Author Topic: Las Vegas shooting  (Read 4021 times)

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2017, 12:39:57 PM »
What I find interesting is that the Left usually proposes violating the Second amendment to solve this problem, when they could even more effectively solve it by violating other civil rights.  Why one line and not the other is okay to cross is a bit of a question.

Why not violate the First Amendment and ban anyone from congregating in such numbers in the first place, would certainly limit both the ease of hitting people and the number available.  Why not invade the privacy of at risk or dangerous people to ensure they are not plotting against the people?

Why not violate the Third?  Surely if we stuck soldiers in private homes they could check on the inhabitants and ensure that they weren't engaged in illegal activities or secretly stockpiling deadly arsenals.

Why not violate the Fourth?  Surely anyone interested in public accommodations should be required to prove they haven't carried a deadly weapon (or nearly 20) into the public accommodation?  Why not search them?  Heck, why not send federal officers into everyone's home routinely to check to ensure they are not engaged in dangerous activities?

We can just take anything dangerous away and take away the person who owns it while were at it, they can be conveniently reeducated or dissappeared (and violate the 5th and 6th). 

Why not prohibit any buildings overlooking any open air venue?

Heck, people are dangerous in both cars and airplanes, wouldn't it be better to restrict travel to keep people safe?

This was a real tragedy.  It's impossible to really comprehend how someone could do this, and yes this kind of abuse of the right to bear arms is a perfect story for those that want to ban them.  It speaks directly to the idea that we can not trust people with the power to kill.  It's still bizarre that against a backdrop of distrust for the police, the military and the government one would be in favor of disarming the citizens, but these situations make it appealing.  But if we are going to be a free people, we have to have the right to protect ourselves including with fire arms.

That's not a new question. I think the standard is narrowly-tailored, minimal restriction of rights to accomplish a valid goal. All of your examples are much greater restrictions on rights than placing restrictions on gun ownership. Nor are they narrowly tailored.

I'll bite. What new restrictions would you put in place to stop mass shootings?

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2017, 12:53:08 PM »
We have to go through the process to amend the Constitution. If enough people want this type of thing stopped and they think a gun ban in accordance with an amended Constitution will stop it then it will pass. If not, then the people have chosen that the risk of these types of attacks is an acceptable trade-off for the benefits of not being an unarmed society. We hear about the lowered gun violence in Europe and Australia with strict gun laws but what about the increased gun violence in Mexico and Latin America along with Africa? What about the atrocities committed by the cartels, warlords, and tyrants? How are we certain that couldn't happen here, ever in the future? It seems unlikely now but who knows what America could look like in fifty years, or a hundred?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2017, 12:53:22 PM »
Stop them ALL?  That takes a full weapon ban.  House to house inspection and confiscation.  Probably regular recurrences of the same.

So lets set the goalposts a little lower. 

What laws would you propose that are reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment that are likely to have a tangible impact on reducing the frequency and/or deadliness of mass shootings?

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2017, 01:07:29 PM »
Seriati, if you think being taken away and re-educated or banning public assembly is an equivalent violation of rights to not being allowed to own guns, I'm not sure there's any point in discussing this with you.

Mass shootings are not a good basis on which to develop gun control policy. While they can galvanize action, most injuries and deaths from firearms are not caused by mass shootings. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of gunshot wounds (fatal or not) come from the first and last shot fired. That's a better question for public policy. I don't know of a politically possible solution.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2017, 01:12:39 PM »
Fair enough, that was bit hyperbolic.  My point was that the suggestions for gun control are often severe restrictions on rights that have no claim to having been narrowly tailored.

Honestly, the vast majority of gun related deaths are suicides and gang violence.  Most gun control laws do little or nothing to stop either of those events.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2017, 01:15:38 PM »
These days, most suggestions for gun control seem to be do-something policies trying to avoid major opposition and the Supreme Court more than actually doing anything.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2017, 01:30:12 PM »
A lot of accidents in there too, though many of those are not fatal. Roughly a thousand people shot by cops (withdrawn).

Which is why it was kind of reasonable for doctors to ask people if they owned a firearm, to see if it was being safely handled, which predictably caused people to lose their collective minds, even though all a person would have to do is to say "I prefer not to discuss it".

In such a climate where some people don't even want to be asked a voluntary question, and others want an Australia like total ban, I can't comprehend any middle ground.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2017, 01:30:30 PM »
For my part, and I'm not taking into account what has a chance of passing, I'd shoot for these.

Fully automatic weapons:
All banned, no exceptions.  Any device used to allow for a rate of fire greater than "X" (arrived at after study of professional sport shooters using semi-automatic weapons with match grade trigger assemblies) are also banned.  Not just sales, but ownership of existing weapons / hardware / accessories allowing this. 

There would be a 6 year time from singing into law to implementation.  This allows for voters to have their say, and gives people time to comply without becoming outlaws suddenly... 

