Las Vegas Terror Attack

[wufan]

Do people here believe that legal add ons should be available that make rifles functionally automatic?

What about the ability to purchase fully auto kits even though they are illegal to use in modifications?

[boltforge]

For perspective, take a look at the first amendment, which expressly forbids Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech. However, libel and slander laws do limit the freedom of speech and have been upheld as Constitutional. In a classic example, the Supreme Court has ruled yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater is not freedom of speech, and the first amendment does not protect speech that puts others in danger.

For whatever reason, interpretation of the second amendment has been a more dicey legal and political endeavor, where some interpret it literally but do not extend that literal interpretation to the other amendments.

You have an incorrect analogy. Libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are illegal. Murder and threatening people with guns is illegal as well. These are illegal uses of protected rights.

A better analogy: "Automatic weapons are illegal so we should make the use of the internet illegal. You still have your "free speech" don't you? I'm sure when the first amendment was written it only dealt with paper copies of speech and direct discussions. As dangerous as speech on the internet has proven to be it should be reserved for the government and trained people."

Guns, swords, knives, etc are the method of Arms. Talking, printing, the internet, etc are the method of Speech. Arms and Speech are rights. Actions taken with the methods of those rights can be either legal or illegal. Actually they can be either righteous or horrifically evil.

One technique to think about this is to take away the emotional stress surrounding the sentence by using: "A well regulated Academia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and study Materials, shall not be infringed."

I only changed three words. But without the emotion of those three words it is easier to study it. Is the right to Materials only for academics? What are Materials? What if the Materials have dangerous ideas? Who has the actual right and what is the actual right? What does the word "regulated" truly mean? Is the right for academia or does academia come from the right?

You study and work it out ... and then put the three words back and do it again.

[shoxilla]

and once again..... we've wept

[pinstripers]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gunman-had-bump-stock-device-could-speed-fire-112913704.html

bump stock explained

[Aargh]

Responsible gun owners should have their weapons, otherwise only criminals or irresponsible gun owners would be armed.

Unfortunately, it's becoming fairly obvious that all gun owners are responsible gun owners until they become irresponsible gun owners or until they become criminals.

It seems that the difference between a responsible gun owner and an irresponsible gun owner is an attitude or emotional state. There's no way to check for that on an application or a background check. We're arming a lot of irresponsible gun owners. To not arm those who are inclined to become irresponsible would require refusing to arm many who would not abuse the privilege.

Where and how to draw the line is an almost impossible task. We either accept a certain amount of deaths or we attempt to restrict weapons. The fact that fully automatic firing is illegal didn't, and never will, prevent the use of those weapons.

With the number and types of weapons already in the public domain, any effort to restrict future distribution or place limits on future distribution is pointless. Eliminating every source of someone killing 50+ and injuring 500+ is impossible. This is now part of our culture.

In a way, this is one of the prices that will be paid for unrestricted access to firearms by 300 million people. He wasn't going to be able to do this with knives, or a truck, or even a bomb.

I believe in the 2nd amendment, but this is the price we have to pay from time to time for our belief in that right.

[Play Angry]

I disagree - this shooting was the first one where the scale was exponentially enhanced by using a rifle(s) that operates functionally as a fully automatic but is legal because lobbyists are good at their jobs, and loopholes will be exploited until they are closed.

You can't prevent these atrocities by restricting access to certain firearms because obviously the human is the perp and not the gun itself, but the average American should not have free reign to purchase and use rifles/mods which dispense 700+ rounds per minute.

This is the only shooting that has elicited this type of response from me. Paddock injured hundreds and killed dozens more than he would have otherwise been able to because weapons are legally available which the spirit of laws on the books since 1934 were intended to prohibit. They should close the loopholes to appropriately update that legislation.

[RoyalShock]

I disagree - this shooting was the first one where the scale was exponentially enhanced by using a rifle(s) that operates functionally as a fully automatic but is legal because lobbyists are good at their jobs, and loopholes will be exploited until they are closed.

You can't prevent these atrocities by restricting access to certain firearms because obviously the human is the perp and not the gun itself, but the average American should not have free reign to purchase and use rifles/mods which dispense 700+ rounds per minute.

This is the only shooting that has elicited this type of response from me. Paddock injured hundreds and killed dozens more than he would have otherwise been able to because weapons are legally available which the spirit of laws on the books since 1934 were intended to prohibit. They should close the loopholes to appropriately update that legislation.

