TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 1 of 8 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 195

Thread: Route 91 Harvest Music Festival Shooting - Gun Control Thread

  1. #1
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: CT, USA

    Route 91 Harvest Music Festival Shooting - Gun Control Thread

    I wonder what the results would be, if possible, of a poll of those killed as to whether they prefer thoughts, prayers, and condolences after the fact, versus having had effective, sane, socially-responsible gun control in place?



    George W. Bush’s Ethics Lawyer Has A Good Idea For How We Could Change Gun Laws

    The Sandy Hook senator has a blunt message: 'It's time for Congress to get off its ass and do something'

    That's my senator, btw, I live 4 miles from Sandy Hook. A sane, un-corrupted democracy would have taken care of this after Columbine. Shame on us, America!

  2. #2
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Since gun control has proven so effective in preventing terrorist attacks outside of the US... oh wait, no it hasn't.

  3. #3
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Lack of gun control hasn't been effective in preventing terrorist attacks inside US either. But the amount of gun related deaths is higher in US than in most places outside of war zones.

    I don't see why any country would allow people to have guns just for the heck of it. You have to get a license to drive a car, so that you wouldn't be a danger on the road, why not require a gun license for having something as dangerous as a gun?

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Lack of gun control hasn't been effective in preventing terrorist attacks inside US either. But the amount of gun related deaths is higher in US than in most places outside of war zones.

    I don't see why any country would allow people to have guns just for the heck of it. You have to get a license to drive a car, so that you wouldn't be a danger on the road, why not require a gun license for having something as dangerous as a gun?
    Watch the video. It was an automatic weapon. He either bought it on the black market, at enormous expense, or he legally bought it after jumping through every bureaucratic hoop known to man. In other words, he had a license. To my knowledge, this is the first time an automatic weapon has been used in a mass shooting in this country. They're incredibly hard and expensive to come by.

  5. #5
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Here's a chilling collection of statistics, the Gun Violence Archive.

    This attack was "mass shooting" number 273, on day 275 of 2017. These are shootings with 4 or more casualties.

    How about comprehensive back ground checks, no selling any guns to people with mental illness, one pistol for personal defense, one shotgun or rifle for home defense and NO rapid fire, large capacity, people killing devices for anyone except active military.

    And no letting the NRA pervert the 2nd Amendment.

    And not letting Congress make it easier to get suppressors, like they are doing at this very moment.

    You can never get rid of guns in America but you can make it much more difficult for crazy people to get the kind of guns used for this sort of attack.

  6. #6
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: 1, Rotation: 0
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Since gun control has proven so effective in preventing terrorist attacks outside of the US... oh wait, no it hasn't.
    Seatbelts, airbags, guardrails and myriad other measures haven't eliminated traffic deaths, either. What is it with this silly idea that if no remedy can be 100% effective, it's useless and silly to try anything at all?

    Besides which, most mass shootings in the USA in the last several years, including this one, don't seem to have been motivated by terrorism, anyway. The idea of gun control is to prevent gun casualties overall, not just those that are politically motivated.
    Last edited by hopper; 3rd Oct 2017 at 12:38. Reason: Guardrails, not railguards

  7. #7
    Southquarter.com/fms
    Registered: Apr 2000
    Location: The Akkala Highlands
    It's kind of crazy that I live in a country where there's current legislation attempting to legalize the sale of silencers.

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by hopper View Post
    Besides which, most mass shootings in the USA in the last several years, including this one, don't seem to have been motivated by terrorism, anyway. The idea of gun control is to prevent gun casualties overall, not just those that are politically motivated.
    It's too early to establish the shooter's motive, but this sure looks like terrorism to me even if it isn't Islamic terrorism.

    One thing I'll agree with is that the number of people killed and injured in this attack would have been lower if the attacker had used guns that couldn't be made automatic, or guns with lower capacity magazines. So I'm not unconditionally opposed to gun control.

    The main thing that bugs me is the inevitable "how many more must die before we act to stop this" nonsense arguments that come out after every act of terrorism, as if legislating more gun regulations is going to stop terrorists from killing people. It didn't stop 86 people from being killed by a truck in Nice last year or 13 in Barcelona this year, or 23 killed by a bomb in Machester, or the 168 killed by McVeigh's bomb in the 90s, or the thousands killed by suicide bombs and car bombs every year in the Middle East and Africa. It's like trying to solve the opioid addiction problem by banning the sale of sterile syringes and needles.

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Brethren View Post
    It's kind of crazy that I live in a country where there's current legislation attempting to legalize the sale of silencers.
    Suppressors. And they're already legal in 42 states, just with the same hoops to jump through as listed above with automatic weapons. The use of suppressors in crime isn't common because of how it negatively affects the ease of firing and concealment, it's not by any means "silent", and it affects the ballistics and accuracy of the bullet. You can find criminal cases where suppressors have been used to commit murder but...they're very, very, very rare. Like crime committed with fully automatic weapons. Banning them entirely would affect pretty much no one except hobbyists.