In that time period, we would allow for a tax credit for the full appraisal amount of the weapon and any ammunition the owner wants to turn in along with the weapon.  (hold onto your butts tax payers!)  Alternately, these weapons may be rendered mechanically inoperable and retained as museum grade pieces for collection.  (in such a way that makes repair / reversal extremely difficult)

Ammunition:
All self defense pistol rounds (as opposed to hunting or match grade target shooting) should be "defense" rounds, designed NOT to penetrate very far.  This would take a lot more knowledge and study than I got under my belt, but the idea is for legitimate (read lawful) defense and to reduce collateral damage, you do not want to shoot THROUGH your target and hit what is beyond. 

Assault Rifles:
I'm ambivalent on these weapons.  I have no problem seeing them all banned, however I find that any criteria used to do so, is purely cosmetic.  The difference between a hunting rifle and an "AR style" weapon are superficial in my opinion.  If something of a particular model allows it to quickly be modified into an illegal weapon, then I understand the desire to legislate against them.  Know however that you are now legislating a "difficulty" or "proficiency" with tools and knowledge needed to do so.  Anything you can do to one of these, someone with sufficient patience or skill can almost certainly do to another hunting rifle. 

As I mentioned before, I fully anticipate 3D printing to exacerbate this issue.

Mental health limitations to ownership:
Which diagnoses, specifically?  Does treatment matter?  Is there a limitation on it due to how long ago the issues presented?  I'm for this in general, but the scope has to be VERY specific.

I tried anxiety medication for a year at one point for public speaking issues.  Found it only made me sleepy and regular exercise and reduced caffeine intake did the trick far better and discontinued use after consulting with my doctor.  Should I be banned from ever possessing a firearm?  Should I be forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because I trip some "red flag"?  Should everyone who wants to own a weapon or already has one registered have to undergo one?

It's easy to say the mentally disturbed should not have access to fire arms.  Trickier to implement.  I'd have to hear how the pros weigh in on this one.  It's beyond me.

High capacity magazines:
What is reasonable?  Let's talk to a police officer.  Assuming we still allow for carrying of a weapon for self defense.  How many rounds do THEY feel comfortable being limited to?  If that leads to a restriction (no double standard acceptable IMO), then again, full tax credit for the appraisal value of existing magazines, time to implement, time for an election...

Rifle magazines?  I'm fine with this being limited as well.  If you need more rounds in a go to take down a deer than was agreed upon for a semiautomatic pistol capacity you suck at hunting and deserve the ridicule of your friends and to eat ramman noodle instead of venison tonight.

That's where I'd start anyhow.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2017, 01:39:37 PM »
Quote
Which is why it was kind of reasonable for doctors to ask people if they owned a firearm, to see if it was being safely handled, which predictably caused people to lose their collective minds, even though all a person would have to do is to say "I prefer not to discuss it".

This is because we do not trust each other.  Suddenly you've now got a medical record, searchable by who knows who, which states whether you are a gun owner or not or refused to answer.  You allow the doctor, anyone able to look at the files under current (and often evolving regulations) and anyone who breeches security able to make judgement and potentially take action based upon that response.

I for instance have to go in for a yearly check up in order to keep my insurance rates or be subject to a higher deductible or lesser coverage in an employer provided plan which does not require this visit.  (Not that I'm saying a yearly visit at a minimum isn't a good idea.)  But for privacy advocates being asked about this is a red flag.  And it's directly tied to my wallet.  (and health)

While I get the point that educating people about proper safety and storage of their firearm can keep them and their family more safe, it is also akin to local cops not wanting to be dragged into  immigration enforcement because an unwillingness to interact puts more people at risk.

Tinfoil hat territory?  Probably.  But not defiantly.  :(

Then again, I've got a CPL and had to be printed by the state police and get a renewable separate photo ID for just that.  I'm all sorts of in the system.  So none of that applies.  It does seem intrusive though and in a way, dragging politics into the exam room.  What if my doctor is vehemently anti-gun?  Now I need to trust he stays professional and his dislike of my choice has zero impact on our interactions?  Is it worth it?  Can't we educate somewhere else?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2017, 02:35:02 PM »
I don't think this is something that can be 'fixed'. Not in the western medicine sense of taking what might be a pervasive problem and treating it with a single operation or attacking the symptom. There is the technological wrinkle to the issue involving, going forward, whether it will be physically possible to prevent access to dangerous materials anyhow. Prevention and an immediate action banning certain things may lower the numbers, as D.W. said, but I doubt anyone would look at a future 20-person spree and sigh with happiness that it wasn't 58. That will still be unacceptable, so while there might be an absolute good in removing the most damaging weapons that still doesn't address why these things happen. The search for the common thread is evidences here; political affiliation, social leaning, even musical taste (!). There's something else feeding the need for ultraviolence, I think, than the particulars of a person's socio-political background.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #60 on: October 03, 2017, 02:42:29 PM »
This is because we do not trust each other.  Suddenly you've now got a medical record, searchable by who knows who, which states whether you are a gun owner or not or refused to answer.  You allow the doctor, anyone able to look at the files under current (and often evolving regulations) and anyone who breeches security able to make judgement and potentially take action based upon that response.

Given that over 30% of households claim gun ownership, it doesn't seem like that list, however it is compiled, amounts to much different than treating everyone as if they owned a gun.