I can't disagree. If fully automatic weapons are illegal, modifications to make any weapon perform like one should be illegal also.

I wonder if those restrictions had been in place and the casualties had been 10 dead and 100 injured (assuming Paddock's arsenal was still legal), would we be hearing anything different from the media? Would Jimmy Kimmel had shed fewer tears?

I say no. We would still be hearing them spout on about "common sense gun regulation" without offering specifics. The media and the left will only be satisfied once the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

[boltforge]

Where and how to draw the line is an almost impossible task. We either accept a certain amount of deaths or we attempt to restrict weapons. The fact that fully automatic firing is illegal didn't, and never will, prevent the use of those weapons.

This is the fallacy of the false dilemma. There are more than those two options. And the first is not true anyway. NO ONE sane accepts a certain amount of death. We all (gun owners and non-owners) are pushing to get the number of deaths down. Gun owners can actually argue stats that they directly prevent deaths every day and gun laws increase deaths every day.

What we have to admit to is the fact that there are evil people in the world. Who killed thousands in one day using knives and a lie that they had bombs (9/11). Who chain doors of schools and burn hundreds to death (Africa). Who drive a truck through crowds and then jump out stabbing people (England) killing dozens. Who set fire in a subway killing nearly 200 people (South Korea). And these few examples are just in the last couple of decades.

The questions of Arms for us:
What does the access to them by normal everyday sane citizens (which is the vast majority of people) result in?
Do they bring enjoyment? What is that worth?
Do they bring safety? What is that worth?
Do they bring risks? What is that worth?

In a way, this is one of the prices that will be paid for unrestricted access to firearms by 300 million people. He wasn't going to be able to do this with knives, or a truck, or even a bomb.

I believe in the 2nd amendment, but this is the price we have to pay from time to time for our belief in that right.

You are absolutely wrong on what he could have done without firearms. Example: McVeigh and OK City (nearly 200 killed and 700 wounded). And the most deadly attacks like this have been arson in crowded areas, bombs, and mass transportation as a weapon. He would have killed far more by driving his car full of explosives into a crowd of 20,000 people like he may have planned.

This is a good example of why we rationally make decisions away from times of tragedy. Now is a time to grieve and think.

[ShockCrazy]

I understand the desire to own guns, but at a certain point we have to take a hard look at ourselves, ask some questions. How much is accessibility affecting lives? Why is it countries with more lax gun laws have more mass shootings than those with stricter laws? Why is it that gun accessibility correlates fairly well with homicide rate in modern industrial countries? Why is it that states with stronger gun laws show these same trends and in fact show lower rates of suicide, almost exclusively because suicide rates with firearms decrease with better control? I'm not suggesting we take all guns away but we really need to take a look at what we find important. Many studies have been done that disprove that armed citizens deter crime, likely reasons I would guess is most people aren't equipped to handle the situation appropriately and it escalates the situation where one way or another criminal or defender now feels the need to use their weapon. I understand the desire to protect one's self or even to help others, but I know for more people aren't equipped to deal with it(myself included). I have been in a situation involving gun violence, and I in hindsight recognize I did the wrong thing, and potentially escalated the situation, fortunately things turned out, but it was through shear luck.

[Play Angry]

I can't disagree. If fully automatic weapons are illegal, modifications to make any weapon perform like one should be illegal also.

I wonder if those restrictions had been in place and the casualties had been 10 dead and 100 injured (assuming Paddock's arsenal was still legal), would we be hearing anything different from the media? Would Jimmy Kimmel had shed fewer tears?

I say no. We would still be hearing them spout on about "common sense gun regulation" without offering specifics. The media and the left will only be satisfied once the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

Oh, for sure regarding the reaction to the tragedy had the casualties been properly mitigated - it is also why the odds of appropriate restrictions on those modifications passing are slim (because other, unrelated restrictions will be wrapped into the same proposal). It still should be done, but I'm not optimistic the left is capable of the necessary restraint to pass such a restriction on a standalone basis, or that the right will stand up to the deluge of primary ads that will be promised from special interests if they vote in favor of such a restriction.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

You have an incorrect analogy. Libel, slander, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater are illegal. Murder and threatening people with guns is illegal as well. These are illegal uses of protected rights.

A better analogy: "Automatic weapons are illegal so we should make the use of the internet illegal. You still have your "free speech" don't you? I'm sure when the first amendment was written it only dealt with paper copies of speech and direct discussions. As dangerous as speech on the internet has proven to be it should be reserved for the government and trained people."

Guns, swords, knives, etc are the method of Arms. Talking, printing, the internet, etc are the method of Speech. Arms and Speech are rights. Actions taken with the methods of those rights can be either legal or illegal. Actually they can be either righteous or horrifically evil.

One technique to think about this is to take away the emotional stress surrounding the sentence by using: "A well regulated Academia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and study Materials, shall not be infringed."

I only changed three words. But without the emotion of those three words it is easier to study it. Is the right to Materials only for academics? What are Materials? What if the Materials have dangerous ideas? Who has the actual right and what is the actual right? What does the word "regulated" truly mean? Is the right for academia or does academia come from the right?

You study and work it out ... and then put the three words back and do it again.

You also have an incorrect analogy. The second amendment protects the right to possess a physical object. The first amendment protects the right to perform certain acts. So there is no way to exactly compare these apples and oranges. The best we can do are our two analogies, which are imperfect.

The first amendment protects the right to perform, yet Congress still has the ability to regulate HOW that act is performed within the parameters of common sense (which I think--hope--we can all agree). And absolutely Congress has the power to restrict the platforms on which those acts are performed. It likely would never happen, because the internet (in your example) isn't capable of directly killing hundreds of people in a few minutes. Context is important. Automatic weapons are essentially banned because they are extraordinarily dangerous weapons.

The second amendment does not speak to how we use the object that we have the right to possess. So that is clearly within Congress' power to regulate. More to your point, as long as the right to possess is maintained (which I absolutely support), Congress does and should have a wide latitude on how to manage that right.

[RoyalShock]

The second amendment does not speak to how we use the object that we have the right to possess. So that is clearly within Congress' power to regulate. More to your point, as long as the right to possess is maintained (which I absolutely support), Congress does and should have a wide latitude on how to manage that right.

Which means Congress could define "arms" as anything that expels a projectile and leave us with pellet and BB guns as the only legal weapons for civilians to own.

[wufan]

I understand the desire to own guns, but at a certain point we have to take a hard look at ourselves, ask some questions. How much is accessibility affecting lives? Why is it countries with more lax gun laws have more mass shootings than those with stricter laws? Why is it that gun accessibility correlates fairly well with homicide rate in modern industrial countries? Why is it that states with stronger gun laws show these same trends and in fact show lower rates of suicide, almost exclusively because suicide rates with firearms decrease with better control? I'm not suggesting we take all guns away but we really need to take a look at what we find important. Many studies have been done that disprove that armed citizens deter crime, likely reasons I would guess is most people aren't equipped to handle the situation appropriately and it escalates the situation where one way or another criminal or defender now feels the need to use their weapon. I understand the desire to protect one's self or even to help others, but I know for more people aren't equipped to deal with it(myself included). I have been in a situation involving gun violence, and I in hindsight recognize I did the wrong thing, and potentially escalated the situation, fortunately things turned out, but it was through shear luck.

Lots of stuff here. I’d like to discuss further “ Why is it that gun accessibility correlates fairly well with homicide rate in modern industrial countries?“

I’m not sure this is true. Certainly the US has a lot of homicides and certainly the US gun ownership is #1 in the world by a large margin, but I don’t believe there is a mappable correlation between the two, in that you would expect a much higher murder rate in the US based on gun ownership alone.

[wsushox1]

Which means Congress could define "arms" as anything that expels a projectile and leave us with pellet and BB guns as the only legal weapons for civilians to own.

You whole heartedly believe that the goal of those speaking out against assault weapons is to 100% repeal the 2nd amendment? That is 100% improbable.

We need to start calling modified assualt rifles what they are: Weapons of Mass Destruction.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

Which means Congress could define "arms" as anything that expels a projectile and leave us with pellet and BB guns as the only legal weapons for civilians to own.

You whole heartedly believe that the goal of those speaking out against assault weapons is to 100% repeal the 2nd amendment? That is 100% improbable.

We need to start calling modified assualt rifles what they are: Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Agreed, that's 100% improbable. If Congress did indeed define an "arm" as such, that is without a doubt going to the Supreme Court and almost assuredly going to be struck down, even by liberal justices. The courts have and will interpret the intent of the founding fathers. It is clear what they meant by "arms," and it is clear what our society's interpretation of "arms" have been for over 200 years.