Las Vegas mass shooting

Landlord said:
Do you think it's inaccurate to say that you're unwilling to sacrifice something that you think is cool/fun but not any kind of a necessity in order to save lives?

As far as the supposed hypocrisy of Democrats ignoring safety threats with terrorism, that's not actually a thing. Our vetting process is incredibly thorough and effective, to the tune of 99.9% effectiveness. There's no threat being ignored.

On one side, you have our President making unconstitutional decisions that deny basic American freedoms, because of no legitimate reason. On the other you have legislators saying, "We do not want to get rid of any freedoms, but there is a legitimate problem in our country that could be helped by some reform over legal loopholes and better information/vetting for people who want to exercise that right."
Click to expand...


It's inaccurate because I don't think regulating the weapons would save lives a anymore than I think Trump's travel ban would (I was against that).

Yeah, and 99.999% of gun owners will never kill anybody.

Technically, as of now, both of those decisions would be unconstitutional.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
It's inaccurate because I don't think regulating the weapons would save lives a anymore than I think Trump's travel ban would (I was against that).
Click to expand...




With the travel ban, there was a ton of data/evidence informing the reality that the ban was unnecessary and that what we already have in place is very safe and effective.

With gun culture and the ease of accessibility of these insanely powerful and dangerous weapons, there's hardly any data because the NRA won't allow it, but what does exist suggests that making it more difficult to own automatic weapons would help some people not die.

At the end of the day, I guess I just don't get the concept of, "No way, I'm not giving these up for anything." There's nothing that I own for fun/enjoyment/because it's cool that I care about that much to hold onto at all costs. 

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
I have three automatics. And price  ranges greatly. Can be upward of $1,000.
Click to expand...
So do you take them all out like weekly to shoot?  Is there one that you like better than another?  Do they each offer different things?  (not asking any of this in a snide way - just honestly don't understand why a private citizen would have 3 automatic weapons)

 
I think there are two very distinct issues here.

What stops an event of terrorism? One guy with a gun finding the softest target he can and wreaking havoc? I don't know think it's possible to stop this completely. 

Does America have an epidemic of gun violence, though? Well, emphatically, yes. More guns, more gun violence. A lot of this manifests itself in other ways. Single or small numbers of victims. Suicides. Etc. I'd challenge "99% of gun owners are responsible with them". 99% don't commit mass murder, but that's a different question. From a public health perspective, guns are a risk factor. Not an insignificant one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dbqgolfer said:
You keep saying automatics, but do you mean semi-automatics?
Click to expand...


Yeah, always get referred to as 'autos' around here, because, well I can't say we actually see any around here. Not my circle anyways.

Edit: Do you own any  true automatics? Hard to get here in MIssouri

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
I think it becomes hard to surrender this particular civil freedom because 99.9999% of gun owners are responsible with them.
Click to expand...


I don't think that number stands up to scrutiny, depending on what exactly you mean by "responsible".  I assume you mean gun owners who have legally obtained their guns.  There are a lot of ways you can splice this out, but at least one recent article from the Washington Post agrees with your basic premise: that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally obtained guns.

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/?utm_term=.62817ece4d16

[...] in approximately 8 out of 10 cases, the perpetrator was not a lawful gun owner but rather in illegal possession of a weapon that belonged to someone else. The researchers were primarily interested in how these guns made their way from a legal purchase — at a firearm dealer or via a private sale — to the scene of the crime.

[...]

A number of factors could lead to legal firearms entering the black market. Owners could misplace them, or they could be stolen — either through carelessness on the owner's part (leaving a gun in an unlocked car, for instance) or determination on the part of thieves.

It's also likely that many guns on the black market got there via straw purchases — where a person purchases a gun from a dealer without disclosing that they're buying it for someone else. 

[...]

in 1998, more than 85 percent of gun dealers had no guns used in crimes trace back to them. By contrast, 1 percent of dealers accounted for nearly 6 in 10 crime gun traces that year.

The firearms bureau knows exactly who these gun dealers are — but they're not allowed to share that information with policymakers or researchers due to a law passed by Congress in 2003.
Click to expand...


So if the premise is that the vast majority (not 99.9999%) of gun owners are not responsible for the huge numbers of gun crimes in America - and 1% of gun dealers account for 60% of the guns used in crimes, I can see some very simple steps that could reduce the guns going to the "bad guys". While preserving the rights of lawful and responsible gun owners.

Unfortunately, the NRA fights very hard to not give one inch on anything, so nothing meaningful is going to happen.

 
And this will get swept up with the rest of yesterday's news and discarded. 

Remember how the NRA was going to help eliminate bump stocks?  It's been 3 1/2 months.


 
Back
Top