Viva Las Vegas

Post Reply
User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4715
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Professor Fate »

Image
Make Them Cry Again In 2020
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25261
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Wabash »

I agree. I should have been more specific. 3% of American adults own half the guns in private hands.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
not4u13
Posts: 5481
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by not4u13 »

I really can't find an apt comparison for what we experience in these mass shootings. I agree that if someone wants to go out with a bang and kill a bunch of people, there are numerous ways they can do that. Drive a car into a crowd, set off a bomb, use a poison gas or some sort of sabotage even. Large gatherings of people are the target in these cases and we like to gather. You can protect against a lot of the above through visual controls such as barricades, metal detectors, inspections and even profiling the crowds. Bomb sniffing dogs are helpful too. It's incredibly difficult to protect against an attack like this one and that is because guns are just different. They have range and as a result make the attack very impersonal.

I agree MDDad that no amount of legislation will stop this completely. I'm advocating for doing more to help reduce the chances.

National gun registration requirement along with easily obtained information for gun owners on state laws and transport of firearms from state to state. I know the argument that some have about the government coming to take your guns if they know you have them, but any military control by any government is going to assume everyone has a gun. Worrying about a national gun registration database is just silly.

Mandatory licensing of the person with a different classification depending on the firearms you own. I can't operate a motorcycle without a class M license. There are basic safety requirements for all firearms, but there are special handling characteristics for handguns vs. shotguns. Everything from the ammunition to the safe use are different. You want to own more than 10 firearms, special license classification with additional background checks.

Mandatory background checks. We have those, but they are inconsistent. Once you have your license, your background will be reviewed annually based on your type of license. If you do something that disqualifies you, expect a visit from local law enforcement.

Periodic firearm safety inspections. You must take your registered firearms to a gun range and have it pass a safety inspection by an authorized and specially licensed certified range instructor. Firearms that do not pass inspection are held at the range until they can pass inspection or must be surrendered.

Mandatory safety training. As a condition of obtaining your license, you must pass a firearm safety course conducted by a licensed and certified range instructor. The safety training should be commensurate with the license you are obtaining and it should also be renewed every 5 years. It would include a written test on the laws of gun ownership and a demonstration test on firing the weapon you are entitled to use with your registration.

Your firearms ownership license could be indicated on your license to operate a motor vehicle. The added benefit is that when showing your license to an officer, they will have an opportunity to question you about your firearm. Those who have a concealed carry permit already show their permit with the license. This is to ensure the safety of the civilian and the officer. The officer will have to assume you may have a weapon as criminals are not going to carry a license or disclose they have one. But if it is shown on your license and you disclose this all up front, steps can be taken by you and the officer to keep you both from assuming the other is a threat.

Restrict sales of firearms to licensed dealers only. No private party sales. Gun shows are fine, but the seller must obtain a permit to sell at the gun show and any buyer must have a valid gun license. All firearms sold must have passed a recent safety inspection and already be registered.

I think the above will make it easier on gun owners in the long run. You want to be a gun owner, go get your license. Once you have it, you can buy guns without the waiting period, up to the maximum your license allows. Gun owners already have a relationship with local range owners who will be conducting testing and providing the certifications. The paperwork required for sale of guns becomes easier. Show your license and buy a gun. Lose your license, surrender your guns.

Let's stop pretending we won't have guns in our society forever. Let's stop pretending that the government will ever be an enemy we can stop with our "arsenal". Let's put some restrictions in place and improve the safety training.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25261
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Wabash »

The New England Journal of Medicine has weighed in on the topic as a public health issue.

Tragedy's Legacy
An argument could be made for a complete rethinking of the role that firearms play in the United States. That is the work of generations, however, and we can accomplish much without it. In the near term, harm reduction is the best approach. We can make specific changes to our firearms laws, on the basis of existing evidence, that will produce measurable benefits.
The major points are:

1. Background checks for all firearm purchases. Specifically the 40% of purchases that occur between private sellers.

2. Broaden the criteria for denying someone the purchase or possession of firearms. Among persons who purchase firearms legally, those with a previous conviction for a misdemeanor violent crime (e.g., assault and battery) are roughly nine times as likely as those with no criminal history to be subsequently arrested for a violent crime. With two or more such prior convictions, the risk increases by a factor of 10 to 15. Alcohol abuse is a leading risk factor for both interpersonal and self-directed violence, and firearm owners who abuse alcohol are more likely than other owners to engage in violence-related behaviors with firearms. Better data and criteria that take account of the evidence that mental illness is treatable and that risk for violence is not increased substantially unless there is a history or threat of violence or a history of substance abuse.

