasonable. How do all of the judicial branches fail in such a way to allow said guy to declare himself above the law, and him not be forcibly removed by the rest of the government? So your primary concern here is a military coup?[/QUOTE] The primary concern is always with who controls the military. It is why we placed the central authority for the military in a civilian president. It reduces the chance of a military coup. Generally speaking, the system does prohibit such actions pretty effectively. But we see leaders elected to power who gain massive amounts of control throughout history. Look at Russia now. Look at WWII Germany. Allowing the people to reserve the means for self determination isn't an unreasonable concept.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;52739584]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] I understand, yeah, and I agree, but what I'm trying to say is that, they're right. Making guns harder to get may not solve the gun control problem, but letting anyone who is anyone have a gun isn't going to make the gun control problem any better. It won't stop it, but it will lessen it, if only by few.

Holy crap? This thread devolved into an argument on gun rights!? What a surprise! I think guns should be, generally, harder to get, but the policy implementation of removing the huge amount of weaponry in the U.S -- the main way I think you could lower the mass shooting rates -- are immense, and nearly impossible to truly deal with.

Who win Hick with gun vs drone strike conducted by the most powerful military in the world You ain't controlling shit [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Reagy))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Raptor_S;52739695]Who win Hick with gun vs drone strike conducted by the most powerful military in the world You ain't controlling shit[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=AaronM202;52739487]I have doubts most of the military would be keen on murdering US Citizens.[/QUOTE]

[media]https://twitter.com/AP/status/914961991999135746[/media] Update raises the number of guns in the room from 10 to 17. This guy could have been prepared to go for hours.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;52739699][/QUOTE] Of course they won't be keen on that, and it won't be because of handguns, that's my point. If the worst happened, and they decided to take the population by force, they absolutely could, no amounts of civilian weaponry would help.

So anywhere in these 18 pages and dozens of shit news articles out there, has anybody done any real actual investigative journalism to find out why this happened beyond bullshit political agendas? These things ALWAYS come down to the same three arguments and it takes weeks/months for the agenda bandwagon to lose some steam so the actual real news can land. Everybody and their Grandma will be saying tighter gun control/looser gun control/better mental health for the next few months. Just like with everything else. When will "news" stop being pointless bitching that we've all heard a thousand times? Why does it always take ages before the right people start asking the right questions? How long is the political shitstorm going to last for this one?

So I guess the consensus is that mass shootings are just something that we as American's need to accept as the status quo. Sadly, I feel like that isn't entirely false. America is what it is, and these shootings are a direct consequence of cultural traits that are inherent to the nation and the foundations it was built upon. I don't know if I'll stick around forever to observe these consequences year after year until I'm old and buried.

[QUOTE=Raptor_S;52739723]Of course they won't be keen on that, and it won't be because of handguns, that's my point. If the worst happened, and they decided to take the population by force, they absolutely could, no amounts of civilian weaponry would help.[/QUOTE] Yeah the U.S. government is the most adept in the world at eradicating guerrillas and insurgents. When has that ever gone wrong before?

[QUOTE=Duck M.;52739725]So I guess the consensus is that mass shootings are just something that we as American's need to accept as the status quo. Sadly, I feel like that isn't entirely false. America is what it is, and these shootings are a direct consequence of cultural traits that are inherent to the nation and the foundations it was built upon. I don't know if I'll stick around forever to observe these consequences year after year until I'm old and buried.[/QUOTE] Also the gun lobby doesn't want them to stop because every time a mass shooting happens, sales spike

[QUOTE=RedDagger;52739393]it's funny making a joke about being stabbed in Britain when the rates of violent crime are nothing in comparison to the US's but yeah the UK is where you'll get stabbed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯[/QUOTE] Now i want to stress that i am not intending this a joke in any way, but when the case is that your government banned owning guns, so knife crime became a problem, which then prompted your government so start confiscating knives and pointy objects, and now people have valid reason to be afraid of getting cups of acid splashed in their face for just walking down the wrong street at night, i think that illustates pretty well that gun crime isnt a gun problem, its a crime problem. Crime will always find a way.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52739644]Are you seriously asking me [i]why[/i] we need to discuss anything in a thread about the deadliest mass shooting in US history? You look at this tragic loss of human life, shrug your shoulders and say "what a shame," then move on? I think the onus is on [i]you[/i] to explain to me why we shouldn't do anything. Lives are on the line, man. Your "they're coming to take away my guns," narrative is selfish, paranoid malarkey that shuts down any attempt to have a conversation. If your right to own a firearm unrestricted is more important than the lives of hundreds of innocent people, then I really don't know what else to say to you.[/QUOTE] Yes. That's exactly what I'm asking. I have a very large interest in seeing Americans keeping the right to keep arms until the nation itself is dissolved or until the last second of the heat death of the universe, whichever comes firsty. I 100% hope at the very least, the next generation has exactly the same rights I do, though I would prefer more. You're free to say "Well, we're just trying to get universal background checks!" But I absolutely refuse to believe that's where the idea ends for most people on the anti-gun side of the aisle, whether yours do or do not personally agree with that. History verifies that notion. It doesn't matter what other factors are addressed- poverty, inequality, mental health, etc. Every little erosion of 2nd amendment rights is something that I have every reason to believe will [I]never[/I] be given back to the people. So yes, I'm incredibly skeptical of the idea that limiting what I can buy or when I can buy it (when I don't have so much as a parking violation, and an allegedly healthy mental state :v: ) will do anything to stop events like this from happening.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52739773]Now i want to stress that i am not intending this a joke in any way, but when the case is that your government banned owning guns, so knife crime became a problem, which then prompted your government so start confiscating knives and pointy objects, and now people have valid reason to be afraid of getting cups of acid splashed in their face for just walking down the wrong street at night, i think that illustates pretty well that gun crime isnt a gun problem, its a crime problem. Crime will always find a way.[/QUOTE] I would much rather be caught in the middle of a mass stabbing than a mass shooting, and the lethal crime statistics in the two countries agree.

