Death and Terror On The Strip...

[Jarlaxle]

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.

For about sixty years, every "compromise" has actually been the gun-grabbers getting something, and the gun-rights people getting nothing. There has been no compromising.

Looks like I need to make another donation to GOAL.

[BoSoxGal]

That’s some good weed you’re smoking, Jarl.

In fact, gun rights have been repeatedly expanded including in the years since Sandy Hook, where legislation allowing expanded open carry has passed in a number of jurisdictions.

[BoSoxGal]

How America has silently accepted the rage of white men

(CNN)In the wake of one of the worst massacres in modern American history, our government's highest leaders will be silent about why things like this keep happening. "Warmest condolences" will be tweeted to families of those who lost their lives, minutes of mourning will pass and murmurs of mental health issues and lone-wolf actors will taper into silence. Taming homegrown terror and tightening gun control will be dismissed as inappropriate or unnecessary politicizing of a tragedy and quickly become secondary to more pressing issues on the administration's agenda. America has been here before.

In fact, America has been here 273 times in 2017 alone, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which compiles deaths and injuries from shooting incidents and defines a mass shooting as any incident where four or more people are wounded or killed. According to their tally, there have also been 11,698 deaths as a result of gun violence so far this year. Between 2001 and 2014, 440,095 deaths by firearms occurred on US soil, while deaths by terrorism during those years numbered 3,412. Today, America faces approximately one mass shooting per day on average.

Mass shootings are a violent epidemic that have been met with fatal passivity for far too long. If mass shootings were perpetrated mostly by brown bodies, this would quickly be reframed and reformed as an immigration issue. If thousands died at the hands of black men, it would be used to excuse police brutality, minimize the Black Lives Matter movement and exacerbate the "raging black man" stereotype. If mass shooters identified as Muslim, it would quickly become terrorism and catalyze defense and security expenditures.

But this is a white man's problem. According to an analysis by Mother Jones, out of 62 cases between 1982 and 2012 (a time period that would not include the actions of Dylann Roof or Stephen Paddock, among others), 44 of the killers were white men and only one was a woman. Since 1982, mass shootings in the United States have been committed by white men who are often labeled "lone wolves" or "psychologically impaired." As a result, the government that would otherwise be mobilizing its institutions to bring about reform remains a stalwart of the Second Amendment and mass shootings' greatest ally. An over-affinity for guns among white men, dangerous against any other backdrop, gets defended as patriotism by many conservatives or even as white pride by those on the alt-right.

In fact, according to a 2014 poll conducted by Fox News, nearly seven in 10 Republicans believed that gun ownership is patriotic. If espoused by other groups, this sentiment and this number might be considered threatening. Instead, it is welcomed in a way that many believe gives tacit encouragement to potential mass shooters.

Make no mistake: this is war culture that has dressed up as Uncle Sam and embedded itself into the American psyche. Any other path -- let's say, for example, abortion or foreign-born terror -- that led to the destruction of life on this level would be attacked as violently opposed to American values. But because this culture is embraced by the race and party that controls the government, it continues to be celebrated and defended in the spirit of love of country.

[Sue U]

Gotta call bulshit on that one Sue. declaring that you gave something up by moving from an absolutist position is competitive meaningless. I mean I already conceded that everyone shouldn't be given the launch codes to thier own personal neuclear weapon at birth just. How much do you expect me to give?!

Is there something about my suggestions in this thread that you think is extremist or uncompromising?

[Jarlaxle]

That’s some good weed you’re smoking, Jarl.

In fact, gun rights have been repeatedly expanded including in the years since Sandy Hook, where legislation allowing expanded open carry has passed in a number of jurisdictions.

Yes...and, had you read and understood my post, that was after SIXTY YEARS of the opposite!

[Big RR]

sue--my first point would be robust background checks nationwide for everyone buying guns. Then I would support targeted bans that make a difference--automatic weapons is one. Semi-automatics? I'd like to hear why they are necessary from those who want them--they may not be needed for deer hunting, but possibly very useful for bear or cougar hunting. However, likewise, I would not ban a weapon merely because it looks like a military weapon--I'd like to see common sense prevail. should we have different regulations in areas where the state police will take 45 minutes to arrive at your house vs a few minutes as in many cities and towns? Should we maybe have open carry in areas where there are dangerous wild animals but not in cities (like in Norway, e.g.)? How do we handle the concerns of sport (target) shooters? What d we do about owner liability and what safeguards do we demand? Should everyone who owns a firearm have to be trained and show (s)he knows how to use it? Let's get a dialogue going--not a ban all guns vs everything but thermonuclear weapons, but something more civilized where both sides will be committed to give and take.

