Death and Terror On The Strip...

[Gob]

There is one gun shop in our city.

[Bicycle Bill]

Only one Starbucks (and one Dunkin' Donuts) in a 25-mile radius, while even without resorting to Google I can name, from memory, at least a dozen sports shops, pawn shops, outfitters like Gander Mountain, a couple of specialized gun shops, and even a WalMart, a Farm and Fleet, and an Ace Hardware where a person can purchase a firearm.

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

In Philly: (not counting surrounding counties)
Gun Shops: 32
Starbucks: 20

[dales]

There is one gun shop in our city.

Not even one store that sells Marmite.

[datsunaholic]

My city of address (which I don't actually live in, just near)

3 Standalone gun shops
3 other retailers that sell guns (Walmart, Fred Meyer, and Big 5 Sporting Goods)
2 Starbucks
4 Subways.

We have more Subways than Starbucks.

Add in the city I actually am CLOSEST to, adds one more Subway. So that's whats within 15 minutes of where I live.

[Gob]

Why we don't understand you.

[liberty]

This was a country music festival. Country music fans are racist, right. Country fans are trump supporter. It is ok to beat up Trumps supporter to teach them a lesson. So, would it not be ok to kill trump supports to teach them a lesson by making an example of some? Now, I AM NOT saying the shooter was a leftist, but if he was you will never hear it on the liberal main stream media………Lee Harvey Oswald was communist but we did know for forty years.

I am not afraid; I refuse to be afraid. I would carry my own gun before I would tolerate fear.

There are compromises that would keep guns out of the hands of some untrustworthy individuals while protecting the rights of most gun owners, but you guys are not interested in compromise. You know who are..

[datsunaholic]

Well, I got drawn into a bit of weirdness. When the right thinks I'm anti-gun and the left thinks I'm pro-gun, what the hell am I?

Anyhow, I was replying to a very liberal friend's repost about gun laws and my belief that to have any real change in gun laws in this country, would require repealing or rewriting the 2nd Amendment. I didn't state which side I was on, just that statement. I did get some pushback- sensible criticism of my statement, that Machine guns were outlawed in the 20s without a constitutional amendment, and "Assault" weapons were banned/highly restricted for a while in the 80s/90s. True, but as they aren't dictated by the Constitution, both of those were easier to roll back and subject to differing interpretations of the political climate of the time. Hell, there are crazy pro-gunners that believe the 2nd Amendment technically allows them the right to tactical nuclear weapons. The 2nd Amendment is vague- intentionally. It was also written over 225 years ago, as part of the bill of rights meant to constrain federal powers.

I wrote that it was based on the British bill of rights that was written after James II tried to disarm the British Subjects. I didn't get into the Colonial reasons for it, which are hard to decipher other than the British attempt to disarm the Americans, and the American desire for self preservation.

But, none of that got a reply. Instead I got a reply that the 2nd Amendment was about controlling slaves.

Dafuq?

And then, on my right-winger friends side, they're already talking government conspiracy, that the shots didn't come from the 30somethingth floor, etc.

Gaargh. If my "Conservative" friends weren't the ones that shared the same activities, I'd never be around them. But my "liberal" friends rarely want me around because I'm too blue collar and eccentric.

[datsunaholic]

Lee Harvey Oswald was communist but we did know for forty years

40 years? Kennedy was assasinated in 1963. I knew Oswald was a Communist in GRADE SCHOOL. In the 1980s.

It was in the Warren Report. Which was made public on September 27, 1964. Less than a year after the assassination.

Plus the media had picked it up long, long before that.

[Econoline]

I am not afraid; I refuse to be afraid. I would carry my own gun before I would tolerate fear.

All that that gun will give you is a false sense of security. (If anyone in that crowd in Vegas was carrying, it didn't do them one damned bit of good.) If it helps you to cope with the stress of life here in 21st century America, good for you, but realistically it probably only increases the danger to those around you.

There are compromises that would keep guns out of the hands of some untrustworthy individuals while protecting the rights of most gun owners, but you guys are not interested in compromise. You know who are..

Because of the climate of extreme partisanship and cultural confrontation (blind, unreasoning tribal loyalty, really) in our country today, any compromise would have to be initiated by a group of conservative Republicans (in overt defiance of their financial donors in the NRA and the firearms industry). No matter how sensible, *ANY* proposal put forward by *ANY* Democrat would be rejected out-of-hand by the right wing because they simply don't trust "libtards" and see *ANYTHING* they propose as a step on the slippery slope toward confiscation.

