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

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52739944]BG checks are good but, How does it even apply here? Unless I've misread something, or some critical information hasn't come to light yet; the guy had a clean record. He have certainly passed, especially considering he was able to do all the paperwork for several select fire weapons. And Frankly why do people wait until mass shootings for big discussions of gun legalization? Suicide and organized crime completely outnumber these mass shootings several times over, yet it doesn't seem to count in peoples eyes unless there's a rifle and a high profile case involved.[/QUOTE] This. Weve had 2800 shootings in Chicago this year. Almost 500 of which were fatal. And no one gives a shit.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52739944]BG checks are good but, How does it even apply here? Unless I've misread something, or some critical information hasn't come to light yet; the guy had a clean record. He have certainly passed, especially considering he was able to do all the paperwork for several select fire weapons. And Frankly why do people wait until mass shootings for big discussions of gun legalization? Suicide and organized crime completely outnumber these mass shootings several times over, yet it doesn't seem to count in peoples eyes unless there's a rifle and a high profile case involved.[/QUOTE] As far we know right now, it doesn't. I'm speaking about the broader scope of gun violence in this country. A majority of Americans want a universal background check and experts agree it would reduce the number of people killed per year. But Congress refuses to pass a bill because the Republicans are bought by the NRA and gun manufacturers. High profile shootings turn the public eye to the overall topic of gun violence and it's why it sparks the most discussion.

[QUOTE=Revenge282;52739960]Police aren't exactly the best proactive measures against crime. They are supposed to be reactive. If you want proactive policing, get ready for freedoms to fly out the window.[/QUOTE] Did you even read my posts I'm not talking about creating a proactive justice system I'm talking about the police actually [I]clearing [/I]almost all crimes that are commited - this is purely reactive, will actually increase freedom and will make criminals be less likely to commit crimes When crime rate is so low that the likelihood of needing a gun is lower than a toddler finding the key to a locked guncrate or someone crazy going on a killing spree ban guns and have a country with normal crime rates like the rest of the first world

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52739974]This. Weve had 2800 shootings in Chicago this year. Almost 500 of which were fatal. And no one gives a shit.[/QUOTE] My buddy's cousin was murdered here in Detroit on Friday. The USA seems to live based on the adage of "shit in the toilet, no one blinks an eye; shit on the table and everyone freaks out" [QUOTE=LennyPenny;52739983]Did you even read my posts I'm not talking about creating a proactive justice system I'm talking about the police actually [I]clearing [/I]almost all crimes that are commited - this is purely reactive, will actually increase freedom and will make criminals be less likely to commit crimes When crime rate is so low that the likelihood of needing a gun is lower than a toddler finding the key to a locked guncrate or someone crazy going on a killing spree ban guns and have a country with normal crime rates like the rest of the first world[/QUOTE] This sounds good on paper but is completely detached from American life and culture. The police cannot just clear crime, whatever that means. So many things need to change before we will see any substantial, significant decrease in crime rates (prison systems, mental health care, gun control or not control, poverty, urban blight, systematic racism, etc.) and all of these issues come with their own strife when meddled with. When for-profit prison systems can influence the government, you will see disproportionate sentences and our crazy conviction rates, leading to incredibly distrustful and angry groups of people that simply perpetuate the cycle

The plot thickens. [b]Stephen Paddock's father was bank robber on FBI Most Wanted list[/b] [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/stephen-paddock-father-bank-robber-wanted-fbi-article-1.3536478[/url] [quote]The brother of Stephen Paddock, the crazed gunman who killed more than 50 people at an outdoor Las Vegas concert on Sunday night, has revealed disturbing details about their past. Eric Paddock told reporters Monday that their father was a convicted bank robber who was added to the FBI's Most Wanted list after escaping prison in the 1960s.[/quote] [t]http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3536537.1506964720!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/article-father-1002.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52739944]BG checks are good but, How does it even apply here? Unless I've misread something, or some critical information hasn't come to light yet; the guy had a clean record. He have certainly passed, especially considering he was able to do all the paperwork for several select fire weapons. And Frankly why do people wait until mass shootings for big discussions of gun legalization? Suicide and organized crime completely outnumber these mass shootings several times over, yet it doesn't seem to count in peoples eyes unless there's a rifle and a high profile case involved.[/QUOTE] I get where you're coming from but mass shootings of unaware bystanders I guess is just more scary to people than suicide or gang violence

