Las Vegas Terror Attack

[ShockCrazy]

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.

The numbers are every where. Seriously. It's not a one to one. It's a correlation that is very strong. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americ...ics/index.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts https://everytown.org/learn/ http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-...030-X/fulltext

[pinstripers]

Pat Sajak
✔
@patsajak
OK, let me explain this again: We're celebs. We're wiser & more empathetic than you. We are famous. Please take our opinions more seriously.

[Play Angry]

Pat Sajak
✔
@patsajak
OK, let me explain this again: We're celebs. We're wiser & more empathetic than you. We are famous. Please take our opinions more seriously.

For anyone who thinks he might be serious, he isn't. He's also an outspoken Republican.

[CBB_Fan]

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.

Gun ownership doesn't correlate well to homicides. It does correlate to gun deaths though. The simple fact of the matter is that gun suicides are a bigger problem than gun homicides. I mean that in a purely statistical sense. There were 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" in 2013 and of those deaths 11,208 were homicides while 21,175 were suicides (the rest being accidental or unknown). I say this as someone whose grandfather committed suicide via shotgun, nearly 50 years ago (though there was some speculation it was actually a mafia related murder, but that is another story).

Guns are a particularly big problem with suicides because they are almost always fatal and don't give a person any time to rethink. Those that take pills can decide to rush to the hospital and get their stomach pumped. Those that jump have the whole walk up to change their mind. Those that pull the trigger, die.

Of course, 21,000 suicides don't make headlines like 600 getting shot in a mass-shooting. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the facts when we write laws. It would be incredibly difficult to reduce the lethality of guns such that an attack like Las Vegas couldn't happen, at least in a Constitutional way. Even if you banned the component parts or "assault weapons" a hobbyist could recreate the banned configuration from the millions of parts in private ownership. Even without guns, a terrorist commit an attack of similar scale with a bomb or truck.

So how would I strive to reduce gun deaths? I would try to put a safe in every home, I would entrust the NRA with expanded gun safety programs at the high school level (ie, optional Eddie Eagle courses in the same way we have sex ed), and I would put a sin tax on ammo. The latter would be offset for those with a hunting license or a similar substitute.

I would also ask the media to follow a few guidelines in covering these sorts of tragedies. Do not mention names, do not investigate the shooter's live and motives, do not make it a front-page news story. Run it in the ticker and on the 2nd page "Mass shooting in ----, X dead, Y wounded; law enforcement says attack was(n't) a terrorist attack." Anything more and you turn the shooters into celebrities and showcase their methods to copycat killers.

I would not focus on lethality. Statistically speaking, the most dangerous class of firearms is the least deadly: handguns. In 2010, of the 8,855 gun homicides 6,371 were attributable to handguns. There is no combination of bans that will stop firearms, ALL firearms, from being deadly weapons. If anything, the statistics seem to imply that a gun's ability to mow down targets is independent of its actual usage in homicides. This tells me that further restrictions on extra-lethal variants will do little to nothing to prevent most gun-related homicides.

Anyway, the shorter version is this:

Guns kill twice as many people in suicides as in homicides. Of those used in homicides, 75% are committed by handguns. These stats tell us our first focus should be reducing suicides and accidents, and that before jumping to bans against rifles we should consider other methods of reducing mass-shootings. I personally believe the media's consistent glorification of tragedy is a bigger culprit than any firearm accessory.

[Shock Top]

The numbers are every where. Seriously. It's not a one to one. It's a correlation that is very strong. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americ...ics/index.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts https://everytown.org/learn/ http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-...030-X/fulltext

You can just as easily find stats that say the gun homicide rate has gone down as gun ownership has gone up. While gun deaths have gone up, the main cause is that suicide gun deaths have gone up. Even that doesn’t really the full story, because the US doesn’t even have the highest suicide rates in modern industrialized countries. Also, depending on where you receive or interpret the stats, you get different numbers on what a mass shooting is determined. Most outlets determine it as when more than one person is shot; so murde-suicide, gang shootings, etc. are all considered mass shootings, yet no one would say “oh your ex is crazy we should take your gun away” or “oh gang violence is bad, you shouldn’t be allowed to be armed in south Chicago”.

