queencitybuckeye;1874681 wrote:Way too early to make any of those assumptions, particularly the "law abiding owner" part (I put the probability at 90-98% that he committed multiple felonies weeks prior to checking into the hotel). Let's let the bodies get cold first, Hillary.




You have a hard enough time articulating what you think, I said nothing that would lead one to that conclusion. If you want to go there, do it yourself.



That case never changes. 1. Humans have a natural right to self-defense. 2. A majority decision does not alter fact 1, nor does a tragedy like what happened in Las Vegas.

1. Ok, he was a law abiding gun owner per his brother until -in your view - the last couple weeks. That is what we have reason to believe now. Let's see what the investigation reveals.

(Mind you - crimes/tragedies involving guns seem to be the only time we can't talk public policy in the immediate aftermath. The same people who make these arguments have no problem advocating changes to immigration policy while the bodies are warm when a Muslim kills innocent people).

2. Ok I apologize for assuming that your posts referring to the sparse mass shootings that have happened elsewhere would indicate reluctance to acknowledge the great frequency in the United States.

Please Clarify.

Do you agree that killings of four or more people have occured with greater frequency in the last ten years in United States than in Canada, Germany, Belgium, France, Norway the United Kingdom?

Do you agree that the United States with liberalized firearm laws has the most gun related homicides per 100k people of the Democratic Republics in the G8 countries?

Do you agree that Japan with restrictive firearm laws has the least firearm related homicides of the democratic republics in the G8 countries?

Before you say it I am obviously excluding Mexico because it is an emerging country that makes it not comparable to the U.S. (You know, since we have to build a wall to keep their not so good people out of the country).




3. Yes you have a natural right to self defense just like you have a natural right to free expression. In Civil Republics like Ours we have assented to form a commonwealth which can place burdens on our natural rights in an effort to perfect said commonwealth, establish justice beyomd that which occurs in the anarchy, insure domestic tranquility, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of the greater liberty that come with civil government.

And we, for example, place numerous burdens on the natural right of free expression. My favorite example for comparison are the securities and investment laws and regulations that are enacted IN EVERY STATE, both conservative and liberal states, and federally, without controversy. You can get imprisoned for communicating investment advice. We enacted licensing, examination requirements. etc. long ago and thereby burdened the natural right of free expression in an effort to promote the general welfare.

Since these laws were enacted, no, we have not been able stop all fraud or people from giving unlicensed investment advice but fraud, etc. has been greatly reduced in these fields from the days of people selling scam "stock in the blue sky" and the blessings of free and transparent securities markets have been enjoyed in a robust capitalist system.

And the key is that the stakeholders in these industries accept the regulation of their free expression for the promotion of general welfare and work to improve it over time. That is not the same for stakeholders in the firearms market who will play not part in working to insure that firearms disturb domestic tranquility to a lesser degree or at least are reluctant to do so in good faith.

And finally, if the burdens of securities and investment advice regulation do not unduly burden free expression so as to negate the natural right of free expression then a similar administrative scheme of regulation, examination, licensing, etc. cannot coherently be argued to unduly burden and thereby negate the constitional right to bear arms and concurrently the natural right to self-defense.

And so yes - the formula does not change. We have a natural right to self-defense.

But the burdens some in our republic desire to place on that right will not negate the right to self-defense.

When will citizens who are passionate about their natural rights to defend themselves stop acting like agreeing to accept additional proper burdens (as others citizens have accepted proper burdens on their rights to free expression, etc.) in the name of creating more perfect union wherein people can engage in commerce and have less fear that they might be killed by a gun would nullify their natural right to self defense?