[QUOTE=Ignhelper;52739628]Your 2nd amendment makes more sense, when it was introduced, people were carrying muskets and so was the government. Now, you got guns, but then the armed forces got an armada of weapons, I don't see it so practical by today's standards.[/QUOTE] And the First Amendment was when everything was written on parchment by hand. It could never have conceived of instantaneous information dissemination across the globe at 100 words per minute. The Fourth Amendment when people lived in homes only a few hundred square feet in size. They could never have forseen the need to keep the military out of 1500-6000 square foot individual homes. Nobody needs that much sovereign property!

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52739542][I]that a majority of the American public supports[/I][/QUOTE] Excuse me, no. Full stop. [URL="http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx"]According to Gallup[/URL], [B]37%[/B] of Americans support stricter gun control. [B]42%[/B] are happy with where we are, and and [B]11%[/B] want looser laws. The number of Americans who want stricter gun control are outnumbered by those that don't. You see skewed results on those questions of 'universal background checks' because they're phrased like 'should the "gun show loophole" be closed' and not 'should it be a felony for your dad to give you grandpa's old hunting shotgun as a family heirloom'. And then people blame the NRA and gun lobby, because obviously if a public measure that most people support (spoiler: they really don't, when the full ramifications are explained) isn't passed, it must be because of gun industry lobbying. Edit: I'm not against further gun regulation where it makes sense, but it has to be give and take. There are so many stupid restrictions already on the books, especially on a state-by-state basis, that gun owners see further erosion of their rights as arbitrary and inevitable and consequently dig their heels in. If you want gun owners to compromise and give up some of their freedoms, you have to actually compromise too and give them something in return. This is not a matter of the public overwhelmingly wanting something and a tiny minority opposing it, this is more that the public has already seen pointless gun control measures (a lot of people still remember the useless 1994 Assault Weapons Ban) and have had enough.

Since when was this about politics and gun control?

[QUOTE=Ridge;52739795]And the First Amendment was when everything was written on parchment by hand. It could never have conceived of instantaneous information dissemination across the globe at 100 words per minute. The Fourth Amendment when people lived in homes only a few hundred square feet in size. They could never have forseen the need to keep the military out of 1500-6000 square foot individual homes. Nobody needs that much sovereign property![/QUOTE] It's almost as if all amendments arent equally universal and some have aged more poorly than others.

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52739808]Christ. How do you even get 17 guns in 1 hotel room? What the fuck was he carrying?[/QUOTE] Guns can be broken down into very small parts.

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52739808]Christ. How do you even get 17 guns in 1 hotel room? What the fuck was he carrying?[/QUOTE] one at a time presumably

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52739808]Christ. How do you even get 17 guns in 1 hotel room? What the fuck was he carrying?[/QUOTE] he apparently was staying in that room for a while, so he probably brought them in slowly over time, disguised as luggage

Depending on the gun, an AR-15 can be broken down to be only about 2 and a half feet long, could easily fit 3 or 4 of them inside a carry-on sized suitcase.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52739773]Now i want to stress that i am not intending this a joke in any way, but when the case is that your government banned owning guns, so knife crime became a problem, which then prompted your government so start confiscating knives and pointy objects, and now people have valid reason to be afraid of getting cups of acid splashed in their face for just walking down the wrong street at night, i think that illustates pretty well that gun crime isnt a gun problem, its a crime problem. Crime will always find a way.[/QUOTE] Yeah but you can't kill as many people with a knife or a bottle of acid. So yes, we do have crime. But the death count is far lower.