Correlation doesn’t mean causation. Just because one psycho had an evil voice inside his head, doesn’t mean other Americans shouldn’t be armed to protect themselves and others from said psycho. Look at the Paris attacks, in a country with stricter gun laws than the US. Would that have help mitigate the attacks if they knew somones(s) would possibly be armed? Maybe. Having the likelyhood of no one being armed though, was probably on their minds. Also, elimating guns doesn’t prevent all violence; look at the Manchester and Barcelona attacks.

If evil wants to, evil will always find away to commit evil. That’s why the second amendment is the great equalizer. To protect yourself not only from the rise of a tyrannical government, but from the evils that exist in the world.

[ShockCrazy]

You can just as easily find stats that say the number of gun homicides have gone down as gun ownership has gone up. While gun deaths have gone up, the main cause is that suicide gun deaths have gone up. Even that doesn’t really the full story, because the US doesn’t even have the highest suicide rates in modern industrialized countries. Also, depending on where you receive or interpret the stats, you get different numbers on what a mass shooting is determined. Most outlets determine it as when more than one person is shot; so murde-suicide, gang shootings, etc. are all considered mass shootings, yet no one would say “oh your ex is crazy we should take your gun away” or “oh gang violence is bad, you shouldn’t be allowed to be armed in south Chicago”.

Correlation doesn’t mean causation. Just because one psycho had an evil voice inside his head, doesn’t mean other Americans shouldn’t be armed to protect themselves and others from said psycho. Look at the Paris attacks, in a country with stricter gun laws than the US. Would that have help mitigate the attacks if they knew somones(s) would possibly be armed? Maybe. Having the likelyhood of no one being armed though, was probably on their minds. Also, elimating guns doesn’t prevent all violence look at the Manchester and Barcelona attacks. If evil wants to, evil will always find away to commit evil. That’s why the second amendment is the great equalizer to protect yourself not only from the rise of a tyrannical government, but from the evils that exist in the world.

You are flat ignoring the fact that so many times crazy ex or gun violence happens because guns are accessible. Ask yourself, why do we have more problems than EVERY OTHER industrial country with gun violence and murder in general? Do you honestly believe Americans in general are just worse? I think there are equally terrible people in every country. Also I'm curious about ownership going up, I don't believe that is the case, and would like a citation. Are more guns being owned? Yes. Are more people getting guns? I don't think so. We just have people who are already owners buying more and more guns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ace0c4b7dc07

Evil finds a way, but we certainly make it easy for it to find ways. I think any person who hasn't been trained via law enforcement or milatary or how to deal with de-escalating situations isn't going to do any good protecting themselves with a weapon and has a naive view of how these situations go down. And many studies indicate that this is true. I know from experience I'm not prepared for that situation.

[wsushox1]

You can just as easily find stats that say the gun homicide rate has gone down as gun ownership has gone up

If evil wants to, evil will always find away to commit evil. That’s why the second amendment is the great equalizer. To protect yourself not only from the rise of a tyrannical government, but from the evils that exist in the world.

If they can be easily found, please find them and post them.

The last paragraph is essentially saying that the lives lost are 'the price of freedom'. I'm sure the families with lives lost don't feel that way.

[shockfan89_]

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.

It is clear what they meant by arms. The same arms that the federal government could use against it's citizens. That means that I should be able to purchase the same "arms" the federal government equips the U.S. military with. The founding fathers intended for the states to have well-regulated militias. Militias are just citizens that form together and bring their personal "arms" as their weapons. The founding fathers did not expect the people to use a musket to challenge a federal force armed with automatic weapons. Well-regulated does not mean rules and laws. It means well maintained, in good working order.

[RoyalShock]

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.