isadore;1874692 wrote:Here are a few of several off that thread that were allowed because they represent "acceptable" political opinions . Names not used to protect the guilty.
“But I don't think new or even the existing gun control laws are going to help. Crazy people are going to do what crazy people do.”
“There's too many guns for any ban or regulation to be effective at this point. The problem is our country decided decades ago we don't want to pay for mental health anymore. Maybe we'll see the light. It won't just help gun violence, but drug epidemic too.”
“It's like everything that ends up in some sort of "mass violence" has to be labeled as "terrorism." And, it has to be labeled that immediately.”
“IMHO this simply a matter of hysterical left-wing whataboutism. Rather than focus on the tragedy at hand. Elements of the left want to play gotcha with those on the right who they perceive as demanding everything involving a Muslim mass shooter be referred to as terrorism vs. the claim that the right appeals to "lone wolves" or "mental health" when the shooter is white. A good example,might have been constant complaints from the right that Obama referred to the fort hood shooting as workplace violence or would say "act of terror" vs. "Radical Islamic Terrorism." Frankly IMHO the whole semantic dispute is pretty much public discourse at its very worst.”
“BS and I hardly agree on political discussions, but he is right here. Both sides are caught up in labels. My personal opinion is the left is far worse at it, but both sides do it.”
“To me, "say the white shooter is a terrorist!" crowd is the left-wing version of the "say the minority shooter committed a hate crime!" crowd. People generally just adding white noise to the narrative, although it does get sort of funny when a person who decries one of those incidents of labeling is in favor of the other.”
All acts of violence denote an element to one degree or another of terrorism. "Terrorism" in the current public discourse involves some sort of political or other ideological motive. Which I think is a fair judgment. The problem is politicians have corrupted an otherwise wise assessment of these acts of violence for their own political gain. Rest assured politicians have been working hard all day how to "handle" the facts as they become available to the public with this current atrocity in a manner favorable to themselves.

Ok. We get it. You're being oppressed. It couldn't possibly be because your history of annoying the crap out of everyone, it's definitely because of your views on guns. Even though salto shares the same view and he's still active on the thread in question.

isadore;1874651 wrote:bullshit, the thread was loaded with political opinion, just one was not allowed, criticism of the negative effect of the 2nd Amendment and a call for real limitation on gun ownership

Dude, your sleeper is showing.

More tldr at least when it comes to the "gun control wouldn't have stopped this guy or violence" type of argument.

As I read commentary on this Vegas shooting elsewhere, I find it interesting that say, when a crime is committed by a migrant - the same people who say there is nothing more we can do about gun violence, that gun control doesn't work, bad guys will always find a way to either get guns or kill with knives, trucks or pressure cookers, etc., - they use the exact opposite logic in advocating for more restrictive immigration policy.

If someone says, "yeah well illegal immigrants break laws now why wouldn't they just break those laws too? Won't they just climb the wall?" The response is like "Obviously if it makes it HARDER to illegally migrate or even turns back,one illegal migrant, or reduces illegal immigration at all then that is worth it!"

It just shows IMHO that we will completely change our logic to defend our different beliefs. If I am strongly against gun control I will find away to argue against gun control and then completely swap my reasoning to argue for more efforts to reduce illegal immigration if I am strongly against illegal immigration.

Whether the particular policies proposed will work rarely is considered in good faith if they conflict with our moral values.

justincredible;1874696 wrote:Ok. We get it. You're being oppressed. It couldn't possibly be because your history of annoying the crap out of everyone, it's definitely because of your views on guns. Even though salto shares the same view and he's still active on the thread in question.

Thank you for a demonstration of blatant hypocrisy. I prefer to"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." I do not usually use much profanity and I don't threaten, I advocate. But strong, persistent advocacy of certain positions is "annoying" and must be throttled. Something to be considered, a lot of the people that have added color and life to this site have been driven off because of the powers that be and their prejudices.

BoatShoes;1874699 wrote:More tldr at least when it comes to the "gun control wouldn't have stopped this guy or violence" type of argument.

As I read commentary on this Vegas shooting elsewhere, I find it interesting that say, when a crime is committed by a migrant - the same people who say there is nothing more we can do about gun violence, that gun control doesn't work, bad guys will always find a way to either get guns or kill with knives, trucks or pressure cookers, etc., - they use the exact opposite logic in advocating for more restrictive immigration policy.

If someone says, "yeah well illegal immigrants break laws now why wouldn't they just break those laws too? Won't they just climb the wall?" The response is like "Obviously if it makes it HARDER to illegally migrate or even turns back,one illegal migrant, or reduces illegal immigration at all then that is worth it!"

It just shows IMHO that we will completely change our logic to defend our different beliefs. If I am strongly against gun control I will find away to argue against gun control and then completely swap my reasoning to argue for more efforts to reduce illegal immigration if I am strongly against illegal immigration.

Whether the particular policies proposed will work rarely is considered in good faith if they conflict with our moral values.

Yes, there are hypocrites on both sides. It's no different than the people who cry about cops, yet they want to ban all weapons to the point where cops are the only ones who can have them. Congrats for providing that ground breaking revelation.