Quote
What if my doctor is vehemently anti-gun?  Now I need to trust he stays professional and his dislike of my choice has zero impact on our interactions?  Is it worth it?  Can't we educate somewhere else?

What if your doctor is a vehemently anti-smoking or anti-drinking? What if your doctor frowns on your sexual activity? I guess the answer is if your interactions are poor, you'd get another doctor. Most doctors will say they don't ask in a blanket way like taking a census, any more than they ask about your sexual prowess unless there's some related issue. This might be mental health (like suicidal thoughts), or the presence of a developmentally disabled person in the house, or other factors. But leaping directly to the idea that somebody's making this crazy list and coming to get you, and they are using your doctor to do it? Be a lot easier to crack the NRA's files, scrub social media for comments, or about one hundred other ways.


NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2017, 02:43:46 PM »
I don't think this is something that can be 'fixed'. Not in the western medicine sense of taking what might be a pervasive problem and treating it with a single operation or attacking the symptom. There is the technological wrinkle to the issue involving, going forward, whether it will be physically possible to prevent access to dangerous materials anyhow. Prevention and an immediate action banning certain things may lower the numbers, as D.W. said, but I doubt anyone would look at a future 20-person spree and sigh with happiness that it wasn't 58. That will still be unacceptable, so while there might be an absolute good in removing the most damaging weapons that still doesn't address why these things happen. The search for the common thread is evidences here; political affiliation, social leaning, even musical taste (!). There's something else feeding the need for ultraviolence, I think, than the particulars of a person's socio-political background.
Especially since mass shooters are outliers even among murderers, let alone people with which they share less drastic qualities with.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #62 on: October 03, 2017, 02:48:56 PM »
TheDrake, were it not for the whole Equifax thing recently, I'd be with you.  At this point, I'm seriously reevaluating (from a totally impotent position mind you) how we handle our digital information.

And just as a FYI, gun ownership is now on the generic intake form at my Dr's office at least.  The same one with your medical history questionnaire.  As I said, I volunteered for a "crazy list" already.  :)  That doesn't mean I don't respect the rights of others to avoid such lists if they so chose. 

Like it or not this issue is polarizing enough that a stigma exists even for those acting wholly within the law.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #63 on: October 03, 2017, 03:33:41 PM »
What if your doctor is a vehemently anti-smoking or anti-drinking?

Those are directly related to your health.  Owning a gun is tangentially related. 

Would you be okay with the doctor asking about your porn collection, to decide whether to treat you for mental health conditions?  Asking about your personal finances, plenty of stuff in there?  Whether you go camping, or swimming?  Where do you draw the line?

The health benefits available from your doctor related to gun ownership are effectively zero.  It's an invasion of privacy with a "plausible" cover story.

But when you couple it with a national electronic database that the government has mandated be broadly available and "promised" not to abuse, and a history of a politically motivated party that has wanted and been denied a national gun registry and it's easy to understand why it's of concern.

Unless you are of the view that the government has not routinely abused access to electronic records?

Quote
But leaping directly to the idea that somebody's making this crazy list and coming to get you, and they are using your doctor to do it? Be a lot easier to crack the NRA's files, scrub social media for comments, or about one hundred other ways.

But none of those ways are mandatorily available to the government, none of them cover the same range of people and none of them are subject to permanent storage and government "confidentiality protections" that will make it impossible for third party auditors to determine if they are abused by the government.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #64 on: October 03, 2017, 03:38:37 PM »
For my part, and I'm not taking into account what has a chance of passing, I'd shoot for these.

Fully automatic weapons:
All banned, no exceptions.  Any device used to allow for a rate of fire greater than "X" (arrived at after study of professional sport shooters using semi-automatic weapons with match grade trigger assemblies) are also banned.  Not just sales, but ownership of existing weapons / hardware / accessories allowing this. 

There would be a 6 year time from singing into law to implementation.  This allows for voters to have their say, and gives people time to comply without becoming outlaws suddenly... 

In that time period, we would allow for a tax credit for the full appraisal amount of the weapon and any ammunition the owner wants to turn in along with the weapon.  (hold onto your butts tax payers!)  Alternately, these weapons may be rendered mechanically inoperable and retained as museum grade pieces for collection.  (in such a way that makes repair / reversal extremely difficult)

Ammunition:
All self defense pistol rounds (as opposed to hunting or match grade target shooting) should be "defense" rounds, designed NOT to penetrate very far.  This would take a lot more knowledge and study than I got under my belt, but the idea is for legitimate (read lawful) defense and to reduce collateral damage, you do not want to shoot THROUGH your target and hit what is beyond. 

Assault Rifles:
I'm ambivalent on these weapons.  I have no problem seeing them all banned, however I find that any criteria used to do so, is purely cosmetic.  The difference between a hunting rifle and an "AR style" weapon are superficial in my opinion.  If something of a particular model allows it to quickly be modified into an illegal weapon, then I understand the desire to legislate against them.  Know however that you are now legislating a "difficulty" or "proficiency" with tools and knowledge needed to do so.  Anything you can do to one of these, someone with sufficient patience or skill can almost certainly do to another hunting rifle. 

As I mentioned before, I fully anticipate 3D printing to exacerbate this issue.