Now that's what I'd like to see, and admittedly some may require a repeal of the 2nd amendment, but the last thing I'd like to see is that repeal followed by many/most still keeping guns or acquiring illegally, no real drop in gun violence, and an eventual repeal with few or no restrictions on ownership. Because that's pretty much what I fear will happen; there are many who will hang onto their guns just "because", and others who will acquire them to commit violent "mischief". Prohibition showed us what happens when people resist a law, and unless most people buy into it, a 2nd amendment repeal is doomed to eventual failure IMHO.

[Crackpot]

Gotta call bulshit on that one Sue. declaring that you gave something up by moving from an absolutist position is competitive meaningless. I mean I already conceded that everyone shouldn't be given the launch codes to thier own personal neuclear weapon at birth just. How much do you expect me to give?!

Is there something about my suggestions in this thread that you think is extremist or uncompromising?

Have I mentioned I hate autocorrect?

When someone feels the need to constantly state that thier true position is that of uncompromising it undermines the entire process.

[dales]

But both reveal much about the human condition.

snailgate

Not wishing to go into a long tedious discussion, you're right on the human condition thing.

[RayThom]

[Sue U]

sue--my first point would be robust background checks nationwide for everyone buying guns. Then I would support targeted bans that make a difference--automatic weapons is one. Semi-automatics? I'd like to hear why they are necessary from those who want them--they may not be needed for deer hunting, but possibly very useful for bear or cougar hunting. However, likewise, I would not ban a weapon merely because it looks like a military weapon--I'd like to see common sense prevail. should we have different regulations in areas where the state police will take 45 minutes to arrive at your house vs a few minutes as in many cities and towns? Should we maybe have open carry in areas where there are dangerous wild animals but not in cities (like in Norway, e.g.)? How do we handle the concerns of sport (target) shooters? What d we do about owner liability and what safeguards do we demand? Should everyone who owns a firearm have to be trained and show (s)he knows how to use it? Let's get a dialogue going--not a ban all guns vs everything but thermonuclear weapons, but something more civilized where both sides will be committed to give and take.

Now that's what I'd like to see, and admittedly some may require a repeal of the 2nd amendment, but the last thing I'd like to see is that repeal followed by many/most still keeping guns or acquiring illegally, no real drop in gun violence, and an eventual repeal with few or no restrictions on ownership. Because that's pretty much what I fear will happen; there are many who will hang onto their guns just "because", and others who will acquire them to commit violent "mischief". Prohibition showed us what happens when people resist a law, and unless most people buy into it, a 2nd amendment repeal is doomed to eventual failure IMHO.

Big RR: I don't disagree with you on any of this, but to address the real problem of gun crime (and also gun suicide) you need to substantially reduce the sheer number of guns -- especially handguns -- already in circulation, and "robust background checks" is simply not going to do that. On top of that, you need to substantially reduce the number of new weapons sales each year, which gun manufacturers will undoubtedly vigorously oppose for obviou$ rea$on$ through their lobbying arm, the NRA. Even legislation restricting things like magazine capacity and "assault style" rifles has no real effect on the root of the problem, which again is, in its most simplified expression, too many guns too readily available.

A very significant part of the failure of the gun debate in this country has always been identifying the actual problem rather than the peripheral issues (e.g., keeping guns from the mentally ill.) I think the majority of Americans are ready for real reform of gun laws even if it involves repeal of the Second Amendment -- because that's really what stands in the way of what the majority of us would understand as common-sense regulation of a dangerous product.

[Big RR]

I think the majority of Americans are ready for real reform of gun laws even if it involves repeal of the Second Amendment -- because that's really what stands in the way of what the majority of us would understand as common-sense regulation of a dangerous product.

while I would support it if I thought you were right, I do not think a majority of Americans re ready to repeal the second amendment, nor do I think we could get enough states to ratify its repeal; I think we have to deal with what we can do now, and then move forward slowly but deliberately, making sure the effort is not derailed by failing to live up to promises of what the reforms would accomplish. It's kind of like the ERA; it got derailed pretty quickly by voices pointing out that it would only make things worse (BS of course but it worked).