And since you brought up immigration to poke flaws into logic... There are people that actually think it is impossible to round up and deport 10M-15M illegal immigrants, but somehow think it is possible to confiscate over 300M guns in the US. Just so we don't go down the immigration rabbit hole, I don't think either can be achieved.

I will say it again, decriminalize drugs and we will see a drastic drop in gun crime.

O-Trap;1874644 wrote:Do you think the legal acquisition of guns was gave him the impulse to do this?

Moreover, I'd wager that you and I would agree that if a person has committed to killing as many people as fucking possible before eating a gun himself, he's going to give -7 fucks about how to acquire said firearms.

"Aw, shucks. I was gonna mow through 500 people today, but the gun laws are keeping me from getting the guns I need to do it from the local gun shop. Guess I'll just watch Law & Order tonight."

We obviously know that isn't happening. And in the event that we're thinking it would make it notably harder, I'd offer two points of thought:

First, if someone has gotten to the point where they're emotionally and mentally ready to carry this out, I don't think they're going to be discouraged because getting legal guns is "just too much work."

Second, If I handed you $20K and told you you had one week to stockpile a small arsenal with that money or you owed me $100,000 ... you could do it, and it wouldn't turn out to be that hard.

I agree with you that it's odd the frequency with which we see this sort of violence in the US, but it seems like the intention to do so is more frequent, which obviously begins before someone ever fires a shot and would certainly provoke someone to get guns in the first place.



What about an M4?



Exactly. It isn't as though someone who has decided to end their life is going to care about the penalty for acquiring a firearm from some dude down the street.

I won't address all your points in this post,but here's a few:

1. A motivated offender is a necessary condition for every crime but it is not a sufficient condition. Likewise access to a firearm is a necessary condition for a gun crime but isn't a sufficient condition.

Thus the critical element in this case is the opportunity for crime which is the limiting factor.

Working to reduce opportunities for mass shooting with methods that do not unduly burden gun rights is desirable. Indeed, encouraging motivated offenders to turn to less efficient and horrifying methods of killing by reducing opportunities for gun crime through proper regulation of firearms is desireable.

So for example, if more motivated offenders turn away from guns to cars or knives policy makers can then devise further policies e.g. environmental design (think the barricades they put by federal buildings after Oklahoma City) to reduce additional opportunities for crime via other means.

And as to the suicide point - again - research indicates that means and opportunity reduction can prevent motivated individuals from committing suicide thereby allowing additional time for intervention and prevention.

Bridge barriers, changes in medication packages, restriction of pesticides - basically reducing opportunities for motivated individuals to commit suicidehave all been shown to reduce suicide.

Suicide is an impulsive act and limiting opportunities to,act on that impulse will be a good thing IMHO.

In one particular example, in England in,the 70's people often committed suicide through asphyxiation from breathing fumes from ovens that burned coal gas. When England converted the old goal gas stoves to natural gas stoves with less carbon monoxide, suicide rates dropped by 30%.

In the U.S. states with the highest suicide by gun rate closely track states with higher rates of gun ownership.

IOW, if the Federal Reserve started printing money to buy back,massive amounts of guns - opportunities for,suicidewould be reduced and motivated individuals would change their mind and suicide would drop - in my humble opinion.

Has anyone heard if he used automatic weapons or if his weapons were legally purchased?

FatHobbit;1874707 wrote:Has anyone heard if he used automatic weapons or if his weapons were legally purchased?

gosh I guess you did not watch and listen to the video. You could hear the automatic weapon fire. They claim his guns were modified to auto.

isadore;1874708 wrote:gosh I guess you did not watch and listen to the video. You could hear the automatic weapon fire. They claim his guns were modified to auto.

*a ruddies

fish82;1874709 wrote:*a ruddies

I considered "a ruddies!" inappropriate because of the occasion.

BoatShoes;1874695 wrote:1. Ok, he was a law abiding gun owner per his brother until -in your view - the last couple weeks. That is what we have reason to believe now. Let's see what the investigation reveals.

The important part is that it's highly likely the he committed one or more felonies far in advance of the massacre. Your response to this lawlessness? WE NEEDZ MORE LAWZ! It reminds me of the never-ending cycle where we pump more money into a failing school system, get no results, and the response is that they need more money. If you really believe there are laws to be written to prevent such carnage, post the text to the BoatShoes legislation.