3. We know that comprehensive background checks and expanded denial criteria are feasible and effective, because they are in place in many states and have been evaluated. California, for example, requires a background check on all firearm purchases and denies purchases by persons who have committed violent misdemeanors. Yet some 600,000 firearms were sold there in 2011, and the firearms industry continues to consider California a “lucrative” market. The denial policy reduced the risk of violent and firearm-related crime by 23% among those whose purchases were denied.

And the most important aspect. That gun policy be universal. The current patchwork of gun laws only renders any restrictions in one locale useless if it is bordered by an area that has lax or little regulation.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
Bick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Bick »

Not4 - it's refreshing to read your reasonable arguments that don't involve name-calling or innuendo that those who disagree with you are irrational or idiots.

If I understand you correctly, it seems your suggestions are aimed primarily at stopping the mass shootings v. the daily gun-related deaths. While I strongly disagree that should be the priority direction regarding efforts to reduce deaths by guns in this country, I'll offer my take on what I agree with, as well as how I'd tackle making large public gatherings less vulnerable to attacks.

I believe licensing, background checks, and renewals make sense. But it seems like an expensive proposition. I bring up money because it's going to take financial resources to accomplish what I'd suggest as a more effective course of action. I also think I like the idea of guns being sold through registered sources only. Not sure what the counter argument would be to that.

I don't agree with the idea of limiting one's arsenal of weapons is an effective deterrent - mainly because of diminishing returns. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter if a shooter has 10 weapons or 10,000. Generally can't carry more than 5, and if you're holed up in a building, I assume chances are someone's shooting back by the time you get to weapon #11. All prior mass shootings were perpetrated using less than 5.

If we looked at this as a military guy would in terms of assessing and defending potential vulnerabilities, I think we'd be much more effective. Spending resources to limit the amount of guns the enemy possesses assumes there would be a realistic advantage gained in either limiting or understanding the enemy's capability.

Instead, prioritize the venues with the largest attendance - malls, hotels, hi-rise buildings, concert venues, etc - and require both metal detectors and armed security at a ratio of 1 per 50-100 attendees.
broman
Posts: 4088
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:52 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by broman »

“Do you have a sense of normalcy yet? Do you look forward to the moment where you won’t think about it every day?” Chuck Todd asked Scalise on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” referring to the baseball practice shooting where Scalise was injured.

“You know, it’s not that there are bad thoughts that I think of, because there was so much good that came out of a bad act,” Scalise said.

Asked why he thinks a week after the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history was “too soon” to have a discussion about gun control, Scalise said, “We’ve had a gun control debate for a long time.”

“Is there a limit?” Todd asked. “Is the right to bear arms unlimited or is there a limit?”

“Look, the Second Amendment really predates the Bill of Rights,” Scalise replied. “It is a long history in our country to make sure that you protect the right of citizens to bear arms.”

“But is it unlimited?” Todd pressed.

“It is,” Scalise replied.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/s ... -bear-arms

Hard to find middle ground with this position.
Bick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Bick »

Setting the politics aside, what is the practical reason for limiting the number of guns someone owns as it relates to stopping gun deaths? Intuitively, I thought it should. But the more I evaluate it, the less I think owning dozens of guns is a mitigating factor.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 20827
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by John Q. Public »

Depends on the person, I guess, but it could point to an obsession, as opposed to just an interest or a hobby. It might be good information for the PD or FD to have in an emergency, too. But it could also be kind of "Big Brother-ish" if the guy's just a hunter or a person with an interest in such things.
“Look, the Second Amendment really predates the Bill of Rights,” Scalise replied.
Um... um... :eh?:
Don't look at me, I just work here.
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25261
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Wabash »

At the very least there are things that should have been done some time ago.

Banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. With significant fines for getting caught with them.

Banning armor piecing and incendiary rounds.

Universal background checks. Registration. Mandatory wait periods. Ban private transactions. Eliminate any gun show loopholes.

Totally eliminate automatic weapons. Mandatory sentences and fines for possession. Including post purchase modifications or devices that simulate automatic fire.

Make them universal.

Would it stop everything? Maybe not. But I believe it would help.
Bick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Bick »

John Q. Public wrote:Depends on the person, I guess, but it could point to an obsession, as opposed to just an interest or a hobby. It might be good information for the PD or FD to have in an emergency, too. But it could also be kind of "Big Brother-ish" if the guy's just a hunter or a person with an interest in such things.
Let's say you have to bet the lives of your family on being right. What would have the greater impact on mitigating a mass shooting: Metal detectors & increased armed security OR all of capping the number of guns someone could buy legally, restricting magazines, background checks, etc.?

In the past 35 years there have been 66 mass shooting incidents. Of those, 26 involved involved rifles, and the rest were handguns. Why go after the rifles first?

There's currently 300+ millions guns out there, and about 10 million people with some form of serious mental disorder.

I don't think any of the proposals I've seen comes close to preventing the next currently being planned attack.
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25261
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Wabash »

We know that none of the current attacks being planned aren't going to be prevented by the current laws in place.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
not4u13
Posts: 5481
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 9:00 pm

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by not4u13 »

We all are shocked and saddened by mass shootings. Pretending that advocates for guns somehow advocate for mass shootings is insulting to everyone. Despite the fact that people die by guns every day, the Nation only pays attention when these mass shootings occur. That's why I'm focusing on that issue. It's the only catalyst for change we seem to have.

The cost of handling the gun registration and licensing system would be paid out of license and registration fees. I'd even consider a special tax on gun sales, despite my general opposition to special taxes. We have a cigarette tax and a gas tax, why not a gun tax? Some states do this already.

My rationale for limiting the number of weapons someone can own is really more of an attempt to manage the total number of weapons in the marketplace, which should drive down demand. Addressing the demand side of the equation should have an effect on all gun violence. The small gun shop makes up for the loss in revenue with safety training and certification programs. It's really a long term play.

The overall idea is to continue to allow gun ownership but increase the attention on who is buying the guns and increase the training aspects.

I do think there are several issues with what I propose. The rural farmer or rancher will likely have several guns that they might consider tools of the trade. They are not likely to care much about all these rules and regulations. It's highly doubtful they would pay attention to them anyway. Perhaps exceptions could be made for those guns, so long as they stay on their property. Any hunting rifles or sidearms they take with them, would need to be registered.

So what about all those illegal weapons that are often used in gang violence and the like. Well, these new regulations would give officers more tools and a simple, uniform, way to identify who should have weapons and who should not. Criminals are not going to be licensed and they are not going to register their guns. They don't want anything to trace back to them. So how do you get those guns off the streets? Passing new laws isn't going to do much because they don't follow the laws we do have.

One idea is to issue a blanket search warrant for firearms. A clear violation of the right to privacy, but perhaps a case can be made based on crime rates that there is a probably cause to believe every house has an illegal weapon. Bring in trained animals that can sniff out guns.

Heck, you could even just walk down the street with a gun sniffing dog and if they alert on a person or place, that should be enough probable cause.

Another step is to deploy the gunshot detection systems throughout a high crime area. That could be used to respond more quickly and more directly to where shots are fired. It could also be used to give probable cause to search an area.

I'll admit that I'm reaching my limit on how well I understand the problem, but we need to start talking seriously about changing the way we look at gun ownership.
Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, over-civilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountain is going home; that wildness is necessity; John Muir
http://www.quotesdaddy.com
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 20827
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by John Q. Public »

Universal registration could also get more stolen guns returned to their owners. Just the opposite of the argument proffered against it.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
MDDad
Posts: 12150
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by MDDad »

All the measures discussed above, while intelligent and well-intentioned, still concentrate on the supply side of the problem. Making guns harder to get, or raising hurdles to their ownership, does not really address the demand. I think people buy or own guns for two main reasons. One is because they fear for their own safety or that of their families or property, and they procure guns for protection. The other is because they are infatuated with them, and this includes everyone from collectors, hobbyist shooters and hunters to the loons who fear a military coup or are planning the next mass murder. Unless those demands are addressed, I really think any other measures will be only marginally helpful.

Just look at the war on drugs to see how making something harder to get is not an impediment to those who would abuse the product.
User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 20827
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by John Q. Public »

Step #1 would be for the NRA in particular to stop pushing them as such. Step #2 would be to sit back and wait the generations for it to have an effect. It's absolutely what needs to be done, but it will take a very long time to accomplish it.
Don't look at me, I just work here.
Bick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Bick »

I don't entirely disagree with universal registration as a possible course of action at some point. But assuming we're trying to mitigate the loss of life from mass shootings, wouldn't it be a significantly more impactful use of resources to increase security instead? It's indisputable that plane hijackings are pretty much a thing of the past since the enhanced security measures subsequent to 2001. Why not approach crowd safety the same way?

This is the priority order:

1. Secure the venue
2. Determine WHO the perpetrators are. For the mass shootings, there's not much actionable info. Given there are nearly 10 million people with serious mental health issues, any background check aimed at determining which of the 50 throughout the country in the past 35 years with prior mental health issues would become a mass murderer seems like an exercise in futility. On the daily killings, 80% is done by gangs, and I believe 90% of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. It's a relatively easy exercise to figure out who they are, and where they are. The question is whether we are committed to getting them off, and KEEPING them off the streets.
3. Determine WHAT they are using, and where they are coming from Far and away, handguns are the weapons of choice. Not assault rifles with high capacity magazines. I'm pretty sure carrying a weapon requires some form of permit in most states, and all handguns and assault rifles currently require a permit in CA and IL. How would a national registry make a significant difference to local law enforcement?
4. Determine WHY they are doing it Speaks into JQP comment about our culture. Who benefits the most by showcasing the violent side of human nature?
User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18224
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Fordama »

Bick wrote:Not4 - it's refreshing to read your reasonable arguments that don't involve name-calling or innuendo that those who disagree with you are irrational or idiots.

If I understand you correctly, it seems your suggestions are aimed primarily at stopping the mass shootings v. the daily gun-related deaths. While I strongly disagree that should be the priority direction regarding efforts to reduce deaths by guns in this country, I'll offer my take on what I agree with, as well as how I'd tackle making large public gatherings less vulnerable to attacks.

I believe licensing, background checks, and renewals make sense. But it seems like an expensive proposition. I bring up money because it's going to take financial resources to accomplish what I'd suggest as a more effective course of action. I also think I like the idea of guns being sold through registered sources only. Not sure what the counter argument would be to that.

I don't agree with the idea of limiting one's arsenal of weapons is an effective deterrent - mainly because of diminishing returns. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter if a shooter has 10 weapons or 10,000. Generally can't carry more than 5, and if you're holed up in a building, I assume chances are someone's shooting back by the time you get to weapon #11. All prior mass shootings were perpetrated using less than 5.

If we looked at this as a military guy would in terms of assessing and defending potential vulnerabilities, I think we'd be much more effective. Spending resources to limit the amount of guns the enemy possesses assumes there would be a realistic advantage gained in either limiting or understanding the enemy's capability.

Instead, prioritize the venues with the largest attendance - malls, hotels, hi-rise buildings, concert venues, etc - and require both metal detectors and armed security at a ratio of 1 per 50-100 attendees.
I don't have much time, but I do want to say I appreciate the way you expressed this.

My quick statement about "arsenals" is that the government should be aware when someone has a sizable one, and more importantly when someone suddenly buys a sizable number. That's often the sign of trouble--whether a nutjob like this Vegas shooter or straw buyers for criminals and cartels.

I think there has to be careful tracking of sales.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK
User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 25261
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 10 times

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Wabash »

Europeans weigh in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=175&v=a-o9pwWUzz0
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Сделай Америку великой снова
Bick
Posts: 5003
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Bick »

And what Europeans think matters because...?
User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12647
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Viva Las Vegas

Post by Vilepagan »

Maybe because they're not shooting each other as often as we are.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada
Post Reply