Las Vegas shooting

[DonaldD]

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 2010, there were about 20,000 suicides by firearm, and, according to the CDC, there were about 11,000 homicides related to firearm use.

So, no, you are factually incorrect.

If you prefer, we could say that in 2010, there were about 30,000 firearm related deaths, of which one-third were classified as homicides and two-thirds were classified as suicides.

[Greg Davidson]

Fenring,

Regarding your "circumstances" example, a hypothetical growth in bureaucracy would only be a valid explanation if the US had a relatively higher level of bureaucratization than all of those other countries that have a much lower level of mass shootings. But the US is not more bureaucratic than Germany, UK, Japan, France, South Korea, etc.  Interestingly, you mention economic disempowerment - I do believe that there is some argument that the balance of power between workers and employers has been tilted in favor of employers to the greatest degree in maybe 80 years, and so that may be a force that is relatively disempowering people. But of course that is the "free market".

Regarding public mores, and the claim that " Americans have a fierce sense of taking action on problems". That  deTouqueville/American exceptionalism argument might be true, it certainly is a story we grew up on a long time ago, but is there actual evidence that is a reflection of the current US population?  And more so than other countries also formed by immigration such as Australia, New Zealand, or Israel?

[D.W.]

But the US is not more bureaucratic than Germany, UK, Japan, France, South Korea, etc.

Our founding however seemed intent on safeguarding against such, or injecting accountability.  It seems plausible that the same level of bureaucracy would be perceived differently in cultures that accept it vs cultures who came into being viewing it with suspicion. 

Interestingly, you mention economic disempowerment

Yet the specific case that got us onto this subject seems to exist firmly outside of it.  This guy seems to have a rather... atypical relationship with money.

That  deTouqueville/American exceptionalism argument might be true, it certainly is a story we grew up on a long time ago, but is there actual evidence that is a reflection of the current US population?

Maybe the problem is "the story" no longer seems (as?) believable?

[rightleft22]

I personally don’t understand why America go through the pretense of debate on Guns and violence.
The NRA won, 51+% of Americans will never change their thinking. 
Guns, violence, bombs, drones, is America and its concept of freedom. That is what America stands up for and the 51% don’t want that to change. Its not going to change.   

We can stop pretending to wring our hands at the horror of people being killed watching a concert. We aren’t going to do anything about it. 
If only it was terrorism we could cry at the injustice and drop a few bombs of people living else where to make ourselves feel better, but nothing we can do if its just gun violence except buy more guns.

[Crunch]

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 2010, there were about 20,000 suicides by firearm, and, according to the CDC, there were about 11,000 homicides related to firearm use.

So, no, you are factually incorrect.

If you prefer, we could say that in 2010, there were about 30,000 firearm related deaths, of which one-third were classified as homicides and two-thirds were classified as suicides.

Ah, I was misled by your assertion of 11,000 per year so I misspoke. I should know better than to take you at face value, my bad.

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens), and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens). These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides, 21,175 suicides, 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent"

33,636 total deaths with 21,175 being suicides. That’s 62.95%, or about two thirds. So I was correct, just outside your misleading framework.

[Crunch]

I personally don’t understand why America go through the pretense of debate on Guns and violence.
The NRA won, 51+% of Americans will never change their thinking. 
Guns, violence, bombs, drones, is America and its concept of freedom. That is what America stands up for and the 51% don’t want that to change. Its not going to change.   

We can stop pretending to wring our hands at the horror of people being killed watching a concert. We aren’t going to do anything about it. 
If only it was terrorism we could cry at the injustice and drop a few bombs of people living else where to make ourselves feel better, but nothing we can do if its just gun violence except buy more guns.

According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.

There were only 2,200 non gang-related firearm murders in both years in a country of over 300 million people and 250 million guns. Pass all the laws you want, I’m pretty sure these gangs don’t give a *censored* and it won’t change their behavior.

We have a gang problem, not a gun problem. And no, we’re pretty much not going to adress that as it opens people up to accusations of racism and/or alienates Democrat voters. Plus, the body count is way too helpful for those pushing gun control, they have a strong incentive to let these gangs run. Gives them that emotional appeal that looks good on CNN.

[TheDrake]

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

You could subsidize gun safes, but the only way that you can get the subsidy is by attending a lecture on why you shouldn't give your teenager unsupervised access to it. Of course that would immediately get opposition because the government is making a list, and, whaddya mean my 15 year old shouldn't be able to get at my weapons to defend herself when I'm not home!??

Teens can't (legally) buy guns on their own. Somebody has to do it for them. Now, some will get access by illegal trade, particularly gang members. But I'm focusing on suicide prevention, and I suspect only a relatively small percentage possesses their own illegal gun. Note that many states have no age limit for possessing a gun, that's why it has to be a voluntary parental intervention.

Essentially that we could fund various efforts, even just PSAs, that aim to convince parents that maybe they should leave a loaded weapon in their sock drawer where all the kids know its there. A large number of pro-gun outfits agree with many of these messages as well. And yet many accidents and suicides involving kids are from unattended guns. Maybe every box of ammo should have a dead kid on it, like they do with cigarettes.

Now, its up to every parent whether they want to heed the message. Some will say that their Daddy had three loaded shotguns in the house and its the only way to be prepared. I wouldn't go to a coercive measure in that case.

[rightleft22]

Gun violence, gang violence... who cares.
People are going to die due to violence, some we don't care about and some we pretend to care about.

[Crunch]

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.

That was literally 35 years ago, and while it’s clear we need better mental health care it’s impossible to establish causation.  We could just as easily say the increased bureaucratization since then, which is massive, is the root cause. My guess, there is a combination of factors and these are two of them. Gang violence, black on black crime, and the unwillingness to address it are also factors.