(Mind you - crimes/tragedies involving guns seem to be the only time we can't talk public policy in the immediate aftermath. The same people who make these arguments have no problem advocating changes to immigration policy while the bodies are warm when a Muslim kills innocent people).

This person is not one of those "same people". "Public servants" not letting a tragedy go to waste is vile no matter the letter that appear after their name.

2. Ok I apologize for assuming that your posts referring to the sparse mass shootings that have happened elsewhere would indicate reluctance to acknowledge the great frequency in the United States.

Thank you. I would hope you agree that in large measure, I tend to deal in actual facts no matter where they may lead, even though our analysis of those facts lead to different conclusions.

Please Clarify.

Do you agree that killings of four or more people have occured with greater frequency in the last ten years in United States than in Canada, Germany, Belgium, France, Norway the United Kingdom?

Two points, one is that my definition of "mass shootings" is a bit different than the FBI. If four is the number they use, fine, but to me the term includes a random element. If some sick fuck goes off and kills his family, it's certainly a different policy discussion IMO than one dealing with this sick fuck and similar. Two. Frequency, yes. Body count when population of the various countries is taken into account, no. The examples were chosen for that very reason.

Do you agree that the United States with liberalized firearm laws has the most gun related homicides per 100k people of the Democratic Republics in the G8 countries?

Not according to the numbers I've seen.

Do you agree that Japan with restrictive firearm laws has the least firearm related homicides of the democratic republics in the G8 countries?

Don't know, I'll take your word for it.

Before you say it I am obviously excluding Mexico because it is an emerging country that makes it not comparable to the U.S. (You know, since we have to build a wall to keep their not so good people out of the country).

Snark ignored as it has nothing to do with me.

3. Yes you have a natural right to self defense just like you have a natural right to free expression.

and a handful of others, yes.

In Civil Republics like Ours we have assented to form a commonwealth which can place burdens on our natural rights in an effort to perfect said commonwealth, establish justice beyomd that which occurs in the anarchy, insure domestic tranquility, promote general welfare and secure the blessings of the greater liberty that come with civil government.

I have no idea who spoke for me when "we" assented to any such nonsense. Wasn't me. That I can be forced to curb my rights through violence or the threat of violence is not agreement on my part. That we take a gang of thugs and attach a particular name to it, say "government", may give physical authority but no moral authority.

And we, for example, place numerous burdens on the natural right of free expression. My favorite example for comparison are the securities and investment laws and regulations that are enacted IN EVERY STATE, both conservative and liberal states, and federally, without controversy. You can get imprisoned for communicating investment advice. We enacted licensing, examination requirements. etc. long ago and thereby burdened the natural right of free expression in an effort to promote the general welfare.

Agree that rights can be burdened, but since all government power is based on coercion, should always be done with the lightest touch possible.

And the key is that the stakeholders in these industries accept the regulation of their free expression for the promotion of general welfare and work to improve it over time. That is not the same for stakeholders in the firearms market who will play not part in working to insure that firearms disturb domestic tranquility to a lesser degree or at least are reluctant to do so in good faith.

The actual key is that the stakeholders, who overwhelmingly are the subject matter experts, know, don't think, but know the "solutions" offered every time such an event occurs are plain garbage. The politicians can fool the scared dullards with the nonsense they spew, they can't fool those of us who know this stuff.

And finally, if the burdens of securities and investment advice regulation do not unduly burden free expression so as to negate the natural right of free expression then a similar administrative scheme of regulation, examination, licensing, etc. cannot coherently be argued to unduly burden and thereby negate the constitional right to bear arms and concurrently the natural right to self-defense.

Of course it can, and should be. I'd love to see something new, because "gun control speech #6" is 100% bullshit.

And so yes - the formula does not change. We have a natural right to self-defense.

But the burdens some in our republic desire to place on that right will not negate the right to self-defense.

The devil is in the details. The details spewed by the same parties one would expect to gleefully dance on the graves of the recently dead (Hills, Fauxcahontas, etc.) reminds one of Linda Blair in the 70s.

When will citizens who are passionate about their natural rights to defend themselves stop acting like agreeing to accept additional proper burdens (as others citizens have accepted proper burdens on their rights to free expression, etc.) in the name of creating more perfect union wherein people can engage in commerce and have less fear that they might be killed by a gun would nullify their natural right to self defense?