Mental health limitations to ownership:
Which diagnoses, specifically?  Does treatment matter?  Is there a limitation on it due to how long ago the issues presented?  I'm for this in general, but the scope has to be VERY specific.

I tried anxiety medication for a year at one point for public speaking issues.  Found it only made me sleepy and regular exercise and reduced caffeine intake did the trick far better and discontinued use after consulting with my doctor.  Should I be banned from ever possessing a firearm?  Should I be forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because I trip some "red flag"?  Should everyone who wants to own a weapon or already has one registered have to undergo one?

It's easy to say the mentally disturbed should not have access to fire arms.  Trickier to implement.  I'd have to hear how the pros weigh in on this one.  It's beyond me.

High capacity magazines:
What is reasonable?  Let's talk to a police officer.  Assuming we still allow for carrying of a weapon for self defense.  How many rounds do THEY feel comfortable being limited to?  If that leads to a restriction (no double standard acceptable IMO), then again, full tax credit for the appraisal value of existing magazines, time to implement, time for an election...

Rifle magazines?  I'm fine with this being limited as well.  If you need more rounds in a go to take down a deer than was agreed upon for a semiautomatic pistol capacity you suck at hunting and deserve the ridicule of your friends and to eat ramman noodle instead of venison tonight.

That's where I'd start anyhow.
Actually, you'd need to start with the repeal of the 2nd amendment. As long as we got that, none of the above should be possible. That's a tough sell, people hold the right to defend themselves pretty tightly.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2017, 03:38:48 PM »
Let me second D.W. idea for limited-size magazines.  Machine guns are less useful if you have to keep changing the magazine.  Even under ideal circumstances, it gives people a couple of more seconds to run while the guy puts in another clip--and that's assuming the magazine is pre-loaded, ready-to-grab and slips in with one smooth movement.  A nervous gunman might not have brought enough, drop the clip while loading, or have trouble inserting it into the gun.

For an even more interesting idea, check out David Brin's idea for the "Jefferson Rifle."  Regulate other types of guns (handguns, semi-automatic rifles, etc.) through licensing and limitations, but leave bolt-action rifles and single-shot shotguns unregulated.  These guns would be useful for hunting, target shooting and home defense, but would not give an individual the ability for massacres like we've just seen.  And in case of a popular revolt against our own government, ten thousand people with bolt-action rifles can be a very effective a fighting force--or so our previous wars have shown.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #66 on: October 03, 2017, 03:41:46 PM »
Quote
That's a tough sell, people hold the right to defend themselves pretty tightly.
As do I.  Against what?  I suppose is the question.  For me that doesn't include the national guard or US armed forces... 

And remake aside, I was done with Red Dawn fantasies long before ever purchasing my first firearm.  ;)

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #67 on: October 03, 2017, 03:43:43 PM »
Seriati, if you think being taken away and re-educated or banning public assembly is an equivalent violation of rights to not being allowed to own guns, I'm not sure there's any point in discussing this with you.
I would argue that saying that their are rights and then there are rights is more invalidating. Rights are rights, that's the way they work. If you can violate a right at will then you can reasonably violate any right.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #68 on: October 03, 2017, 03:45:52 PM »
Quote
Let me second D.W. idea for limited-size magazines. 
Point of clarification.  IF we need to limit magazine size.  It should be based upon what the police force deem prudent for their own use. 

I'm not against a limitation of some form, but I don't see it as a particularly good solution to any problem.

In this shooting in particular, multiple rifles at the ready pretty much eliminate the speed bump attempted to be put in place by limiting a single magazine.  Might it help?  Maybe.  Would it be a nightmare to retroactively get all these off the streets / out of homes?  Absolutely!

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #69 on: October 03, 2017, 03:48:29 PM »
Quote
That's a tough sell, people hold the right to defend themselves pretty tightly.
As do I.  Against what?  I suppose is the question.  For me that doesn't include the national guard or US armed forces... 
Should we be getting into the minutiae of how people exercise their rights and their reasoning? Putting a test on exercising rights to make sure you're exercising them for approved purpose has already been held as unconstitutional.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #70 on: October 03, 2017, 03:55:03 PM »
Quote
Should we be getting into the minutiae of how people exercise their rights and their reasoning?
We should never stop this discussion IMO.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #71 on: October 03, 2017, 03:55:32 PM »
I would argue that saying that their are rights and then there are rights is more invalidating. Rights are rights, that's the way they work. If you can violate a right at will then you can reasonably violate any right.

The government can't violate a right at will. They can only do it under specific and limited circumstances, if for punishment if no other reason. Some rights need have a greater affect on daily life and should be guarded more closely, most of the Free World does perfectly well without the right to bear arms but the absence of free speech or free assembly pretty much rules out the "free world."

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #72 on: October 03, 2017, 04:00:15 PM »
It depends on what a right is. I think the founders had the idea that rights aren't defined by government but exist as facts of nature. The constitution would have been their attempt to explicate what those rights are and protect them, which isn't the same as saying the constitution grants those rights. That kind of thinking subverts the idea of natural rights and turns everything into a privilege granted by the government so long as it sees fit to do so. From this standpoint, anyone who believes in this way isn't going to accept a repeal or re-writing of the 2nd unless they see it as a further specification rather than a curtailing of the natural right to arm oneself. The idea that the right can be taken away as a measure of expediency would be seen as fundamentally wrong.