[D.W.]

I'm curious why so many believe that the NRA is the power here.  While they may be the group throwing around the cash, they are, for the most part, only doing what that percentage of people want.

Do gun manufacturers make huge bank opposing gun control laws?  Sure.  But that doesn't mean that those people who oppose most gun control laws have been hoodwinked by the NRA and the gun lobby. 

There ARE legitimate (to us at least) reasons to be opposed to most gun control laws we see proposed.  There are prices we are unwilling to pay to reduce gun violence.

Now I'm all for taking more money out of political races.  If the NRA loses power, that wouldn't bother me at all.  I would suggest that even them vanishing all together would not free up the log jam of gun control opposition people seem to believe they are responsible for.  In fact, the reason they are as powerful as they are, is because of the public support they have.  Not just the gun industry support they have.

Does that mean the discussion is useless?  That depends on the discussion. 

A weapons ban is probably (almost defiantly) useless. 

A ban on modifications that allow legal weapons to simulate automatic fire?  That's probably got a very good chance of coasting through the legislative branch.  (I won't claim to know what Trump would do with it.)

Magazine restriction?  Logistically challenging and of questionable value, but... maybe worth discussion.

Countermeasures?  That gets messy.  Most are already against the militarization of our police force.  Cutting edge shooter location gizmos http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/boomerang/ paired with automated platforms to return fire probably are closer to science-fact than science fiction at this point, but come with heaps of potential problems and ethical considerations.  Still, possibly a conversation worth exploring.

[rightleft22]

I'm curious why so many believe that the NRA is the power here.  While they may be the group throwing around the cash, they are, for the most part, only doing what that percentage of people want.

The NRA has been very effective at lobbing and influencing the majority of people and “what they want”.
The NRA sets the talking points and creates the arguments that the majority of the people will use to defend their individual “thinking”.

[Fenring]

Regarding your "circumstances" example, a hypothetical growth in bureaucracy would only be a valid explanation if the US had a relatively higher level of bureaucratization than all of those other countries that have a much lower level of mass shootings.

Hard to define 'higher level', isn't it? You can refer to public servants per capita, but would that really be telling? You can look at the amount of red tape to deal with trying to get anything done on the local level. See France for the benchmark on making getting anything small done as annoying as possible. So that could be an angle to inspect. But no, what I'm referring to specifically is the bureaucracy of un-responsibility where vast engines of government action go on with either no oversight, no transparency, or no connection whatsoever to the voters. In other words, areas of government that can't be voted on, voted out, affected by voter preference, swayed by public opinion, or moved in any discernible way. This kind of bureaucracy doesn't necessarily need to be more cumbersome than that of European governments, just more out of reach. The sign that this exists isn't how many public servants there are, but how much the populace feels their opinion doesn't matter in what goes on and realizes there's no step they can take to affect it. And yes, America beats those other countries handily in that type of bureaucracy. And it's not just how little affect the voters have, either, but it's the scope of the things going on that they can't effect, too. And America clearly has 'bigger stuff' going on than those other countries.

I do believe that there is some argument that the balance of power between workers and employers has been tilted in favor of employers to the greatest degree in maybe 80 years, and so that may be a force that is relatively disempowering people. But of course that is the "free market".

Tell me about it. Well, to be fair it's a 'mixed market' (combination free market and statism) but I believe the same would happen in a free market anyhow so I'm not disagreeing with you.

Regarding public mores, and the claim that " Americans have a fierce sense of taking action on problems". That  deTouqueville/American exceptionalism argument might be true, it certainly is a story we grew up on a long time ago, but is there actual evidence that is a reflection of the current US population?  And more so than other countries also formed by immigration such as Australia, New Zealand, or Israel?

Australians are really quite affable and not at all pugilistic in my experience, so it really is a good question why they didn't end up with that rebellious streak that Americans had (and still have). I don't know enough about Australian history to answer that, but even just the famous Australian wanderlust should, by itself, sufficiently demonstrate that how they view their relationship with their country is vastly different than how the Americans view theirs. In terms of whether the American spirit of action is still there - oh yeah, I don't think that's gone away. If anything Hollywood has emphasized it, even while at the same time increasing creature comforts stifle it to an extent. Certainly in the 20th century, all the way up to the 50's it was so obviously an American trait that there would have been no need of discussion about it. British economists noted the different work ethic among their American counterparts and how Americans seemed to almost hold in contempt the idea of rest and leisure. To what extent this has remained as is since then is a question, but it takes many generations to change something so endemic to a people, assuming it is even in the process of being weaned out at all. You could argue about whether it's as strong a trait as it used to be, but I have no doubt that it's still a significant one.

By the way, while 'exceptionalism' is a potential takeaway from de Tocqueville when you hear him speak of these things, I personally don't refer to the American spirit to action as being a good in and of itself. I merely cite it as a potential factor in why Americans would be more dissatisfied than other peoples in feeling disempowered, and moreover, would be more prone to do something about it. But unlike certain peoples who believe in collective action, the American spirit is more about individual action; 'what can I do' more so than 'what can we do.'

[Greg Davidson]

But no, what I'm referring to specifically is the bureaucracy of un-responsibility where vast engines of government action go on with either no oversight, no transparency, or no connection whatsoever to the voters. In other words, areas of government that can't be voted on, voted out, affected by voter preference, swayed by public opinion, or moved in any discernible way. This kind of bureaucracy doesn't necessarily need to be more cumbersome than that of European governments, just more out of reach. The sign that this exists isn't how many public servants there are, but how much the populace feels their opinion doesn't matter in what goes on and realizes there's no step they can take to affect it. And yes, America beats those other countries handily in that type of bureaucracy.

