Las Vegas mass shooting

[zoogs]

The problem really is that the debate is still over whether a debate should be allowed or not. It’s not an honest debate so much as an effort to tamp down all scrutiny.

 

Guns are frickin precious to us and we work hard to keep them sacrosanct.

[Fru]

One thing I struggle to understand is the "Well, if it doesn't fix it entirely, f*ck it" attitude some folks have. There is no silver bullet solution to this, but if we could halve the number of gun deaths each year, wouldn't that be a good thing?  

[Danny Bateman]

6 hours ago, Fru said:

One thing I struggle to understand is the "Well, if it doesn't fix it entirely, f*ck it" attitude some folks have. There is no silver bullet solution to this, but if we could halve the number of gun deaths each year, wouldn't that be a good thing?  

 

It's most likely going to take years and years (likely decades) of work to bring about a change in our gun culture in the U.S. It's so deeply engrained in our society that no one measure is going to radically change things. The biggest thing we could do is to change attitudes, not laws. Those would would wish to create a safer country where people can still responsibly enjoy guns need to win hearts and minds & not just push for bans and stricter regulations. The latter should follow if the former can be done; people should logically support the regulations that make sense if we can change how we as a society view guns.

 

But the calculus in Washington right now will block ANY degree of gun control, period, so for the time being we may be forced to focus on ONLY winning hearts and minds. Unfortunately, things may have to get worse before they get better before the legislating follows suit.

[Nebfanatic]

22 hours ago, SandhillshuskerW said:

I very rarely post things these days, but I read a lot of opinions on a lot of things. I'm a school teacher and I have talks with my students all the time about things that happen in our country. This is one of those things that we have discussed. I own shotguns and I'm an avid hunter. I don't own any other weapons and I have no need to. Gun control will always be a tricky conversation and yes I think it needs to be a conversation that we have. I do have some serious questions though and I can admit that I don't have the answers. I have talked about these with my students:

 

1) If we as a nation would ban all semi-automatic guns, would it really solve the problem? I'm not saying that I don't think it will help, It's just a question that I threw out to my students. It was interesting to see what some of them came up with.

 

2) If we did have stricter laws and citizens couldn't own certain firearms, what would we start to blame if these tragedies continued? I'm not saying that they would, but what would be the next step if stricter laws did nothing?

 

3) Here's a point that one of my students brought up and I really didn't have a great answer for it. There are a lot of things that are illegal in our country including drugs and there are millions of people that purchase and use drugs on a daily basis. Why do we think that people will not be able to access these weapons if they are illegal? 

 

I'm not listing these things and saying that I have all the answers and I'm not saying that I'm against stricter gun laws. I'm just pointing out some things that my students and I discussed.

I'm going to start backwards here. Firstly, not all guns get taken away. Prohibiting things can tend to make people go out and do it anyway, but we would only be taking away things most normal people already don't use. It's like having a ban on meth. Yes some people still do it but it's dangerous, should it be legal just because some people do it anyway? No it shouldn't be. Another thing to consider with the drug epidemic compared to guns is dependency which is a different issue that keeps people coming back to drugs, something that wouldn't happen with guns.

 

Just like the drug issue though I think the best thing we can do to help stop the gun problem is ample and real education on guns to go along with the restrictions on automatics and modded semi autos. Teach people the reasons why we did this and how to use firearms safely, I think that will go a long way. 

 

Ultimately, just because some people may still get guns and hurt people doesn't mean we shouldn't make it harder for those people to do so. I don't believe "well what if that doesn't do anything" is a very rational argument for not trying to make a change in any area of life. 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I don't think we can have meaningful change in American gun culture and firearms regulation until we have a reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

If the debate was really about what should be appropriate for hunting and home defense/self defense then we might be able to come to a consensus, and make gun laws that make sense.

 

 The NRA is not interested in that debate.  A "well-regulated militia " meaning a civilian military is the right they are trying to protect, IMO

[ZRod]

On 10/6/2017 at 9:56 AM, SandhillshuskerW said:

I very rarely post things these days, but I read a lot of opinions on a lot of things. I'm a school teacher and I have talks with my students all the time about things that happen in our country. This is one of those things that we have discussed. I own shotguns and I'm an avid hunter. I don't own any other weapons and I have no need to. Gun control will always be a tricky conversation and yes I think it needs to be a conversation that we have. I do have some serious questions though and I can admit that I don't have the answers. I have talked about these with my students:

 

1) If we as a nation would ban all semi-automatic guns, would it really solve the problem? I'm not saying that I don't think it will help, It's just a question that I threw out to my students. It was interesting to see what some of them came up with.

 

2) If we did have stricter laws and citizens couldn't own certain firearms, what would we start to blame if these tragedies continued? I'm not saying that they would, but what would be the next step if stricter laws did nothing?

 

3) Here's a point that one of my students brought up and I really didn't have a great answer for it. There are a lot of things that are illegal in our country including drugs and there are millions of people that purchase and use drugs on a daily basis. Why do we think that people will not be able to access these weapons if they are illegal? 

 

I'm not listing these things and saying that I have all the answers and I'm not saying that I'm against stricter gun laws. I'm just pointing out some things that my students and I discussed.

1) Mandating seat belt use doesn't prevent all tarffic deaths, but it does drive them down. Something is better than nothing at all.

 

2) We would cross that road when we came to it, but I highly doubt reasonable well thought out legislation would do absolutely nothing. 