[Scooter]

And the village idiot slithers out from under his rock, lobs his latest salvo of sleazy innuendo, and disappears.

If there is one person I am sorry was not in that crowd in Las Vegas...

[Guinevere]

i
just want
a country

where affording
health care
is easy

and getting shot
in the street
is hard

why
is that
so much
to ask

(worth repeating)

[BoSoxGal]

https://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

[Sue U]

https://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

That is depressingly awesome.

[Sue U]

Sue--point taken, but my concern is that the idea of repealing the second amendment is usually discussed in the same breath as reducing gun violence (especially after high profile shootings such as this), and it is likely we will not see much change even if we do make gun ownership a "regulated privilege" as you suggest because there are just too many guns around.

If gun ownership could be truly regulated, ownership would require licensing, registration, training, safe storage, and perhaps even liability insurance. I suspect that alone would result in a a fairly steep initial reduction in the number of firearms in general circulation as those who cannot meet the requirements decide gun ownership is just not worth it. If you add "demonstrated need" to licensing/purchasing, or even simply limit the number of guns an individual is allowed, that reduces ownership substantially on the demand side. Governments could institute buy-back programs to encourage reductions in ownership.

On the supply side, repealing the Second Amendment would allow state and local governments to ban certain types of weapons if they choose, require certain safety features/technology (e.g. "smart gun" improvements, trigger locks), and tightly regulate the market.

Add to that the culture we do have of people wanting guns just for the sake of wanting them, and the willingness of people to break the law and even risk criminal penalties to have them (like this guy apparently did with the illegal automatic weapons) and I imagine the change you suggest wouldn't make all that much of a difference in the violent acts involving guns--people who want them will still have them in spite of the law. And when the desired results are not seen, a backlash to reinstate the second amendment might well be see (just as it was with prohibition).

Like I said, nothing is going to be an instant fix for the problem of too many guns. But if it's true that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding, then they will comply with common-sense regulation or choose to no longer own guns. Some people are always willing to break the law, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws; drunk driving is a pretty good example. And of course, in routine law enforcement incidents involving other matters some people will be found to be unlicensed or in possession of unregistered weapons. As long as gun ownership is permitted there will always be problems with guns, but those problems can be reduced significantly by both the direct and indirect effects of regulation.

[RayThom]

https://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com/

I must have been slow on the trigger.

Thoughts and Prayers: 5
Lives Saved: 0

I feel so inadequate. Oh, well, it's in God's hands now. He'll save America.

[Big RR]

As long as gun ownership is permitted there will always be problems with guns, but those problems can be reduced significantly by both the direct and indirect effects of regulation.

and that is, of course, the big question. With the availability of illegal guns, would we see a significant reduction in the problems? I'm not sure we would, and I also would think regulation of the type you are discussing would require a repeal of the second amendment--which would have a significant psychological effect on many who do not even own guns. Just as outlawing automatic weapons did not prevent the carnage in Vegas, outlawing significant classes or gun ownership (or guns altogether) would likely not stop the next nut or person with an axe to grind.

And when people see that, what would the next reaction be--to reinstate the second amendment or even broaden the right to own or carry guns? That's what concerns me about the effect of such regulation.

Of course, reasonable control does not work all that well either, and leaves us with questions as to why a 12 round magazine is OK but a 15 round one is not, leading some to deride it and others to ignore it.

I think the best way to approach it is to try and work out a compromise, but a lot of people are not interested in that.

[ex-khobar Andy]

This was a country music festival. Country music fans are racist, right. Country fans are trump supporter.

I did not know that. Thanks for the info, libturd.

It is ok to beat up Trumps supporter to teach them a lesson.

I really did not know that. I will keep that knowledge under my hat for now but I expect it to be useful at some point in the future.

As for LHO being a communist - you only found out 40 years later? Better late than never, I suppose - most of us were paying attention.

[Big RR]

One thing I did want to comment on, sue, is your comparison to DWI; it is a serious problem and we have addressed it not by banning drinking or driving, but by targeting enforcement and prosecution of those who drive drunk and place other at risk. Along with this we have changed liability laws to provide for host liability, have stepped up enforcement of bars not to serve visibly drunk patrons, and have enforced the drinking age much more vigorously. We also provides for significant penalties for DUI in some jurisdictions that have also limited drunk driving.

And I think this is the approach we should take with regard to gun violence, targeting the offender primarily, but including rational liability extensions, etc.

[RayThom]

On the other hand:

CBS fires VP for writing ‘Republican gun toters’ killed in Las Vegas don’t deserve sympathy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/art ... 625326ee6c

Lawyers can be so damned insensitive at times.