Vegas shooting...?

[Philip]

Ed: I don't know, Phil. You're basically talking about high-caliber, scoped rifles, which puts you squarely in opposition to anybody looking to hunt for deer or anything larger.

Well, I wasn't speaking of just some deer rifle. But of high clip repeating rifles that a sniper can use from a mile away or more. But yeah, the technology differences morph to some degree over dual uses. And I realize it's not always a simple categorization.

But you probably aren't going deer hunting with this!

[RickD]

Making an argument for weapons used for hunting isn't good enough.

Gun ownership activists and the NRA believe the 2nd amendment is about citizens having the right to bear arms against a possibility of a tyrannical govt.

And with that argument, I believe you'll have a difficult time trying to convince them that any weapon shouldn't be legal.

[edwardmurphy]

Maybe. I don't know how well the rank and file NRA member's views line up with their leadership. Lots of people are members because membership is required to join a gun range or club. I suspect that there's some diversity of opinion in there somewhere.

It's also important to remember that the NRA isn't that big an organization. They're very active and well organized, and they have a simple message and strategy - the answer is always no, and never take your foot off the gas. Consequently they punch well above their weight.

That doesn't mean they're the majority, or even close to it. They just show up at government hearings, polling places, and the like, when more moderate people don't. If the majority made an organized push with some staying power we could steamroll them.

The question is what it will take to get people mad enough to get organized and push back. I'm hoping this shooting will mark the tipping point.

This shooting is odd on a lot of ways. The shooter was white, successful, wealthy, and seemed stable and sane. The victims were at a country music festival, so we're probably looking at a fairly white, fairly conservative crowd. The weapons were all legal (to my knowledge). And it took place in a state with some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation.

When it's a Muslim shooter in a gay club a Republican politician can get away with making the usual statements about horror, hope, and God and then moving on. It might be different in this situation. This one might be tougher to put in the rearview.

[Nicki]

Anyone here in Canada can have a firearm.
They simply have to apply for a license.
Much like one has to for a car or to fish, heck even get married.

The process involves taking a safety course and passing to make sure one understands the dangers of firearms.

Rifles and shotguns can be owned with a regular firearm's license and handguns can be owned with a restricted firearm's license, which anyone can apply for as well.

Caveat: A background check is made to ensure that the applicant is not mentally unstable or has a criminal record.

I don't see an issue with that type of gun control.

Makes sense to me, but if you propose that in the States you'll get called a crazy, anti-gun leftist.

Assuming such controls exist here in the U.S., how would that have changed anything? Note that I'm not against such controls (even though I'm a crazy for-gun rightist ). Anyone intent on harming others will always find a way to do it.

You mean there's no such thing as a firearms license in the US? Maybe they'd be a good idea. People outside the defence forces definitely should not have access to high-powered weapons - as someone else said, they're weapons of war, not hunting or self-defence.

[Hortator]

Maybe. I don't know how well the rank and file NRA member's views line up with their leadership. Lots of people are members because membership is required to join a gun range or club. I suspect that there's some diversity of opinion in there somewhere.

It's also important to remember that the NRA isn't that big an organization. They're very active and well organized, and they have a simple message and strategy - the answer is always no, and never take your foot off the gas. Consequently they punch well above their weight.

That doesn't mean they're the majority, or even close to it. They just show up at government hearings, polling places, and the like, when more moderate people don't. If the majority made an organized push with some staying power we could steamroll them.

The question is what it will take to get people mad enough to get organized and push back. I'm hoping this shooting will mark the tipping point.

This shooting is odd on a lot of ways. The shooter was white, successful, wealthy, and seemed stable and sane. The victims were at a country music festival, so we're probably looking at a fairly white, fairly conservative crowd. The weapons were all legal (to my knowledge). And it took place in a state with some of the most permissive gun laws in the nation.

When it's a Muslim shooter in a gay club a Republican politician can get away with making the usual statements about horror, hope, and God and then moving on. It might be different in this situation. This one might be tougher to put in the rearview.

The Simpsons predict everything, even this post:

[edwardmurphy]

We have some Federal gun laws, but they leave a lot up to the states, which leave some aspects up to the municipalities.

