Las Vegas mass shooting going on

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

are you sure? you would have the same outrage at cancer as you would a murderer with a gun. Mine would be different. Cancer causes a hollow loss with a feeling of helplessness because the cause can be largely genetic or environmental. It's just so unknown sometimes. I watched one grandmother pass from cancer, the other one from Alzheimer’s and while the loss is deep, in a way it's a blessing by the time the end has come. A lot of those items on that list are total BS

A drunk driver i hear you. If it's criminal i hear you.

A loss caused by murder is so sudden and totally different IMHO.

Both are obviously not good.

I just really have an issue with whoever puts that list together to trick people into their point of view. when you dig deeper it's total horse shit.

When people get together and say "we've had enough" of things, great things can happen. Look at vaccines, at one stage they were just another unsolvable problem killing MILLIONS. Now we've all but eradicated a lot of diseases all because someone didn't accept the status quo.

I am sure. I wouldn't have any outrage towards cancer or murder with a gun. I can't really effect the outcome of either one of those. Actually, i take that back. My 2nd amendment rights to conceal carry a firearm gives me a tool to for self defense if being attacked by someone intent on murdering myself or loved ones. But i even asked my wife about the same scenario and the cause is irrelevant to her as well.

I'll ask again, why is the status quo acceptable when it comes to tobacco use, obesity and alcohol use/abuse? I mean, a single side effect of alcohol abuse kills more people than guns every year. Maybe because we already tried to ban alcohol and that didn't workout so well. It basically invented organized crime and is arguably responsible for much of the corruption within the ranks of our government from the local to federal levels of office.

Loss of life is loss of life in my eyes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to what kind of legislation would save more lives on that chart.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by fravel

We already have tried though, just not specifically with guns. Drugs aren't legal and don't even have the 'readily available across state lines' scenario - yet they are easily obtainable by anyone who wants them. What makes anyone think firearms would be any different?

Further, unlike drugs, firearms have a legitimate purpose for law-abiding citizens. There are unintended consequences to consider when proposing stricter firearms laws. IMO, those unintended consequences far outweigh any the perceived benefits.



This is easily debunked with a simple understanding of firearms murder stats and US law regarding the sale of firearms, to wit:

#1. The overwhelming majority (80%+) of firearms crimes are committed with handguns as opposed to rifles/shotguns.

#2. A resident of a given state can't purchase a handgun in a different state and then just take it home with them. IE, and Illinois resident from Chicago can't just drive over to Indiana, buy a handgun and then drive back to Chicago. The gun would have to be transferred by the FFL holder in Indiana to an FFL holder in Illinois, where the purchaser would be able to pick it up. If the weapon in question isn't legal to own in Illinois, the FFL holder there would not be able to transfer the firearm to the purchaser.

I love seeing the look on peoples faces when i explain the factual laws on the books that they think don't exist because the media flat out lies about how easy it is to get a gun.

louder with crowder made a funny hidden camera video where he tried to procure a gun without a background check from numerous gun shops and gun shows. Most of the gun shop owners laughed it off, a few were seemed pissed about him trying. He basically quoted what the media was saying when trying to get around the FEDERAL back ground checks that EVERYONE buying a gun from a licensed dealer MUST clear before taking possession of the gun.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I am sure. I wouldn't have any outrage towards cancer or murder with a gun. I can't really effect the outcome of either one of those. Actually, i take that back. My 2nd amendment rights to conceal carry a firearm gives me a tool to for self defense if being attacked by someone intent on murdering myself or loved ones. But i even asked my wife about the same scenario and the cause is irrelevant to her as well.

I'll ask again, why is the status quo acceptable when it comes to tobacco use, obesity and alcohol use/abuse? I mean, a single side effect of alcohol abuse kills more people than guns every year. Maybe because we already tried to ban alcohol and that didn't workout so well. It basically invented organized crime and is arguably responsible for much of the corruption within the ranks of our government from the local to federal levels of office.

Loss of life is loss of life in my eyes. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree when it comes to what kind of legislation would save more lives on that chart.

for me it's this straight forward

your body, your right. If you wanna be fat or unhealthy it's your choice, ergo you bear the consequences, not me.

when you deprive someone else of their life against their will, it's murder.

in both scenarios someone dies, one is a crime the other is not. Spot the difference.

comparing cancer, obesity, renal failure against murder by gun is nuts.

you need to compare each in context - health issues list -> lets work out a plan for that

criminal death list -> lets work out a plan for those

you can't mix the two and say ah well murder doesn't kill as many people of cancer its nonsensical.


why do we spend BILLIONS on defending against terrorism when gun crime has killed more people in the US than ALL WARS combined since the 1950's?

care to guess what the average death rate for terrorism is in the US??? So does that mean we shouldn't bother with terrorism or does that mean we need to do something about gun crime?