Can you provide any measurables on this? Because in the 1960's the government thoroughly regulated telecommunications, banking, transportation (including setting routes and prices for travel by air, trucking, and shipping). What makes you think that government is so much more reachable back in the 1960's? Or in Europe or elsewhere around the world? Most countries think that the United States, by first electing Obama and then Trump, actually gives citizens more flexibility to go outside the mainstream for selecting a leader.

[D.W.]

It may be a sense of helplessness due to being better informed at near instantaneous speeds.  Even if you account for evening news and news paper readership, I think the unavoidableness of modern politics has increased significantly. 

[yossarian22c]

As to where I would come down on gun control:

Bump-stocks - illegal
Rifles should be bolt action not semi-automatic - fine for hunting much slower for killing people
Shotguns should be pump action - works for hunting but has a slower rate of fire (I know some bird hunters want to take more shots faster but they just need to learn to shoot better)
Pistols - semi-automatic ok, but better regulations on preventing larger "custom magazines" and tools that greatly increase the rate of fire.
Magazine size <= 10

If you can't defend yourself and/or hunt with a bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun, and a semi-automatic pistol with a reasonably small magazine then you need to learn to aim your guns or are in a situation where almost no reasonable amount of firepower would help.

My rational for this is with the Gabby Giffords shooter. He was able to be stopped by bystanders when he slightly fumbled a reload on his pistol. A slower rate of fire has minimal impacts for hunting and defense purposes but can save lives in a mass shooting incident.

As for gang violence we need better tools for tracking and punishing (maybe civil, maybe criminal) people who purchase lots of guns that end up in the hands of gangs (without being stolen).

[DonaldD]

Or there may be a sense of helplessness due to structural problems with the electoral system, such as gerrymandering, the ability of a small quantity of persons to completely overwhelm the discussion (citizens united) or the primary system that rewards political extremes.

[Crunch]

As to where I would come down on gun control:

Prohibition has never been very successful, drugs and alcohol demonstrate this. Other countries with strong anti-gun laws still have attacks from people with automatic weapons. Why would you think it will work this time when it never has and why would it work here when it hasn't worked anywhere?

If you can't defend yourself and/or hunt with a bolt action rifle, pump action shotgun, and a semi-automatic pistol with a reasonably small magazine then you need to learn to aim your guns or are in a situation where almost no reasonable amount of firepower would help.

My rational for this is with the Gabby Giffords shooter. He was able to be stopped by bystanders when he slightly fumbled a reload on his pistol. A slower rate of fire has minimal impacts for hunting and defense purposes but can save lives in a mass shooting incident.

What if you have a condition that prevents you from the fine motor control required for these weapons? Old people have arthritis, amputees, etc. Once adrenaine starts pumping, even healthy people lose fine motor skills. You're willing to condemn the infirm and those not comfortable in high stress situations for something that, in the end, makes not one bit of difference. FYI, I can swap out my magazine in less about 1 or 2 seconds. I practiced it for about 30 minutes and anyone else can do it too. Just because one nutjob fumbled the exchange does not guarantee they all will.

[Crunch]

As to where I would come down on gun control:

Bump-stocks - illegal

What about belt loops? Without any modification beyond gun position and a belt loop, this guy basically goes full auto (video is kind of lame but very effective).

[Seriati]

For over 90% of US history we had exactly the same Constitution and the same Second Amendment, but not the same interpretation.

This liberal myth again.  For 100% of US history, individuals have had the right and ability to own fire arms, a right that predates the Constitution within the borders of the United States.  The fact that some locations had different rules, does not make your claim valid in the least.  The real truth, that claim is a recent liberal reinterpretation of history, nothing more, and the SC's recent guidance on the issue was nothing more than confirming the entire history of this country (and before) with respect to the right to bear arms.

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?

There are a lot of factors that make us more prone to mass shootings.  For one, the US is probably the  most disconnected advanced society that has ever been.  People routinely relocate around the country across vast distances without any real ties in the new area.  That constant shuffling has made most communities into collections of strangers that mind their own business.  No matter how warm your local community I guarantee there are people that it ostracises and isolates.  Whether that causes them to develop dangerous deviancies (a serious risk) or just allows them to flourish is kind of immaterial.

The social penalties we heap on people at the drop of a hat are preventing us from really sharing our views with each other and increasing the misunderstandings and risks of isolation at an even faster rate than was historically the case.  I mean, in the past, you could run your mouth for years, poison every relationship you had, and then mature, move and start over.  Now, no matter how improved you become no redemption is ever possible because the internet ensures that all that history will passively follow you (if not actively follow you) to the ends of the Earth.

Add to that the increasing idea that where gains can't be won democratically by convincing others to agree with you, its perfectly acceptable (and even good) to use force (such as by overreaching judges, or Antifa activists) to steal the power of the majority to make a decision.  All in the name of a "good" cause that lets people label other perfectly normal people with perfectly reasonable views as the worst forms of bigots we can collectively describe (eg. racists, sexists, homophobes).  Whether the labels fit or not they stick in the age of internet propaganda.

A lot of these things exist in other places, but they can't match the scale of either the problem or the size of this country.  The US is the fourth largest country in the world by area (and really much more usable space than two of the 3 countries ahead of it), 3rd largest by population and 179th by population density.  That's an enormous space of largely single language people, that makes it very easy for people to end up separated by great distances from loved ones and support groups - you know the people that would be aware that someone has taken a dangerous turn.  You don't see the same thing in European countries, where its far easier for your community to track you down and keep you engaged, and where you can only go so far before you drop into a completely different culture and language group that softly pushes one back towards "home".