So for example (and some of this is off the top of my head and likely not quite right), if you want a Stinger missile you're out if luck because that would violate Federal law. If you want a machine gun I think there are some Federal hoops, but it also depends on which state you live in. If you want to carry a rifle openly that's up to the state and/or municipality. It's legal here in New Hampshire. Ditto for openly carried pistols, although some places make you get a permit to but it. If you want to carry a concealed pistol some places make you get a permit and specific permission from your local police chief. Other states have no restrictions whatsoever. The same can be said of an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine (or 60 or 90, iirc). If you want to add a bump stocks to make it close to a fully automatic weapon I think that's the same situation.

In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, the shooter had a dozen high-capacity rifles with bump stocks, all of which was legal in Nevada. I'm not clear on whether or not it was legal to bring them into a casino, but that's just a matter of tossing them into a duffel bag.

So as far as I know, the shooter didn't break any laws until he shot out the window of his hotel room.

[edwardmurphy]

I'm not following your argument, Hortence. Are you saying that I'm playing politics with a tragedy? I hope you're not that shallow.

[B. W.]

Rather than going to go into my emotional response to this horrific event, I'm going stick to the issue of guns and gun control.

So apparently 59 people were killed, and another 500+ or so were wounded or injured as a result of the chaos caused by the shooting. My understanding is that most of those 500 have either bullet wounds or shrapnel wounds caused by near misses. That's horrifying.

Apparently it's also possible to purchase a high capacity, high-powered semiautomatic rifle and to then bolt on an external mechanism that will allow that rifle to function - more or less - as an automatic weapon. All of that is apparently legal.

It's also apparent that the LVPD response was rapid and that they did everything that they could have possibly done to prevent this terrible tragedy.

So is this the time for an open discussion about gun control in the US, or should we just accept that this is part of life in America?

Parable:

In a kingdom, violence increased. People killed with bare hands, knives, swords, scissors, ropes, bombs, automobiles, pushed people off great heights as well as character assassinated others by demonizing them with words, and also people killed with guns.

So, the King decreed let's outlaw guns. They did. Violence increased exponentially. So, they outlawed automobiles, knives, swords, scissors, ropes, bombs, hatchets, screwdrivers, drills, baseball bats, pipes, and also took away free speech and thought. But people still found the means to kill and hate.

They next tore down all the trees in the kingdom so people cannot make weapons to kill or maim. That did not work either. So, the King and his court outlawed owning rocks, stones, bricks, slingshots, forks and spoons and butter knives and tooth brushes because these too were being fashioned into shanks and tools of death. The even changed the educational system to teach safe space logic.

Still violence and mayhem increased.

“What do we do?” said the king to his court.

The court replied to the king, "We do not know, oh king, we outlawed everything including free speech and people still find the means to kill and do mayhem with words and their own bare hands and even use their legs to kick people to death."

The King then decreed, "I have the answer, all babies born from now on will have all arms, legs, amputated. Remove their tongues so they are mute. Make them deaf and blind too. And then do likewise to all except for us who are so wise and good and we will spoon feed them all their needs and in this manner, there will be no more murder and mayhem."

Then one from the king’s court spoke up, "Really?"

The King said, "you will be the first."
-
-
-

[abelcainsbrother]

We have some Federal gun laws, but they leave a lot up to the states, which leave some aspects up to the municipalities.

So for example (and some of this is off the top of my head and likely not quite right), if you want a Stinger missile you're out if luck because that would violate Federal law. If you want a machine gun I think there are some Federal hoops, but it also depends on which state you live in. If you want to carry a rifle openly that's up to the state and/or municipality. It's legal here in New Hampshire. Ditto for openly carried pistols, although some places make you get a permit to but it. If you want to carry a concealed pistol some places make you get a permit and specific permission from your local police chief. Other states have no restrictions whatsoever. The same can be said of an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine (or 60 or 90, iirc). If you want to add a bump stocks to make it close to a fully automatic weapon I think that's the same situation.