[Breno_Piece]

Originally Posted by fravel

This is easily debunked with a simple understanding of firearms murder stats and US law regarding the sale of firearms, to wit:

#1. The overwhelming majority (80%+) of firearms crimes are committed with handguns as opposed to rifles/shotguns.

#2. A resident of a given state can't purchase a handgun in a different state and then just take it home with them. IE, and Illinois resident from Chicago can't just drive over to Indiana, buy a handgun and then drive back to Chicago. The gun would have to be transferred by the FFL holder in Indiana to an FFL holder in Illinois, where the purchaser would be able to pick it up. If the weapon in question isn't legal to own in Illinois, the FFL holder there would not be able to transfer the firearm to the purchaser.

That isn't debunking. That's accepting. Accepting there are weak points in the defense that no one is willing cover. Because freedom.

Like you say, criminals don't follow the law. Why would they declare they're moving a firearm interstate?

Fuck it, you've convinced me. Wild West the fuck out of it. I'm on board. Hell, lets erode the current laws as they're infringing on your rights as an american to bare arms. Because there are slight delays and someone will possibly look into your past to see if you're responsible.

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

That isn't debunking. That's accepting. Accepting there are weak points in the defense that no one is willing cover. Because freedom.

Like you say, criminals don't follow the law. Why would they declare they're moving a firearm interstate?

Fuck it, you've convinced me. Wild West the fuck out of it. I'm on board. Hell, lets erode the current laws as they're infringing on your rights as an american to bare arms. Because there are slight delays and someone will possibly look into your past to see if you're responsible.

Told ya. If you can’t beat ‘em

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

That isn't debunking. That's accepting. Accepting there are weak points in the defense that no one is willing cover. Because freedom.

Like you say, criminals don't follow the law. Why would they declare they're moving a firearm interstate?

Fuck it, you've convinced me. Wild West the fuck out of it. I'm on board. Hell, lets erode the current laws as they're infringing on your rights as an american to bare arms. Because there are slight delays and someone will possibly look into your past to see if you're responsible.

When you purchase a gun, any gun, you fill out a 4473. This is the form that allows dealers to perform a NICS check (the federal background check that is conducted for every gun sale except some private sales) and it has all of your address info and state of residence, etc. accounted for. You CAN buy a gun in another state, or order one from a business in another state, however it MUST be transferred to an FFL dealer in your state of residence before you can lay a finger on it. You pay for the gun, the merchant ships it to an FFL dealer in your state, you pick it up when you get back home. No exceptions. They won't sell you guns/accessories that are blacklisted in your state of residence either.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

[fravel]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

That isn't debunking. That's accepting. Accepting there are weak points in the defense that no one is willing cover. Because freedom.

Yes it is - you posed a theory about states with strict gun laws being bordered by states with lax gun laws which negates the strict laws. I explained how, with current laws, your scenario doesn't pass muster. It is easily demonstrated to be a fallacy - the 'weak points' you've identified exist only in your head. That's 'debunking'.

Even if one is purchasing a firearm privately, in the case of handguns there still has to be an FFL involved (and a Form 4473) for transfer of said firearm from one state to another. Failure to do so is criminal. In this case the seller is also obligated to ensure that the buyer is legally allowed to own a firearm, failure to do so is criminal. Believe it or not the overwhelming majority of firearms owners in the U.S. are law-abiding citizens and would prefer to stay on the right side of the law. We don't just privately sell a gun to someone without making sure we've covered our bases.

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

Like you say, criminals don't follow the law. Why would they declare they're moving a firearm interstate?

To purchase a firearm (from a dealer), one has to fill out a Form 4473 - part of the information one is required to disclose is their address. The address that is written on the Form 4473 has to match the address that is on the identification you provide.

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

Fuck it, you've convinced me. Wild West the fuck out of it. I'm on board. Hell, lets erode the current laws as they're infringing on your rights as an american to bare arms. Because there are slight delays and someone will possibly look into your past to see if you're responsible.

Other than rolling back the NFA, I'm actually quite OK with the current state of firearms laws here.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Breno_Piece

That isn't debunking. That's accepting. Accepting there are weak points in the defense that no one is willing cover. Because freedom.