You have seen increasing levels of violence as European countries have tried to intergrate completely different cultural groups within their borders.  It is not just the lastest mess with Islamic refugees, Europe's entire history is one of conflict between culturally non-integrated groups. 

[Fenring]

Can you provide any measurables on this? Because in the 1960's the government thoroughly regulated telecommunications, banking, transportation (including setting routes and prices for travel by air, trucking, and shipping). What makes you think that government is so much more reachable back in the 1960's?

Hard to cite measurables in areas that are, by definition, not transparent! That does create for a statement of hypothesis that can't be tested, but of course it can't be tested. If it could then people would be upset. Or at least, more upset. That leaves us in a place where we have to either look for qualitative changes, since quantitative isn't available, or else to point to new practices altogether. What's the measurable change between mass surveillance now versus what it was in the 60's? Well it wasn't possible in the 60's, so there's no comparison. It's simply a new practice enabled by new technology. Tell me, who's the party accountable for mass surveillance? In what manner is the voting population able to materially affect what the NSA does with its data? From what I'm read every time a private party tries to bring suit to the NSA on this topic the case is thrown out due them them not having standing to sue. In other words, f--- off. The one time a court did rule that it had to stop, during Obama's administration, the matter seemed 'over'. Tell me, do you think it's over? This is only one small area of government activity amongst many, that seem to reside outside of the bounds of the voters having any say in the matter. Go find me metrics on that; there aren't any. All you can do is ask the odd person if (a) they're aware of it, and (b) if they're pissed at all.

Or in Europe or elsewhere around the world? Most countries think that the United States, by first electing Obama and then Trump, actually gives citizens more flexibility to go outside the mainstream for selecting a leader.

Depends what you think mainstream is. In hindsight would you not say that Obama was a standard type of candidate who upheld, and even expanded on, the systems put in place by his predecessor? Either that, or he had no say in the matter. Either way he was functionally an establishment President (whether he wanted to be one or not). Trump is another case, since the establishment was clearly against him. Whether he ends up doing anything to change the system remains to be seen. I'm thinking he won't. Then again Trump made it due to a confluence of weird events that I think no one in the political mainstream was capable of predicting. The system is what it is and it's not 100% in anyone's control. But that doesn't mean they don't exert considerable control regardless. If you want to look at political systems that favor variety, go look at European elections which feature parties ranging from progressive to labor to communist to fascist. You want variety, they got it. We wouldn't celebrate some of the variety that seems to succeed over there, but you can't compare that to the one party (sorry! two party) system in America. Any kind of variation amongst Presidents in America can be more or less attributed to the illusion of choice, since for the most part since Kennedy they've all been members of the same club. Carter is likely an exception to that, and now Trump as well. Flukes happen.

[Seriati]

Trump is another case, since the establishment was clearly against him. Whether he ends up doing anything to change the system remains to be seen. I'm thinking he won't.

This is a key point.  Electing Trump was literally the voting population spitting in the face of the establishment and demanding something change.  Watching the establishment effectively stymy him at every turn is confirming the fear of everyone that voted for Trump that there is no way for the citizens to effect change.

[Wayward Son]

Prohibition has never been very successful, drugs and alcohol demonstrate this. Other countries with strong anti-gun laws still have attacks from people with automatic weapons. Why would you think it will work this time when it never has and why would it work here when it hasn't worked anywhere?

Washing hands and not sharing eating utensils hasn't worked in stopping diseases from spreading, either.  But they've helped reduce the number of people made sick by diseases.

Sure, other countries with strong anti-gun laws still have attacks with guns, but compare their rates with ours.  Maybe it wouldn't have helped with the Vegas shooting, but maybe it would have helped with the other 60 people that have been murdered with guns this week since the Vegas shooting.

Just because one nutjob fumbled the exchange does not guarantee they all will.

Sorry, but I like the idea of making it as hard as possible for the other guy to kill me, even if it is not guaranteed to work every time.

FYI, I can swap out my magazine in less about 1 or 2 seconds.

And that's 1 - 2 seconds less time to shoot.  With a automatic rifle that shoots 400 rounds per minute, that's 6 - 13 shots not fired.

Also, with a 10 round maximum for the clips, that limits the shooting time for the above rifle to 1.5 seconds.  Which means that about half the shooter's time is spent changing clips.

Sure, the shooter can obtain illegal clips that hold more bullets.  But then he has the inconvenience of needing to keep them hidden.  And if they are found, he can be arrested for that, instead of having shot a group of people with a large magazine.

Yes, having to take 1 - 2 seconds to change a clip is inconvenient for the average person who is never going to go on a mass-shooting spree.  But so is dying.

[Crunch]

Prohibition has never been very successful, drugs and alcohol demonstrate this. Other countries with strong anti-gun laws still have attacks from people with automatic weapons. Why would you think it will work this time when it never has and why would it work here when it hasn't worked anywhere?

Washing hands and not sharing eating utensils hasn't worked in stopping diseases from spreading, either.  But they've helped reduce the number of people made sick by diseases.

Sure, other countries with strong anti-gun laws still have attacks with guns, but compare their rates with ours.  Maybe it wouldn't have helped with the Vegas shooting, but maybe it would have helped with the other 60 people that have been murdered with guns this week since the Vegas shooting.

Just because one nutjob fumbled the exchange does not guarantee they all will.

Sorry, but I like the idea of making it as hard as possible for the other guy to kill me, even if it is not guaranteed to work every time.

So having no real impact makes no difference to you. Very ideological.

Sorry, you missed the point. I’m not saying it won’t work every time. It actually won’t work any time. You’re building a false sense of safety by ignoring the reality of how things actually work.

[Crunch]

Sure, the shooter can obtain illegal clips that hold more bullets.  But then he has the inconvenience of needing to keep them hidden.  And if they are found, he can be arrested for that, instead of having shot a group of people with a large magazine.

