Author Topic: Deadliest Mass Shooting In US history: Las Vegas 50+ dead, 200 hundred injured.  (Read 6933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32977
  • Tommy Points: -27981
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14747
  • Tommy Points: 935
Quote
Is there a legitimate reason these are legal?

Not one that I can think of.


DEVIL ADVOCATE
The militia guys ( I am not one of them) always think they need stuff like this to fight the government if things go bad.   But most Americans are softer than your average Taliban and overestimate their woodsman skills.  The government has tanks and helicopter which would render a lot of this stuff useless and I think a lot of these blokes would not last long.  So I do not buy that argument. 

I think we can now look and see removing the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 ban was a bad idea.

Quote
Get rid of the guns - all of them.  Institute a mandatory buy-back program like what was done in Australia.  If you want to get your hands on that kind of weaponry enlist in the service.  I hate this "let's have a conversation" crap.  Talk is cheap, and there never should have been a need to have a "conversation" about this issue in the first place - it's common sense.  Fix the problem, and this is before we even get into the fact that the perpetrator of this act of domestic terrorism, as usual, was white.  This country is a joke.

Australia did not have a 2nd amendment though did they or the NRA?   That makes it much harder.  Personally, I do not think we need a militia as we have a standing army.  Americans have a love hate relationship with guns.  That makes will make it much harder here.

Here is what happened in Australia.

Quote
Australia had buyback programs in 1996 and 2003. Both programs were temporary and involved compensation paid to owners of firearms made illegal by gun law changes and surrendered to the government. Bought back firearms were destroyed.

The 1996 "National Firearms Buyback Program" took 660,959 firearms out of private hands[2] comprising long guns, mostly semi-automatic rimfire rifles and shotguns as well as pump-action shotguns, and a smaller proportion of higher powered or military type semi-automatic rifles. Because the Australian Constitution requires the Commonwealth to pay "just compensation" for private property it takes over, the Government increased the Medicare levy from 1.5% to 1.7% of income for one year to finance the buyback program. The buyback was expected to cost A$500 million.[3] The payments from the Commonwealth were conditional on the States and Territories introducing firearms laws and regulations consistent with the National Firearms Agreement.

In 2003 new handgun laws made illegal target pistols of greater than .38 calibre and handguns with barrels less than 120mm (semi-automatic) or 100mm (revolvers) such as pocket pistols. With an exception for persons participating in International Shooting Sport Federation events, which count as Olympic and Commonwealth Games qualifiers, to access highly specialised target pistols which fail to meet the new barrel restrictions. The Coalition of Australian Governments agreed to this restricted use on the grounds that these highly specialised target pistols are large, visually distinctive and not readily concealable due to their overall size.[4]

In 2017, Australia had a national firearms amnesty, the first since 1996, in which individuals could surrender illegal firearms for destruction.[5] Instead of the Commonwealth government compensating firearms owners with a buyback, the owner depending on the state or territory jurisdiction could enter into a private sale with a licensed firearms dealer to purchase the firearm thus saving government the expense of compensation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program

So Australia did not get rid of all guns.   That is a myth.   They tried to get a lot of them off the street.  You would never do that in a place that has Sal****er Crocs unless your a fool.   Also, I doubt we could afford it as a country given the state of things.  I think it might help in some areas and might have some merit. 

To guys like me that grew up on farm where we had to protect herds from coyote and wild dogs, I think those folks would not turn their guns back in.   We had wild dogs ( literally dogs that people abandoned and became a pack) kill sixteen of our herd one night.   They ran them into fences and selectively ate the body parts they wanted.   This stuff still happens in rural areas.   What about living in an area where it takes 45 minutes for the law to get to your house?
   Don't those people need something to protect themselves?   How will banning guns help those farmers?

Offline JSD

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9687
  • Tommy Points: 1112
Quote
The militia guys ( I am not one of them) always think they need stuff like this to fight the government if things go bad.   But most Americans are softer than your average Taliban and overestimate their woodsman skills.  The government has tanks and helicopter which would render a lot of this stuff useless and I think a lot of these blokes would not last long.  So I do not buy that argument. 