 

3) If things are illegal then there is at least a deterrent, and a reduction in the supply of that particular product that is illegal. I don't smoke weed because it's illegal and I would lose my job if I got caught. Murder is illegal but it still happens, should we legalize murder? This is pretty much a strawman to deflect from the actual debate. Just because we can't stops something 100% doesn't mean we should do nothing about it at all.

 

 Full auto weapons are illegal, but these guns can be easily modified to shoot fully auto, yet we rarely (if ever) have seen a fully automatic weapon used in a mass killing. In fact I think this is the first time something akin to an automatic weapon has been used, and it was infact legal...

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 hour ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

I don't think we can have meaningful change in American gun culture and firearms regulation until we have a reinterpretation of the 2nd amendment.

 

If the debate was really about what should be appropriate for hunting and home defense/self defense then we might be able to come to a consensus, and make gun laws that make sense.

 

 The NRA is not interested in that debate.  A "well-regulated militia " meaning a civilian military is the right they are trying to protect, IMO

 

I'm not completely against some kind of gun regulation, but the fear of tyranny is a legitimate concern. A lot will scoff at that, because it doesn't seem possible here. But if it happened we'd all wish the forming of a militia was still achievable.

[Danny Bateman]

7 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I'm not completely against some kind of gun regulation, but the fear of tyranny is a legitimate concern. A lot will scoff at that, because it doesn't seem possible here. But if it happened we'd all wish the forming of a militia was still achievable.

 

If *actual* tyranny was attempted, it would require the military to enforce it. I've got good faith that the military, from Mathis on down, would NOT follow someone like Trump into the void. If they did, we'd all be screwed, because nothing we could amass as citizens would amount to much compared to what they've got.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be better to try, but if that scenario comes to pass it seems like a rather hopeless battle to me.

[B.B. Hemingway]

9 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

If *actual* tyranny was attempted, it would require the military to enforce it. I've got good faith that the military, from Mathis on down, would NOT follow someone like Trump into the void. If they did, we'd all be screwed, because nothing we could amass as citizens would amount to much compared to what they've got.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be better to try, but if that scenario comes to pass it seems like a rather hopeless battle to me.

 

Hey, I agree that it's extremely unlikely to happen, but it's not something that can be ruled out. Too risky to do so.

 

In my opinion, the best argument in support of the status quo regarding the 2A, is that I believe it's one of our greatest forms of national security. One that is becoming more and more unique to the U.S.

[Dbqgolfer]

23 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

 

If *actual* tyranny was attempted, it would require the military to enforce it. I've got good faith that the military, from Mathis on down, would NOT follow someone like Trump into the void. If they did, we'd all be screwed, because nothing we could amass as citizens would amount to much compared to what they've got.

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be better to try, but if that scenario comes to pass it seems like a rather hopeless battle to me.

IMHO the more realistic danger is a class of people being attacked by another, and the gov't is either indifferent or actually supportive, like what happened with the Klan lynching blacks back in the early 1900's.   To me, that's the importance of the 2nd amendment.

[Dbqgolfer]

On 10/5/2017 at 11:08 PM, Landlord said:

What about when people are literally incapable, even if they're doing all they can, of doing what they need for themselves? Either through injury, illness, whatever. Health care doesn't work as a free market because people's lives are held hostage.

That's where society's obligation kicks in.

[ZRod]

A militia was necessary at the beginning of this country because we could not regularly depend on the military. They were too small, ill trained, and too scattered to provide a well coordinated defense. Thus you needed the general population to be armed in support of the nation's defense.

 

The modern day organized miltia is basically defined as the National Guard. This talk of an unorganized militia over throwing a tyrant is just silly. Anybody who has control of our military will have control of this nation. We aren't stopping drones, tanks, planes, helicopters, howitzers, and APCs with Bushmasterss and HKs. This isn't Hollywood's Red Dawn.

 

If we want to defend this country against tyranny then stop electing tyrants. Our votes are more powerful against the government than any rifle.

[zoogs]

The importance of the 2nd amendment example is armed black people being able to take justice into their own hands when a Klan-supporting government turned a blind eye to lynch mobs?

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

23 minutes ago, Dbqgolfer said:

IMHO the more realistic danger is a class of people being attacked by another, and the gov't is either indifferent or actually supportive, like what happened with the Klan lynching blacks back in the early 1900's.   To me, that's the importance of the 2nd amendment.

 

The government could be indifferent, but I've got full faith that LEOs around the nation wouldn't stand idly by and let that happen. 

Even IF we get to a point where government-sanctioned (or overlooked) attacks on an entire class of people occur, it would still violate state and local law, and I hardly think local/state law enforcement looks the other way. 

But your point about vulnerable peoples using them for legitimate self-defense is a good one.

[Danny Bateman]

13 minutes ago, ZRod said:

A militia was necessary at the beginning of this country because we could not regularly depend on the military. They were too small, ill trained, and too scattered to provide a well coordinated defense. Thus you needed the general population to be armed in support of the nation's defense.

 

The modern day organized miltia is basically defined as the National Guard. This talk of an unorganized militia over throwing a tyrant is just silly. Anybody who has control of our military will have control of this nation. We aren't stopping drones, tanks, planes, helicopters, howitzers, and APCs with Bushmasterss and HKs. This isn't Hollywood's Red Dawn.

 

If we want to defend this country against tyranny then stop electing tyrants. Our votes are more powerful against the government than any rifle.

 

Indeed. A far better way to avoid that outcome would be a knowledgeable, free electorate who don't put people into place who would take us in that direction.

 

Unfortunately, both the knowledgeable & the free descriptors are ones we sorely need to work on in the U.S.