Like you say, criminals don't follow the law. Why would they declare they're moving a firearm interstate?

Fuck it, you've convinced me. Wild West the fuck out of it. I'm on board. Hell, lets erode the current laws as they're infringing on your rights as an american to bare arms. Because there are slight delays and someone will possibly look into your past to see if you're responsible.

nice tirade at the end... did you just realize that your point of view holds no water?

I will gladly accept a few gun murders for freedom. Over half of the gun deaths in the US are suicides. Over half of the remaining are gang/drug related. It really is not as big of a problem as you Aussies are making it out to be. Perhaps a little less liberal media would do you good.

[upstatedoc]

Again, lifetime NRA member here. What do you guys who live in less stricter states think about having all states having a strict gun control laws as New York State? For example, having to wait six months to get a pistol permit which includes extensive background check, magazine restrictions for semi automatics, etc. etc.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

Again, lifetime NRA member here. What do you guys who live in less stricter states think about having all states having a strict gun control laws as New York State? For example, having to wait six months to get a pistol permit which includes extensive background check, magazine restrictions for semi automatics, etc. etc.

What do any of those things accomplish?

[pgviper]

I understand everyones arguments here but don't most of these shooters have clean backgrounds (besides Sandy Hook). Even in that incident, you can't control who is around the weapons once they are purchased.

The problem to me really lies in the sheer quantity of guns that are in circulation at this point. If you want to make it more difficult to acquire a weapon, then increase the price and reduce the volume of sales.

We are all car people... Why is it hard to acquire most exotics, because they are expensive and limited.

Here is another idea, require some type of formal marksmanship training to own a weapon. Make a requirement that you must have served in some part of the military, police, etc... to own a weapon.

[upstatedoc]

^^in NY a pistol class is required to obtain a license

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by fravel

What do any of those things accomplish?

What he said. What makes NY laws so great? Most states with low gun violence have much less strict and most states with high gun violence have equally or more strict.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by pgviper

I understand everyones arguments here but don't most of these shooters have clean backgrounds (besides Sandy Hook). Even in that incident, you can't control who is around the weapons once they are purchased.

The problem to me really lies in the sheer quantity of guns that are in circulation at this point. If you want to make it more difficult to acquire a weapon, then increase the price and reduce the volume of sales.

We are all car people... Why is it hard to acquire most exotics, because they are expensive and limited.

Here is another idea, require some type of formal marksmanship training to own a weapon. Make a requirement that you must have served in some part of the military, police, etc... to own a weapon.

Back in the day in order to be in the militia you had to be a gun owner first our military use to be bring your own weapon. One advantage the US has over all other countries anyone who would attempt to invade the use would also have to fight the population. Image when the US went after terrorist in other countries we would not only fight the terrorist , as well as the general population.

Also, you know in Israel, everyone it trained on use high power guns including women. All solider whether on activity duty or not has to have with weapons with them at all time. In Israel everyone is armed and they do not have mass shooting other than to kill people who are trying to kill them.

[fravel]

Originally Posted by pgviper

The problem to me really lies in the sheer quantity of guns that are in circulation at this point. If you want to make it more difficult to acquire a weapon, then increase the price and reduce the volume of sales.

So poor people aren't worthy of self-preservation, got it.

Originally Posted by pgviper

We are all car people... Why is it hard to acquire most exotics, because they are expensive and limited.

And why are they expensive and limited? Because they use exotic materials and cutting edge technology. Their prices aren't artificially inflated for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by pgviper

Here is another idea, require some type of formal marksmanship training to own a weapon. Make a requirement that you must have served in some part of the military, police, etc... to own a weapon.

Again, what do these accomplish? I agree that someone who owns/carries a firearm should be trained to use said firearm, but I'm not cool with it being a .gov mandate.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by pgviper

I understand everyones arguments here but don't most of these shooters have clean backgrounds (besides Sandy Hook). Even in that incident, you can't control who is around the weapons once they are purchased.

The problem to me really lies in the sheer quantity of guns that are in circulation at this point. If you want to make it more difficult to acquire a weapon, then increase the price and reduce the volume of sales.

We are all car people... Why is it hard to acquire most exotics, because they are expensive and limited.

Here is another idea, require some type of formal marksmanship training to own a weapon. Make a requirement that you must have served in some part of the military, police, etc... to own a weapon.