Vietnam

Offline Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16940
  • Tommy Points: 805
Quote
The militia guys ( I am not one of them) always think they need stuff like this to fight the government if things go bad.   But most Americans are softer than your average Taliban and overestimate their woodsman skills.  The government has tanks and helicopter which would render a lot of this stuff useless and I think a lot of these blokes would not last long.  So I do not buy that argument. 

Vietnam
Vietnam would have ended in a day if the US Government didn't care about killing innocents and/or otherwise leveling a country.  No militia will ever be able to truly defend against a nation with a full assortment of tanks, planes, munitions, etc. 
Ohio State 2014/15 National Champions.

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23291
  • Tommy Points: 985
  • What a Pub Should Be
I don't think the hypothetical that one day the government might turn on us (I mean, so could the robots) should really justify why some of this high grade stuff should continue to be legal.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Walter Brown
  • ********************************
  • Posts: 32977
  • Tommy Points: -27981
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I don't think the hypothetical that one day the government might turn on us (I mean, so could the robots) should really justify why some of this high grade stuff should continue to be legal.

It's the argument that probably is most embodied in our Constitution, oddly enough. Rights to hunting and home protection aren't as clearly delineated.

That will - but shouldn't - end any major reform here. 


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Offline Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23291
  • Tommy Points: 985
  • What a Pub Should Be
I don't think the hypothetical that one day the government might turn on us (I mean, so could the robots) should really justify why some of this high grade stuff should continue to be legal.

It's the argument that probably is most embodied in our Constitution, oddly enough. Rights to hunting and home protection aren't as clearly delineated.

That will - but shouldn't - end any major reform here.

Sure.  I just think some common sense has to factor in here rather than the reverence for a 200+ year old document.  I mean there already are some restrictions in place.  It's not like its completely out of the realm of possibility to exhibit some more common sense. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Offline jpotter33

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23109
  • Tommy Points: 2843
Quote
This venue was particularly vulnerable with high rise buildings overlooking an open field crowd. But I do hear what you're saying.

Honestly, I am surprised we do not have more stuff like this shooting.  Bottom line is we are vulnerable but you can't really stop all attacks without giving up a ton of freedom.

Yeah, Australians - living in a nation that literally started as a ****ing penal colony - and the citizens of the United Kingdom, as well as the peoples living within a host of other countries, turned over all of their "freedoms" to their respective governments when those countries did away with handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles (UK) and semiautomatic and automatic firearms (Australia), and, as a consequence, are now living in police states.  Wait...

Get rid of the guns - all of them.  Institute a mandatory buy-back program like what was done in Australia.  If you want to get your hands on that kind of weaponry enlist in the service.  I hate this "let's have a conversation" crap.  Talk is cheap, and there never should have been a need to have a "conversation" about this issue in the first place - it's common sense.  Fix the problem, and this is before we even get into the fact that the perpetrator of this act of domestic terrorism, as usual, was white.  This country is a joke.

Amen - TP.

Such an ignorant, uninformed, and misleading comment.

This kind of crap shouldn't be allowed here, mods. If you're not going to tolerate blatant racism against minority populations, then you shouldn't tolerate it against all populations.
Quote from:  Ron Swanson
It's never too early to learn that the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teet until they have sore, chapped nipples.

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17694
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
I don't think the hypothetical that one day the government might turn on us (I mean, so could the robots) should really justify why some of this high grade stuff should continue to be legal.

Unsurprisingly contemporary writings about the 2nd Amendment almost invariably talk about it in terms of the armed militias being used in defense of the government, not in opposition to it. The idea that the Founders were intentionally seeding a new violent revolution against the government they were creating is largely the product of a more paranoid era.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 10:14:29 AM by fairweatherfan »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17694
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Quote
This venue was particularly vulnerable with high rise buildings overlooking an open field crowd. But I do hear what you're saying.