There is another question to be asked here: assuming one does believe in natural rights - is it really true that arming oneself is such a right? In other words, instead of asking whether we should change what is or isn't a right, the philosophical issue behind it could be debated, which is whether the founders were correct in the first place that this is a 'god-given' right (in the secular sense). I think that would be a valuable debate, more so than whether it's expedient or not to alter the constitution to suit the current climate. Even in times of difficulty - no, especially in them - the challenge of maintaining rights is to defy expediency in favor of principle. So far the U.S. gets a bad grade on that front since 2001. "It would make things easier" isn't in itself a good argument in a discussion about which rights matter.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #73 on: October 03, 2017, 04:06:55 PM »
I would argue that saying that their are rights and then there are rights is more invalidating. Rights are rights, that's the way they work. If you can violate a right at will then you can reasonably violate any right.

The government can't violate a right at will. They can only do it under specific and limited circumstances, if for punishment if no other reason. Some rights need have a greater affect on daily life and should be guarded more closely, most of the Free World does perfectly well without the right to bear arms but the absence of free speech or free assembly pretty much rules out the "free world."
Who do you think is defining setting those "specific and limited circumstances"? Why would they apply to only 1 right and not others? What prevents them from expanding the limited circumstances?

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #74 on: October 03, 2017, 04:11:35 PM »

There is another question to be asked here: assuming one does believe in natural rights - is it really true that arming oneself is such a right? In other words, instead of asking whether we should change what is or isn't a right, the philosophical issue behind it could be debated, which is whether the founders were correct in the first place that this is a 'god-given' right (in the secular sense).
The right to defend yourself is a basic human right. Whether you believe it bestowed by God or simply inherent in the condition of being human, people have the right to defend themselves. If people are deprived of this right, then no other rights matter besides might - as in, might makes right.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #75 on: October 03, 2017, 04:13:13 PM »
Firearms are the third leading cause of death for teenagers, about 2/3 in suicides. That is a tragedy, and I'm not convinced that all of them would just pick another method. All the other methods come with a lot more risk of pain, suffering, and/or failure. Is having pediatricians ask about it the right answer, maybe not, but it is far from tangential.

Less intrusive ways might be giving everyone "the talk" without asking anything about personal ownership. Or sending a pamphlet home with everyone, or putting it in your statement. I'm not advocating that health professionals talk people out of ownership, just a discussion about keeping it out of the hands of kids.

Could that be a starting point that doesn't abridge anybody's rights?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #76 on: October 03, 2017, 04:13:37 PM »
With Crunch on that one.  The point to quibble on is what force is necessary to defend yourself, your loved ones and possibly your property?

Does it make sense that we can regulate that? 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2017, 04:17:43 PM »
We already have with full auto machine pistols, yeah? Enough of us decided that's not really necessary.

Certainly, one could consider that a breach, and that we have an unalienable right to Tec-9s

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2017, 04:20:10 PM »
Quote
Could that be a starting point that doesn't abridge anybody's rights?
In school makes sense to me.  Once when very young.  "Don't touch these, they are dangerous, tell an adult."  I could hardly get my nephew to refrain from shooting nerf darts into people's faces...  Start young!  Mixed messages that guns can be toys is pretty messed up as well.  Then again, I grew up with all sorts of toy guns... and still hypocritically find them "fun"...


Again when teens.  "Suicidal thoughts are nothing to be ashamed of.  Please talk to someone.  Often the impulse to end your life is brief and passes.  Many people survive such attempts and do not go on to kill themselves.  With firearms however the finality of an attempt is much more certain.  Do yourself a favor and keep guns away if you have ever had any such thoughts."

I think that makes a hell of a lot more sense (and would do more good) than giving mom or dad "the talk" while getting their physical once a year.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 04:22:42 PM by D.W. »

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #79 on: October 03, 2017, 04:22:40 PM »
Quote
Who do you think is defining setting those "specific and limited circumstances"? Why would they apply to only 1 right and not others? What prevents them from expanding the limited circumstances?
Every right is already subject to reasonable restrictions - it's just that the 2nd amendment is currently subject to the fewest restrictions, and is the one that most directly facilitates 11,000 deaths per year.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #80 on: October 03, 2017, 04:23:27 PM »
Who do you think is defining setting those "specific and limited circumstances"? Why would they apply to only 1 right and not others? What prevents them from expanding the limited circumstances?

We are, collectively, through all three branches of government.

They do apply to all rights, as they can be justified. Unless you want to argue that the government can't imprison you or that you can shout fire in a crowded theater.

The government can try but there are measures in place to keep them from doing it egregiously.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #81 on: October 03, 2017, 04:31:49 PM »
We already have with full auto machine pistols, yeah? Enough of us decided that's not really necessary.