There are likely more guns in private circulation in the US than there are people in the US. If the number of guns is what kills people, the US would be a ghost town. Take away suicides along with gang/drug related gun homicides and the US gun homicide rate falls in line with most European countries.

Remember, every night for the past several years, there were roughly 350,000,000 guns in private hands that DIDN'T kill anyone.

To everyone pleading for a marksmanship course.... Based on several years of records, you are 5x more likely to be "accidentally" shot by a cop than by someone with a concealed carry permit. Why people think being a bad shot is a problem is beyond me. The average shooting takes place with 7' between shooter and targeted person. What kind of marksman do you want?

I'm not sure making the only people who can own weapons are those who have seen the darkest, dirtiest, shitiest levels of humanity possible. And you're likely not aware that the VAST majority of those who serve in the military never shoot a pistol while serving. My nephew is an exMarine. He can shoot a rifle with the best of them. Never shot a pistol until he went to the range with me. He still can hardly hit the broad side of a barn with a pistol. AND that's after months of practice with it. I don't get it, but it's true.

The military and police in real life aren't like they are in the movies. No one stands on the skid of an inflight helicopter and shoots a moving guy who is 300 yards away while holding the gun with one hand. Do police have more pistol training than most gun owners, maybe. But their qualification requirements aren't standardized and are a joke in most parts of the country. Have you see the reports where some odd 18 police officers fired over 250 rounds at a SUV from a range of 20 yards and the SVU was only hit with 90 bullets? The lion's share of Police are not special marksmen. Get into SWAT or special event teams and you get some good shooters. But the average cop you see on the street is likely to only have fired their gun during qualifying and likely don't practice with it.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Never shot a pistol until he went to the range with me. He still can hardly hit the broad side of a barn with a pistol. AND that's after months of practice with it. I don't get it, but it's true.

Pretty sure that means you're a shitty teacher

But seriously... having some level of competence assessment wouldn't be such a bad thing. My cousin in TX had to pass a test (not hard he said) but is only qualified to carry a certain type of firearm that was qualified with (i.e. polymer semi auto, revolver, etc). I do think you should have to practice and actually be sufficient with what you own/carry.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Pretty sure that means you're a shitty teacher

But seriously... having some level of competence assessment wouldn't be such a bad thing. My cousin in TX had to pass a test (not hard he said) but is only qualified to carry a certain type of firearm that was qualified with (i.e. polymer semi auto, revolver, etc). I do think you should have to practice and actually be sufficient with what you own/carry.

You need to pass a proficiency test for CC in Florida.

[are0lies]

In light of the division on this subject, I have a serious question: Would more carry and conceal permits, with stricter stipulations on when or how the weapon could be used, not help alleviate many of these rogue-shooter situations? I am not a gun advocate, but just curious about this answer.

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You need to pass a proficiency test for CC in Florida.

Yes. Load the gun safely. Fire it downrange. Done. The good part of the course is teaching you the legalities of carrying.

[PINeely]

Originally Posted by are0lies

In light of the division on this subject, I have a serious question: Would more carry and conceal permits, with stricter stipulations on when or how the weapon could be used, not help alleviate many of these rogue-shooter situations? I am not a gun advocate, but just curious about this answer.

For something like the Las Vegas shooting, no. A shooter with that vantage point, at that distance, at night from a hotel window, concealed carry handguns aren't going to help at all. But for something like Sandy Hook, if a teacher had been carrying or an armed officer on site, maybe. In the theater in Colorado or the church that Dylan Roof shot up, maybe. In those situations it's impossible to say whether an armed good guy would stop/prevent the attack but it certainly changes the odds.

It's already pretty strict on when and how you can use a firearm (or any weapon) to defend yourself or try to intervene in another crime.

[are0lies]

Originally Posted by PINeely

For something like the Las Vegas shooting, no. A shooter with that vantage point, at that distance, at night from a hotel window, concealed carry handguns aren't going to help at all. But for something like Sandy Hook, if a teacher had been carrying or an armed officer on site, maybe. In the theater in Colorado or the church that Dylan Roof shot up, maybe. In those situations it's impossible to say whether an armed good guy would stop/prevent the attack but it certainly changes the odds.

It's already pretty strict on when and how you can use a firearm (or any weapon) to defend yourself or try to intervene in another crime.

Thanks for your prompt answer, but in light of the more "maybes", that you gave, it seems there is something to this. I realize a pistol is not going to stop a sniper situation, but in light that those are in the minority, this c & c seems more feasible.