Honestly, I am surprised we do not have more stuff like this shooting.  Bottom line is we are vulnerable but you can't really stop all attacks without giving up a ton of freedom.

Yeah, Australians - living in a nation that literally started as a ****ing penal colony - and the citizens of the United Kingdom, as well as the peoples living within a host of other countries, turned over all of their "freedoms" to their respective governments when those countries did away with handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles (UK) and semiautomatic and automatic firearms (Australia), and, as a consequence, are now living in police states.  Wait...

Get rid of the guns - all of them.  Institute a mandatory buy-back program like what was done in Australia.  If you want to get your hands on that kind of weaponry enlist in the service.  I hate this "let's have a conversation" crap.  Talk is cheap, and there never should have been a need to have a "conversation" about this issue in the first place - it's common sense.  Fix the problem, and this is before we even get into the fact that the perpetrator of this act of domestic terrorism, as usual, was white.  This country is a joke.

Amen - TP.

Such an ignorant, uninformed, and misleading comment.

This kind of crap shouldn't be allowed here, mods. If you're not going to tolerate blatant racism against minority populations, then you shouldn't tolerate it against all populations.

The national anthem thread is full of statistics and claims about the proportion of violent crime attributed to black perpetrators. I see no difference here other than the target.

Offline jpotter33

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23109
  • Tommy Points: 2843
Quote
This venue was particularly vulnerable with high rise buildings overlooking an open field crowd. But I do hear what you're saying.

Honestly, I am surprised we do not have more stuff like this shooting.  Bottom line is we are vulnerable but you can't really stop all attacks without giving up a ton of freedom.

Yeah, Australians - living in a nation that literally started as a ****ing penal colony - and the citizens of the United Kingdom, as well as the peoples living within a host of other countries, turned over all of their "freedoms" to their respective governments when those countries did away with handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles (UK) and semiautomatic and automatic firearms (Australia), and, as a consequence, are now living in police states.  Wait...

Get rid of the guns - all of them.  Institute a mandatory buy-back program like what was done in Australia.  If you want to get your hands on that kind of weaponry enlist in the service.  I hate this "let's have a conversation" crap.  Talk is cheap, and there never should have been a need to have a "conversation" about this issue in the first place - it's common sense.  Fix the problem, and this is before we even get into the fact that the perpetrator of this act of domestic terrorism, as usual, was white.  This country is a joke.

Amen - TP.

Such an ignorant, uninformed, and misleading comment.

This kind of crap shouldn't be allowed here, mods. If you're not going to tolerate blatant racism against minority populations, then you shouldn't tolerate it against all populations.

The national anthem thread is full of statistics and claims about the proportion of violent crime attributed to black perpetrators. I see no difference here other than the target.

Can't speak for that particular thread since I didn't really follow it, but race isn't a relevant causal factor in these types of situations. There's a difference between descriptively citing statistics about racial involvement and making normative claims about racial involvement, which this instance was clearly implying.

Let's utilize the "A Time to Kill" narrative approach here and supplant "white" with other qualifiers: "Fix the problem, and this is before we even get into the fact that the perpetrator of this act of domestic terrorism, as usual, was black/Hispanic/Gay/Muslim."

Are you comfortable implying such normative implications in that scenario? I'm not, and it shouldn't matter whether the qualifier is a minority or majority population. And trying to justify this type of blatant racism just because others have employed it elsewhere is simply a form of hypocritical whataboutism, which I know you in particular have criticized as a method of argumentation before.
Quote from:  Ron Swanson
It's never too early to learn that the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teet until they have sore, chapped nipples.

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17694
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Quote
This venue was particularly vulnerable with high rise buildings overlooking an open field crowd. But I do hear what you're saying.

Honestly, I am surprised we do not have more stuff like this shooting.  Bottom line is we are vulnerable but you can't really stop all attacks without giving up a ton of freedom.

Yeah, Australians - living in a nation that literally started as a ****ing penal colony - and the citizens of the United Kingdom, as well as the peoples living within a host of other countries, turned over all of their "freedoms" to their respective governments when those countries did away with handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles (UK) and semiautomatic and automatic firearms (Australia), and, as a consequence, are now living in police states.  Wait...

