Vegas terror attack
Comments
-
I've stated here on many occasions that we need to "absord" most of Canada into the Union (leave out Quebec and the Maritimes). Manifest Destiny and no need to move.Sledog said:
Please to be moving to Canada.YellowSnow said:
Agree. I'm fine with a near hand gun ban along the Canader model. And if you absolutely need to own one, then we're going to put you through the ringer.BearsWiin said:
You really don't have to go that far to find a firearms regulation regime that works much better than ours. Just look to Canada. They're most like us, rich and post-industrial, frontier mentality, etc. and they have extremely restrictive regulations on handguns, less so for long guns. Per capita firearm homicide rate 1/7 of the US. These high-profile sensational mass shootings get a lot of attention, but it's the mundane handgun shootings that pile up the homicide and injury stats. Concealability and portability mean that people can stick handguns under their shirts or in their door pockets and escalate otherwise low-level conflicts to lethal levels very quickly, or worry about the other guy doing the same. This is also what makes cops so jumpy when dealing with mundane things like traffic stops; you want to cut down on police shootings, get rid of handguns.YellowSnow said:If I had my druthers, we'd be closer to Great Britain- i.e., Shotguns and Hunting Rifles only - and to own any fireman, you have to have a doc certify that you aren't nuts. That said, this isn't realistic in the US, but the idealist in me would like to see something like a complete semi automatic rifle (maybe semi shot guns too) ban; and extremely intrusive regs on handgun ownership + limits on magazine capacity- i.e., if you want to own a piece you have to go through the ringer. Obviously with something like this you're talking about a massive buy back program. Moving on to illegally owned guns - significant jail time/fines if you break the rules. Alas, this is all a pipe dream so feel free to WTF all you want.
The gun control regimes that work best are none (e.g., Japan) or extremely restrictive (e.g., UK) BUT we could be doing a hell of a lot better than we are now. 10 rifles in a Las Vegas hotel room is not a well regulated militia guaranteeing our liberty.
Obviously this guy used long guns, which aren't used very often but are sensationalized when they are used. Magazine capacity restrictions might work, as cutting availability would likely keep many, but not all, from getting higher capacity magazines. There are still illegal means, and black markets, but one would have to be more seriously motivated than your average crank to go through those channels.
Every time one of these shootings occurs we hear a lot about mental health. We tend to think that somebody who does this kind of thing must be mentally ill or crazy, and that there must be signs beforehand that we can pick up on. I'm not so sure. Humans are naturally impulsive, and we tend to overreact when we get angry. Mix easily lethal firearms into the equation, and we get deadly crimes of passion from domestic disputes to traffic altercations. Again, most committed with handguns. Problem-solving through gunplay is also prevalent in popular culture, so we're operating in an environment where people may feel like gun use is an acceptable form of self-expression, whether impulsive or, as it seems in this instance, planned. (not blaming popular culture or society here, but that kind of thing does resonate with some who feel angry or aggrieved)
-
Need a pole on what is more boring:
Replaying a round of golf shot by shot or gun talk.
-
If we? absorb them, they adopt our? laws, not the other way around. And if we're? going to bother with absorbing that country of annoying persons, Quebec and the rest need to be absorbed as well.YellowSnow said:
I've stated here on many occasions that we need to "absord" most of Canada into the Union (leave out Quebec and the Maritimes). Manifest Destiny and no need to move.Sledog said:
Please to be moving to Canada.YellowSnow said:
Agree. I'm fine with a near hand gun ban along the Canader model. And if you absolutely need to own one, then we're going to put you through the ringer.BearsWiin said:
You really don't have to go that far to find a firearms regulation regime that works much better than ours. Just look to Canada. They're most like us, rich and post-industrial, frontier mentality, etc. and they have extremely restrictive regulations on handguns, less so for long guns. Per capita firearm homicide rate 1/7 of the US. These high-profile sensational mass shootings get a lot of attention, but it's the mundane handgun shootings that pile up the homicide and injury stats. Concealability and portability mean that people can stick handguns under their shirts or in their door pockets and escalate otherwise low-level conflicts to lethal levels very quickly, or worry about the other guy doing the same. This is also what makes cops so jumpy when dealing with mundane things like traffic stops; you want to cut down on police shootings, get rid of handguns.YellowSnow said:If I had my druthers, we'd be closer to Great Britain- i.e., Shotguns and Hunting Rifles only - and to own any fireman, you have to have a doc certify that you aren't nuts. That said, this isn't realistic in the US, but the idealist in me would like to see something like a complete semi automatic rifle (maybe semi shot guns too) ban; and extremely intrusive regs on handgun ownership + limits on magazine capacity- i.e., if you want to own a piece you have to go through the ringer. Obviously with something like this you're talking about a massive buy back program. Moving on to illegally owned guns - significant jail time/fines if you break the rules. Alas, this is all a pipe dream so feel free to WTF all you want.