Certainly, one could consider that a breach, and that we have an unalienable right to Tec-9s
Saying that we've successfully limited rights before so acceptable to limit them in any way we see fit is not a great foundation upon which to build.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #82 on: October 03, 2017, 04:34:55 PM »
Saying the founders didn't regulate X, Y or Z new technology so we must ignore it and let it run free, doesn't seem to work either.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #83 on: October 03, 2017, 04:36:03 PM »
Quote
Who do you think is defining setting those "specific and limited circumstances"? Why would they apply to only 1 right and not others? What prevents them from expanding the limited circumstances?
Every right is already subject to reasonable restrictions - it's just that the 2nd amendment is currently subject to the fewest restrictions, and is the one that most directly facilitates 11,000 deaths per year.
Over two thirds of those are suicides.

In 2015, automobiles facilitated 35,092 deaths and routinely facilitates more than that. You're not trying to prevent people from accessing them so obviously it's not the body count you care about.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #84 on: October 03, 2017, 04:37:33 PM »
Careful with this argument Crunch.  Automated cars may pluck that one out of our hands soon. 

Meaning, I much prefer, "because we have the right to defend ourselves" arguments.

"It's not as bad as X!" only works till X gets sorted out...  (Assuming it's not easier to fix than X in the first place.)
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 04:41:14 PM by D.W. »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #85 on: October 03, 2017, 04:46:19 PM »
Who do you think is defining setting those "specific and limited circumstances"? Why would they apply to only 1 right and not others? What prevents them from expanding the limited circumstances?

We are, collectively, through all three branches of government.

They do apply to all rights, as they can be justified. Unless you want to argue that the government can't imprison you or that you can shout fire in a crowded theater.

The government can try but there are measures in place to keep them from doing it egregiously.

Shout shout fire in a crowded theater. That is likely the most misquoted justification of curtailing rights out there. This was actually a dictum, not a supreme court ruling and one that has been largely overturned.   Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote these words in the context of a 1919 case and it should be more accurately quotes that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is prohibited. Holmes largely backed away from that even. That has since been essentially eliminated in Brandenburg v. Ohio where the limit is now speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” So you can shout fire in a crowded theater.

I would also point out that this "we" you talk about has settled on the 2nd amendment being valid and a personal right to bear arms.

Greg Davidson

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #86 on: October 03, 2017, 04:52:45 PM »
For over 90% of US history we had exactly the same Constitution and the same Second Amendment, but not the same interpretation. 

I'd love to hear a specific explanation of the rationale that mass shootings are more inevitable in the US because of "the mores nor the particular circumstances of the U.S."  What are those mores, and what are those particular circumstances?

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #87 on: October 03, 2017, 04:54:59 PM »
Shout shout fire in a crowded theater. That is likely the most misquoted justification of curtailing rights out there. This was actually a dictum, not a supreme court ruling and one that has been largely overturned.   Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote these words in the context of a 1919 case and it should be more accurately quotes that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is prohibited. Holmes largely backed away from that even. That has since been essentially eliminated in Brandenburg v. Ohio where the limit is now speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” So you can shout fire in a crowded theater.

I would also point out that this "we" you talk about has settled on the 2nd amendment being valid and a personal right to bear arms.
There are still restrictions on the right to free speech. Does that mean any right can be reasonably violated?

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #88 on: October 03, 2017, 04:56:47 PM »
With Crunch on that one.  The point to quibble on is what force is necessary to defend yourself, your loved ones and possibly your property?

Does it make sense that we can regulate that?

There's an alternate form of the question too: what is force? Does force have to just mean guns and bats? Part of it is preventing material harm from burglars and such, but presumably part of it is preventing systemic harm. Jefferson basically said that freedom is something that has to be constantly renewed, probably through periodic spilling of government blood. But maybe there's another kind of force that can supplant the kind he had in mind. Maybe people would feel safer on the street level if they weren't so hopelessly distant from being able to 'harm' government. In this sense harm may mean something as simple as "I'm going to do my part to f*** up the government as it is", which could be activism, voting out the bozo, etc. If there's a feeling of helplessness there, then perhaps that trickles down to the street level where one feels vaguely unsafe even in a low-crime environment. Maybe giving people more tools to 'use force' (so to speak) would do better in increasing public morale/safety than taking away tools would be.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 04:58:54 PM by Fenring »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #89 on: October 03, 2017, 04:59:49 PM »
Quote
In 2015, automobiles facilitated 35,092 deaths and routinely facilitates more than that. You're not trying to prevent people from accessing them so obviously it's not the body count you care about.

Aren't we trying to? This argument happens all the time and for cars we:

1. Make people prove they are competent before they operate one
2. People who engage in risky behaviour get them taken away
3. Routinely modify cars to make them more safe
4. Register them with the government so we know who owns which vehicle
5. Limit their specifications (maximum speeds)
6. Make people carry insurance in case they injure someone with their vehicle

Could we do more? Possibly. Capping velocity at 100 MPH would be a good start. Better vetting of ability, including simulator training, could be a good idea. If the tech worked better, an interlock device on every car wouldn't hurt - or computer detected behavioral cues like, you drift lanes enough times and the car shuts down.