Get rid of the guns - all of them.  Institute a mandatory buy-back program like what was done in Australia.  If you want to get your hands on that kind of weaponry enlist in the service.  I hate this "let's have a conversation" crap.  Talk is cheap, and there never should have been a need to have a "conversation" about this issue in the first place - it's common sense.  Fix the problem, and this is before we even get into the fact that the perpetrator of this act of domestic terrorism, as usual, was white.  This country is a joke.

Amen - TP.

Such an ignorant, uninformed, and misleading comment.

This kind of crap shouldn't be allowed here, mods. If you're not going to tolerate blatant racism against minority populations, then you shouldn't tolerate it against all populations.

The national anthem thread is full of statistics and claims about the proportion of violent crime attributed to black perpetrators. I see no difference here other than the target.

Can't speak for that particular thread since I didn't really follow it, but race isn't a relevant causal factor in these types of situations. There's a difference between descriptively citing statistics about racial involvement and making normative claims about racial involvement, which this instance was clearly implying.

Let's utilize the "A Time to Kill" narrative approach here and supplant "white" with other qualifiers: "Fix the problem, and this is before we even get into the fact that the perpetrator of this act of domestic terrorism, as usual, was black/Hispanic/Gay/Muslim."

Are you comfortable implying such normative implications in that scenario? I'm not, and it shouldn't matter whether the qualifier is a minority or majority population. And trying to justify this type of blatant racism just because others have employed it elsewhere is simply a form of hypocritical whataboutism, which I know you in particular have criticized as a method of argumentation before.

It's not whatabouting, it's describing what the forum standards appear to be for racial generalizations about crime, because you cited that sort of thing as something that wouldn't be allowed. Whatabouting would be suggesting you're a hypocrite for not expressing a similar level of negative reaction to those posts, and I genuinely don't care about that.

It's the mods' call how to react to your being offended, I'm just noting that recent generalizations about racial groups being more prone to forms of violent crime have been deemed acceptable, and in some cases it's been mods making them.



Anyway, on topic, they're now up to 23 guns found, and it looks like the shooter used a bump stock on at least two of them, which allows a semi-automatic weapon to approach an automatic firing rate by using recoil to rapidly bounce the trigger off the shooter's finger instead of requiring the finger to manually depress it each time. Bump stocks are legal in most places but highly controversial.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Las-Vegas-Gunman-Stephen-Paddock-Automatic-Device-449167433.html

Folks who know guns: is there any practical purpose to this device other than trying to sidestep the illegality of fully automatic weapons?
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 12:25:37 PM by fairweatherfan »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30792
  • Tommy Points: 5149
I just want to know when real discussion is going to happen about enacting much harsher regulations of gun control. How many tragedies have to happen before this happens? How many inner city deaths need to pile up before we call this a major problem? How many years have to pass with over 30,000 people (the size of a small city) a year dying from guns before something is done?

Isn't it time we put aside the political propaganda and rhetoric and start doing something about this?

Offline hpantazo

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16257
  • Tommy Points: 2404
I just want to know when real discussion is going to happen about enacting much harsher regulations of gun control. How many tragedies have to happen before this happens? How many inner city deaths need to pile up before we call this a major problem? How many years have to pass with over 30,000 people (the size of a small city) a year dying from guns before something is done?

Isn't it time we put aside the political propaganda and rhetoric and start doing something about this?

Unfortunately as long as the huge profits keep rolling in, and keep enabling the gun industry to influence politicians and to manipulate public opinion, a real discussion wont happen. Supporters of gun rights quickly point to the constitution, and forget that it says all Americans have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The right to life is the first thing listed, and manipulated by anti-abortionists, but ignored when it comes to health care and gun violence

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16298
  • Tommy Points: 1152
I just want to know when real discussion is going to happen about enacting much harsher regulations of gun control.
Nah. We're busy saving the country from the refugees and the Mexicans.
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com