The gun control regimes that work best are none (e.g., Japan) or extremely restrictive (e.g., UK) BUT we could be doing a hell of a lot better than we are now. 10 rifles in a Las Vegas hotel room is not a well regulated militia guaranteeing our liberty.
Obviously this guy used long guns, which aren't used very often but are sensationalized when they are used. Magazine capacity restrictions might work, as cutting availability would likely keep many, but not all, from getting higher capacity magazines. There are still illegal means, and black markets, but one would have to be more seriously motivated than your average crank to go through those channels.
Every time one of these shootings occurs we hear a lot about mental health. We tend to think that somebody who does this kind of thing must be mentally ill or crazy, and that there must be signs beforehand that we can pick up on. I'm not so sure. Humans are naturally impulsive, and we tend to overreact when we get angry. Mix easily lethal firearms into the equation, and we get deadly crimes of passion from domestic disputes to traffic altercations. Again, most committed with handguns. Problem-solving through gunplay is also prevalent in popular culture, so we're operating in an environment where people may feel like gun use is an acceptable form of self-expression, whether impulsive or, as it seems in this instance, planned. (not blaming popular culture or society here, but that kind of thing does resonate with some who feel angry or aggrieved) -
That's a good question my friend. We can let the lawyers sort it out.Southerndawg said:
If we? absorb them, they adopt our? laws, not the other way around. And if we're? going to bother with absorbing that country of annoying persons, Quebec and the rest need to be absorbed as well.YellowSnow said:
I've stated here on many occasions that we need to "absord" most of Canada into the Union (leave out Quebec and the Maritimes). Manifest Destiny and no need to move.Sledog said:
Please to be moving to Canada.YellowSnow said:
Agree. I'm fine with a near hand gun ban along the Canader model. And if you absolutely need to own one, then we're going to put you through the ringer.BearsWiin said:
You really don't have to go that far to find a firearms regulation regime that works much better than ours. Just look to Canada. They're most like us, rich and post-industrial, frontier mentality, etc. and they have extremely restrictive regulations on handguns, less so for long guns. Per capita firearm homicide rate 1/7 of the US. These high-profile sensational mass shootings get a lot of attention, but it's the mundane handgun shootings that pile up the homicide and injury stats. Concealability and portability mean that people can stick handguns under their shirts or in their door pockets and escalate otherwise low-level conflicts to lethal levels very quickly, or worry about the other guy doing the same. This is also what makes cops so jumpy when dealing with mundane things like traffic stops; you want to cut down on police shootings, get rid of handguns.YellowSnow said:If I had my druthers, we'd be closer to Great Britain- i.e., Shotguns and Hunting Rifles only - and to own any fireman, you have to have a doc certify that you aren't nuts. That said, this isn't realistic in the US, but the idealist in me would like to see something like a complete semi automatic rifle (maybe semi shot guns too) ban; and extremely intrusive regs on handgun ownership + limits on magazine capacity- i.e., if you want to own a piece you have to go through the ringer. Obviously with something like this you're talking about a massive buy back program. Moving on to illegally owned guns - significant jail time/fines if you break the rules. Alas, this is all a pipe dream so feel free to WTF all you want.
The gun control regimes that work best are none (e.g., Japan) or extremely restrictive (e.g., UK) BUT we could be doing a hell of a lot better than we are now. 10 rifles in a Las Vegas hotel room is not a well regulated militia guaranteeing our liberty.
Obviously this guy used long guns, which aren't used very often but are sensationalized when they are used. Magazine capacity restrictions might work, as cutting availability would likely keep many, but not all, from getting higher capacity magazines. There are still illegal means, and black markets, but one would have to be more seriously motivated than your average crank to go through those channels.