And I could propose any of those things without anybody losing their minds that I was trying to outlaw cars entirely.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #90 on: October 03, 2017, 05:02:30 PM »
I'd love to hear a specific explanation of the rationale that mass shootings are more inevitable in the US because of "the mores nor the particular circumstances of the U.S."  What are those mores, and what are those particular circumstances?
Philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), a German-American political theorist who wrote extensively on totalitarianism, predicted that modern society would see a surge of domestic violence and social unrest. She wrote:
Quote
“…bureaucracy, or the rule by an intricate system of bureaux in which no men, neither one nor the best, neither the few nor the many, can be held responsible, and which could be properly called the rule by Nobody. Indeed, if we identify tyranny as the government that is not held to give account of itself, rule by Nobody is clearly the most tyrannical of all, since there is no one left who could even be asked to answer for what is being done. It is this state of affairs which is among the most potent causes for the current world-wide rebellious unrest.”

and

Quote
“The greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant.”

So random or mass violence is a natural result of bureaucratization and as bureaucratization increases, so will the violence.  The US, being one of the single biggest bureaucracies in the world would see a greater impact from this.

Meant to add:
Quote
f Arendt is right that 1) violence is perpetuated primarily by those who lack power; and 2) the bureaucratization of society deprives people of the ability to act, making them feel powerless; then it stands to reason that some individuals who lack power may be seeking to feel powerful through violence. As Arendt noted, in its traditional understanding “there is no greater power than that which grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 05:10:48 PM by Crunch »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #91 on: October 03, 2017, 05:06:28 PM »
Quote
In 2015, automobiles facilitated 35,092 deaths and routinely facilitates more than that. You're not trying to prevent people from accessing them so obviously it's not the body count you care about.

Aren't we trying to? This argument happens all the time and for cars we:

1. Make people prove they are competent before they operate one
2. People who engage in risky behaviour get them taken away
3. Routinely modify cars to make them more safe
4. Register them with the government so we know who owns which vehicle
5. Limit their specifications (maximum speeds)
6. Make people carry insurance in case they injure someone with their vehicle

Could we do more? Possibly. Capping velocity at 100 MPH would be a good start. Better vetting of ability, including simulator training, could be a good idea. If the tech worked better, an interlock device on every car wouldn't hurt - or computer detected behavioral cues like, you drift lanes enough times and the car shuts down.

And I could propose any of those things without anybody losing their minds that I was trying to outlaw cars entirely.

 I wouldn't say "anybody" but maybe a lot.  How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? Where is the acceptable limit for a free society and the risks associated with that? Keep in mind, if gun control advocates applied the same logic to automobiles, they'd want to dictate that only government can own cars.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #92 on: October 03, 2017, 05:07:47 PM »
Shout shout fire in a crowded theater. That is likely the most misquoted justification of curtailing rights out there. This was actually a dictum, not a supreme court ruling and one that has been largely overturned.   Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote these words in the context of a 1919 case and it should be more accurately quotes that falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater is prohibited. Holmes largely backed away from that even. That has since been essentially eliminated in Brandenburg v. Ohio where the limit is now speech that is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” So you can shout fire in a crowded theater.

I would also point out that this "we" you talk about has settled on the 2nd amendment being valid and a personal right to bear arms.
There are still restrictions on the right to free speech. Does that mean any right can be reasonably violated?
Well, according to you, it can.

NobleHunter

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #93 on: October 03, 2017, 05:13:40 PM »
Now I've lost the thread of what you're arguing.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #94 on: October 03, 2017, 05:26:39 PM »
For over 90% of US history we had exactly the same Constitution and the same Second Amendment, but not the same interpretation. 

I'd love to hear a specific explanation of the rationale that mass shootings are more inevitable in the US because of "the mores nor the particular circumstances of the U.S."  What are those mores, and what are those particular circumstances?

Whilst it probably doesn't apply in this specific case, Reagan gutted mental health funding and authority. And what do you know, after that mass shootings had an upturn.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #95 on: October 03, 2017, 05:29:50 PM »
I'd love to hear a specific explanation of the rationale that mass shootings are more inevitable in the US because of "the mores nor the particular circumstances of the U.S."  What are those mores, and what are those particular circumstances?
Philosopher Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), a German-American political theorist who wrote extensively on totalitarianism, predicted that modern society would see a surge of domestic violence and social unrest. She wrote:
Quote
“…bureaucracy, or the rule by an intricate system of bureaux in which no men, neither one nor the best, neither the few nor the many, can be held responsible, and which could be properly called the rule by Nobody. Indeed, if we identify tyranny as the government that is not held to give account of itself, rule by Nobody is clearly the most tyrannical of all, since there is no one left who could even be asked to answer for what is being done. It is this state of affairs which is among the most potent causes for the current world-wide rebellious unrest.”

and

Quote
“The greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence. In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one could argue, to whom one could present grievances, on whom the pressures of power could be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless we have a tyranny without a tyrant.”

So random or mass violence is a natural result of bureaucratization and as bureaucratization increases, so will the violence.  The US, being one of the single biggest bureaucracies in the world would see a greater impact from this.