In the case of the Las Vegas shooting, the shooter had a dozen high-capacity rifles with bump stocks, all of which was legal in Nevada. I'm not clear on whether or not it was legal to bring them into a casino, but that's just a matter of tossing them into a duffel bag.

So as far as I know, the shooter didn't break any laws until he shot out the window of his hotel room.

In Paris guns are banned and a muslim terrorist used an assault rifle to shoot up a concert.How did he get it if guns are banned Ed? What law prevented him from buying one and killing people with it?You are too trusting of government and are either ignorant of history or just naive but governments take freedom away and you are allowing them to chip away at our 2nd ammendent? Why Ed? The right to bear arms is more about the people being able to use arms to protect ourselves from a tyrranical government like in history many of times.Yes guns are for self defense also and for hunting,recreational shooting,etc but it is really all about the people being able to defend itself from a tyrranical government.There is talk about how there really should be an armed militia for the people that is seperate from our military and yet we have no militia but should possibly.

[Hortator]

I'm not following your argument, Hortence. Are you saying that I'm playing politics with a tragedy? I hope you're not that shallow.

That is exactly what I’m saying.

You made the topic.

[abelcainsbrother]

It was a while back and I did not have a chance to verify it but I read on a blog somewhere that Trump is considering signing an executive order to give the people an armed militia,if so,what say ya'll?

[RickD]

It was a while back and I did not have a chance to verify it but I read on a blog somewhere that Trump is considering signing an executive order to give the people an armed militia,if so,what say ya'll?

Give who an armed militia?

Isn't the concept of a militia, supposed to be civilians, not government soldiers?

[edwardmurphy]

I'm not following your argument, Hortence. Are you saying that I'm playing politics with a tragedy? I hope you're not that shallow.

That is exactly what I’m saying.

You made the topic.

And I stand to profit how, exactly?

[Philip]

Ed: The question is what it will take to get people mad enough to get organized and push back. I'm hoping this shooting will mark the tipping point.

I'll tell you what it will take to change the dynamic: In large numbers, those with moderate and conservative views (those who agree that citizens should continue to have the right to weapons equal to the typical threat most will ever face) ALSO collectively rise up to support sensible laws and closing of loopholes that make certain extreme weapons legal or easy to obtain. Because if only the voices of the far left are given media attention, and those of the "Ban all guns" psychologically drive the issue - if theirs' is the ONLY voice of anger heard - then that extreme view will only continue to enable the dynamic the NRA has long so successfully exploited (the "slippery slope / only criminals will have guns") - and not only in its members' heads, but also in the general citizenry. The change has to come from voices in the center. And it should begin with ANY new suggested laws FIRST affirming the right for citizens to own weapons of a certain class and firepower in it's verbiage and intent. That is what will also change those in the center of wanting stricter controls, as they ALSO want assurance that that basic weapons will be guaranteed to remain legal.

As for groups like the NRA - the leadership and those making a good living from their employment with it - they must keep stirring the pots of controversy, keeping the "they'll ban ALL the guns" boogieman alive to maintain the positions and salaries.

People have got to realize that they have bought into a false choice: That it's ONLY a choice between banning all the guns vs. allowing virtually all kinds of artillery. I have fear of BOTH extremes. But the guns aren't going anywhere, as even the most liberal, restrictive parts of the country still legally own and buy a huge range of weapons. Politicians of ALL stripes know that the quickest way to to defeat is to assert all guns should be banned. And if a ban were ever even suggested by some group in power, weapons would quickly go underground, be hidden and still widely available illegally. Heck, if not one new gun were ever sold, 200 years from now, finding a quality gun would be no problem, as there are just such vast billions already in circulation.

[abelcainsbrother]

It was a while back and I did not have a chance to verify it but I read on a blog somewhere that Trump is considering signing an executive order to give the people an armed militia,if so,what say ya'll?

Give who an armed militia?

Isn't the concept of a militia, supposed to be civilians, not government soldiers?

The people,so yes it would be civilians and if I remember correctly but I think it is more about an armed and trained militia for the people to join up if they choose to.When I read it awhile back it really made me think that Trump has realized now that he is on the inside the powers that be that would like to take our freedoms away and this is a way to deter it.