When the other side is serious and not simply doing the "two minutes hate" routine to appeal to their statist idiot base, and actually produce an idea that would help with these situations while minimizing the impact on those of us whose gun ownership is not a threat to anyone.

FatHobbit;1874707 wrote:Has anyone heard if he used automatic weapons or if his weapons were legally purchased?

I read somewhere today that they were modified to fully automatic.

I'm looking forward to LE getting this guy's girlfriend back in the states and under the lights for a chat.

OSH;1874712 wrote:I read somewhere today that they were modified to fully automatic.

I read that he had bump stops, which is a stock that makes it more like fully auto. It isn't easy to modify a semi-auto to a full auto so I'd be surprised if it was. Have heard nothing of him having actual fully automatic weapons. Still a very strange case with lack of motive, 2 hotel rooms, hour timeline, etc.

iclfan2;1874723 wrote:I read that he had bump stops, which is a stock that makes it more like fully auto. It isn't easy to modify a semi-auto to a full auto so I'd be surprised if it was. Have heard nothing of him having actual fully automatic weapons. Still a very strange case with lack of motive, 2 hotel rooms, hour timeline, etc.

Has either of these been confirmed? All I've seen is speculation from so-called "experts" being accepted as fact.

iclfan2;1874723 wrote:I read that he had bump stops, which is a stock that makes it more like fully auto. It isn't easy to modify a semi-auto to a full auto so I'd be surprised if it was. Have heard nothing of him having actual fully automatic weapons. Still a very strange case with lack of motive, 2 hotel rooms, hour timeline, etc.

Bump STOCKS, bump stop is a car part.

I am a person who is a staunch advocate for the 2nd Amendment and even I am leery of bump stocks and their ability to turn semi-auto into nearly full auto. I am of the belief that bump stocks should only be legal for those that go through the same extremely rigorous background checks and hoops to jump through that it takes to buy a fully auto rifle in the first place.

I will say this, bump stocks turns a rifle into just a sprayer, you have near zero accuracy with a bump stock helping you repeatedly "bumping" the trigger.

queencitybuckeye;1874726 wrote:Has either of these been confirmed? All I've seen is speculation from so-called "experts" being accepted as fact.

Nothing has been confirmed as of yet AFAIK. I've "heard" both bump stock and gatling crank mentioned as potential modifications.

Both of these would be way better political targets for the mob than Hillary's dumb silencer statement.

jmog;1874727 wrote:Bump STOCKS, bump stop is a car part.

I am a person who is a staunch advocate for the 2nd Amendment and even I am leery of bump stocks and their ability to turn semi-auto into nearly full auto. I am of the belief that bump stocks should only be legal for those that go through the same extremely rigorous background checks and hoops to jump through that it takes to buy a fully auto rifle in the first place.

I will say this, bump stocks turns a rifle into just a sprayer, you have near zero accuracy with a bump stock helping you repeatedly "bumping" the trigger.

All of this. Full-auto has no practical civilian application save "redneck roundups" and indiscriminate destruction.

Seems like all the democrat politicians are nothing more than glamorized ambulance-chasers nowdays. It's too bad. But I guess indignation is the one thing that they have nailed down to a science.

fish82;1874728 wrote:Nothing has been confirmed as of yet AFAIK. I've "heard" both bump stock and gatling crank mentioned as potential modifications.

Both of these would be way better political targets for the mob than Hillary's dumb silencer statement.

Agreed, saw some dumbass congressman (please excuse the redundancy) hitting the "silencer" talking point and nothing was going to un-stick him from it even though it would take an AR or AK down from "really fucking loud" to "really loud".

CenterBHSFan;1874731 wrote:Seems like all the democrat politicians are nothing more than glamorized ambulance-chasers nowdays. It's too bad. But I guess indignation is the one thing that they have nailed down to a science.

How horrible of them to want to try to find away to prevent another slaughter of Americans. Don't worry the NRA and its acolytes will thwart them.

queencitybuckeye;1874732 wrote:Agreed, saw some dumbass congressman (please excuse the redundancy) hitting the "silencer" talking point and nothing was going to un-stick him from it even though it would take an AR or AK down from "really fucking loud" to "really loud".

Not to mention in full auto, it would melt the suppressor in about 15 seconds.