  10. #10
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    He's just a crazy person who lost the plot. Doesn't make him a terrorist.

    And gun control or not. Makes zero impact on terrorism. The logic of "well if everyone had access to guns, then there'd be less mass shootings since they'd shoot the shooter" falls flat when you look at how many mass shootings occur U.S wide each year vs other countries. And also factoring in just how often that actual scenario (the shooter being shot by a random civilian who happened to also have a gun) actually occurs. Which is almost zero. Has happened a couple of times, but almost never.

    If you look at the rate of mass shootings in countries who introduced tight gun control, you'd see the positives that come with it. Which is a MASSIVE drop in gun related violence. Not absolute 100% reduction (since guns can always be obtained via black markets etc), but it's certainly a huge drop.

    Here in Australia we had the Port Arthur massacre that occurred back in 96. Crazy kid got his hands on some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Killed 35, wounded 23. Tight gun controls were introduced as a result of it, and we've not had any mass shootings (on that scale) ever since. So it does work whether you believe in it or not.

  11. #11
    Southquarter.com/fms
    Registered: Apr 2000
    Location: The Akkala Highlands
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Suppressors. And they're already legal in 42 states
    The fact that your call them "Suppressors" tells me everything I need to know about you. You're a gun person.

    And the fact that they're already legal in 42 states just proves my point. Wacko Americans and their obsession with guns.

  12. #12
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    If you look at the rate of mass shootings in countries who introduced tight gun control, you'd see the positives that come with it. Which is a MASSIVE drop in gun related violence. Not absolute 100% reduction (since guns can always be obtained via black markets etc), but it's certainly a huge drop.
    I agree that there is an obvious connection between the availability of guns and gun ownership in the US and the rate of gun-related violence. But that is largely due to suicides (about 2/3) and the sort of routine gun violence that plagues most US urban centers related to drug distribution and gangs. Chicago alone has suffered 485 gun deaths so far in 2017. Terrorism and other mass attacks account for just a very tiny percentage of US gun deaths, and they happen in other countries with much stricter gun control. In Britain for example, they use bombs, vehicles, knives, and acid instead.

    If somebody wants to talk about how to use gun regulation to help reduce the rate of suicides and inner city drug/gang violence, I'm all ears. But don't pretend that terrorism and similar indiscriminate violence is solvable by legislators enacting gun control. It isn't.

  13. #13
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I don't think anyone here suggested solving terrorism with gun control. Also, it is true that a lot of the gun violence is driven by gang violence and yes, a lot of the US gun violence is due to guns being used in a disproportionate amount of suicides, but even then, excluding the suicides, firearm homicide rate is 25 times higher in the US than it is in other high income countries. And that can't be accounted for by gang violence alone.

  14. #14
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    Quote Originally Posted by Draxil View Post
    Watch the video. It was an automatic weapon.
    No, it was a semi-automatic that had been modified.

    The fact that Bump Stocks are legal is nuts.


    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Since gun control has proven so effective in preventing terrorist attacks outside of the US... oh wait, no it hasn't.
    What's this got to do with terrorist attacks?

    This is mass shootings by people who've flipped for some reason .

  15. #15
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    I know there's no point in me posting this image.
    But I'm doing it anyway.
    I like the directness of this cartoon.


    In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate.
    Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.

  16. #16
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by Brethren View Post
    The fact that your call them "Suppressors" tells me everything I need to know about you. You're a gun person.
    Disagree with this. 'Silencers', to many, conjure images of movie silencers where you can barely hear the sound. Suppressors do NOT do this. Draxil may just be wanting to separate the two thought processes.

  17. #17
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by derfy View Post
    Disagree with this. 'Silencers', to many, conjure ...
    To many gun-persons.

    A normal person doesn't concern himself with technical details like this.

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: 1, Rotation: 0
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    It's too early to establish the shooter's motive, but this sure looks like terrorism to me even if it isn't Islamic terrorism.

    One thing I'll agree with is that the number of people killed and injured in this attack would have been lower if the attacker had used guns that couldn't be made automatic, or guns with lower capacity magazines. So I'm not unconditionally opposed to gun control.

    The main thing that bugs me is the inevitable "how many more must die before we act to stop this" nonsense arguments that come out after every act of terrorism, as if legislating more gun regulations is going to stop terrorists from killing people. It didn't stop 86 people from being killed by a truck in Nice last year or 13 in Barcelona this year, or 23 killed by a bomb in Machester, or the 168 killed by McVeigh's bomb in the 90s, or the thousands killed by suicide bombs and car bombs every year in the Middle East and Africa. It's like trying to solve the opioid addiction problem by banning the sale of sterile syringes and needles.
    First off, this thread isn't really about preventing terrorism. Not in the narrow sense, anyway. It's about reducing gun-related deaths and injuries, because that's what gun control is about. But since you've already gone there, "as if legislating more gun regulations is going to stop terrorists from killing people" is a strawman argument, since nobody believes this. And your examples of successful terrorist attacks only disprove a point nobody made.

