Las Vegas Terror Attack

[ShockerPhi]

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!

Just because these things didn't work on the Vegas shooter doesn't mean they don't prevent tragedy. Like others have said, there are more guns in America now, but gun deaths are down. Maybe some of these measures are working.

Waiting periods help prevent someone who has snapped from getting a gun immediately and using it. It may not work on everyone who has snapped, but I'm sure it helps.

Magazine capacities will help prevent someone who isn't as filthy rich as this Vegas shooter was from killing an excess amount of people if they decide to shoot up a place if they can only afford 1 or 2 guns.

Background checks will help prevent people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. Not everyone has access to the black market (or the money for it).

Agreed about Assault weapons for the most part. I'm just glad automatic fire is illegal. It's unnecessary.

As for bump stocks, who needs accuracy when you have a crowd of people?

I'm certainly not arguing all of these bans will work 100% of the time. But if they work 75% or 50% of the time, I think they're worth it. Keep those gun death numbers falling.

[Play Angry]

The N.R.A. just released a statement in support of additional restrictions for bump stocks and similar mods which allow for functional equivalency with automatic weapons.

[shockfan89_]

Probably a smart move. I think that was going to be the outcome regardless of whether or not the NRA supported it.

[SHOCKvalue]

The N.R.A. just released a statement in support of additional restrictions for bump stocks and similar mods which allow for functional equivalency with automatic weapons.

Whoa, that's really surprising!

I personally don't have any skin in that game, and could go either way on the bump stocks, but I can't recall the NRA ever supporting any sort of restriction.

[boltforge]

Whoa, that's really surprising!

I personally don't have any skin in that game, and could go either way on the bump stocks, but I can't recall the NRA ever supporting any sort of restriction.

I find people complaining about the NRA really odd.

Anyway, banning these stocks doesn't mean anything real. Bump fire is a technique, not a product.

Rifle https://youtu.be/kk1uxD1DtXU?t=10s
Pistol https://youtu.be/LM92AIK3AyU?t=4m

Both the above are semi-autos. And like the guy said in the second video (after warning that he probably had nerve damage in his hand from doing it so much) is "Whoo. That is crazy exciting!"

I'm sure the ban will ease people's minds. And do nothing about actual murder. And send people home from jobs that make plastic stocks. And make normal people who just wanted to go "Whoo. That is crazy exciting!" be at risk of arrest and have a crazy exciting confrontation with armed police trying to enforce the law.

[Play Angry]

I find people complaining about the NRA really odd.

Anyway, banning these stocks doesn't mean anything real. Bump fire is a technique, not a product.

Rifle https://youtu.be/kk1uxD1DtXU?t=10s
Pistol https://youtu.be/LM92AIK3AyU?t=4m

Both the above are semi-autos. And like the guy said in the second video (after warning that he probably had nerve damage in his hand from doing it so much) is "Whoo. That is crazy exciting!"

I'm sure the ban will ease people's minds. And do nothing about actual murder. And send people home from jobs that make plastic stocks. And make normal people who just wanted to go "Whoo. That is crazy exciting!" be at risk of arrest and have a crazy exciting confrontation with armed police trying to enforce the law.

Sounds like you are complaining about the NRA.

[boltforge]

Sounds like you are complaining about the NRA.

Insert Eye-Roll ... you know what I meant. I meant the silly OH MY GOD ALL 5 MILLION AMERICANS IN THE NRA SHOULD BE KILLED BECAUSE THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS comments from Nancy Sinatra, Jimmy Kimmel, practically every reporter, every politician with a microphone, and several comments in this thread. It's ignorant and stupid. <edit>And actually it is so out of hand a Hollywood sexual predator is trying to claim the high road by saying he is fighting the NRA.</edit>

Everyone knows that going along with this ban is politically convenient. Not a hill to fight over.

Like I said ... it will ease people's minds. Falsely, but oh well.

[Play Angry]

Insert Eye-Roll ... you know what I meant. I meant the silly OH MY GOD ALL 5 MILLION AMERICANS IN THE NRA SHOULD BE KILLED BECAUSE THEY HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS comments from Nancy Sinatra, Jimmy Kimmel, practically every reporter, every politician with a microphone, and several comments in this thread. It's ignorant and stupid. <edit>And actually it is so out of hand a Hollywood sexual predator is trying to claim the high road by saying he is fighting the NRA.</edit>

I agree that a lot of the time the NRA and ordinary gun owners are unfairly attacked. I don't think anyone in this thread vocalized anything close to what you assert though.

Everyone knows that going along with this ban is politically convenient. Not a hill to fight over.

Like I said ... it will ease people's minds. Falsely, but oh well.

I guess we just disagree on this point. The rationale behind restricting access to fully automatic firearms seems to be a very close fit on this issue, and society has deemed that to be an appropriate dividing line between absolute liberty and pragmatism for close to a century. Certainly society is often wrong about many things, but this is one where I generally agree with its assessment. Indiscriminate fire, at a rate where accuracy seems to be universally acknowledged to be poor and where practical use is non-existent, is an appropriate point for regulation.

The fact that murder by other means (whether by legally obtained firearms and less efficient, or illegally obtained firearms and equally or more efficient, or by entirely different avenues) is not an impossibility does not diminish the validity or strength of that argument. Its effectiveness in either direction will of course be impossible to prove - you assert it is zero. I think that is unlikely to be true. I also think anyone who claims it represents any kind of massive cure for society's ills and the appurtenant casualties is also mistaken.