Seriously?  . 

[Wayward Son]

I’m not saying it won’t work every time. It actually won’t work any time.

Crunch, how can you say it won't work any time when you started with an example (Gabby Gifford's shooter) when it actually did work?

Sure, the shooter can obtain illegal clips that hold more bullets.  But then he has the inconvenience of needing to keep them hidden.  And if they are found, he can be arrested for that, instead of having shot a group of people with a large magazine.

Seriously?  . 

Yes.

As I said, I like the idea of making it as inconvenient for him as possible.

Because it isn't just before the shooting that he has to keep them hidden.  He has to keep them hidden for as long as he has them.  From friends, family, etc.  From random police stops in his car.  He can never take them to the firing range, or out hunting.  He has to keep them hidden in his house.

If one shooter slips up, that's one less mass shooting.  Couldn't you live with that for a 1 - 2 second inconvenience.

[rightleft22]

Anyone know how many of the weapons Stephen Paddock had with him were actually used in the shooting.
It’s a part of the story that doesn’t make sense to me. Paddock appears to have been very methodical in his planning, so why so many weapons? If he had a plan for getting away there is no way to take them all with him.  If the plan was to fight it out with the police he gave up on that pretty quickly.

[DJQuag]

The shootings are getting ridiculous, but I'm baffled by the number of people who trot out solutions that don't even apply to the latest situation.

A bold and honest legislator would be trying to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment. Amend is probably dead in the water with even the most mild of restrictions. Repealing would be laughable. 3/4 of states? We couldn't get 3/4 of states to agree that Apple Pie is American - it would all depend on which party introduced it which states would object.

The other mechanism is calling a constitutional convention. That only takes 2/3 of the states, and it is a horribly frightening concept.

There are now 27 states in which the legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a convention that would propose a balanced-budget amendment.

Except once they convene, they can do literally anything they want. Above the Supreme Court, Above the original constitution, not representative by population, and the only thing left to stop them would be the ratification process - which they would define.

Article V

This is my issue at the heart of it.

The issue isn't gun control laws, the issue is the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by our highest court that puts the brakes on gun control laws.

You're right. The solution is a different Supreme Court or, as you said, a Constitutional amendment or a Constitutional convention. Neither of which is anywhere near likely to happen for this reason.

Instead we have sheep legislators going on TV to bleat about how we "need to do something." They're con artists, period. Hoping to whip up public sentiment in the hope they can get people to ignore a piece of the Constitution. And they absolutely do know better.

[Seriati]

I’m not saying it won’t work every time. It actually won’t work any time.

Crunch, how can you say it won't work any time when you started with an example (Gabby Gifford's shooter) when it actually did work?

At a guess in the same way you ignore that virtually every active mass shooter continues until they are confronted by someone else who is armed, at which point they often try to take their own life or are killed by the person confronting them.

Honestly, fully automatic weapons are not realistically what we're talking about.  Prior to this shooter when was the last time they were used?  They've been effectively illegal for masses for almost 100 years, so you already have "gun control" on them.  What are you asking for, that we make them illegal again?   Of course not, you're asking that we make other non-automatic weapons illegal.

[Wayward Son]

I’m not saying it won’t work every time. It actually won’t work any time.

Crunch, how can you say it won't work any time when you started with an example (Gabby Gifford's shooter) when it actually did work?

At a guess in the same way you ignore that virtually every active mass shooter continues until they are confronted by someone else who is armed, at which point they often try to take their own life or are killed by the person confronting them.

Honestly, fully automatic weapons are not realistically what we're talking about.  Prior to this shooter when was the last time they were used?  They've been effectively illegal for masses for almost 100 years, so you already have "gun control" on them.  What are you asking for, that we make them illegal again?   Of course not, you're asking that we make other non-automatic weapons illegal.

Actually, at this point, I'm asking that large clips be made illegal, to add that 1 - 2 second plus delay every 10 shots or so, whether it is a semi-automatic or an automatic rifle.   Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether there are other armed individuals around.

But you are right in that fully automatic weapons have not been an issue until this shooting.  (But, of course, the shooter obtained them legally. )  And maybe we should restrict semi-automatic weapons, just for that reason that they are the guns that normally kill people.

But my main point is that when discussing reasonable gun control ideas, we should not leave ideas off the table because they won't guarantee the elimination of gun violence.  I recognize we will never be able to do that.  Guns are ubiquitous in the U.S., and even if we destroyed all of them, some would be smuggled into the country or stolen from the military.  But they can reduce the insane amount of gun violence in this country.  That, in itself, if a worthy goal.

[Seriati]

Actually, at this point, I'm asking that large clips be made illegal, to add that 1 - 2 second plus delay every 10 shots or so, whether it is a semi-automatic or an automatic rifle.   Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether there are other armed individuals around.

I can be convinced on clip size, but not when it's designed to be a heavy handed way of making existing weapons illegal.

And maybe we should restrict semi-automatic weapons, just for that reason that they are the guns that normally kill people.

Technically true because pistols are semi-automatics.  Pistols kill - by far - the most people.  This true in crimes, in suicides, in police shootings, in accidents.  They are also - by far - the most practical self defense fire arm available, whether it be for defense in person outside the home or inside the home.

But my main point is that when discussing reasonable gun control ideas, we should not leave ideas off the table because they won't guarantee the elimination of gun violence.  I recognize we will never be able to do that.  Guns are ubiquitous in the U.S., and even if we destroyed all of them, some would be smuggled into the country or stolen from the military.  But they can reduce the insane amount of gun violence in this country.  That, in itself, if a worthy goal.