    The analogy to traffic incidents is instructive. Safety features work. That they don't eliminate incidents, is not a good argument against implementing them. Making some kinds of guns, or gun features, illegal means making them harder to obtain for everybody, including terrorists and gangsters. This matters. Being a gangster, terrorist, or run-of-the-mill fruitcake doesn't macigally open any backdoor channel for you to obtain any kind of illegal weapon you want at no extra risk or cost. It will certainly be an obstacle to their efforts, which will reduce the likelihood of such weapons being used. It won't eliminate it, but reducing it is worthwhile in and of itself.
    Last edited by hopper; 4th Oct 2017 at 07:33.

  19. #19
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    It's not a strawman that I made up. The thread title itself links this event and gun control. The original poster in the thread, in his very first sentence, implies that gun control could have prevented this tragedy. Over the last two days the media has been full of articles and blog posts making the same connection.

    The same thing happened after the Orlando nightclub shooting last year, and the San Bernardino shooting & attempted bombing the year before. Every event like this immediately triggers a flood of people saying we need gun control to prevent this from happening again.
    Last edited by heywood; 4th Oct 2017 at 09:13.

  20. #20
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Vertigo, DragonSand, Xeen
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    To many gun-persons.

    A normal person doesn't concern himself with technical details like this.
    Well, I realise that the bulk of humanity is dimmer than a 2 watt light bulb, but there *are* intelligent folk among us, who are just so darn smart, they can actually search out and absorb details about a subject they may not even have interest in, merely for the sake of more aquired knowledge.

    Assuming, on the other hand... is never an optimal choice.

  21. #21
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Brethren View Post
    The fact that your call them "Suppressors" tells me everything I need to know about you. You're a gun person.

    And the fact that they're already legal in 42 states just proves my point. Wacko Americans and their obsession with guns.
    The fact you call them "silencers" tells me everything I need to know about you. Your information about firearms comes from Hollywood, and is worthless. A good suppressor will quiet a gunshot to the 110-120 decibel range with a small caliber round. That's still loud. Suppressors had nothing to do with the Las Vegas shooting and wouldn't have affected it at all.

    As far as being a "gun" person, I guess I am. I enjoy target shooting, and own several guns. I haven't shot any of them in over five years, and only shot sporadically before that. I would guess I'm pretty typical of American gun owners. I'm certainly typical of the gun owners I know--we have jobs, families, other hobbies, and happen to own a couple firearms that we've used recreationally, relatively rarely, and responsibly. Me owning a gun does not pose a threat to anyone not posing a threat to me. I've never needed one, but it's nice to have.

    Despite the media hysterics would lead you to believe, crime across the board has fallen in the United States in the past 20 years. According to published FBI and DOJ stats the murder rate, violent crime rate, gun crime rate, etc are all significantly lower than they were 20-30 years ago. Take a look at this, which gives a snap shot of concealed carry status in the US over the past few decades. Gun laws have loosened significantly in the past 30 years, accompanied by a drop in violent crime and gun crime. I see no reason to change things and restrict gun ownership more severely.

  22. #22
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: The Land of Make Believe
    It's pointless even talking about gun control, because it's never going to happen. Stop wasting your energy.

    Islamic extremists taunt us with claims that they love death more than we love life. Well, America loves guns more than it loves life. This is why, in America, owning a gun is a right, but being treated for gunshot wounds in hospital is a privilege.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    Since gun control has proven so effective in preventing terrorist attacks outside of the US... oh wait, no it hasn't.
    The purpose of gun control is to lower incidents of spree killing, not to end all crime forever. And it's been highly effective at that in places where assault weapons are banned.

  24. #24
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Location: CT, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    It's not a strawman that I made up. The thread title itself links this event and gun control. The original poster in the thread, in his very first sentence, implies that gun control could have prevented this tragedy. Over the last two days the media has been full of articles and blog posts making the same connection.

    The same thing happened after the Orlando nightclub shooting last year, and the San Bernardino shooting & attempted bombing the year before. Every event like this immediately triggers a flood of people saying we need gun control to prevent this from happening again.
    Actually I was going to post the video in Nicker's thread, thinking after a couple days it might be fitting there, but then saw scumble's post, from which I also gathered gun control has been covered here as a topic. My intention wasn't to re-open that broad subject but just make the point that more needs to be done than pay our respects, which unfortunately often becomes an excuse not to focus further on these other aspects.

    If our elected representatives simply reflected the 90+% of the public favoring expanded background checks, including I believe over 70% of NRA members, just doing that would be a good start. Not likely under our current Congress, but I think we may see a shift within a few years with legislation potentially passing that most gun-owners would also support, including banning some assault weapons, ammo types, mods, closing more loopholes, etc. Absent bought-off politicians, I personally think something substantial could & would be done towards preventing or at least greatly reducing these mass-killings.

  25. #25
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2015
    Location: Germany


    I assume this picture fits perfectly in the current debate. Time to spice things up a bit
    Last edited by Thinking Robot; 5th Oct 2017 at 14:30.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •