# Deadliest mass shooting in US history



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

A gunman in Las Vegas who brought over 10 rifles to his hotel room, carried out what is now believed to be the largest mass shooting in modern US history. At least 58 people are dead

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...strip-is-closed-after-music-festival-shooting
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/las-vegas-shooting-1.4316121

Authorities believe that the shooter is 64 year old Stephen Craig Paddock and little seems to be known about him. He worked for a defense contractor for a few years.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/stephen-paddock-vegas-shooter.html?mcubz=0


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

This will have no effect on gun control. If 20 - 4 year olds can get massacred and nothing killing a bunch of country bumpkins sure as hell ain't going to do it. Maybe I'm wrong though. Conservatives have shown that their empathy rarely extends beyond their in-group. Maybe this will finally knock some sense into them.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

All for gun control measures. But the guy had 10 rifles I assume single shot, so this appears it wasnt even automatic weapons. Just had a lot of time and targets to choose from. Had this been one of those automatic bushmasters the death toll would have been thousands.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

tygrus said:


> All for gun control measures. But the guy had 10 rifles I assume single shot, so this appears it wasnt even automatic weapons. Just had a lot of time and targets to choose from. Had this been one of those automatic bushmasters the death toll would have been thousands.


Nope, it was clearly an automatic weapon(s) being fired. They have no real purpose except to kill en masse. I'm not optimistic the U.S. will ever tighten regulations for owning them though.

Added. I read that the shooter told neighbours he was a prefessional gambler. Article also said his father was once o the FBI's most wanted (bank robber who escaped prison). I can't find the darn article now (in a Florida paper). Will be interesting to see if this is a case of a ruined gambler who wanted to go out famous like his father


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Gosh, that will be interesting to find out. Or perhaps a problem gambler who ruined his life. My other guess was divorce.

A 23 year old Canadian was killed in the shooting. A couple other Canadians were shot, but survived.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Americans and their guns. It's always going to be like this. It's at the very base of their core identity.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It really is part of their core identity.

Someone at my US office recently challenged the company's regulation that employees cannot bring firearms to work. It's now under consideration and it's possible that our office will start allowing people to bring guns to work.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

In a taxi last year, boarding a cruise in Miami, had to stop at security gate & they asked if we were carrying any guns (onboard presumably) we thought it was kind of creepy....taxi driver just laughed.
I dont know if you had to turn in your "guns" - or just declare them? sheeshh!!!


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Just heard that a coworker of mine was there with his partner (they go to this event every year, apparently)--they're both okay.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Just heard that a coworker of mine was there with his partner (they go to this event every year, apparently)--they're both okay.


Glad to hear they're fine


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This is crazy, the man (with his multiple weapons) was on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel and was firing out the window, just firing into the crowd below. Maybe we should be thankful that there weren't more deaths
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...-mandalay-bay-room-amplified-massacre-n806491


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> This will have no effect on gun control. If 20 - 4 year olds can get massacred and nothing killing a bunch of country bumpkins sure as hell ain't going to do it.


If the carnage of children won't do it, it's tough to imagine what would, or could, move the States to take action.

The only scenario that comes to mind is if a tragedy hits 'closer to home' - i.e., a large number of politicians or family members were gunned down; perhaps only then there'd be a stronger political will and push on the issue.

Vox, MarketWatch, and CBS have some more data on the issue and how US stats compare globally.
To paraphrase (the perhaps obvious conclusion) from Vox: the evidence shows more guns = more gun deaths.
- https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/oregon-mass-shooting-is-294th-this-year-and-more-data-on-gun-violence-2015-10-03
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/ (FYI the data in the accompanying table is from 2010)


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Perhaps it's correlation and not causation, though? My view is that America is a fundamentally violent nation with a deep rooted culture of violence and aggression. The people's desire to own guns may just be a manifestation of that. Perhaps if you take away Americans' guns, they will just start knifing, axe-ing, and bombing each other instead.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

james4beach said:


> Perhaps it's correlation and not causation, though? My view is that America is a fundamentally violent nation with a deep rooted culture of violence and aggression. The people's desire to own guns may just be a manifestation of that. Perhaps if you take away Americans' guns, they will just start knifing, axe-ing, and bombing each other instead.


My understanding of the global data suggests its causation.
More guns = more gun deaths.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

BoringInvestor said:


> My understanding of the global data suggests its causation.
> More guns = more gun deaths.


Yes it really is that simple (well the dominant causal mechanism) although I'm sure there are other factors.

To quote myself about in-group empathy. look! 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/jason-aldean-vegas-shooting.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
“I’ve been a proponent of the Second Amendment my entire life,” he wrote. “Until the events of last night.”


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Is there a Baltic Dry Index equivalent for thoughts and prayers? With this shooting and a bunch of hurricanes, it must be off the charts. Sending T&P is about all that will ever happen in the US. And they wonder why the same thing happens over and over...


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Well, it didn't take long for another unstable, hate filled, leftist to be fired for her disgusting comments: “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters":

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...athy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Causation??? Did anyone suggest that he hated Country Music? Just asking.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

steve41 said:


> Causation??? Did anyone suggest that he hated Country Music? Just asking.


No one knows if he hated country music. Maybe he just picked a country concert because a lot of Republicans like country music? Or, maybe that was the closest target with a mass of people. No one knows.


----------



## Koogie (Dec 15, 2014)

none said:


> This will have no effect on gun control. If 20 - 4 year olds can get massacred and nothing killing a bunch of country bumpkins sure as hell ain't going to do it. Maybe I'm wrong though. Conservatives have shown that their empathy rarely extends beyond their in-group. Maybe this will finally knock some sense into them.


What a wonderful display of empathy. You should be truly proud of yourself. Why don't you add that the victims are to blame as well.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> Well, it didn't take long for another unstable, hate filled, leftist to be fired for her disgusting comments: “I’m actually not even sympathetic bc [sic] country music fans often are Republican gun toters":
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...athy-for-vegas-vics-probably-republicans.html


Yup - you can't write stuff like that. Of course, put that relative the the 'false flag' sandy hook bullshit a LOT of people on the right embrace.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

The left again jumps to conclusions that conservatives don't want gun control because they dont mind 4 yr olds being gunned down. Thats not it at all. Its the thought of a slippery slope that the govt can eventually do anything they want regardless of rights, make up any excuse to justify it. There are a lot of other amendments to trample on. Free speech is already being targeted. And you just cant vote them out easy if they go toofar. 

We have a guy running the country here that way too and already positioning himself for a 2nd term and using taxpayer money to do it.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Actually it's neither - Most of the right actually supports effective gun control measures - like mandatory background checks, smaller magazines and actual research to be used to reduce gun violence.

Unfortunately, it's the people the right elects that are vehemently opposed to reasonable measures to curb gun violence b/c so many of them accept tremendous amounts of money from the NRA and gun manufacturers.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

tygrus said:


> The left again jumps to conclusions that conservatives don't want gun control because they dont mind 4 yr olds being gunned down.


I don't agree with your summation.

The argument is: if the massacre of children didn't lead to changes, it seems unlikely subsequent massacres will ignite the political will to change.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Perhaps it's correlation and not causation, though? My view is that America is a fundamentally violent nation with a deep rooted culture of violence and aggression. The people's desire to own guns may just be a manifestation of that. Perhaps if you take away Americans' guns, they will just start knifing, axe-ing, and bombing each other instead.


come on james, the usa is no more inherently violent than any other country

the norway shooter kiled 70, 10’s of millions died in china and russia in the 20th century, the protestant and catholics slaughtered each other for decades in europe, i could go on at length

the usa is a vast young country that was founded in revolution and settled frontier by frontier and guns were necessary for all kinds of reasons

the second amendment is unique in the world but only a minority of americans own guns ... 2/3 of all americans don’t even own a single firearm ... 

guys like the shooter own something like an average of 8 guns each i think


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

fatcat said:


> ... only a minority of americans own guns ... 2/3 of all americans don’t even own a single firearm ... guys like the shooter own something like an average of 8 guns each i think


According to this https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-owners-violence/90858752/, the number is actually a bit lower - only 22% of the US population own a gun. That's still 55 million though. And as you note, a large number of guns are owned by a few - 3% of americans own half the estimated 265 million guns, owning between 8 and 140 guns.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

My wife and I drove through Vegas earlier today but we decided not to stop. Signs on the highway said that parts of the strip were closed. We want nothing to do with such a scene.

The killer was a white male so this won't be use to crack down on immigrants, Muslims or inner city blacks.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The killer was a white man, so this won't be used as an excuse to crack down on Muslims, Hispanic Immigrants or Blacks.


No, the left will use it as an excuse to blame guns, like they are already doing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I read that the shooter told neighbours he was a prefessional gambler. Article also said his father was once o the FBI's most wanted (bank robber who escaped prison). I can't find the darn article now (in a Florida paper)



dinna fret, the father history is widespread by now





> Will be interesting to see if this is a case of a ruined gambler who wanted to go out famous like his father



definitely the best guess so far


i imagine will know more when they find the gf


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> No, the left will use it as an excuse to blame guns, like they are already doing.


Of course they would and should - it's mind boggling you would think otherwise.

Also, responsible and thoughtful people of 'the right' are also calling for these things. No one (I think wrongly) is calling for an outright ban - just reasonable and effective gun control measures.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Of course they would and should - it's mind boggling you would think otherwise.
> 
> Also, responsible and thoughtful people of 'the right' are also calling for these things. No one (I think wrongly) is calling for an outright ban - just reasonable and effective gun control measures.


The left only hates guns...it doesn't hate communism even though communism is responsible for the death of tens of millions or a hundred million people.

Therefore, it's not mass death that the left are against...they only care about gun deaths.

I fully support reasonable and effective control against communism.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

You're like lonewolf without the charm


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

The US gun culture is so embedded that they will not change, at least not for perhaps another 300 years or so. I'm not against hunting rifles with proper training as is permitted in Canada but does anyone really need to possess an automatic weapon? Are you going to kill a deer with a machine gun? It was an interesting contrast between the terrorist attack in Edmonton and the mass-murder in Vegas. Could you imagine what might have happened if the terrorist had easy access to automatic weapons as he would have had in Nevada?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

BoringInvestor said:


> My understanding of the global data suggests its causation.
> More guns = more gun deaths.


 St. John's Nfld has over 90% of households have a firearm. What would your causal theory say the death by gunfire would be? Then check the actual homicide rate by gunfire in that location.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Pluto said:


> St. John's Nfld has over 90% of households have a firearm. What would your causal theory say the death by gunfire would be? Then check the actual homicide rate by gunfire in that location.


There you go bringing up inconvenient facts...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

bass player said:


> The left only hates guns...it doesn't hate communism even though communism is responsible for the death of tens of millions or a hundred million people.
> 
> Therefore, it's not mass death that the left are against...they only care about gun deaths.
> 
> I fully support reasonable and effective control against communism.




just out of curiosity, bass, how did you happen to survive the mcCarthy era?

i mean, it's been 70 years almost to the day since the House Un-American Activities Committee commenced investigations in california, looking for communist supporters in hollywood & other bolshevik breeding grounds

bass i see you arrived here in january 2016, might one ask what you were doing all those interim decades?


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Pluto said:


> St. John's Nfld has over 90% of households have a firearm. What would your causal theory say the death by gunfire would be? Then check the actual homicide rate by gunfire in that location.


It is not only gun ownership as you point out. However, IMO, it is related to the type of guns available, the ease of getting a weapon, the rules surrounding gun ownership (eg. such as open carry and strict requirements to lock up weapons) and the training required for firearms owners. For example, while it is not that difficult to obtain a hunting rifle in Canada, it is very difficult to obtain an hand gun or automatic weapons.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

none said:


> ... Also, responsible and thoughtful people of 'the right' are also calling for these things. No one (I think wrongly) is calling for an outright ban - just reasonable and effective gun control measures.


Exactly, I'm definitely not a 'leftie', I own 4 guns, but I don't personally see the need for *automatic* weapons in the public domain.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Exactly, I'm definitely not a 'leftie', I own 4 guns, but I don't personally see the need for *automatic* weapons in the public domain.


i don’t think that fully automatic weapons can be legally sold but it is not difficult to retrofit semi-auto’s to be fully automatic, like the infamous ar-15


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Pluto said:


> St. John's Nfld has over 90% of households have a firearm. What would your causal theory say the death by gunfire would be? Then check the actual homicide rate by gunfire in that location.



spidey's post upthread suggests that the vast majority of guns in newfoundland are hunting shotguns (spidey says rifles, so i'd guess a mixture.)

this has nothing to do with imagining or postulating a community where 90% of households possess assault weapons


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Spidey said:


> It is not only gun ownership as you point out. However, IMO, it is related to the type of guns available, the ease of getting a weapon, the rules surrounding gun ownership (eg. such as open carry and strict requirements to lock up weapons) and the training required for firearms owners. For example, while it is not that difficult to obtain a hunting rifle in Canada, it is very difficult to obtain an hand gun or automatic weapons.


According to reports today, its not easy to get an automatic firearm in the US. They do control automatic weapons.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Pluto said:


> According to reports today, its not easy to get an automatic firearm in the US. They do control automatic weapons.


This is true, but guns like the M10 can be converted. It may also have been a semi that he was just continuously pulling on. Clip sizes are another issue. Unfortunately, he didn't need to aim particularly accurately given the crowd he had penned in.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Pluto said:


> According to reports today, its not easy to get an automatic firearm in the US. They do control automatic weapons.


It’s quite easy to buy a semi automatic rifle like an AR-15.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ar-15-orlando_us_576059f3e4b0e4fe5143fd4d


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Pluto said:


> According to reports today, its not easy to get an automatic firearm in the US. They do control automatic weapons.



even the earliest news reports from las vegas yesterday noted the automatic weapon sound of the fire & the reports were saying how cheap & easy it is in the US to get a gun converted to auto even though such conversion is illegal

i'd read that often before. Converting guns illegally into automatic firing weapons is common in the US. In other words, an unknown artillery of illegal automatics is already out there.

.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Wired explains how easy it is to turn a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. 
https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-automatic-rifle/


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Semi auto is just as deadly in trained hands (pros wouldn't use full auto on a rifle unless overrun)

An assault rifle isn't nearly as deadly without the high volume magazines. Canada has extremely strict restrictions on those. I know because I handle them

A machine gun would be far deadlier than an automatic assault rifle. Machine guns are belt fed and can spray until the barrel melts


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

the new york times video makes it clear that it was not a semi-automatic being pulled rapidly ... no one could pull that quickly or that steadily i think, it was an automatic weapon and as others have said, they are easily converted from semi-auto’s

maybe, possibly, hopefully ... they can crack down on the tools and techniques that make this easy to do


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

What's scary is if there will be copycats or people getting ideas from this. Some crazy people want to die and be on the news and this certainly ups the ante, very scary. I remember Columbine being a starting point for an increase in this sort of thing.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It was definitely on auto by the sound in the videos (some people thought it was a helicopter)

I'm saying semi auto aimed shots can be just as deadly (actually far more deadly in trained hands) than a rifle on auto. So banning auto isn't necessarily the end all solution

Restrictions on the magazines like Canada has would help, then again you can probably 3-D print them..


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Ahh, I thought a fully automatic rifle (or a semi with one of those rotating trigger things) was pretty much the same as a machine gun. I stand corrected. 

Seems like the experts believe the shooter was using multiple ARs or AKs or similiar mounted on tripods. 

On another note -we’ve managed to keep the conversation civilized enough that our moderator hasn’t needed to move it to hot button. Good progress on CMF.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It looks like 2 Canadians were killed in this attack.

Here in San Diego, all the flags are at half mast.



olivaw said:


> On another note -we’ve managed to keep the conversation civilized enough that our moderator hasn’t needed to move it to hot button. Good progress on CMF.


Yes this is really good. Thanks to everyone for keeping the discussion civilized and avoiding personal attacks against each other.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And when police searched the suspect's hotel room and home, they found *42 firearms*, explosives, and thousands of rounds of ammo
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...n-mandalay-bay-casino-shooting-latest-updates


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

m3s said:


> It was definitely on auto by the sound in the videos (some people thought it was a helicopter)


m3s in case you haven't seen this video, here's one with audio of the shooting which appears to show it is in fact "fully automatic", i.e. pull the trigger once and it keeps firing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-otJ1LJGzcc

This Wired article says that it's extremely difficult to get a fully automatic weapon in the US. However, converting a semi-automatic into a fully automatic is easy. Some of the methods cause the semi-automatics to overheat, but this could be why he had 20 weapons in his hotel room. Perhaps he had modified semi-automatics, and switched from one to the next as they overheated:

https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shooting-automatic-rifle/

m3s -- does all this sound right, or plausible?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

AP reports that the shooter used a “bump stock” device; a legal device that can make a semi-automatic rifle fire a rapid succession of bullets (up to 100 per minute) 

https://apnews.com/e74a33083fb84b1b...ow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=APWestRegion


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> come on james, the usa is no more inherently violent than any other country


No, I think the US is clearly the most violent nation among developed countries. There isn't any other developed country that comes close to this. Russia might be the closest if you count them as developed, but they also haven't killed nearly as many people in warfare.

All of the following are illustrations of the American psyche and their values, whether in government (wars & death penalty) or in population (crime & murders)

* The US has a much higher homicide rate than other developed countries

* On the military front they are involved in never-ending wars ... killing hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria. And yes I absolutely count warfare as violence. Basically they have waged a tremendous number of wars since WWII. Their economy thrives on it.

* The US is one of just 9 countries in the world which regularly execute citizens. All the other countries are considered backwards nations: Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Bangladesh, China, North Korea. This is a barbaric practice, as evidenced by the list of countries who do it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Adding to my above points of violence in the American psyche, let's not forget how violence is glorified in American entertainment. American movies and TV are extremely violent, and this is exported worldwide. I remember when I was a kid, we'd hop around Europe (because of work my dad did) and I'd turn on the TV. Occasionally there would be something horrendous and bloody, and it was always an American movie or TV show -- every time. It was never domestic content from these countries. Always American violence.

Surely you have noticed this in Canada as well. The most violent content we find in entertainment originates from the US. They also glorify war and guns in their movies. Not to mention their video games, which are outright battlefield simulations to train the next generation of soldiers and office shooters.

Fast forward to the "norm" in American movies today. I was on an airplane and turned on one of the available movies, Kingsman. This thing was _disgusting_, I turned it off after one of several bloody massacres. I think the scene was a massacre in a church where the "good guy" was going around slitting throats and decapitating people.

Absolute sickness, to portray anything like this as entertainment. And yet it's normal in America.

These are not accidental connections. The never ending wars, huge public support for preemptive strikes and invasions, glorification of military and warfare, extreme violence in entertainment, rampant gun ownership. It's a national sickness, and yes, America is more violent than other first world countries.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

james - much of what you write above is simply wrong. There is tremendous support in the US for reasonable gun control but the senate, where small rural states get as much say as large populous states, paralyses any movement on the issue. 

Canadian's gobble up the US gun entertainment as much as anyone.

This is not normal and there are tremendous numbers of people in the US who agree that it's not normal.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

I think the media should take the glory out of these shootings . Name should be hard to find like buried in the middle of the story and reference to the low life weasel he is.

What should be the story is the people effected.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Pluto said:


> St. John's Nfld has over 90% of households have a firearm. What would your causal theory say the death by gunfire would be? Then check the actual homicide rate by gunfire in that location.


Hi Pluto, here's a direct link to the paper I was referencing: https://web.archive.org/web/20170206100059/http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/ showing the link between gun ownership and gun deaths.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Adding to my above points of violence in the American psyche, let's not forget how violence is glorified in American entertainment. American movies and TV are extremely violent, and this is exported worldwide.


Hollywood and the TV industry are almost entirely Democrat, so you'd think that their strong anti-gun beliefs would be reflected in their work. Obviously, that's not the case...several actors who are anti-gun in off screen routinely star in movies glorifying gun violence. I guess that the money is more important than their values.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

bass player said:


> Hollywood and the TV industry are almost entirely Democrat, so you'd think that their strong anti-gun beliefs would be reflected in their work. Obviously, that's not the case...several actors who are anti-gun in off screen routinely star in movies glorifying gun violence. I guess that the money is more important than their values.


Just look at the last John Wick movie. Popcorn fun if your head is on right, but wow, over the top violent. Hundreds of headshots, stabbings, automatic weapons etc. 

I am all for banning all types of automatic weapons and concealed carry. Only two types of guns should be allowed, single shot rifles for hunters/rural protection and hand sized weapons for home.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

BoringInvestor said:


> Hi Pluto, here's a direct link to the paper I was referencing: https://web.archive.org/web/20170206100059/http://tewksburylab.org/blog/2012/12/gun-violence-and-gun-ownership-lets-look-at-the-data/ showing the link between gun ownership and gun deaths.


yes. It says that countries that have a high human develpment index score tend to have fewer deaths by gun which is a component of my view. 
That's not the same thing as saying gun ownership causes gun deaths. It isn't the gun that causes the deaths, its the way the person who posesses the gun thinks. 
I'm in favour of increasing human development, which I believe, will reduce homicide by any means. that's what the research you point to suggests. 

If one's goal is to create a product for the black market, by all means, ban guns, as guns will then be sold to criminals under the table. It doesn't solve the underlying issue. The black market undermines the premise that making them illegal means people won't have them. Usually a ban means the people you don't have to worry about give up their guns, while the anti social elements not only have them, but make money from selling them. 

The underlying issue is the method people think will solve their problems. If they don't think that gun violence will solve their problems, then it won't matter if they have a gun. I think that is what your research suggests: higher human develpment contributes to fewer homicides.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

as gun sales soared, gun crime went down says 20 year DOJ study. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...n-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#5a944d123f7c


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Adding to my above points of violence in the American psyche, let's not forget how violence is glorified in American entertainment. American movies and TV are extremely violent, and this is exported worldwide. I remember when I was a kid, we'd hop around Europe (because of work my dad did) and I'd turn on the TV. Occasionally there would be something horrendous and bloody, and it was always an American movie or TV show -- every time. It was never domestic content from these countries. Always American violence.
> 
> Surely you have noticed this in Canada as well. The most violent content we find in entertainment originates from the US. They also glorify war and guns in their movies. Not to mention their video games, which are outright battlefield simulations to train the next generation of soldiers and office shooters.
> 
> ...


total shite ... you have no idea about the history of the united states of america ... you conflate politics with the character of a people

the american people’s character is no more violent than any other country, the vast majority are as peaceful as any other country and are caught up in a poltical nightmare that allows unlimited and wide ownership of guns and this situation continues because of the political power of a small group of politically influential and well organized and motivated individuals aided and abetted by the bedrock law of the country which has its origin in the confiscation of weapons by its oppressors, namely the british



the british enslaved the world for hundreds of years, the french, the belgians and the germans the same,
the germans killed multi-millions in war,
the russians and chinese untold multimillions in totalitarianism ...
the cambodians million in civil war,
the vietnamese killed and enslaved in civil war,
the central americans and south americans have killed millions in civil war in some of the worst atrocities of the last 100 years and are still among the most violent countries on the planet,
the africans enslaved and sold their own people and famously are stilling slaughtering and killing each to this day as tribe fights tribe
large parts of africa are lawless and no-go zones
in the muslim world shia and sunni are still killing each other ... and us when they get a chance
in india and pakistan they slaughtered each other during the partition and the sectarian and religious violence continues to this day
i could go on all day, look at the violence in myanmar happening right now, hundreds of thousands being persecuted and killed

and you forget, the entire world loves american tv including some of the most violent cop shows

i will leave the politics aside because that is a whole other discussion other than to say hundreds of millions of people around the world have ... welcomed ... american violence over the last 100 years because it saved their asses

the character of the american people ... who are, let us not forget composed of people from all over the world including countries that you probably hold up as examples of non-violence ... is no more violent than any other country

america is a young nation, forged in violence and slavery and that legacy lingers for all kinds of reasons, virtually all of them political but it has nothing to do with the character of the american people

****-sapiens is a violent animal


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

james4beach said:


> No, I think the US is clearly the most violent nation among developed countries. There isn't any other developed country that comes close to this. Russia might be the closest if you count them as developed, but they also haven't killed nearly as many people in warfare.


I agree with you there. I've often said the same thing myself. Being educated in the USA in the 50's, I remember the history textbooks; each chapter was titled by the war it glorified. America was never wrong - overwhelming might makes right. How can such a national identity not filter down to the streets? When a peace negotiation's first tactic in a war is "more bombs" ( ask Hanoi ), why not then just shoot someone in traffic for cutting you off?

Not every American is a bloodthirsty warmonger though; many are silent pacifists. They're afraid to express their views for fear of offending God, flag, and country.

Nothing will change. In a month or so, Las Vegas will be an old story - until the next time.


----------



## BoringInvestor (Sep 12, 2013)

Pluto said:


> yes. It says that countries that have a high human develpment index score tend to have fewer deaths by gun which is a component of my view.
> That's not the same thing as saying gun ownership causes gun deaths. It isn't the gun that causes the deaths, its the way the person who posesses the gun thinks.
> I'm in favour of increasing human development, which I believe, will reduce homicide by any means. that's what the research you point to suggests.


The data segments countries with 'a very high human development score' for comparison.
The chart shows, via the best-fit red line, that the general trend is more guns = more gun deaths.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

This is a great article on the real effect of guns on the US:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

One thing that is lost is that no, there is not a strong correlation between gun ownership at the state level and mass shooting events. This isn't surprising - mass shooting events are still relatively rare in the grand scheme of things (although there are still WAAAAY to many) and it's not like guns don't move. Therefore, to look at rare events with data that aren't saying what you think they're saying (i.e guns move) then it's not surprising that that gross analysis doesn't pick anything up.

Other analyses that are more careful with the data show a HUGE impact of guns. 