I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

[Wayward Son]

I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

Are you implying that no one can defend themselves unless they can have the gun of their choosing? 

[JoshCrow]

I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

If this right is so essential then why aren't more people in other countries clamoring for it? And why do only one country's citizens seem to find it important? Do you think people in other countries are either misled, or too foolishly trusting of each other?

[Crunch]

I’m not saying it won’t work every time. It actually won’t work any time.

Crunch, how can you say it won't work any time when you started with an example (Gabby Gifford's shooter) when it actually did work?

You mean, when you have an unfounded belief that it did work. There is scant evidence it happened and only baseless opinion that it made even a hint of difference. Your imagination of how these things work is not fact.

Sure, the shooter can obtain illegal clips that hold more bullets.  But then he has the inconvenience of needing to keep them hidden.  And if they are found, he can be arrested for that, instead of having shot a group of people with a large magazine.

Seriously?  . 

Yes.

As I said, I like the idea of making it as inconvenient for him as possible.

Because it isn't just before the shooting that he has to keep them hidden.  He has to keep them hidden for as long as he has them.  From friends, family, etc.  From random police stops in his car.  He can never take them to the firing range, or out hunting.  He has to keep them hidden in his house.

If one shooter slips up, that's one less mass shooting.  Couldn't you live with that for a 1 - 2 second inconvenience.

Where is it you're getting the idea that criminals keep the tools of their trade in their sock drawers? Do you really believe criminals,
 for whom its's illegal to have a gun, are not carrying those guns as they engage in criminal activity on  regular basis? Do you think people that have become mentally unstable suddenly become rational in stuffing illegal weaponry under their mattress? This is fantasy that has no bearing on how things work in the real world. Pure fantasy.

[Crunch]

I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

Are you implying that no one can defend themselves unless they can have the gun of their choosing? 

Having a gun of their choosing is their right. Whether it's for personal defense, sport, or no reason other than they just want to exercise their rights. Trying to create a world where people can exercise their rights only the way you see fit for them might as well not have any rights at all.

[Crunch]

But they can reduce the insane amount of gun violence in this country.  That, in itself, if a worthy goal.

Sure worked with drugs ... not.

[Crunch]

Anyone know how many of the weapons Stephen Paddock had with him were actually used in the shooting.
It’s a part of the story that doesn’t make sense to me. Paddock appears to have been very methodical in his planning, so why so many weapons? If he had a plan for getting away there is no way to take them all with him.  If the plan was to fight it out with the police he gave up on that pretty quickly.

I was thinking about this too.  Part of it may just be the mental state he was in, who knows what he was thinking, he may not have been all that rational. I could see maybe the thought that if you worried about the barrel overheating then it would be nice to have plenty of spare weapons you could go to.

[Crunch]

I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

If this right is so essential then why aren't more people in other countries clamoring for it? And why do only one country's citizens seem to find it important? Do you think people in other countries are either misled, or too foolishly trusting of each other?

What makes you think they're so different? France:

Ownership of rifles for hunting is pretty common. 1.2 million people have a licence for hunting, which allows them to buy rifles and ammunition. If they don't renew the licence, they can keep the guns but may have (a little) difficulty to buy ammo. Most of the approximately 10 million guns in France are either hunting rifles, or collection pieces.

Ownership of handguns is much less frequent. Approximately 150,000 people are registred sport shooters.

Portugal, note the qualification "legally registered":

Out of a 10 million population, Portugal have 1,5 million guns legally registered, of which 85% are hunting rifles and 15% small handguns.

Czechoslovakia:

For us is actually pretty common to have guns at home, or carrying them on person.
What is not permitted is open carry.

Nowadays there is about 300 000 licensed gun owners and about 800 000 guns among a population of 10 milion.

Sweden:

There are approximately 619,000 licensed gun owners, out of a population of 10,000,000 (6%).

These 619,000 gun owners own approximately 2,000,000 guns, so gun owners own on average 3.2 guns per person.

Of these, nearly 1 million are hunting rifles, 720,000 are shotguns (sport and hunting), 120,000 combination rifles (hunting), and 140,000 revolvers and pistols (sport).

Cyprus:

In my country we have army service where, on turning 18, you have to do two years in the army (although I think it has recently been reduced). When you begin your service you are issued with your own rifle, that is your own personal gun. On finishing army service, you becaome an automatic member of the National Guard, and you are expected to take your gun with you and keep it somewhere safe at home, so you are ready in the event of an emergency. So, a lot of men (because only men have to do army service) have a gun at home.

Netherlands:

For your average citizen in the Netherlands its quite difficult to own rifles, pistols and carbines. I believe you can own a maximum of 4 firearms here. More only if you are active in competition shooting or a collector.

And contrary to popular belief its possible to buy and own small and large caliber rifles and carbines that have the look and feel of well-known assault rifles (AR-15, G36, etc.).

You get the idea. They have guns, plenty of them. They also have a different culture and different rights when it comes to guns (and they have their mass shootings in other countries as well as other mass killings). You can see the estimated guns per capita here. While the US has considerably more guns than, say, Syria or even Russia, which one are you safer in? That list demonstrably proves that less guns does not make a country safer. When it come to the threat of dying in a mass shooting, the U.S. doesn’t rank No. 1:

At 0.15 mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people, the U.S. had a lower rate than Norway (1.3 per 100,000), Finland (0.34 per 100,000) and Switzerland (1.7 per 100,000).

[Crunch]

For those dealing in facts, Leah Libresco, a statistician and former writer at FiveThirtyEight, lays out some truth:

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence.