[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] Yes the push against more thorough background checks sounds pretty stupid, but this doesn't mean pro-gun advocates have never made compromises. Several changes to gun regulation were made over the years such as: - Removing the ability to buy firearms via mail order (black powder weapons can still be shipped directly to you as in most places). - Putting an extremely prohibitive $200 tax and background checks requiring fingerprinting, passport photos and a wait time of over 6 months to buy a suppressor, short barreled weapons or machine guns. - Removing the ability of civilians to own any machine gun made after 1986, which hyperinflated the market and made them prohibitively expensive to any average person. (Most actual assault rifles cost more than a car, and certain weapons can reach over $100,000) - The Assault Weapons Ban. This is a huge reason why no one wants to negotiate anymore. I don't think anyone for guns wants to have a discussion about the topic because really we can't trust politicians not to shoehorn in dumb shit like another assault weapons ban or worse. There's only things to lose and nothing to gain. The whole thing with gun owners being defensive and feeling persecuted is not unwarranted as some of you think. The media is constantly painting gun owners as uneducated, trigger happy and irresponsible. Added onto the fact that after any mass shooting without fail, news outlets trying to push an anti gun political narrative will ask the question "why are people allowed to buy machine guns?" and continually imply we all have readily available access to military hardware and that machine guns are something you can just buy anywhere on the streets [B]which they are not[/B]. Anytime I want to go to the range to practice, I feel like I have to hide everything and get it into the car fast as possible because people are going to think I'm some horrible person for owning a weapon. At least that's the sort of message I'm getting from watching dumb politicians and the news constantly bashing guns and the people who own them. There's also a significant portion of people personally attacking gun owners on here as well. They try to blame us and gun culture by saying things like we're somehow indirectly responsible for the actions of the minority of fuckwits who abuse their rights to commit atrocities such as mass shootings. But please, go on and tell me about how I shouldn't feel persecuted in even the slightest amount.

[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;52739980]A majority of Americans want a universal background check and experts agree it would reduce the number of people killed per year. But Congress refuses to pass a bill because the Republicans are bought by the NRA and gun manufacturers. [/QUOTE] I apologize for misreading your earlier comment, I thought you were using background checks to argue that Americans want much stricter gun control in general. Again, though, most people don't know what 'universal background checks' means. Back in 2013, in response to Sandy Hook, a bunch of new gun control legislation was proposed. It all failed, but despite the supposed widespread public support for even minor measures, [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/04/24/why-the-american-public-isnt-mad-as-hell-about-the-failure-of-the-gun-bill-in-numbers/?utm_term=.fa958ec93660"]the public was almost evenly split[/URL] over whether it was a bad thing or not. People like the idea of 'require a background check on all purchases' when it's presented as a concept. When they hear the details, it's less palatable. As for 'experts agree it would reduce the number of people killed per year', a NIJ study in the mid-80s found that so few weapons used in crime were acquired from private sale that it was negligible. In a more recent study in Michigan, just three percent of the firearms used in crime were acquired from gun shows. You can read more about the background to both studies [URL="https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows"]here[/URL]. Universal background checks aren't nearly as supported in practice as hypothetical polls indicate, and there's little reason to think they'd make any noticeable difference in our crime rates when firearms used in crime are overwhelmingly stolen, given, or straw purchased. If the DoJ refuses to prosecute cases of gang members passing background checks on behalf of their felon gang members as it stands, how are more background checks supposed to help? It's not that Congress is bought out by the NRA (and yes, I am perfectly willing to admit that the NRA has [I]some[/I] pull with representatives- even though they have a mere [I]fraction[/I] of the money and influence of the Brady Campaign pulling in the opposite direction), it's that it's a pointless measure with less than unanimous support. Why expend political clout on something that clearly won't make any significant difference?

[QUOTE=LennyPenny;52739983]ban guns[/QUOTE] [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country"]There's more guns than people in the US.[/URL] That will never happen. There's something everyone can agree on. The guy was very clearly mentally ill, that sounds like a better place to start.

[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52739998] But please, go on and tell me about how I shouldn't feel persecuted in even the slightest amount.[/QUOTE] Because some people will go on a thread about a horrific mass shooting involving hundreds of victims and try to make the whole thing about themselves and their guns

[QUOTE=urbanmonkey;52740018]Because some people will go on a thread about a horrific mass shooting involving hundreds of victims and try to make the whole thing about themselves and their guns[/QUOTE] And others will go on a thread about a horrific mass shooting involving hundreds of victims and try to make the whole thing about pointless and impossible gun control measures. AlbertWesker has a point, to an extent. Gun owners have gotten nothing out of these supposed instances where we are supposed to just "compromise" or "be reasonable". When actual compromises and legitimate legislature comes to the table, you will be surprised how much easier this can be.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52739925]They also confirmed he had bump fire stocks. Here come the calls for bans.[/QUOTE] That's fair to me. Bump firing is a dumb technique but it can do a lot of damage if you're aiming at nothing in particular like this guy was. No reason to make it easier for people to do (Or more accurate).

The thing is, there's so many guns in the USA that it's too late to go the route of other countries, and that can be traced back to the founding of the country. Even if every legally owned firearm was turned in and destroyed, there's still going to be tens of thousands of firearms out there. In the hands of criminals. The 500 shootings in Chicago so far this year? Would still be 500 shootings. The police would still have to carry Guns and AR's. Now until you can get the many thousands of illegally owned firearms out of the hands of criminals, I'll be keeping mine

[QUOTE=StonedPenguin;52740016][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country"]There's more guns than people in the US.[/URL] That will never happen. There's something everyone can agree on. The guy was very clearly mentally ill, that sounds like a better place to start.[/QUOTE] Yea but he showed no signs and I doubt he'd seek help. Considering his wealth he couldve easily gotten it already. So how do we fix it. Or can we even.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;52740037]So how do we fix it. Or can we even.[/QUOTE] Did this guy have any registered firearms, or were they all black market?