One EXTREMELY unfortunate aspect of gun owndership that is overlooked is it's focused on these mass shooting events. it shouldn't. Just look at how many suicides are committed because of guns. These suicides are common among veterans. talk about supporting your troops.

This is one thing I would say about the US as a whole - the hypocrisy is astounding. Support troops yet allow gun laws and poor mental health support so so many kill themselves. Be pro-life but anti-health care. it's super werid.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

BoringInvestor said:


> The data segments countries with 'a very high human development score' for comparison.
> The chart shows, via the best-fit red line, that the general trend is more guns = more gun deaths.


In comparason to the first graph, it shows countries with high human develpement have a lower rate of gun death. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...n-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#5a944d123f7c

DOJ study showed as gun sales went up, gun crime went down.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

8) Still, gun homicides (like all homicides) have declined over the past couple decades

The good news is that all firearm homicides, like all homicides and crime, have declined over the past two decades. (Although that may have changed in 2015 and 2016, with a recent rise in murders nationwide.)

There’s still a lot of debate among criminal justice experts about why this crime drop is occurring — some of the most credible ideas include mass incarceration, more and better policing, and reduced lead exposure from gasoline. But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime — in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Center.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I think Canada's laws, for the most part, make sense. You can get a gun for hunting but it is not easy to obtain guns that have almost the sole purpose of killing people such as hand guns and semi-automatic rifles (not outright banned but ownership restricted). Canadians wanting a gun must take the firearms safety course and follow strict rules. Probably at least some of these shooting crimes could be avoided simply by having the cooling off period it would take in Canada to obtain a weapon rather than the rather open market in the US. Of course one thing we have limited control over is being so close to the unregulated firearm market in the US. 

I think even those arguing that for US style gun rules must really, deep-down, understand that the US system regarding firearms makes it far more likely to be killed by a firearm. It is simply that they believe that the right to easy access to even the most dangerous firearms outweighs people getting killed. They would never admit this, even to themselves, because they have so much ego invested in their side of the argument. Generally, it is next to impossible to convince someone in this frame of mind so it will not be possible to change their opinions. However, for the rest of us, I think this chart shows the picture. 


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Pluto said:


> It says that countries that have a high human develpment index score tend to have fewer deaths by gun which is a component of my view.
> 
> That's not the same thing as saying gun ownership causes gun deaths. It isn't the gun that causes the deaths, its the way the person who posesses the gun thinks.
> 
> ...





pluto no one would disagree with your conclusion that a country with a high human development score tends statistically to have fewer gun deaths.

where i part company with you is on the next stage. If i follow you correctly, you are saying that the answer is not to restrict guns - since this will only encourage the black market - but rather to develop high levels of civilization, ie societies that are compassionate, democratic, democratic, law-abiding, peace-loving, free, just & merciful. Then & only then, you seem to be saying, will people everywhere throw away their guns.

the reason i part company is because i don't see any chance of this happening for the next thousand years, if ever. Perhaps not for 10,000 years. The human brain would have to be totally re-programmed.

in the meantime i think the gun problem should be immediately addressed with a vast repertoire of partial solutions, each very practical, each applied in baby steps.

one of the steps would be stricter gun control.

we're not immune here in canada. The weapon that alexandre bissonnette used in quebec city to massacre 7 people in one single rampage was an illegal gun. To this day, it has never been explained how he acquired it.


.


----------



## redsgomarching (Mar 6, 2016)

americans killing more than just americans yet they don't want to give up guns. good stuff people! hopefully natural selection will take its place and make way for people with actual brains.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

There is a 4th Canadian among the murdered
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ims-roe-tara-klymchuk-mcildoon-dead-1.4318537

Jordan McIldoon, 23
Jessica Klymchuk, 34
Calla Medig, 28
Tara Roe, 34

Tragic, such young people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

An autopsy of the shooter's brain may provide some answers.


----------



## JackJac (Mar 13, 2017)

A rather chilling detail has emerged: http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/las-vegas-shooting-crowd-warned-youre-all-going-to-die/ar-AAsPNZ8?li=AAggFp5&ocid=mailsignout


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

sags said:


> An autopsy of the shooter's brain may provide some answers.


That's what I was thinking. Charles Whitman, the U of Texas tower shooter, had a brain tumor.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Here is some more CNN garbage of how America silently accepts the rage of white men. 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/opinions/mass-shootings-white-male-rage-modan-opinion/index.html

America certainly does not accept white supremacists in any way and condemns it harshly, so what is the point, other then a racist one.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

new dog said:


> Here is some more CNN garbage of how America silently accepts the rage of white men.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/opinions/mass-shootings-white-male-rage-modan-opinion/index.html
> 
> America certainly does not accept white supremacists in any way and condemns it harshly, so what is the point, other then a racist one.


Antifa is full of angry racist white males...and half of America silently accepts their rage. Many even support it.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

new dog said:


> Here is some more CNN garbage of how America silently accepts the rage of white men.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/opinions/mass-shootings-white-male-rage-modan-opinion/index.html
> 
> America certainly does not accept white supremacists in any way and condemns it harshly, so what is the point, other then a racist one.


It’s an opinion piece. The views expressed are solely those of the author. She is not a CNN employee.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> pluto no one would disagree with your conclusion that a country with a high human development score tends statistically to have fewer gun deaths.
> 
> where i part company with you is on the next stage. If i follow you correctly, you are saying that the answer is not to restrict guns - since this will only encourage the black market - but rather to develop high levels of civilization, ie societies that are compassionate, democratic, democratic, law-abiding, peace-loving, free, just & merciful. Then & only then, you seem to be saying, will people everywhere throw away their guns.
> 
> ...


Just think about what you said:
1. Gun control is the answer. Then,
2. you give an example of somone engaging in a massacre with an illegal gun. So,

Making them illegal didn't sovle the problem. You see your statement in 1. presumes that 2 won't happen. but 2 did happen, so 1 is false. 

I don't say don't restrict guns. I say restricting them won't solve the underlying problem. And then you gave an example indicating that restrictions won't solve the problem.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

pwm said:


> That's what I was thinking. Charles Whitman, the U of Texas tower shooter, had a brain tumor.


yep. And he told people something was wrong with him before the shooting, and reportedly told people to check him for a brain tumor when he was dead. I don't know why he didn't go for an xray on his own. 
On the other hand, the serial killer Gacy had no signs of pathology in his brain. So researchers decided to study the living brain and think they see a pattern of brain activity identifying psychopaths. One problem. The doctor explaining this had the brain pattern of a psychopath. Apparently in 25% of cases where this pathology is indicated, the people are normal.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

I think all these mass shootings are GLORY KILLING.

