Las Vegas Massacre

[Fresno Bob]

Cars used to kill 10s of thousands of people every year, now they kill many less, thanks to regulation, licensing, registration, and safety improvements. Lets do the same with guns

[DMT]

I have already said that I am not opposed to magazine capacity limits and background checks. I will add waiting periods to obtain the permit is fine also.

If your trying to stop people from killing by using guns and making it illegal for certain individuals to legally obtain a gun - the new law will only further define or refine existing laws that are broken easily and frequently in order to obtain firearms. Its lipstick on a pig, because it will not actively stop someone from obtaining firearms. Lets also keep in mind that the person that did this act apparently obtained their arsenal legally - so no law implemented would have stopped this.

So since no laws were broken in this case, we shouldn't add new laws? You're arguing both sides and it really makes no sense.

[TranaGreg]

I'm reminded of this article that the Onion posts every time there's a mass shooting (they post it a lot) ...

'No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens

LAS VEGAS—In the hours following a violent rampage in Las Vegas in which a lone attacker killed more than 50 individuals and seriously injured 400 others, citizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Monday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Iowa resident Kyle Rimmels, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep these individuals from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

[baldgriff]

No -
I was asked by swampdragon what I would do. So I stated what I have stated previously in this thread - we can limit magazine size, and do background checks etc....

My contention throughout the thread though has been that more laws wont actually STOP people from committing these acts. I came back to that point again and pointed out that even with all of the laws that we have - this guy still apparently obtained all of these guns legally.

So if you want you can add all of the laws you may - and as demonstrated here - it may still be possible that the bad actor obtains all of this stuff legally and go off the rails. We have pretty good set of laws on the books - there could be some tightening as it pertains to mental health issues. That said, the only people that are delayed in obtaining a gun are those that are willing to purchase legally. No amount of law is going to stop someone from breaking more laws in order to obtain a weapon or use it illegally.

Its similar to driving - you are supposed to have insurance when you own and drive a car - yet there is a very large population of uninsured drivers. Creating more laws to make someone have insurance will not deter people from finding a way of driving without insurance. In fact insurance companies take that in to account when determining premiums you pay more in states where you are more likely to have uninsured drivers. (Its a simplistic example I know - but it makes my point - at least I think it does)

Again - laws dont stop people from acting badly. Laws merely define what is allowable or not in our society (and the penalties associated to the conduct).

Proposed gun laws on "assault weapons" dont really fix anything - they go after predominately cosmetic things that may make a gun more easy to hold or sight - but they dont change the actual rate of fire for any of the semi-automatic weapons. If you are concerned about the mass destruction - then who cares if it has a pistol grip or extendable stock. I can pull the trigger as fast as I can either way and the gun will operate as intended. If you want to limit magazine size that is fine. It would still be possible to place multiple 10 round clips together and get off up to 50 rounds in about a minute. Semi-Automatic guns have been available for over 100 years. So firing bullets quickly has been possible for a very long time - over a century. The only real way to effectively limit the number of rounds that can be fired in a given time is to get rid of multiple round guns and magazines - effectively get rid of all semi-automatic guns. That my friend will never happen - because then the government will be coming for peoples guns.

[baldgriff]

Cars used to kill 10s of thousands of people every year, now they kill many less, thanks to regulation, licensing, registration, and safety improvements. Lets do the same with guns

We already have regulations and licensing and registration. Define safety improvements - the only one I can think of is warm fingerprint technology (which is not fool proof and would not stop and owner from committing this deed).


We also have a large group of uninsured and underinsured drivers out there. We also still have a great many people that DWI.

The law itself doesnt stop the bad action.

Air bags, safety belts, car design and such are primarily responsible for decline in deaths and injuries related to car accidents - not me paying a car registration.

[TranaGreg]

... which is not fool proof ...

the bar should not be whether a suggested action is foolproof; it should be whether it makes an incremental improvement or not

...Air bags, safety belts, car design and such are primarily responsible for decline in deaths and injuries related to car accidents - not me paying a car registration.

you do realize that airbags & safety belts are in all cars now because laws were passed requiring them, right?

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

We already have regulations and licensing and registration. Define safety improvements - the only one I can think of is warm fingerprint technology (which is not fool proof and would not stop and owner from committing this deed).


We also have a large group of uninsured and underinsured drivers out there. We also still have a great many people that DWI.

The law itself doesnt stop the bad action.

Air bags, safety belts, car design and such are primarily responsible for decline in deaths and injuries related to car accidents - not me paying a car registration.

Sounds like you think it isn't worth the effort to try to make things better. Maybe it's not a problem, just part of the price we pay for our freedom.

[baldgriff]

I dont have any problem with an incremental "safety" change.

I actually have endorsed 2 of them so far. Smaller magazine sizes and warm finger print technology.

My concern is that these "safety changes" actually do nothing to change the rate of fire on a semi-automatic gun, whether it is a handgun or rifle.