Every time one of these shootings occurs we hear a lot about mental health. We tend to think that somebody who does this kind of thing must be mentally ill or crazy, and that there must be signs beforehand that we can pick up on. I'm not so sure. Humans are naturally impulsive, and we tend to overreact when we get angry. Mix easily lethal firearms into the equation, and we get deadly crimes of passion from domestic disputes to traffic altercations. Again, most committed with handguns. Problem-solving through gunplay is also prevalent in popular culture, so we're operating in an environment where people may feel like gun use is an acceptable form of self-expression, whether impulsive or, as it seems in this instance, planned. (not blaming popular culture or society here, but that kind of thing does resonate with some who feel angry or aggrieved) -
To the victors go the spoils my fren.YellowSnow said:
That's a good question my friend. We can let the lawyers sort it out.Southerndawg said:
If we? absorb them, they adopt our? laws, not the other way around. And if we're? going to bother with absorbing that country of annoying persons, Quebec and the rest need to be absorbed as well.YellowSnow said:
I've stated here on many occasions that we need to "absord" most of Canada into the Union (leave out Quebec and the Maritimes). Manifest Destiny and no need to move.Sledog said:
Please to be moving to Canada.YellowSnow said:
Agree. I'm fine with a near hand gun ban along the Canader model. And if you absolutely need to own one, then we're going to put you through the ringer.BearsWiin said:
You really don't have to go that far to find a firearms regulation regime that works much better than ours. Just look to Canada. They're most like us, rich and post-industrial, frontier mentality, etc. and they have extremely restrictive regulations on handguns, less so for long guns. Per capita firearm homicide rate 1/7 of the US. These high-profile sensational mass shootings get a lot of attention, but it's the mundane handgun shootings that pile up the homicide and injury stats. Concealability and portability mean that people can stick handguns under their shirts or in their door pockets and escalate otherwise low-level conflicts to lethal levels very quickly, or worry about the other guy doing the same. This is also what makes cops so jumpy when dealing with mundane things like traffic stops; you want to cut down on police shootings, get rid of handguns.YellowSnow said:If I had my druthers, we'd be closer to Great Britain- i.e., Shotguns and Hunting Rifles only - and to own any fireman, you have to have a doc certify that you aren't nuts. That said, this isn't realistic in the US, but the idealist in me would like to see something like a complete semi automatic rifle (maybe semi shot guns too) ban; and extremely intrusive regs on handgun ownership + limits on magazine capacity- i.e., if you want to own a piece you have to go through the ringer. Obviously with something like this you're talking about a massive buy back program. Moving on to illegally owned guns - significant jail time/fines if you break the rules. Alas, this is all a pipe dream so feel free to WTF all you want.
The gun control regimes that work best are none (e.g., Japan) or extremely restrictive (e.g., UK) BUT we could be doing a hell of a lot better than we are now. 10 rifles in a Las Vegas hotel room is not a well regulated militia guaranteeing our liberty.
Obviously this guy used long guns, which aren't used very often but are sensationalized when they are used. Magazine capacity restrictions might work, as cutting availability would likely keep many, but not all, from getting higher capacity magazines. There are still illegal means, and black markets, but one would have to be more seriously motivated than your average crank to go through those channels.
Every time one of these shootings occurs we hear a lot about mental health. We tend to think that somebody who does this kind of thing must be mentally ill or crazy, and that there must be signs beforehand that we can pick up on. I'm not so sure. Humans are naturally impulsive, and we tend to overreact when we get angry. Mix easily lethal firearms into the equation, and we get deadly crimes of passion from domestic disputes to traffic altercations. Again, most committed with handguns. Problem-solving through gunplay is also prevalent in popular culture, so we're operating in an environment where people may feel like gun use is an acceptable form of self-expression, whether impulsive or, as it seems in this instance, planned. (not blaming popular culture or society here, but that kind of thing does resonate with some who feel angry or aggrieved) -
-
That's unfortunate.Southerndawg said:Mike "WTF" Damone lives!
-
While the focus here is for better screening as to who has weapons and what kind is correct. We need to have a more comprehensive background check on weapons purchases and also hard line custody responsibility for what those weapons do. Meaning that if you let someone use your weapon and they do something, you're as culpable as the shooter.
But what the best prevention method will always be is paying attention when someone you know or are an acquaintance, co worker or neighbor is losing it. This guys brother who lives in FLA is shocked that it happened but He probably hasn't talked to him nor seen him for a long time. However I'm sure someone at his work or neighbors probably saw something off with him. With the exception of this Universal cesspool, People need to speak up when someone is showing signs of going off of the rails. -
Ha ha...I read that a while back.BearsWiin said:
