|
Post by John Doe on Oct 4, 2017 14:21:49 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 5, 2017 5:51:00 GMT -7
There are no laws that would have prevented this. There are well known statistics that prove that legal gun ownership has increased and overall gun violence has decreased. Also, the cities that have the strictest gun laws still have the highest rates of gun violence. (Chicago, New Orleans, DC)
There are currently 12,000 or so gun laws on the books in this country. How many more do we need?
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 5, 2017 5:58:49 GMT -7
And then there is the ultimate gun control law: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 5, 2017 8:14:07 GMT -7
|
|
|
Post by badman on Oct 7, 2017 17:35:18 GMT -7
There are no laws that would have prevented this. That's a simple truth that some don't seem to understand.
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on Oct 9, 2017 10:09:47 GMT -7
There are no laws that would have prevented this. There are well known statistics that prove that legal gun ownership has increased and overall gun violence has decreased. Also, the cities that have the strictest gun laws still have the highest rates of gun violence. (Chicago, New Orleans, DC) There are currently 12,000 or so gun laws on the books in this country. How many more do we need? These mass shootings account for less than 1% of gun related deaths each year. Semi-automatic rifles likewise account for a tiny fraction of deaths. Mother Jones has compiled data from mass shootings since 1982 and the total number of fatalities based on their list is 758 in 35 years. Chicago (also called Chicongo and Chiraq) had 762 murders in 2016 alone. www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/I agree with Hoofie that no laws would have prevented the LV tragedy; this multimillionaire could have easily circumvented any laws that serve to only restrict law abiding gun owners. I say NO changes to gun laws including any changes to the legality of "bump" stocks.
|
|
|
Post by hoofie on Oct 9, 2017 11:06:36 GMT -7
We might need to consider quantity limits of some kind. This guy bought over 40 weapons in less than 2 years.
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on Oct 9, 2017 12:46:45 GMT -7
We might need to consider quantity limits of some kind. This guy bought over 40 weapons in less than 2 years. And if there had been a quantity limit, I'm betting that this particular nut was so little known that he could have just bought himself a FFL, set up a storefront as a dealer and never thrown off any red flags if he bought a thousand guns. Such regulations only hurt the "normals" like us. The psychopaths will find a work around.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 9, 2017 13:37:28 GMT -7
There are no laws that would have prevented this. There are no laws that stop the commission of crimes, yet still, everybody agrees that we need to have laws that make those crimes less likely, and less harmful. There are no existing laws that prevented the Las Vegas massacre. But there are possible laws that could have protected the public. * Gun registration - purchase of 47 firearms in the last couple of years would have alerted authorities that the man should be carefully watched. * Banning of all rapid fire mechanisms - the high toll was a direct result of the rapid fire capability. * Banning of high capacity magazines - even with the rapid fire, if the shooter's magazines had a capacity of 10 instead of 100, the toll would have been far less. * Screening of luggage at hotels - probably something we need to start doing now. The NRA's current active push is a federal law to eliminate regulation of silencers, but since Las Vegas, they're temporarily not talking about it. Imagine how much worse it would have been if the shooter had had silencers and nobody had been able to tell where the shooting was coming from. Instead of 9 minutes, how much longer would it have gone on, and how much higher would the toll have gone? There are well known statistics that prove that legal gun ownership has increased and overall gun violence has decreased. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. As cell phone ownership has increased, measles has decreased. (True fact) According to FBI statistics, gun homicides have increased 20% since Trump began his presidential campaign. (True fact) Draw your own conclusions. Be consistent now. Also, the cities that have the strictest gun laws still have the highest rates of gun violence. (Chicago, New Orleans, DC) Some similar statistics for you: -- The more firetrucks there are at a fire, the greater the damage. -- More people die at hospitals than anywhere else. So with your logic, I'm assuming you would never call the Fire Dept if your house is on fire, nor go to a hospital if you're sick or injured. There are currently 12,000 or so gun laws on the books in this country. How many more do we need? The flaw in those laws is that they don't curtail the proliferation of firearms. We don't need thousands of gun laws, we just need laws that rationally regulate their purchase and use. There is no constitutional right to keep and bear every kind of weapon, nor is there any constitutional right to accumulate an arsenal. There is no constitutional right to concealed carry. There is no constitutional right to take your gun everywhere. The current 2nd amendment interpretation is crafted by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to accommodate the current swing of the pendulum. It will eventually swing back toward rationality, and the 2nd amendment will again be understood to be tied to the existence of a public militia, as the amendment clearly states.