Certain safety measures have already been designed to make semi-automatic rifles safer to operate. Things like pistol grips and expandable/retractable stocks make the gun easier to hold and thus operate more safely. Oh yeah - the problem is that these safety measures are just the things that define it as an assault weapon. Again - more lipstick on the pig.

The end game here ultimately is that the only way to eliminate multiple rounds in a short period of time is actually eliminating semi-automatic guns or multiple chamber guns.

So you have to eliminate these guns and have single cock pistols and rifles if you really want to change the actual rate of fire and potential mass damage that can be done either by someone legally or illegally obtaining the actual gun itself. That just isnt realistic or going to happen. So we can implement magazine limits - go ahead I have no problem with it. We can try and tighten up the background check - within reason - ok I guess. We can look to technology to create guns that only fire by the actual owner. However, none of this actually changes anything about the rate of fire - which is how you get the number of casualties you get in such a short time.

[dslaw]

I have already said that I am not opposed to magazine capacity limits and background checks. I will add waiting periods to obtain the permit is fine also.

This is a good start. Add registering all guns, I saw Nevada didn't have a law like this, limiting the number of guns to something reasonable. Who needs 42 guns or however many this guy had?

[cardboardbox]

Lets also keep in mind that the person that did this act apparently obtained their arsenal legally - so no law implemented would have stopped this.

I'd like to know what it would take to prevent this scenario from happening again.

[cardboardbox]

This is a good start. Add registering all guns, I saw Nevada didn't have a law like this, limiting the number of guns to something reasonable. Who needs 42 guns or however many this guy had?

how many did he need to do what he did? Limit gun ownership to 5? So he just reloads a few times rather than grab another gun?

[DMT]

I'd like to know what it would take to prevent this scenario from happening again.

Why? It's never gonna happen.

[TranaGreg]

I'd like to know what it would take to prevent this scenario from happening again.

I think everyone would like to know that too.

Once you found out, what would you do with that info?

[TranaGreg]

here's an interesting summary from The Atlantic on what has changed with gun legislation since Sandy Hook ...

The five years since a gunman killed 26 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have seen one of the most intense bursts of gun legislation in U.S. history—almost all of it intended to ensure that more guns can be carried into more places.
...
In July 2014, Tennessee allowed residents to keep loaded weapons in their vehicles even without a concealed carry permit.

Wisconsin did away with its 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases in June 2015.

Texas allowed students over age 21 to carry guns almost anywhere onto a university campus beginning in August 2016. (Sports stadiums are exempted, however.)

Florida, in February 2017, dramatically expanded its “stand your ground” law. Previously, the gun owner was required to prove that he or she had acted reasonably. Now Florida puts the onus on prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gun owner acted unreasonably.

Effective June 2017, the state of Ohio allowed concealed-carry weapons to be brought into daycare centers and airports.

In July 2017, a local version of Florida’s “stand your ground” law took effect in Iowa, authorizing deadly force by gun owners. It also allowed gun use by children under 14, so long as they were under adult supervision, and extended concealed carry permits’ duration from one year to five.

I can't begin to understand this.

[Sour Masher]

I know this would never fly, and isn't really practical, and really,I admit this is absurd and very likely unfair. But just let me fantasize here, as I'm curious what people think of the underlying premise of possibly restricting gun ownership based on thought patterns rather than actions (I recognize the Minority Report vibe to this).

There are tests to determine whether someone is a sociopath or psychopath. I realize these are imperfect, limited, and beatable by those who know they are being tested, but I fantasize that, like a driver licence test, there was a test for gun purchases and renewal of gun licences that flagged people for further evaluation and inquiry who display sociopathic and psychopathic tendencies. I think it would have to be a verbal test so people would have to think and respond quickly to have any effect, but it there was a 10 question test and 7 questions were about gun storage, safety and usage, and 3 were randomly taken from something like Levenson questionnaire, or just showing a picture of a puppy with its head caved in just to see if the person reacts or thinks it is appealing, it might do something to weed out some of the people who should not own a gun.

Basically, if you are incapable of empathy, guilt, and feelings of remorse, if you are extremely ego-centric and incapable of understanding that hurting others is bad or wrong, I don't want you owning a gun. But I realize that 1. It would be nearly impossible to implement any measure like this fairly and practically, and 2. It would raise an outcry from those saying we are taking away the rights of those with certain mental "disabilities," specifically sociopaths and pyschopaths, whom folks on both the left and the right would say we are discriminating against based on how they think rather than what they have actually done or not done to that point in their lives.

Again, I'm just sharing a fantasy I have about my dream of not having a large population of socipaths owning guns, which they currently do. While a lot of sociopaths own guns and don't kill people in mass, most mass shooters are sociopaths. I realize i am basically profiling and discriminating against them by suggesting we identify them and restrict their rights to own guns. But i go back to the idea that I do not want someone to have weapons if they are not capable of feeling bad about killing people.