Take the glory out never release the name of shooter.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> total shite ... you have no idea about the history of the united states of america ... you conflate politics with the character of a people
> ...
> the character of the american people ... who are, let us not forget composed of people from all over the world including countries that you probably hold up as examples of non-violence ... is no more violent than any other country


Sorry but you won't convince me of this -- especially after I've spent 4 years living in the US and witnessing American culture first hand, including frequently running into people who openly celebrate war/bombs/weapons of all types, as well as an old man who pulled a rifle out on me.

Let me tell you, as someone who actually lives here (in fact in a very liberal city) that there are a significant number of Americans *who celebrate and enjoy war and weapons*. I have lived in a number of countries but have never seen this anywhere else except the USA.

And then there's the violent crime rate. Even though I live in a relatively safe American city, people laugh at me when I bring up concern about shootings/killings. Someone is killed virtually every day in this mid sized, "safe" American city. It doesn't even make the news, it's just so common. And Americans are used to it.

In modern day, among first world countries, I think America stands out as a violent nation with a violent culture. I agree that some of these other countries you listed are awfully violent but they are largely third world countries or we're talking past history. America is the only first world, developed country with this level of violence in modern day.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

The australian case is often brought out as proof that stricter controls work
https://www.sciencealert.com/20-year-review-of-australia-s-gun-laws-has-one-clear-finding-they-work

However, the gun culture was almost non-existent in Aus and it's not enshrined in their constitution. They're more similar to Canadians in their comfort level with guns in public.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Sorry but you won't convince me of this -- especially after I've spent 4 years living in the US and witnessing American culture first hand, including frequently running into people who openly celebrate war/bombs/weapons of all types, as well as an old man who pulled a rifle out on me.
> 
> Let me tell you, as someone who actually lives here (in fact in a very liberal city) that there are a significant number of Americans *who celebrate and enjoy war and weapons*. I have lived in a number of countries but have never seen this anywhere else except the USA.
> 
> ...


a few random thoughts, first, the usa is unique in a couple of regards verus other first world countries with both the first and second amendments so yes, the right to own firearms means that, guess what, you will see a lot of guns in the usa where you don’t in other countries ... 

but the notion that “there are a significant number of Americans *who celebrate and enjoy war and weapons*.” says more about you than it does about america, i lived there for almost 50 years and none of my friends or the people i associated with celebrated war or weapons, in fact, quite the contrary

second, as to the violent crime, subtract the top 25 large urban ghettoes like chicago, baltimore, st. louis, new orleans, detroit, newark and so on ... and you get a very, very different statistics about violent crime in america ... the remaining country (which is 98% of the country) will have a violent crime rate about the same as most western european nations and canada

as far as war goes, what the usa did in world war 1 and 2 and the cold war to keep the world stable and free more than compensates for our excesses that have followed

and in any event, the european first world wreaked infinite violence and havoc on the rest of the world for about 400 years so lets call it even

but yeah, i feel safer in canada than i do in the usa for sure ... again that is due to poverty and politics and says nothing about the character of the american people who are in fact, immigrants and people of the rest of the world just like canada


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

fatcat said:


> second, as to the violent crime, subtract the top 25 large urban ghettoes like chicago, baltimore, st. louis, new orleans, detroit, newark and so on ... and you get a very, very different statistics about violent crime in america ... the remaining country (which is 98% of the country) will have a violent crime rate about the same as most western european nations and canada


It should be noted that the most crime ridden places in the US are overwhelmingly Democrat.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

People keep bringing up the mental health issue. Who is going to be the person who determines if someone is mentally fit or not and who orders them for an evaluation? This is a way more prickly issue than the 2nd amendment. Every try to tell someone they might have a problem? They just ignore you and go about their merry way, same as addicts, abusers, pedos etc.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Presumably, people with serious mental health issues will have multiple run-ins with the law or suicide attempts. I don’t believe that the Vegas shooter would have been flagged. Mental health background checks are going to be imperfect. 

You also run the risk of discouraging people from coming forward about mental health issues (particularly depression). Nobody wants to end up in a database of the mentally ill.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

bass player said:


> It should be noted that the most crime ridden places in the US are overwhelmingly Democrat.


likely because the crime is accompanied by and often a result of deep and sustained poverty and the republican party has shown not the slightest interest in addressing the deepening crisis of poverty in america ... 

even bloomberg, the flagship of american capitalism has stated repeatedly in the last 10 days that trumpys new tax plan is a handout, a giveaway, to the wealthiest americans .....

the people in these ghettoes have absoutely nothing whatsoever to gain by voting republican


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

It's simply a result of population density. C'mon people


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

fatcat said:


> likely because the crime is accompanied by and often a result of deep and sustained poverty and the republican party has shown not the slightest interest in addressing the deepening crisis of poverty in america ...


There are cities with decades of Democrat leadership and control that have done nothing to help, yet you still blame it on the party NOT in power. Lol



> the people in these ghettoes have absoutely nothing whatsoever to gain by voting republican


Decades of Democrat failure are not reason enough? Perhaps they need centuries of Democrat failure to consider a change?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> It's simply a result of population density. C'mon people


Is the Democrat party ever responsible for their failures?


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Wasnt the shooter a millionaire??


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

bass player said:


> Is the Democrat party ever responsible for their failures?


The states with the highest rate of firearm deaths are Republican. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

ETA: Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> The states with the highest rate of firearm deaths are Republican.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state


St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. are run by Democrats. They have the highest gun death rate in the US.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

bass player said:


> St. Louis, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. are run by Democrats. They have the highest gun death rate in the US.


States make most of the rules. 

St. Louis: Governor of Missouri is a Republican
Chicago: Governor of Illinois is a Republican
Baltimore: Governor of Maryland is a Republican

It’s stupid to blame parties for gun fatalities. You have to examine things like poverty, human development, mental and physical health services, urbanization rates, legislation, access to firearms and so on.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

It does appear that the states with the highest death rates have lax gun rules. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/16/

But really debating statistics gets a little tiresome. I don't believe that anyone, including those who appear argue for no control whatsoever, honestly believe that allowing the sale of almost any type of firearm to anyone with a wallet doesn't increase the shooting death toll. They simply believe that the right outweighs the potential deaths. 

There is always a balance between rights and the public good. I can understand the hunters wanting to keep their hunting rifles and I don't think most people are trying to take them away. However, perhaps there is something I'm not understanding but I can't see why people need to own weapons that are not practical or legal for hunting and have a main purpose of killing people. Why is this "right" so essential that it outweighs the potential of a mass shooting incident? 