What I believe is that a significant portion of the media and the left in general who are speaking out against "assault" weapons, in their heart-of-hearts, would rejoice at a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Having that goal (ie. feeling or belief) is not 100% improbable. Actually attaining the goal may be.

[wsushox1]

It is clear what they meant by arms. The same arms that the federal government could use against it's citizens. That means that I should be able to purchase the same "arms" the federal government equips the U.S. military with. The founding fathers intended for the states to have well-regulated militias. Militias are just citizens that form together and bring their personal "arms" as their weapons. The founding fathers did not expect the people to use a musket to challenge a federal force armed with automatic weapons.

If you're going to magically interpret the founding fathers language than I will as well. I don't think they intended citizens to have unfettered access to legitimate weapons of mass destruction.

People are so sure, me included, that their respective interpretation of something written 200 years ago is correct and makes them 'righteous' because of it. Maybe we should focus on making sure our citizens aren't slaughtered?

I've asked this question to my many, assault rifle owning friends: if we could reduce the chances of mass shootings by just 10%, is that something you could be proud of?

[wsushox1]

What I believe is that a significant portion of the media and the left in general who are speaking out against "assault" weapons, in their heart-of-hearts, would rejoice at a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Having that goal (ie. feeling or belief) is not 100% improbable. Actually attaining the goal may be.

I strongly disagree. I don't think any of the liberal minded folks that I know, want the second amendment repealed. Like at all. Granted, I don't hang out in Berkeley.

Why is "assault" in quotation marks? That is literally what they are named and they are built for that purpose exactly. That's the main flaw in the argument of "well someone could use a truck to kill a bunch of people". Well, yea, they could but trucks aren't designed to mutilate and maim. Assault rifles are.

[Cdizzle]

If you're going to magically interpret the founding fathers language than I will as well. I don't think they intended citizens to have unfettered access to legitimate weapons of mass destruction.

People are so sure, me included, that their respective interpretation of something written 200 years ago is correct and makes them 'righteous' because of it. Maybe we should focus on making sure our citizens aren't slaughtered?

I've asked this question to my many, assault rifle owning friends: if we could reduce the chances of mass shootings by just 10%, is that something you could be proud of?

If only they had written other documents describing the intent and rationale for their decisions. Then we might really be on to something. Shame, really.

[ShockCrazy]

If you're going to magically interpret the founding fathers language than I will as well. I don't think they intended citizens to have unfettered access to legitimate weapons of mass destruction.

People are so sure, me included, that their respective interpretation of something written 200 years ago is correct and makes them 'righteous' because of it. Maybe we should focus on making sure our citizens are slaughtered?

I've asked this question to my many, assault rifle owning friends: if we could reduce the chances of mass shootings by just 10%, is that something you could be proud of?

Agree entirely. I think there is far too much reverence/belief in the infallibility in the constitution in this country. It was written in the context of the time, even Jefferson thought it should be scrapped every couple decades and re-written entirely. There are many things that aren't covered because they didn't think it was possible or it wasn't possible that the time. Yet we haven't truly evolved, most amendments to the constitution are things I imagine the founding fathers could have predicted(in fact the last amendment ratified was proposed by them... think about that). I think the founding fathers would laugh hysterically at the fact we still have no amendment regarding privacy and data, but here we are with the government and private companies collecting untold amounts of information. The 2nd amendment was written when mass murder by a single citizen wasn't really a possibility, just as times change so should our laws.

[SHOCKvalue]

The firearm ownership rate in the US, versus the rate of homicide in the US, are literally inversely proportional over the last 30-ish years. One can cherry pick statistics, or play semantics, but the above inverse correlation is easily found invoking a fairly basic level of Google-fu.

[shockfan89_]

It is not a magical interpretation. It is a very logical one based on what the founding fathers were trying to accomplish.

We could reduce the chances of drunk driving deaths by outlawing cars. That doesn't mean we should do it. This terrible person also had ammonium nitrate in his possession. We might be lucky he picked assault rifles instead, he could have killed thousands more with a bomb.