• 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

Fresco said:
And even then criminals will be the only citizens armed because they're not going to give up their guns. So what you wind up with is an even worse situation because law-abiding citizens cant defend themselves anymore
Click to expand...

This argument is specious and hackneyed.

Targeting the illegal gun trade should be the centerpiece of any American gun control effort. This effort is vital to ensure the sellers (at every point) and buyers are put out of business and in jail. Criminals don't buy their own guns legally.

Closing the loopholes from personal sales and gun shows to avoid registration is something else that needs to be done.

First responders (e.g., police) would have to be armed, for example with frangible breaching ammo (slug-shot), so yes someone besides criminals would have guns that could shoot back with minimum loss of life to innocent, panicking bystanders.

As the paper I posted with actual research data on gun control (and includes information about Australia's efforts) indicates, a multipronged approach to gun control has been successful elsewhere. A tailored national approach of all relevant gun control efforts is indicated (yes, I'm aware you won't read it, thus no link).

I'm quite pro-gun, btw.

Your blanket, paraphrased statements of "these shootings are part of life" and "I, Fresca, am against any gun control" indicate either trolling or a complete lack of imagination and interest in creating a solution.

We need more people like you for something.
 
Fresco said:
Sure, you can enact more legislation but its never going to stop someone if they're truly motivated to go on a killing spree.

The only way to prevent these shootings is to have a round-up of all firearms in America and then make guns illegal for everyone (like they did in Australia). And even then criminals will be the only citizens armed because they're not going to give up their guns. So what you wind up with is an even worse situation because law-abiding citizens cant defend themselves anymore
Click to expand...

Well if you can't stop someone if they're truly motivated, why have laws at all?

I agree the only way to stop them is to magically destroy all firearms. Gun nuts like to say, "but we live in the real world, not some PC libtard puss-planet," which is why we've been proposing control, not confiscation. We can slow them down, without stifling the rights of gun owners. Why wouldn't you support that?

Funny, you cite Australia, as the lawless hellhole without guns. Mad Max was only a movie, unfortunately.
 
alasdairm said:
do you also support gun regulation as long as it’s constitutional?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Absolutely, that's why it is very important to vote and know whom your voting for, that said I support the constitution being locked in it's current form, and unamendable

alasdairm said:
help me understand how the law-abiding citizens in vegas with guns - nevada is a permissive open-carry state - defended themselves against this attack? the u.s. is surely the only place in the world where people seriously argue that the answer to the extremely troubling ill of gun violence has to be more guns
wrygrin.gif
Click to expand...


Unless the innocent party shoots and kills the offending party you are very unlikely to hear about the incident, if you live areas where they are needed for self defense, you're also not likely to call the police after and tell them all about it.
 
alasdairm said:
help me understand how the law-abiding citizens in vegas with guns - nevada is a permissive open-carry state - defended themselves against this attack?
Click to expand...
Well obviously not this attack. But there are plenty of other cases where home-owners have defended their property using firearms.

Also, there's a deterrent effect. Criminals are much more hesitant to commit a home invasion or robbery if they know the home-owner is armed to the teeth
 
Yes, look, y'all (well not Fresco, you get Canadian laws or whatever) law-abiding folks get to keep your guns, and you don't even have to bullshit about a reason for them. Your AR-15 is a fun toy, just admit it, it's OK. If you had the extremely rare home invasion, a handgun would probably work better in a dark hallway, and not risk blowing your own kids away firing through the wall. You sure can't take it concealed anywhere.

And I like Dave's views of the mugger like a grizzly bear: if it sees you make a lot of noise and wave your gun around, hopefully it'll go away, and you get to walk around feeling badass.

None of those excuses matters, when we want to restrict ownership by the mentally ill and criminal, and prevent those legal guns from reaching criminals. We are not coming for YOUR guns, but you should feel guilty about this shooting if you support the gun lobby marketers.
 
I've never really understood americans' attachment to the constitution.

do people ever concede that at a certain point it may hold the country back?

I'm all for tradition and awareness of your nation's history and roots, but I also get the impression that pride in (and the unquestionable nature of) The Constitution is used to disingenuously justify a lot of things and manipulate arguments away from rational debate and reasoned logic, and into a sort of cult of constitutional orthodoxy.

being a legal document, it is open to interpretation, obviously - but as an outside observer, I can't help but think it is utilised in manipulative ways, and to shut down discussion, and to appeal to authority in a way that doesn't always make a lot of sense to me.

perhaps I'm just ignorant, but it seems like there are contradictions regarding breaches of the constitution, politically, that people selectively overlook or turn a blind eye to.
like - for instance - the muslim "travel ban".

which is why (in my admittedly amateur analysis) I get the feeling that constitutional justifications for "gun rights" are cynical (and overly-simplistic) exploitation of a complex legal argument.
 
