Las Vegas Terror Attack

[shockfan89_]

Not trying to be a jerk, but that is very different from what you said initially. There's no need to misrepresent the facts - it's a pain in the butt to buy a gun in Chicago, for sure, but it's also different now than immediately pre-McDonald.

First off, I don't think you are being a jerk at all. I could have added information to been more clear. I said guns are illegal in Chicago. The reason I said that is that I live in Wichita, KS and own 31 firearms and 10,000s of rounds of ammunition. If I move to Texas tomorrow, no problem. If I move to Oklahoma tomorrow, no problem. If I move to Illinois tomorrow, my understanding is every one of those guns and every round of ammunition is instantly illegal. I'm not talking about assault rifles or handguns, every gun (shotguns, hunting rifles) and every round of ammunition is illegal. I'm not talking about buying or selling them, just owning them is illegal in Illinois.

The discussion should never be confiscate everything vs. total laissez-faire own-your-own-tank, but it seems like it always takes about ten seconds to devolve to that point. I know you believe in the latter because you have implied the word "all" into the Second Amendment prior to "Arms", but Scalia repeatedly acknowledged that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right and the vast majority of conservatives do not take the activist approach you do with regard to the plain language in the Bill of Rights.

I haven't implied the word "all" into the Second Amendment, I just happen to think the term "arms" evolves as technology evolves. I think the Second Amendment was intended to protect against tyranny and federal overreach. I think the founding fathers envisioned there might come a time when citizens would have to stand up to the federal government the same way they had to to gain their independence. I feel the Second Amendment was written to keep things as even as possible and put the federal government on notice that the citizens of the US intended to remain free at all costs. We already failed them in that respect...

I am guilty of taking one extreme. My personal belief is you can't prevent a suicidal person from causing great carnage unless you're willing to take extreme measures. I think the outcome of the Las Vegas shooting will be a bi-partisan bill to ban bump stocks and that is about all. That won't stop future incidents from occurring. In fact, I think the shooter could have killed more people without them (maybe not fired as many rounds). The reality is that a person that wants to cause carnage could use multiple hunting rifles with 6 or 10 round magazines and be just as deadly, so banning "assualt rifles" won't help. The way I get to confiscate everything is there are already so many firearms in this country and around the world, that criminals could easily obtain weapons for the next 30 years.

[wufan]

First off, I don't think you are being a jerk at all. I could have added information to been more clear. I said guns are illegal in Chicago. The reason I said that is that I live in Wichita, KS and own 31 firearms and 10,000s of rounds of ammunition. If I move to Texas tomorrow, no problem. If I move to Oklahoma tomorrow, no problem. If I move to Illinois tomorrow, my understanding is every one of those guns and every round of ammunition is instantly illegal. I'm not talking about assault rifles or handguns, every gun (shotguns, hunting rifles) and every round of ammunition is illegal. I'm not talking about buying or selling them, just owning them is illegal in Illinois.



I haven't implied the word "all" into the Second Amendment, I just happen to think the term "arms" evolves as technology evolves. I think the Second Amendment was intended to protect against tyranny and federal overreach. I think the founding fathers envisioned there might come a time when citizens would have to stand up to the federal government the same way they had to to gain their independence. I feel the Second Amendment was written to keep things as even as possible and put the federal government on notice that the citizens of the US intended to remain free at all costs. We already failed them in that respect...

I am guilty of taking one extreme. My personal belief is you can't prevent a suicidal person from causing great carnage unless you're willing to take extreme measures. I think the outcome of the Las Vegas shooting will be a bi-partisan bill to ban bump stocks and that is about all. That won't stop future incidents from occurring. In fact, I think the shooter could have killed more people without them (maybe not fired as many rounds). The reality is that a person that wants to cause carnage could use multiple hunting rifles with 6 or 10 round magazines and be just as deadly, so banning "assualt rifles" won't help. The way I get to confiscate everything is there are already so many firearms in this country and around the world, that criminals could easily obtain weapons for the next 30 years.

I don’t believe that if you move to Chicago that you can’t have those guns. The handgun ban in Chicago was lifted around 2010. They have some laws about short barreled rifles and “assault rifles.” You can’t buy more than one gun every month or so. If there is anyone in the house younger than 21 then the gun must be disassembled, with a trigger lock, and kept in the safe. You have to register and obtain a permit.

Some crazy laws, but not illeagal.

[shockfan89_]

@wufan: - I believe they are illegal unless I obtain an FOID card prior to moving to the state (which you can't do). My understanding is you have to be an Illinois resident and have an Illinois drivers license to obtain an FOID card. So I believe they would all be illegal until you can get an Illinois drivers license and apply for and get approved by the state police for an FOID card.

Play Angry's point, which is valid, is that I should have said Illinois has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and Chicago still had 4,379 shootings in 2016 and 720 gun related homicides. That is the equivalent of a Las Vegas massacre every month in Chicago!!! I would also bet VERY few of the people involved in those 4,379 shootings had FOID cards. So how many shootings/deaths have those restrictive gun laws really prevented?

[DUShock]

[ShockerPhi]

The reason I said that is that I live in Wichita, KS and own 31 firearms and 10,000s of rounds of ammunition.

Holy moses. You're a one-man militia right there.

[shockfan89_]

Holy moses. You're a one-man militia right there.

And shockingly none of those guns or ammo will ever be used to harm anyone (unless they are stolen, which is already against the law). But some of them should be illegal, just because they look menacing (sarcasm).

It is a fact that there are more guns in the U.S. than 25 years ago. It is also a fact that there are less gun-related homicides now than there were 25 years ago. It is also factual that some cities/states have many gun restrictions yet have a huge problem with gun-related homicides. So my question remains, what gun control law can be added that will reduce gun-related homicides?