|
|
|
Post by badman on Oct 9, 2017 13:55:56 GMT -7
We might need to consider quantity limits of some kind. This guy bought over 40 weapons in less than 2 years. And if there had been a quantity limit, I'm betting that this particular nut was so little known that he could have just bought himself a FFL, set up a storefront as a dealer and never thrown off any red flags if he bought a thousand guns. Such regulations only hurt the "normals" like us. The psychopaths will find a work around. I see your point, Entimos. Nets have holes, but do catch a measure of targeted prey. Tracking numbers of gun purchases and ammunition purchases would not be a total cure, but could help.
|
|
|
Post by jiminix on Oct 9, 2017 14:32:18 GMT -7
And then there is the ultimate gun control law: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If only it were carefully observed. Gun fanatics and conservative politicians wish it was worded as the NRA has it engraved on the facade of their national headquarters: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Eventually, the Supreme Court will re-affirm the complete wording, and the explicit link of gun rights to the existence of a public militia. In other words, both public militias and gun rights are obsolete as far as the Constitution is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 9, 2017 14:43:40 GMT -7
There is no constitutional right to keep and bear every kind of weapon, nor is there any constitutional right to accumulate an arsenal. There is no constitutional right to concealed carry. There is no constitutional right to take your gun everywhere. The current 2nd amendment interpretation is crafted by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to accommodate the current swing of the pendulum. It will eventually swing back toward rationality, and the 2nd amendment will again be understood to be tied to the existence of a public militia, as the amendment clearly states. There is a constitutional right and it's quite clear. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" The 2nd amendment interpretation is the same rationality as it was crafted over 200 years back. The ant-gun nuts have trouble understanding it. BTW, it is still and has always been tied to the well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Seems your use of the word "public" is missing.
|
|
|
Post by Entimos on Oct 9, 2017 15:21:57 GMT -7
There is no constitutional right to keep and bear every kind of weapon, nor is there any constitutional right to accumulate an arsenal. There is no constitutional right to concealed carry. There is no constitutional right to take your gun everywhere. The current 2nd amendment interpretation is crafted by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court to accommodate the current swing of the pendulum. It will eventually swing back toward rationality, and the 2nd amendment will again be understood to be tied to the existence of a public militia, as the amendment clearly states. There is a constitutional right and it's quite clear. "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" The 2nd amendment interpretation is the same rationality as it was crafted over 200 years back. The ant-gun nuts have trouble understanding it. BTW, it is still and has always been tied to the well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Seems your use of the word "public" is missing. Well said, ranger. Like all liberals, this one speaks of all of these exceptions to our rights, but can't find a single word in the actual amendment that codifies these restrictions. This is hardly more that his little Orwellian wish list but does not reflect the reality of what the document says. The militia referred to by the Founders was local, completely voluntary and participation in such a militia was never a condition for owning a gun. One didn't lose your flintlock when the militia stood down. Why is this so hard for leftists to understand? A foray by British regulars into the countryside of Massachusetts to confiscate or destroy arms, ammunition and powder belonging to local citizens was the reason that the Revolution began. There is no possibility that those same Founders would have intended the snowflake exceptions that the anti-gun leftists seem to adore. The amendment is clear. If you don't like it, change it though the amendment process.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 9, 2017 20:44:54 GMT -7
The irony is dripping all over the floor. Those claiming Trump is a tyrant are the same that want to do away with the 2nd Amendment when the 2nd Amendment is their only protection against tyranny. The "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." part has them baffled.
Federalism, separation of powers and checks and balances become moot when one party controls all branches of government at federal and state levels. The is the case now with the Republicans in solid control of both levels (well not quite at SCOTUS until one of the liberal justices retires). That control is still increasing.
|
|
|
Post by ranger06 on Oct 9, 2017 21:06:12 GMT -7
The militia referred to by the Founders was local, completely voluntary and participation in such a militia was never a condition for owning a gun. One didn't lose your flintlock when the militia stood down. Not quite right. The militia was conscript "...free able-bodied white male citizen... between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company." This was later expanded. Militiamen were already armed. "Militia members,...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself...with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack." See second Militia Act of 1792. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792You're correct. The militiaman wasn't issued his arms and accouterments. He owned them. He also already knew how to use them.
|
|