This Vegas incident hits a little home with me because my son was there at the time of the shooting. He wasn't at the concert but locked down in his hotel but it was still a bit disconcerting, especially when I heard the news without knowing his status.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

It's all about good ol boys and Country Music!!! My theory is that he called down to the band manager and requested some Hank Jr tunes to be played. The response was negative, so he retaliated. What's the big deal?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Spidey said:


> ItHowever, perhaps there is something I'm not understanding but I can't see why people need to own weapons that are not practical or legal for hunting and have a main purpose of killing people. Why is this "right" so essential that it outweighs the potential of a mass shooting incident?


Taking cars away can also prevent a mass murder. 

Question: If your son was in a crowd when someone opened fire, would you prefer that he be armed, or unarmed?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

bass player said:


> There are cities with decades of Democrat leadership and control that have done nothing to help, yet you still blame it on the party NOT in power. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of Democrat failure are not reason enough? Perhaps they need centuries of Democrat failure to consider a change?


well, the truth is that most of these hardcore inner city residents mostly don’t vote for anyone, democrat or republican ... both parties know this and they continue to ignore this cohort of voters


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

bass player said:


> Taking cars away can also prevent a mass murder.
> 
> Question: If your son was in a crowd when someone opened fire, would you prefer that he be armed, or unarmed?


The car analogy is a good example of why we should balance the public good when removing a right. Generally, although some would say otherwise, cars are essential to society and provide significant benefit, so in balance we wouldn't ban cars even though it would save people from car accidents. But I can't quite figure out the public good or use of military style weapons for the average person. So if there is virtually no public benefit and banning it would save lives it appears to be an easy decision. 

I don't think being armed would help when someone is picking off people from a hotel room. Several people are probably armed in the US and it doesn't seem to be stopping mass shootings. In fact, being armed could lead to confusion and my son being shot by the police or someone else.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Interestingly, one of the band members said that numerous roadies were armed but they refused to draw their weapons because they might be confused for the shooter. Good thing too. In a situation like that you want trained law enforcement personnel and military professionals to deal with it, not a bunch of untrained concertgoers.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

excellent article on what might work and what might not work:

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lea...the-answer-then-my-research-told-me-otherwise


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

I didn't see what was so excellent about the article. She didn't back up any of what she regarding comparisons to Britain or Australia with any statistics or facts and just seems to want us to believe that what she is saying is true. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/10/03/26-gun-murders-equiv-130-england-vs-11004-us-annually


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Spidey said:


> I didn't see what was so excellent about the article. She didn't back up any of what she regarding comparisons to Britain or Australia with any statistics or facts and just seems to want us to believe that what she is saying is true.
> 
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post
> 
> https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/10/03/26-gun-murders-equiv-130-england-vs-11004-us-annually


ok, she names the 3 groups most affected by gun violence and offers solutions to help these groups rather than simply bring in more gun laws ... 


older men commit suicide by gun and can be helped by outreach and support
abused women die at the hands of partners so lets give them better protection, support and understanding by the police and social services
marginalized young men of colour get caught up in gang activities so lets find ways to intervene and offer alternatives to prevent gang affiliations and lets find less violent options to affirm masculinity in this cohort
IF ... and it’s a big IF ... we could do this, help these groups most affected by gun violence, we could reduce the carnage that guns cause considerably ... 

it seems to me a worthwhile approach given that no meaningful gun laws will be passed in the usa for a long time to come


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

multi modalities plus very many baby steps in many countries plus very many years would be involved in any successful campaign to limit gun violence turned against civilians. Even the thought itself is unprecedented & unheard of until recently. 

the excellence of the natPost article (originally from the washington post i believe) is that the author's 3 recommendations are all sociopolitical measures that we should be implementing anyhow.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

The left claims to be for more gun control, yet bump stocks were approved in 2010 under Obama's reign.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The US has all this gun violence and also the highest incarceration rate among civilized nations.

Whatever they are doing..............it isn't working.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Spidey said:


> They simply believe that the right outweighs the potential deaths.
> 
> There is always a balance between rights and the public good. I can understand the hunters wanting to keep their hunting rifles and I don't think most people are trying to take them away. However, perhaps there is something I'm not understanding but I can't see why people need to own weapons that are not practical or legal for hunting and have a main purpose of killing people. Why is this "right" so essential that it outweighs the potential of a mass shooting incident?
> 
> .


Did you see the town hall with nancy Pelosi last night? 
One participatnt outlined her story. She is a college student. She has a permit to carry her gun for self protection. But the law said she can not have her gun on campus so when she went to class she left it at home. However, a criminal raped her at gun point on campus. He question was why does Pelosi advocate gun control that puts law abiding people at risk, while giving an advantage to the criminal who will not respect the no guns on campus law?

So for you, the "public good" seems to equate to depriving that young woman of a fighting chance to avoid a rape at gun point.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Spidey said:


> The car analogy is a good example of why we should balance the public good when removing a right. Generally, although some would say otherwise, cars are essential to society and provide significant benefit, so in balance we wouldn't ban cars even though it would save people from car accidents. But I can't quite figure out the public good or use of military style weapons for the average person. So if there is virtually no public benefit and banning it would save lives it appears to be an easy decision.
> 
> I don't think being armed would help when someone is picking off people from a hotel room. Several people are probably armed in the US and it doesn't seem to be stopping mass shootings. In fact, being armed could lead to confusion and my son being shot by the police or someone else.


According to the police, automobiles are invovled in 90% of all crime.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

fatcat said:


> excellent article on what might work and what might not work:
> 
> http://nationalpost.com/opinion/lea...the-answer-then-my-research-told-me-otherwise


Looks to me like this lady has done her homework.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

olivaw said:


> Interestingly, one of the band members said that numerous roadies were armed but they refused to draw their weapons because they might be confused for the shooter. Good thing too. In a situation like that you want trained law enforcement personnel and military professionals to deal with it, not a bunch of untrained concertgoers.


And yet gun-lovers say things like: you won't get a terrorist attack in a place like Texas, where everyone has guns and will shoot the bad guys.

Apparently many people think you just point your gun at the bad guy and shoot 'em dead, just like in a cartoon!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Pluto said:


> Looks to me like this lady has done her homework.




one can guarantee that supporting senior males, helping abused partners get away from spouses who might kill them & intervening to offer non-gang opportunities to ghetto youth are *not* going to produce a 100% gunless heaven-on-earth peaceful planet though

.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

^
Rep. Scalise and his Republican baseball team was ambushed, he was shot, but gun carrying folks on the scene made quick work of the reportedly anti republican shooter. Anti gun gun folks are shocked this didn't make him anti gun. Its like people never heard of a black market. He realizes that gun control will not solve this. 

the more recent ambush was, of course, more carefully planned making a quick response unrealistic. i think it is important to analyze these on a case by case basis. Just cherry picking a situation that fits ones perspective, and ignoring the other situations isn't a valid method to achieve understanding.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> one can guarantee that supporting senior males, helping abused partners get away from spouses who might kill them & intervening to offer non-gang opportunities to ghetto youth are *not* going to produce a 100% gunless heaven-on-earth peaceful planet though
> 
> .