And this should look familiar:

Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

[JoshCrow]

You get the idea. They have guns, plenty of them. They also have a different culture and different rights when it comes to guns (and they have their mass shootings in other countries as well as other mass killings). You can see the estimated guns per capita here. While the US has considerably more guns than, say, Syria or even Russia, which one are you safer in? That list demonstrably proves that less guns does not make a country safer. When it come to the threat of dying in a mass shooting, the U.S. doesn’t rank No. 1:

At 0.15 mass shooting fatalities per 100,000 people, the U.S. had a lower rate than Norway (1.3 per 100,000), Finland (0.34 per 100,000) and Switzerland (1.7 per 100,000).

Other countries have guns, yes. I'm not sure you understood what I asserted - and your own statement about "different rights" serves to buttress what I said rather than challenging it. My challenge was to the "essentialness" of the right Seriati was asserting as regards connecting gun ownership to self-defense. I happen to think that's what the Rule of Law is for, and the paucity of data supporting "hero" tales (yes, you can find anecdotes) of gun-toting home defense is telling.
From Michael Shermer's piece in today's NYT:

But a 1998 study in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, to take one of many examples, found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” That means a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense.

[Crunch]

Other countries have guns, yes. I'm not sure you understood what I asserted - and your own statement about "different rights" serves to buttress what I said rather than challenging it. My challenge was to the "essentialness" of the right Seriati was asserting as regards connecting gun ownership to self-defense. I happen to think that's what the Rule of Law is for, and the paucity of data supporting "hero" tales (yes, you can find anecdotes) of gun-toting home defense is telling.

That paucity of tales is more telling about media coverage than actual events.

From Michael Shermer's piece in today's NYT:

But a 1998 study in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, to take one of many examples, found that “every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides and 11 attempted or completed suicides.” That means a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal assault, an accidental death or injury, a suicide attempt or a homicide than it is for self-defense.

“every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides and 11 attempted or completed suicides.”  Really?

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that defensive gun uses occur an average of 67,740 times per year.[

67,740 defensive guns uses per year on average according to the FBI. Are there on average 270,960 unintentional shooting per year? No:

According to the Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit group that tracks firearm injuries and shooting deaths in the United States, there were 13,423 gun-related deaths and 27,000 injuries in 2015.

That's a hell of a gap. Either the study was wrong, the nonprofit was wrong, or they're using different definitions perhaps. But if a quarter of a million people were getting shot every year it would be pretty noticeable.

Number of suicide attempts per year: 494,169 people visited a hospital for injuries due to self-harm.  With 67,740 defensive guns uses per year, that study says we should have seen something in the range of 750,000 so it's quite off there as well.

[Wayward Son]

I’m not saying it won’t work every time. It actually won’t work any time.

Crunch, how can you say it won't work any time when you started with an example (Gabby Gifford's shooter) when it actually did work?

You mean, when you have an unfounded belief that it did work. There is scant evidence it happened and only baseless opinion that it made even a hint of difference. Your imagination of how these things work is not fact.

First, sorry, I got yossarian's post mixed up with you. 

Second, why do you characterize it as "unfounded."  There were several reports at the time that stated that the gunman was overcome when he ran out of bullets and was attempting to reload.  That makes the evidence neither "scant" nor "baseless."

Sure, the shooter can obtain illegal clips that hold more bullets.  But then he has the inconvenience of needing to keep them hidden.  And if they are found, he can be arrested for that, instead of having shot a group of people with a large magazine.

Seriously?  . 

Yes.

As I said, I like the idea of making it as inconvenient for him as possible.

Because it isn't just before the shooting that he has to keep them hidden.  He has to keep them hidden for as long as he has them.  From friends, family, etc.  From random police stops in his car.  He can never take them to the firing range, or out hunting.  He has to keep them hidden in his house.

If one shooter slips up, that's one less mass shooting.  Couldn't you live with that for a 1 - 2 second inconvenience.

Where is it you're getting the idea that criminals keep the tools of their trade in their sock drawers? Do you really believe criminals,
 for whom its's illegal to have a gun, are not carrying those guns as they engage in criminal activity on  regular basis? Do you think people that have become mentally unstable suddenly become rational in stuffing illegal weaponry under their mattress? This is fantasy that has no bearing on how things work in the real world. Pure fantasy.

Even better.  Let them carry large, hard-to-hide, illegal clips.  One more chance to arrest them before they start shooting!

You're missing the point.  They have to hide to reduce the chance of being caught before they commit the crime.  Right now, they have no reason to hide such clips, and the police have no reason to keep them from having them.  Even if they intend to use them to kill as many people as possible.  

[JoshCrow]

A study published in 2013 by the Violence Policy Center, using five years of nationwide statistics (2007-2011) compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation found that defensive gun uses occur an average of 67,740 times per year.[

67,740 defensive guns uses per year on average according to the FBI.

Your own source, the Violence Policy Center, doesn't agree with you: 224 justifiable homicides in 2014.

http://www.vpc.org/revealing-the-impacts-of-gun-violence/self-defense-gun-use/

That's, uh, a rather different number from 67,740, don't you think? How many of those were someone saying "I have a gun", which could be done regardless of whether true or not. Even pulling out a fake gun could probably account for another huge chunk of those.

VPC goes on:

The use of guns in self-defense by private citizens is extremely rare. VPC research has found a gun is far more likely to be used in a homicide or suicide than in a justifiable homicide. More guns are stolen each year than are used in self-defense.

Number of suicide attempts per year: 494,169 people visited a hospital for injuries due to self-harm.  With 67,740 defensive guns uses per year, that study says we should have seen something in the range of 750,000 so it's quite off there as well.

How does data for NON-FATAL suicide attempts (regardless of method) even bear on this discussion?

[Wayward Son]

I don't leave ideas off the table because I don't think they could work.  I leave them off the table because the right to self defense is a right and neither the government nor the collective has the right to take it away from anyone without their consent.