I don't believe any amount of background checks could have prevented this. Even having stronger restrictions on guns, he still passed all of the background checks. I believe he just snapped one day. Yet for some reason the collective blame always seems to be on gun owners. Gun owners are as much to blame as Muslims are for extremists. Which is to say they aren't to blame if you don't catch my meaning. Banning guns may as well be banning religion in the US. [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740039]Did this guy have any registered firearms, or were they all black market?[/QUOTE] They're all registered from what I saw in the news just a few moments ago

[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;52740042] They're all registered from what I saw in the news just a few moments ago[/QUOTE] Then how about this. Treat firearms like we already do cars and require a registration renewal every few years. Make a mental health checkup a part of that renewal.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740039]Did this guy have any registered firearms, or were they all black market?[/QUOTE] That AP tweet's article said he was well known by gunshop owners and set off zero red flags

Has an armed rebellion against government ever been a rebellion of the majority's will rather than that of a militant minority?

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740049]Then how about this. Treat firearms like we already do cars and require a registration renewal every few years. Make a mental health checkup a part of that renewal.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'd agree with that, if our lawmakers were actually smart enough to push that through instead of just "BAN GUNS" [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RobL;52740053]Has an armed rebellion against government ever been a rebellion of the majority's will rather than that of a militant minority?[/QUOTE] There's only ever been one, and that was our founding

[QUOTE=RobL;52740053]Has an armed rebellion against government ever been a rebellion of the majority's will rather than that of a militant minority?[/QUOTE] The founding of this nation comes to mind, but that's about it. I don't think the same type of uprising would ever be possible again given how far weaponry has advanced since then.

[QUOTE=GunFox;52739957]Home invasions are actually exceptionally rare in the US. Because people don't like getting shot.[/QUOTE] Well, they happen, but the majority of them happen between 9 and 11 AM, when most people are at work. "Hot" home invasions are rare.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740061]The founding of this nation comes to mind, but that's about it. I don't think the same type of uprising would ever be possible again given how far weaponry has advanced since then.[/QUOTE] So basically the right to arms is the right for another ruling minority to replace the current ruling minority???

[media]https://twitter.com/AP/status/914977169557868544[/media]

[QUOTE=RobL;52740075]So basically the right to arms is the right for another ruling minority to replace the current ruling minority???[/QUOTE] No, the right to bare arms is the chance for the people to stand up to an oppressive regime. They added it because if their experimental government failed they wanted a reset button to be in the hands of the people. I think it's lost it's meaning since then however. Airstrikes and Tanks weren't a concept back then.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740081]No, the right to bare arms is the chance for the people to stand up to an oppressive regime. They added it because if their experimental government failed they wanted a reset button to be in the hands of the people. I think it's lost it's meaning since then however. Airstrikes and Tanks weren't a concept back then.[/QUOTE] "The people". It's been said here (by users that fully support gun rights nonetheless) that firearms would not be necessary if an uprising were actually the majority, so it stands on that basis that firearms can only enable a minority group to exert disproportionate influence/power

[QUOTE=Kiwi;52739808]Christ. How do you even get 17 guns in 1 hotel room? What the fuck was he carrying?[/QUOTE] At hotels you can usually just ask for a bell cart, you could easily stack it with generic looking cases with your guns inside, and take it in the elevator up to your room. You could even get the bellmen to help you load and unload them from your car and into your room if you tipped. Just as long as you never explicitly mentioned there were guns in them, it'd be a trivial process.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740061]I don't think the same type of uprising would ever be possible again given how far weaponry has advanced since then.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740081]Airstrikes and Tanks weren't a concept back then.[/QUOTE] The Colonists didn't have warships or artillery, both considered cornerstones of warfare at the time. But it turns out that if you can mobilize enough combat-capable personnel, you can acquire those things through force. You can see the same thing today in most armed revolutions and civil wars. It's not like Syrian rebels had piles of anti-aircraft guns and tanks just lying around in private ownership, ready to rise up- but a group of insurgents with regular rifles can seize those assets and put them to use. Private weapons ownership was never meant to allow the populace to go toe-to-toe with the regulars. It was intended to A. give them the means to fight in enough of a capacity to present a credible threat, and B. give them enough power to politically resist government oppression. On that second point, while assault rifles might not be able to beat tanks, they [i]do[/i] prevent the government from just sending in riot police to enforce their will. It escalates the stakes and gives the populace a leg to stand on, and if it really comes to war it gives the populace the means to secure a more even footing.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;52740098]At hotels you can usually just ask for a bell cart, you could easily stack it with generic looking cases with your guns inside, and take it in the elevator up to your room.[/QUOTE] I wonder if they'll TSA this so you're required to turn your bags over to hotel staff and they have to x-ray them on the way up to your room.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;52740103]I wonder if they'll TSA this so you're required to turn your bags over to hotel staff and they have to x-ray them on the way up to your room.[/QUOTE] In Vegas... I'm sorry for the staff... Think of all the shit they would find. [editline]2nd October 2017[/editline] Could put a sign up on the door: [I]"Your kink is safe with us!"[/I]