The challenge now will be for the more rational contingent on the left to exercise appropriate restraint and not blow what incremental gains have presented themselves. The odds of that are pretty iffy IMO.

[Rocky Mountain Shock]

I am a gun owner and a former member of the NRA. Former, because I became disgruntled at the increasingly hard line stance against responsible gun laws that the organization has taken. I terminated my membership in the early 2000s.

In the first 100 years of its existence, the NRA was a bipartisan organization of sportsmen that promoted marksmanship, training, and the responsible use and maintenance of firearms. It actually helped lawmakers draft quite a few gun laws, including laws in certain states against the unpermitted carrying of concealed weapons and the first national gun control laws in the 1930s. Starting in the late 1970s, it has devolved into a closed minded horde of lobbyists who don't give a rat's *** about anything other than defeating every piece of gun legislation--no matter its merits. And in the process, it has brainwashed an entire generation or two of Americans into the same absolute, black and white, all or nothing mentality.

The Washington Post has a pretty decent article about the NRA's transformation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.6f1a74a434ef

[boltforge]

Now that the gun law being discussed for is any device that increases rate of fire I guess I'll be a felon. Because I wear pants with a belt loop when I shoot. And if there is a stick somewhere around me that's a felony too. 5 years in prison if you shoot-y fast-y.

Questions for the pro gun control guys: How will a law limit rate of fire by criminals? Or will it just limit non-criminals who decide to follow the law? How will making millions of normal men and women instant felons be a good thing?

This is like idiots talking about controlling encryption. IT'S ARITHMETIC! How in the heck can people be deluded enough to imagine they can control arithmetic? Rate of fire is a property of levers. You can even shoot faster or slower depending on how you hold a gun. The law history of controlling automatic weapons was about gang crimes in an era of rampant racism and eugenic fantasies. And with those laws on the books obviously gangs became less dangerous ... oh wait, they got worse.

It is sad how people look back to the good old eugenics years of laws that control people because the upper class can't trust "low class" people. The brain washing isn't from the NRA. It is the self delusion that we "know better" and we can't imagine a need for guns that shoot quickly. Or physically having to protect yourself. Or being able to pick where your kids go to school. Or needing strong encryption. Or even be able to drink unpasteurized milk.

Because we are rich enough that all the above comes for free in our social group. We pay guys with guns to keep us safe and keep the other people on the other side of town. So no one NEEDS those guns (because our guys already have them to keep us safe). Our kids go to the best schools because we live the best neighborhood. So no one NEEDS vouchers to be able to control where their kids go school (besides those parents are too ignorant to know what is best ... and g*d forbid they send their kids to our school). We don't need encryption because we are the government and we round up the people who post bad thoughts. And who the hell lives where they have their own cows?!

How will a *law* actually limit rate of fire by bad people? Or is this law just to make ourselves feel better and who cares what it actually does.

[Play Angry]

Only on ShockerNet are gun-owning members of Ducks Unlimited who oppose the unrestricted sale of machine guns considered pro gun control guys.

[wufan]

Now that the gun law being discussed for is any device that increases rate of fire I guess I'll be a felon. Because I wear pants with a belt loop when I shoot. And if there is a stick somewhere around me that's a felony too. 5 years in prison if you shoot-y fast-y.

Questions for the pro gun control guys: How will a law limit rate of fire by criminals? Or will it just limit non-criminals who decide to follow the law? How will making millions of normal men and women instant felons be a good thing?

This is like idiots talking about controlling encryption. IT'S ARITHMETIC! How in the heck can people be deluded enough to imagine they can control arithmetic? Rate of fire is a property of levers. You can even shoot faster or slower depending on how you hold a gun. The law history of controlling automatic weapons was about gang crimes in an era of rampant racism and eugenic fantasies. And with those laws on the books obviously gangs became less dangerous ... oh wait, they got worse.

It is sad how people look back to the good old eugenics years of laws that control people because the upper class can't trust "low class" people. The brain washing isn't from the NRA. It is the self delusion that we "know better" and we can't imagine a need for guns that shoot quickly. Or physically having to protect yourself. Or being able to pick where your kids go to school. Or needing strong encryption. Or even be able to drink unpasteurized milk.

Because we are rich enough that all the above comes for free in our social group. We pay guys with guns to keep us safe and keep the other people on the other side of town. So no one NEEDS those guns (because our guys already have them to keep us safe). Our kids go to the best schools because we live the best neighborhood. So no one NEEDS vouchers to be able to control where their kids go school (besides those parents are too ignorant to know what is best ... and g*d forbid they send their kids to our school). We don't need encryption because we are the government and we round up the people who post bad thoughts. And who the hell lives where they have their own cows?!

How will a *law* actually limit rate of fire by bad people? Or is this law just to make ourselves feel better and who cares what it actually does.

A law restricting the rate of fire may not stop criminals. That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be against the law. Murder is against the law, yet we still have criminals that break it and are punished. Having a machine gun is against the law, yet we still have criminals that break it and are punished. People that accidentally kill someone are convict d of the lesser crime of manslaughter. People that intentionally modify a weapon such that accuracy be damned and massive amounts of projectiles are the goal. Oils appropriately be punished with a law in the books.

Certainly there are challenges in implementing such a law. Having a quick trigger finger might be considered illeagal if you aren’t careful. The laws should be written so as to take care to preserve rights while restricting indescriminant firing capabilities.