[Econoline]

[liberty]

I will say one more provocative thing before I switch to my reasonable mode:
This guy, I bet, was a liberal democrat out to punish and protest "fascist country music fans". So are not all liberal democrats partly reasonable for the actions of one of their number. If it had been a rap music festival attacked by a white Southerner you bet there would calls to make the southern battle flag illegal. Ban all symbols of the democrat party; the party of liberal fascist.

I would like a compromise that protects the rights of gun owners and keeps all weapons out of the hands of criminals and unreliable people. Gun owners will not accept anything that is seen as a stepping stone to banning guns. I believe my proposal would work in that it would help to keep guns out of the hands of many unreliable people.

If you want to affect the misuse of gun, ammunition is what you should concentrate on (preposition). I know that it is hard for you liberals accept because of your contempt for the blue collar, but people can make guns in their home workshop if they want to bad enough. But what they can’t make is ammunition or to be precise shell casings. It has to do with the way copper or other such metals reacts under pressure . Pressing copper plate into casings is not an easy thing to do; it requires precise dies that the average hobbyist can’t make. That would require a machinist.

[Big RR]

Can't you just collect the brass at a shooting range and reload with your own lead bullets (which can be easily cast)? I imagine obtaining a center fire primer could be regulated, but I would think these would be easy to make anyone with a little knowledge; ditto for rim fire bullets.

[RayThom]

... Can't you just collect the brass at a shooting range and reload with your own lead bullets... I imagine obtaining a center fire primer could be regulated, but I would think these would be easy to make anyone with a little knowledge; ditto for rim fire bullets.

Center fire bullets can be reloaded 'almost' until the casing splits. Rim fires, no. Once the firing pin hits the casing it gets distorted at the base and it would be near impossible to load.

Centerfire:


Rimfire:

[Big RR]

Your photos of rim fire casings make a pretty good case against these reloads, but I just checked and there are a number of videos online how to make re rim fire reloads; maybe some casings are better than others? I can't look at them in my office, but might try to look at them later.

[rubato]

The common rimfire shells are so cheap I can't see much point to reloading them other than as a challenge.


yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

Sure, but I was raising it in response to Liberty's post stating that it would be hard for an amateur to make cartridges, so regulating ammo might be better than guns (which he maintained could be easily fabricated).

[Econoline]

rubato - The last few posts were in response to the above post from liberty, which included the statement

people can make guns in their home workshop if they want to bad enough. But what they can’t make is ammunition or to be precise shell casings. It has to do with the way copper or other such metals reacts under pressure . Pressing copper plate into casings is not an easy thing to do; it requires precise dies that the average hobbyist can’t make.

ETA: Whoops, Big RR beat me to it.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I would like a compromise that protects the rights of gun owners and keeps all weapons out of the hands of criminals and unreliable people. Gun owners will not accept anything that is seen as a stepping stone to banning guns. I believe my proposal would work in that it would help to keep guns out of the hands of many unreliable people.

Liberty I will ignore your conclusion that the shooter must have been some sort of liberal. Frankly I doubt it but we will see what the investigation turns up. So far the multi millionaire real estate guy does not quite jibe but we will see.

I don't have a quarrel with your second paragraph. How do we keep the guns out of the hands of 'criminals and unreliable people'? Criminals yes with a background check to make sure we weed out the felons. I'm fine with that. Unreliable people - well, the LV shooter seems to have been a pillar of society and I am not sure what tests the NRA would look for which would satisfy them and keep guns away from this TFA. Maybe once he has two or three weapons we might want to say - why do you need all those? That would require some sort of central register of gun owners which is primed to flag an owner who goes over the limit. We might allow a few more if the person is an Olympic marksperson (is that a word?) or can prove that s/he is such a dedicated hunter that requires a raccoon gun, a moose gun, a squirrel gun, a duck gun and a hyena gun (or whatever). We need to keep track of this. And because those pillars of society might one day become mentally unfit to have an AR-15 (I am damn sure I no longer have the mental spryness I had 20 or 40 years ago) we would need to have an annual (???) check that they are still functioning at an adequate level - kind of like when they make you go in every now and then to renew your DL and check your vision while they are at it.

So to summarize: a national register of gun owners that would trigger (sorry) some sort of check if someone appears to be accumulating an arsenal. An annual review of the person's capability to handle a weapon (physical strength, vision, mental and psychological evaluation). I'm good with that. Can I sign you up?