• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Vegas Mandalay Bay mass shooting / Gun Control 2017 Thread

Yes, every time one of these happens, we're gonna arglebargle about gun control, until effective regs happen, or human nature changes. Why is that weird or outrageous to you? Fifty-eight people are dead, at last count, a new record, and you think people aren't gonna take an immediate and heated look at how the dude did it? If a family member was shot, would you tell detectives to wait until after the funeral?

You say "both sides won't move an inch", but i'm curious, which way does the regulation "side" not want to move? To even fewer regulations? Just how draconian do you think the current laws are?

And how do you know we weren't going to discuss it the "right" way, we hadn't started arguing yet (except with you about arguing; ok, only me and you, Jess). Nobody's lied or told distortions or half-truths or the "factual" lies you mentioned.

I usually sit these out, because most mass shootings wouldn't be stopped by most measures, and we've all heard the no-control-at-all arguments (tyranny!) and concern trolls before. We could reduce the casualty count, and frequency, though. And maybe even reduce all the suicides and homicides that happen in this country by accident.

ETA: we've also all heard how saying "semi-auto" is stupid, and no one knows why the media does it. Getting your clips and magazines confused doesn't disqualify your argument. Some people really do hunt with their AR-15's, but they're idiots, just like people who think they make good home defense. Yes, they are Barbie dolls for men, but also bogeymen for the control crowd--they're scary looking, but more people might be dead if they didn't jam changing their weird clips and/or magazines, and handguns kill so so many more people. 3D printing will soon make banning speciic gun types pointless.
Tight regs in cities like Chicago don't help if the surrounding suburbs are loose in their laws, and St. Louis, Memphis, Cleveland and four other cities all have worse murder rates.
 
Last edited:
JessFR said:
If EVERY thread about EVERY plane crash sparked a heated and ultimately pointless and always identical argument of both sides saying the same thing about how they were right while utterly uninterested in constructive and reasonable discussion about a view that the planes occupants likely had opinions on as well, I'd think that was wrong too.

The problem isn't the talking about gun control, it's about everything to do with how it's being done that I have a problem with. There are already periodic gun control threads without every mass shooting being used as an excuse to start another one. And it's not just gun control, it happens with terrorism and various other subjects too for other atrocities.

I can imagine myself at that venue, I wouldn't want my death being used like this. There are at least 50 people dead, odds are decent that no matter what view you have it would have been disapproved of by one of them. Don't think it's one particular side I have a problem with here. I grew up around gun nuts and they do this shit too. I hate it just as much from either side.

This isn't about solving the problem. Problems don't get solved arguing like this. This kind of arguing is the reason they DON'T EVER get solved. Real solutions come from compromise and both sides trying to understand the others perspective. That's not even close to what this is. This is about being the one to shout the loudest and argue the best. It's about trying to win. And using the victims to do it.

Nothing will change regarding gun control in America as a result of this incident, and you know why? Cause neither side will move an inch, both hate and mistrust and refuse to understand or listen to the other. This and countless similar arguments are just reflections of the wider problem. So no, this is not how you solve the problem, in addition to being disrespectful, it's also the cause of the problem.
Click to expand...
i agree with much of this.

so what's your solution?

alasdair
 
Thats the problem. Shes yelling about yelling and offering little solution. Get rid of guns. Thats the fucking answer.
 
most people would describe me as a liberal. my position on guns is pretty simple: "gun policy has to find a way to stop lunatics getting guns while enabling responsible citizens to exercise their second amendment rights without an undue bureaucratic burden"

my position has been misrepresented - and flat out lied about - on bluelight for years. i assume it's because, if some people can't characterize my position as "wants to take away all guns" then they really can't argue the case on its merits.

is it possible to have an america where citizens can own weapons but we don't have to read about a mass shooting every other month?

it's hard to not place blame politically because a lot of gun rights people are unmoving - their position is that 20 dead kids at sandy hook and 50 dead in vegas is simply the price society pays for their right to own a gun.

alasdair
 
~1,230 feet from the window to the grounds.
Gn7EWYm.jpg
 
Blue_Phlame said:
~1,230 feet from the window to the grounds.
Gn7EWYm.jpg
Click to expand...
400 yards into a mass of people. Its good he just sprayed and prayed if he took careful aim it would of been much worse. There saying it wasn't a full auto gun but a semi auto that may have had a device that assisted him in shooting faster. Also saying there where over 10 guns found in his hotel room. I know nothing is going to change with the law over this but if this continues we surely have to do something no?
 
alasdairm said:
most people would describe me as a liberal. my position on guns is pretty simple: "gun policy has to find a way to stop lunatics getting guns while enabling responsible citizens to exercise their second amendment rights without an undue bureaucratic burden"

my position has been misrepresented - and flat out lied about - on bluelight for years. i assume it's because, if some people can't characterize my position as "wants to take away all guns" then they really can't argue the case on its merits.

is it possible to have an america where citizens can own weapons but we don't have to read about a mass shooting every other month?

it's hard to not place blame politically because a lot of gun rights people are unmoving - their position is that 20 dead kids at sandy hook and 50 dead in vegas is simply the price society pays for their right to own a gun.

alasdair
Click to expand...

It apparently is not. Where have we shown the capability to responsibly use guns? Nowhere. Round them all up. I really want to know from all you gun lunatics how your life will really change without your precious guns. Our country is stupid.
 
As much as I don't like it, and disagree with it, US Supreme Court did affirm the 2nd amendment grants an individual the right to own a firearm. THat makes things much harder to regulate than, say, a driver's license. You need probable cause to say you can NOT own one.