Last edited:
You can look at the Bundy Boys taking over the bird park for misplaced Constitution worship. They carried pocket versions around that they'd wave to reporters, but which turns out to be an annotated version. Annotated by Mormons. That somehow explained where in the thing it says the Bundy's could graze their cows for free on public land and squat in ranger HQ for a month.


Of course people are going to work it harder than they work the Bible --it sets out principles without the particulars.

So when the 4th amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," it says nothing about whether police can make you unlock your phone or not. But the sentiment is pretty clear, that people come before the state. What defines "reasonable" sways with the political winds.

But then there's "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, to me that looks a lot like it puts forth a non-federal militia, like to keep out the savages and the French,

But if you were a Justice sitting on this decision, in DC v. Heller, knowing it would later apply to a nation with over 2 guns for every man woman and child, you would find a complex legal interpretation to allow individual ownership, subject to regulation. They ruled for the status quo, because the alternative would be pretty nasty.

There are good stretches: LBJ's Civil Rights Act passed based on the Constitutional powers of Congress to legislate interstate commerce, because if black people can't freely conduct business over state lines, by using the same damn train car, that interferes with commerce.
 
No Evidence Linking Vegas Shooter to Antifa

Stories claiming that the Las Vegas shooter was linked to antifa, a loosely organized group of anti-fascist activists, are proliferating online. But his purported links to antifa are either false, fabricated or unsubstantiated.

Authorities have identified Stephen Craig Paddock, 64, of Mesquite, Nevada, as the shooter who opened fire on a crowd of more than 22,000 from his 32nd-floor hotel room at the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino on Oct. 1, killing 59 people and injuring more than 500.

Police have not yet found a motive for the massacre, but they have said that Paddock acted alone.

“We believe Paddock is solely responsible for this heinous act,” Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department Assistant Sheriff Todd Fasulo said at a press conference on Oct. 2.
A site called neon-nettle.com posted a story on Oct. 2 with the headline: “Las Vegas Shooting Exposed as Antifa-led False Flag Attack.” That site based Paddock’s links to antifa on a pair of fabricated tweets attributed to President Donald Trump. (As we have written before, it is easy to make up a fake tweet using free software programs available on the internet.)

The neon-nettle.com story claimed that Trump’s first tweet was posted at 6:52 a.m. on Oct. 2 and said: “My heart and prayers got [sic] out to the victim’s families of the Las Vegas massacre. The FBI tells me that Stephen Paddock was a known Antifa…”
The second tweet purportedly went out at 6:59 a.m. and said: “…member! It’s time for people to get off their knees and take this country back from the real terrorists!”
Click to expand...
 
Keep in mind that's one amendment out of 27.

Personally I kind of like free expression and press, prohibition on state religion, public trial by jury, protection from search and seizure, prohibition on slavery, etc etc.
 
alasdairm said:
extend the law to cover misdemeanors (some crimes are pleaded down).

alasdair
Click to expand...
I'm not cool with that. The way everything is a crime now days would mean a huge chunk of people would be in violation of that law from the jump. I'm not ok with increasing the prison population for dumb reasons. A DUI or possession of pot shouldn't bar you from doing anything.

My opinion is that we need common sense laws to make these massacres harder to accomplish. Bump stocks are gone anyway so that's a start. No clips over 10 rounds. No bayonet lugs. No armor piercing rounds. A large tax increase on any weapon you buy. Make guns expensive. Close the gun show loophole. Institute a federal background check on every gun sold accompanied with a waiting period while the check is performed. Guns must be stored unloaded in a safe. Make a new classification for military style weapons that includes registering them with the ATF and allowing the ATF to inspect those weapons in your home at will. Like what is already done with class 3 weapons.

That would be a good start
 
As someone with at least four misdemeanors, i have to agree.


Question though, what if those large clips and/or magazines have stopped further casualties? Gabbie Giffords, Pulse Nightclub, at least, were slowed down trying to change them.
 
Last edited:
cj said:
I'm not cool with that. The way everything is a crime now days would mean a huge chunk of people would be in violation of that law from the jump. I'm not ok with increasing the prison population for dumb reasons. A DUI or possession of pot shouldn't bar you from doing anything.

My opinion is that we need common sense laws to make these massacres harder to accomplish. Bump stocks are gone anyway so that's a start. No clips over 10 rounds. No bayonet lugs. No armor piercing rounds. A large tax increase on any weapon you buy. Make guns expensive. Close the gun show loophole. Institute a federal background check on every gun sold accompanied with a waiting period while the check is performed. Guns must be stored unloaded in a safe. Make a new classification for military style weapons that includes registering them with the ATF and allowing the ATF to inspect those weapons in your home at will. Like what is already done with class 3 weapons.

That would be a good start
Click to expand...

This is what I was trying to say - great post cj!

Make it more difficult to have assault rifles etc.
 