Are you implying that no one can defend themselves unless they can have the gun of their choosing? 

Having a gun of their choosing is their right. Whether it's for personal defense, sport, or no reason other than they just want to exercise their rights. Trying to create a world where people can exercise their rights only the way you see fit for them might as well not have any rights at all.

Except they already can't have any gun of their choosing, e.g. a machine gun.  So it is already limited.

People have a right to defend themselves, but they do not have the right to defend themselves with any possible weapon they choose.

And how many of your friends and family are you willing to sacrifice in order to defend the right of some psycho to have any gun he chooses to kill them with?

[LetterRip]

JoshCrow,

Your own source, the Violence Policy Center, doesn't agree with you: 224 justifiable homicides in 2014.

a 'DGU' includes people thinking they may have scared a burglar or mugger off by pulling their gun, not just when a shot is fired or a criminal is killed.

Unfortunately the majority of DGU reports in surveys are false positives (people hear a dog get into the garbage, etc and think it was a burglar; people thinking a random stranger on the sidewalk is a going to mug or rape them; people being in an argument with someone and pulling their gun to win the argument), and not lawfully DGU's.

[Wayward Son]

But they can reduce the insane amount of gun violence in this country.  That, in itself, if a worthy goal.

Sure worked with drugs ... not.

Drugs are different.  Drugs addict people.  Are you suggesting that guns are addictive like drugs?

Also, I am not advocating the complete banning of all guns in our country, unlike the complete banning of certain drugs.  There won't be as much motivation for someone with a bolt-action rifle to find a semi-automatic rifle as a drug addict to find some opioid.  You can still defend yourself with a shotgun, and hunt with a bolt-action rifle, and target practice with both.  Or defend your town from a government take-over, if you have support of your neighbors.

And with limiting the number of rounds in a clip?  Even less motivation...

[TheDeamon]

Oh, and let's not forget that things are going to be A LOT more muddy within a handful of years.  While it hasn't been in the news for awhile, 3D printers of various materials are only improving in capabilities and decreasing in price.

This has been lost in the noise, and I guess I'm going to bring this forward once more.

IIRC, the first "3-d printed handgun" was done a number of years ago, it worked(all of once, IIRC), although I think the firing pin was an outlier in that case, otherwise it was basically plastic. Now we have 3-d printers that can handle most metal, although those are probably going to be awhile before a consumer could obtain one... Not that they're likely to have a vat of molten steel handy anyhow.

[LetterRip]

You usually don't do a 'vat of molten steel' - there is a titanium powder (or stainless steel, etc.) and it is sintered together,

https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=11601

or similar techniques,

Binder jetting, in which powdered metal is sprayed with glue to get it to stick together — and later infused with a second metal to make the bond permanent. The most common binder jet printers are made by ExOne. In general, binder jetting is used to create prototypes or parts that require low strength.
Directed energy deposition, in which metal is sprayed or fed at a part — and melted to that part by electric arcs or lasers upon contact. DED machines vary significantly; see DMG Mori and Sciaky for context. Directed energy deposition is even more niche than binder jetting; its application is mostly limited to repairs and very large aerospace parts.
Powder bed fusion, in which a bed of powdered metal is selectively fused (through sintering or melting) by a laser or electric arc. The most common powder bed fusion machine is probably the EOS M280, but Concept Laser, Arcam, and Renishaw (among others) all have their own offerings. Powder bed fusion has a variety of uses in both production and prototyping. It supports a wide range of materials (the most common being titanium, stainless steel, and cobalt-chrome) and with care can be used to create lightweight, strong, and highly customizable parts — just like mine. But the process is far from easy and is definitely expensive.

http://pencerw.com/feed/2015/3/15/3d-printing-titanium-and-the-bin-of-broken-dreams

[TheDeamon]

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.

IMO from a "strict natural rights" position, you're going to end up on the extreme of if someone can obtain and maintain a Hydrogen (atomic) Bomb, they are within their rights to do so. Given the scale of destruction of what such items are capable of, I also think it is rational for those items to be restricted because there are far too many irrational people around. That and there aren't any rational scenarios I can come up with where use of an H-bomb should or would ever be considered justifiable on an individual level specifically. (At least in terms of personal defense. Now if the Koch brothers want to light off a nuke at a strip mine on the other hand, we're talking an entirely different issue.)

Weapons that aren't WMD's just move into all kinds of shades of grey issues. Natural Rights, which is something I attempt to adhere here, dictates to me at least, that they should be allowed. Rationally speaking, I do think there are a number of (personal) weapons out there which move well outside the scope of anything anybody who is sane should ever want to see on their streets in any circumstance, in the possession of anybody(including law enforcement and the Military). Which is where the line goes hazy for me on where to start drawing it for me, my personal line clearly proscribes general public access to any weaponry that cannot be carried and used by a lone individual, and is negotiable from there on the stuff that can be carried. I know for most people, their line isn't anywhere near that permissive, while I know others who are much more permissive.

[TheDeamon]

You usually don't do a 'vat of molten steel' - there is a titanium powder (or stainless steel, etc.) and it is sintered together

Somehow I doubt that is the route Bezos and company at SpaceX took when they 3-d printed the bells for rocket motors on their Falcon-9 rockets.

[TheDeamon]

Careful with this argument Crunch.  Automated cars may pluck that one out of our hands soon.

I doubt it will ever reach the point where it becomes illegal to drive a car rather than let the computer do it.

However, they probably will make it financially inconvenient for people to generally go about doing so, but that won't have to continue happening for too long. After about a decade or so of that "curb" being in place, most people probably wouldn't be bothered to re-obtain a license to drive even if you completely removed the penalties.