Waiting periods won't work - The Las Vegas shooter amassed his arsenal over decades according to the Sheriff (although he purchased a majority of them in the past year and one as recent as the end of September).
Magazine capacities won't work - The Las Vegas shooter had 23 firearms in the hotel room. He could have had 123 and nobody could have prevented it.
Background checks won't work - The Las Vegas shooter supposedly passed a background check 40+ times to get his firearms.
Assault weapons ban won't work - An "assault weapon" is merely a semi-automatic rifle that looks menacing. Many other semi-automatic rifles can do the same amount of damage as an "assault rifle".
Bump stock ban won't work - You could argue the Las Vegas shooter fired more rounds than he could have without the bump stocks but they also lower accuracy. The Sheriff said the shooter fired 200 rounds at the security guard that made first contact at the hotel room door, striking the security guard ONCE!

[atlwsu]

A ponder from someone who neither drinks or owns a gun. I don't think either is inherently evil, wrong or sinful. My intuition tells me alcohol causes more harm, destroys more life's and families than guns do, but it's use is tolerated as a price a free society tolorates.

Did we learn anything from prohibition that we can apply to guns? I admit I lean more to the gun lobby than the gun control lobby.

I did lie a litle, I do have a 1840 Kentucky rifle, but I don't have any caps,powder or lead balls.

[ShockerPrez]

Something tells me that if you gave a Marine an AR-15 and told him to assault an enemy bunker with his assault rifle, he would not be very happy.

But he'd still get the job done.

Just sayin.

[shockfan89_]

Something tells me that if you gave a Marine an AR-15 and told him to assault an enemy bunker with his assault rifle, he would not be very happy.

But he'd still get the job done.

Just sayin.

Not sure I follow? I think you could give a marine a semi-automatic rifle and tell them to assault an enemy bunker with the rifle. The marine wouldn't be very happy but would likely get the job done.

[shockfan89_]

A ponder from someone who neither drinks or owns a gun. I don't think either is inherently evil, wrong or sinful. My intuition tells me alcohol causes more harm, destroys more life's and families than guns do, but it's use is tolerated as a price a free society tolorates.

Did we learn anything from prohibition that we can apply to guns? I admit I lean more to the gun lobby than the gun control lobby.

I did lie a litle, I do have a 1840 Kentucky rifle, but I don't have any caps,powder or lead balls.

I was excited when I was reading this thinking you were going to say you had an 1840 Kentucky bourbon.

[ShockerPrez]

Not sure I follow? I think you could give a marine a semi-automatic rifle and tell them to assault an enemy bunker with the rifle. The marine wouldn't be very happy but would likely get the job done.

I believe the AR-15 would be a vastly sub-standard 'assault' rifle to a Marine.

However, a Marine is a highly skilled warrior.

So my point is more that it is not about the gun, it is about the person holding the gun.

Calling an AR-15 an assault rifle to someone who actually assaults things, is probably a stretch. I could be wrong though.

[RoyalShock]

The reason I said that is that I live in Wichita, KS and own 31 firearms and 10,000s of rounds of ammunition.

Can you PM me your address so that when the



I know where to go?

On another note, I would love to have a tank. But I have a feeling if they were legal, the HOA would require it be in a garage, and it might not fit in a standard traffic lane. Oh, well.

[shockfan89_]

Can you PM me your address so that when the



I know where to go?

Purchase that tank or a B1 and we can talk! :)

[boltforge]

Here’s a link with a negative correlation between gun ownership and homicide, although it’s not statistically correlated at all. The US is it’s own beast and a total outlier from the non-correlated supposition.

http://www.objectobot.com/?p=458

Also, if you look at US homicide rate vs civilized country homicide rate where no gun is involved, the US is still number 1 overall and over two times higher than the average. You ask if the people in the US are just more evil than in other countries...well we tend to mirder people at twice the rate even when no guns are involved. This information was per one of the articles you posted that didn’t talk about ownership vs homicide.

If you compare culturally similar US states/regions vs countries with a similar culture you will find that the USA has lower violence rates. The USA is a melting pot of many cultures. And flat out, cultures have very different behaviors between them.

This is easy to see in watching Europe dealing with bringing in a very different culture group right now. Crime in Europe is increasing to the crime rate of the culture that the immigrants come from. It has to. Bad cultural behavior doesn't change just because people change physical addresses. Another example is drunk driving and the machismo culture http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5572465.

Comparing statistics between sets with very different elements is misleading. Sure we are all humans, but people groups and their cultures are incredibly varied.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Okay then name something that can be done, short of confiscation, to prevent gun related homicides.

Well, for starters we can allow the CDC to study gun violence. There is currently legislation in place that specifically restricts them from doing so. Consequently, there is a comparative lack of comprehensive research being done on firearms fatalities. This research could be used to tailor legislation to have a better affect on preventing mass shootings. https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-...h-gun-violence

As it is now gun legislation is like shooting spit wads at the wall hoping something sticks. Gun lobbyists (we all hate lobbyists, right? I hope...) have been very effective at criticizing current gun laws and at the same time not allowing the tools necessary to create better legislation. We--the American people--need to be a little smarter in seeing through the lobbyists' game and electing politicians who aren't in bed with the NRA.

I don't buy the idea that if current laws don't work, that nothing will work and we should just stop trying. That's ludicrous. Guns are not the problem, but they are being used by evil people to do evil things. The answer is to not get rid of guns, but the answer also is not just throw up our hands and quit like a bunch of whiny losers.