Scrofula said:
Well, like they say, it's not the size of your NATO .223 bullet, it's also the size of your cartridge. Right? So you're being a bit disingenuous using caliber here. Maybe I can't easily buy a legal automatic weapon, but I can stock my entire block with civilian versions of the M16, that don't take much to adapt. I agree that the AR-15 is more bogeyman than true monster, but it's taken more than a few lives, and doesn't do anything as well as a more specific weapon. It is scary-looking and commands a mark-up, that's why people love/hate it, and the industry is happy to churn them out.





Why is it asinine? But ok, you get one handgun per household for home defense in the cities and suburbs, with a rifle or shotgun depending on what you hunt. Maybe even both. Rural people get a shotgun for opening cans and getting varmints out of their cabbage patches.




And yet no one comes to retrieve them after they've been arrested, and no one would stop them if we didn't have what little gun control we already have in place, which Mr. Fresco supports.

And, where'd they get those guns anyway? From someone who got them shadily but legally--see the post above about the gun-shop outside Milwaukee that single-handedly supported crime across the city. Plenty of ways to investigate and close those loopholes and work-arounds.
Click to expand...

^^^
And this too - agree 100%
 
fresco said:
The only way to prevent these shootings is to have a round-up of all firearms in America and then make guns illegal for everyone (like they did in Australia). And even then criminals will be the only citizens armed because they're not going to give up their guns. So what you wind up with is an even worse situation because law-abiding citizens cant defend themselves anymore
Click to expand...

a gun amnesty of the sort we've had in australia wouldn't work in the USA, because there would be too much resistance, and there are probably too many unregistered firearms anyway.
therefore i don't think it is "[t]he only way to prevent these shootings".

fwiw, the situsation you describe isn't really what it's like in australia. i mean - the police here have guns. and the law-abiding citizens can defend themselves - but to get away with pleading "self defence", you have to use reasonable force.
because guns are highly regulated here, your average street punk isn't packing a firearm - so having a gun for self defence would be overkill, therefore not self defence in the eyes of the law.
the only time people need guns for self-defence is when you are being attacked or threatened by someone with a gun.

to me (i'm not a gun enthusiast, so i'm not an expert on what the restrictions are) - australian gun laws don't seem too far removed from this - except i'm pretty sure most of the military style guns are banned here:

CJ said:
My opinion is that we need common sense laws to make these massacres harder to accomplish. Bump stocks are gone anyway so that's a start. No clips over 10 rounds. No bayonet lugs. No armor piercing rounds. A large tax increase on any weapon you buy. Make guns expensive. Close the gun show loophole. Institute a federal background check on every gun sold accompanied with a waiting period while the check is performed. Guns must be stored unloaded in a safe. Make a new classification for military style weapons that includes registering them with the ATF and allowing the ATF to inspect those weapons in your home at will. Like what is already done with class 3 weapons.

That would be a good start
Click to expand...
 
FBI and DHS Assessment Outlined Threat of Lone Offenders Targeting Las Vegas

The U.S. government warned of possible attacks on entertainment venues and mass gatherings.

Unaffiliated lone offenders and [homegrown violent extremists] are of particular concern,” the document states, “due to their ability to remain undetected until operational; their willingness to attack civilians and soft targets; their ability to inflict significant casualties with weapons that do not require specialized knowledge, access, or training; and their unpredictability, as witnessed in the Orlando, Florida and San Bernardino, California terrorist attacks.”
Click to expand...

The "Joint Special Event Threat Assessment" issued by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security is attached.
---------------

It seems lone individuals can now cause many casualties with guns, cars, or explosives.

Domestic terrorism is not a legal charge, so law enforcement doesn't tend to use the term. Does "homegrown violent extremists" seem descriptive and appropriate?
 
spacejunk said:
a gun amnesty of the sort we've had in australia wouldn't work in the USA, because there would be too much resistance, and there are probably too many unregistered firearms anyway.
therefore i don't think it is "[t]he only way to prevent these shootings".
Click to expand...

I think every major city has gun amnesty drives periodically. Gun buy-backs, where they also showcase the most bizarre weapons. So yes, citizens will voluntarily trade in a gun from who knows where, in exchange for coupons to whatever. It's the absolutists who refuse to even consider the possibility of stuff that happens all around them on a regular basis.
Fresco said:
And even then criminals will be the only citizens armed because they're not going to give up their guns. So what you wind up with is an even worse situation because law-abiding citizens cant defend themselves anymore
Click to expand...

Just what kind of hellhole is Toronto? Really, what kind of worldview do people have, when they picture their home in their minds, only to see attackers lurking? My hometown hit number one in per capita homicide briefly when I was in high school, and yet I have not once ever had to even run away from someone who made a scary face at me. Not once has the thought "a gun would come in handy" ever entered my mind.

Sure, maybe I'm asking for it, but the same goes for everyone I know. None have a story of wishing they had a gun while being savagely attacked, present company from South Africa excepted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top