Meant to add:
Quote
f Arendt is right that 1) violence is perpetuated primarily by those who lack power; and 2) the bureaucratization of society deprives people of the ability to act, making them feel powerless; then it stands to reason that some individuals who lack power may be seeking to feel powerful through violence. As Arendt noted, in its traditional understanding “there is no greater power than that which grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Really? You think there was less domestic violence in the times where it was expected for a husband to discipline his wife and the concept of marital rape literally wasn't a thing?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #96 on: October 03, 2017, 05:33:09 PM »
Quote
In 2015, automobiles facilitated 35,092 deaths and routinely facilitates more than that. You're not trying to prevent people from accessing them so obviously it's not the body count you care about.

Aren't we trying to? This argument happens all the time and for cars we:

1. Make people prove they are competent before they operate one
2. People who engage in risky behaviour get them taken away
3. Routinely modify cars to make them more safe
4. Register them with the government so we know who owns which vehicle
5. Limit their specifications (maximum speeds)
6. Make people carry insurance in case they injure someone with their vehicle

Could we do more? Possibly. Capping velocity at 100 MPH would be a good start. Better vetting of ability, including simulator training, could be a good idea. If the tech worked better, an interlock device on every car wouldn't hurt - or computer detected behavioral cues like, you drift lanes enough times and the car shuts down.

And I could propose any of those things without anybody losing their minds that I was trying to outlaw cars entirely.

Gonna say I've taken a driving test in Arizona and in the UK. The Arizona one was a freaking joke. Literally only had to drive around a city block without hitting anything, without running through a red light, and making sure I could parallel park. In contrast, the UK test made sure I actually knew how to drive.

Also the UK test is much harder because you're driving on roads designed for horses.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 05:38:08 PM by DJQuag »

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #97 on: October 03, 2017, 05:36:55 PM »
Firearms are the third leading cause of death for teenagers, about 2/3 in suicides. That is a tragedy, and I'm not convinced that all of them would just pick another method. All the other methods come with a lot more risk of pain, suffering, and/or failure. Is having pediatricians ask about it the right answer, maybe not, but it is far from tangential.

Less intrusive ways might be giving everyone "the talk" without asking anything about personal ownership. Or sending a pamphlet home with everyone, or putting it in your statement. I'm not advocating that health professionals talk people out of ownership, just a discussion about keeping it out of the hands of kids.

Could that be a starting point that doesn't abridge anybody's rights?

Okay, I'll bite. What do you suggest to keep guns out of the hands of teenagers?

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #98 on: October 03, 2017, 05:46:30 PM »
If we want to repeal the 2nd, there are ways to do that. I'm not even a big fan of the 2nd. But it is what it is. The left gets all they can out of the 1st and 14th these days. I truly don't understand how they think it's reasonable to cite the sacredness of the Constitution on the one hand whilst trying to say we need to just ignore another part.

If people having guns is such an issue, then rally people to repeal the 2nd. If you can't? You've lost.

Also I'll go on and be the dick here. What, 52 people died? We live in a country of 300 million. It's barely a percentage. It's barely a percentage just put next to automobile accidents. I know it was a tragedy for the people involved. And I understand that loss. My sister died yesterday. (Not in Vegas.) But we need to keep things in perspective.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Las Vegas shooting
« Reply #99 on: October 03, 2017, 06:02:48 PM »
I'd love to hear a specific explanation of the rationale that mass shootings are more inevitable in the US because of "the mores nor the particular circumstances of the U.S."  What are those mores, and what are those particular circumstances?

This is the question, isn't it? I could at best hazard a surface-level guess that, if I'm lucky, might touch on the issue to some extent.

Here's an example of public mores that would be relevant: Americans have a fierce sense of taking action on problems. More so than European powers, for instance, the American spirit has been a work-oriented one, and America was historically lambasted for being so committed to effort and industriousness as a public virtue. This comes in part as a product of the Protestant work ethic, in part as a result of the sorts of people that originally chose to leave Europe (people of the more rebellious persuasion), and in part no doubt as a result of the steps that had to be taken to make good here. This active spirit has been noted in various areas of life, including business, economics, municipal governance, and even family life. When a people of this sort are made to feel powerless there's going to be greater likelihood of intermittent 'explosions' of pressure. Whereas Europeans have largely made peace over the centuries with the idea of being thrown under the bus by powers too great to control, Americans seem to have the disposition of not wanting to take crap from anyone.

Here's an example of 'circumstances': At this point multiple generations of Americans have been brought up in an era where wars are constantly being fought abroad, the might of the government is ever increasing, and the effect the opinion of the average voter has on what's going on is ever decreasing. You do eventually end up in the bureaucratic quagmire that Crunch alluded to. Frank Herbert wrote about this sort of thing in his Dune series, most notably in Dune: Messiah. Then there is the economic situation with the slow wiping out of the middle class, which can perhaps be linked to these out-of-reach affairs between governments. Or perhaps we can make a more domestic analogy on this topic: take parents who fight constantly in front of their children and who leave them out of all decision-making. That sort of thing gets baked into you, one way or another. Thinking for the moment of the leaders of our time as being parents of a sort, you might well get the sense that the children are brought up being shown that violence is always the answer and that as long as other people pay the price then all is well at home.