It means any solution will have to include that aspect, since a constitutional amendment is not going to happen, or a "liberal court", any time soon. I worry that all kinds of state laws will be challenged and overturned, over the undue burden problem. One immediate action could be increasing enforcement of those probable cause cases--in California you lose the right to own a firearm after a 5150 psych hold. Do the police come and ask for all your weapons, which you dutifully registered, when that happens? Very rarely. That costs a little money. And of course, there's only one shrink for half a million people who accepts MediCal where I live. Local councils could find a way to make the position more enticing, which is tough I admit.

Then again, we should be very wary of the state keeping lists of who it thinks is "crazy."
 
The whole argument that if more people had been armed, this would have never happened really doesn't apply to this scenario. If the people in that crowd had all been armed I'd argue the death toll would have been much higher. In the ensuing panic people would have pulled out their guns and started firing at each other triggering a chain reaction. One of the most unsafe places in the world is a pro gun rally when someones gun misfires. Think about it: a frightened crowd of people with guns looking for a shooter with a gun.
 
Im convinced the majority of people with guns are always looking to use them and is one of the main reasons why they shouldnt have them. Still want to know how all the gun lovers lives would change without their weapons. I wont get any good answers because the truth of the matter is they wont change and they blindly support an antiquated idea then the actual reality of their and others lives.
 
Scrofula said:
As much as I don't like it, and disagree with it, US Supreme Court did affirm the 2nd amendment grants an individual the right to own a firearm. THat makes things much harder to regulate than, say, a driver's license. You need probable cause to say you can NOT own one.
Click to expand...

there is a case to which those who aggressively trumpet the importance of the 2nd amendment often point: district of columbia vs. heller

they point to it because they believe it takes their side on the issue of individual gun ownership depending on membership of a "well regulated militia". they believe the case proves that the 2nd amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. that's some pretty important case law, right? i mean it went to the u.s. supreme court! and the opinion was written by republican antonin scalia. so this case is important right? and right right?

here's an excerpt from the opinion of the court. not the dissent - the opinion:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

that's a little hard to read with those inline footnotes so here is just the text:

"E.III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

there it is.

"...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." it's right there in black and white in antonin scalia's opinion for the court.

so, for example, background checks are constitutional.

"curtail" means to "reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on". the government could impose restrictions on the sale of arms which a pro-gun individual might characterize as severe curtailment but which the court could decide were perfectly legal based on the heller decision.

alasdair
 
Thanks for that. Do you know what/if the court's opinion on private sales is/were? Can the state impose restrictions on those?


ETA: Stolen from wikipedia: "Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."

OK, to answer my question, in California, you can't do a private sale without going through a dealer, who has to check various databases and things, or being a dealer. I'm pretty sure if that was unclear federally it would have been challenged by now. But they keep qualifying "commercial" sales, it made me wonder.

But a lot of Chicago's laws were overturned based on Heller McDonald (which extended Heller to the states). That's the undue burden aspect. And where is the line drawn on that? The anti-reg. people would suggest so much as signing something is as horrific as gestapo taking people away.

There's always taxing the ever-loving shit out of ammunition.
 
Last edited:
In the high speed world of news and entertainment, integrity and quality takes a backseat especially when everybody is racing to get those minute-by-minute updates they just make shit up when there's no info available.
 
Kittycat5 said:
Im convinced the majority of people with guns are always looking to use them and is one of the main reasons why they shouldnt have them. Still want to know how all the gun lovers lives would change without their weapons. I wont get any good answers because the truth of the matter is they wont change and they blindly support an antiquated idea then the actual reality of their and others lives.
Click to expand...

Lets forget about the fact that guns have saved people's lives, people that hunt to put food on their family dinner table, people have stopped themselves from being raped or murdered etc., etc. The notion that the majority of people with guns are always looking to use them is idiotic. The number of NRA members alone is something like 4 million. If everyone with a gun was looking to use it there would be mass genocide. Try again.
 
...nothing will happen you can be on 12 different antipsychotics and own 12 machine guns.

Weed is somehow illegal but being a diagnosed schizophrenic uncan own military weapons.

Americans are so stupid
 
nuttynutskin said:
Lets forget about the fact that guns have saved people's lives, people that hunt to put food on their family dinner table, people have stopped themselves from being raped or murdered etc., etc. The notion that the majority of people with guns are always looking to use them is idiotic. The number of NRA members alone is something like 4 million. If everyone with a gun was looking to use it there would be mass genocide. Try again.
Click to expand...

So if the guns aren't the problem, what is?
 
nuttynutskin said:
Lets forget about the fact that guns have saved people's lives, people that hunt to put food on their family dinner table, people have stopped themselves from being raped or murdered etc., etc.
Click to expand...
i’m frequently told that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

where was the good guy with a gun this time? the last 10 times?

alasdair
 
Kaden_Nite said:
So if the guns aren't the problem, what is?
Click to expand...

Society.

alasdairm said:
i’m frequently told that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

where was the good guy with a gun this time? the last 10 times?

alasdair
Click to expand...

In this instance it probably wouldn't have done any good, but you can't act like people don't use guns to defend themselves and their property. Unfortunately there's lunatics out there that will find any way possible to kill people but as Kitty seems to think people being disarmed isn't the answer. That will only allow for criminals to obtain guns illegally while law abiding citizens are powerless. Timothy Mcveigh killed 168 people, no gun used, but this has been argued ad naseam.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top