Well demanding 100% utopian heaven on earth is part of the problem. Utopia tend to morph into tyranny. There are reportedly 20,000 laws in the US that restrict and control guns, yet no utopia has unfolded as promised.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Pluto said:


> According to the police, automobiles are invovled in 90% of all crime.


So are shoes, but neither aotomobiles not shoes are designed to kill people when used as instructed.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> So are shoes, but neither aotomobiles not shoes are designed to kill people when used as instructed.


The left always blames the tool instead of the person holding it.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

bass player said:


> The left claims to be for more gun control, yet bump stocks were approved in 2010 under Obama's reign.


ATF determined that bump stocks were not illegal under federal law at the time. They weren’t “approved” per se. Guns and gun components in the US are not subject to the same degree of regulation and testing as food and drugs. There are a limited number of rules.

It appears that politicians from both sides of the aisle are interested in making bump stocks illegal. Democrats want new legislation. Republicans want ATF to find a way to ban them under existing legislation.

The discussion about addressing small arms casualties above is interesting but I am not sure Americans are ready to address those problems at this time. They may, however, be ready for a ban on devices that allow semi-automatic weapons to be used in a machine-gun-like fashion.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

bass player said:


> The left always blames the tool instead of the person holding it.


You’re right. Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s why there should be no restrictions on them.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> You’re right. Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s why there should be no restrictions on them.


There are restrictions on guns. Plenty of them.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

bass player said:


> There are restrictions on guns. Plenty of them.


Plenty? The Vegas shooter had how many semi-auto aid rifles converted to machine-gun-like automatics?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

I just want to repeat (and rephrase) my point from upthread. Lest it be lost.

An incident like this will not entice American lawmakers to address the problem of inner city violence, suicide or spousal abuse. It might entice them to ban *any* device that will convert a semiautomatic into a machine-gun-like device.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

olivaw said:


> It might entice them to ban *any*device that will convert a semiautomatic into a machine-gun-like device.


I would agree with that.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Pluto said:


> Did you see the town hall with nancy Pelosi last night?
> One participatnt outlined her story. She is a college student. She has a permit to carry her gun for self protection. But the law said she can not have her gun on campus so when she went to class she left it at home. However, a criminal raped her at gun point on campus. He question was why does Pelosi advocate gun control that puts law abiding people at risk, while giving an advantage to the criminal who will not respect the no guns on campus law?
> 
> So for you, the "public good" seems to equate to depriving that young woman of a fighting chance to avoid a rape at gun point.


So you're advocating for guns on campus? I don't know that strapping a gun to everyone's hip is the answer to crime but I realize there are those out there who believe this. Guns don't sound to me like a good mix with alcohol, testosterone and youthful brashness that often is part of campus life but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I notice you mentioned that the criminal raped her at gun point. I'm guessing that having such easy access to a handgun is making it far easier for him to rape women. And since he already had a gun, there is a pretty good chance that if she also had one she would now be dead. 



> According to the police, automobiles are invovled in 90% of all crime.


Do you mean violent crime or such things as speeding tickets? There are some things that are just too essential to our economy to ban. I guess you believe that military-style rifles fall into that category. Personally, I don't see how a person would suffer to any degree by not having such a weapon but again everyone is entitled to their opinion. It also should be mentioned that cars are already heavily regulated - you have to pass a driving test, there is a licensing system, the car has to be registered and there are strict rules around automobile use. This seems in sharp contrast to a system where anyone with a few bucks can get easy access to a military style weapon.

By the way, I don't believe in totally banning all guns. I think Canada has a pretty good system where hunters can get access to guns after passing safety courses but hand guns and semi-automatic weapons are quite restricted.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

100% of gun shot wounds are caused by guns. Facts can be true and meaningless at the same time.

America's love affair with guns is coming to an end. The next generations are going to change a lot of things...........gun laws being among them.

Will restricting guns eliminate all gun violence ? No, but it won't create any either.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

On a different note...... I expect that scientists will want to dissect SP's brain for any abnormalities (unless he shot himself in the head. that is)


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

steve41 said:


> On a different note...... I expect that scientists will want to dissect SP's brain for any abnormalities (unless he shot himself in the head. that is)


The motive could as simple as an angry person targeting what he thought was a large gathering of mostly Republican supporters.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

olivaw said:


> I just want to repeat (and rephrase) my point from upthread. Lest it be lost.
> 
> An incident like this will not entice American lawmakers to address the problem of inner city violence, suicide or spousal abuse. It might entice them to ban *any* device that will convert a semiautomatic into a machine-gun-like device.


Yes, and there appears to be no opposition to banning bump stocks. NRA supports the ban. Reagan signed the bill that banned sale of fully automatic guns to the public. Reportedly Obama allowed bump stocks.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

bass player said:


> The motive could as simple as an angry person targeting what he thought was a large gathering of mostly Republican supporters.


yikes bp, that’s a reach ... nothing indicates he was trying to shoot republicans ... it looks like he seriously considered rooms in chicago overlooking lollapalooza

http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-...ooking-lollapalooza-visited/story?id=50273390


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Spidey said:


> So you're advocating for guns on campus? I don't know that strapping a gun to everyone's hip is the answer to crime but I realize there are those out there who believe this. Guns don't sound to me like a good mix with alcohol, testosterone and youthful brashness that often is part of campus life but everyone is entitled to their opinions.
> 
> I notice you mentioned that the criminal raped her at gun point. I'm guessing that having such easy access to a handgun is making it far easier for him to rape women. And since he already had a gun, there is a pretty good chance that if she also had one she would now be dead.
> 
> ...


1. I didn't say anything about if guns should be banned on campus or not. I merely gave the story of that woman who believes the law prevented her from protecting herself. You don't know that she would have ended up dead. You are making it up. 
2. Cars. If you read what I wrote again, you will see the words "all crime". then you start rationalizing why we should keep cars. You don't get it. you think correlations are causes. You need to distinguish between a correlation that is a cause, and those that are markers, and correlations that are irrelevant.) (By the way, not that it is relevant, Licencing, registration, and strict rules around use of cars never prevented bank robbers, kidnappers, B&E artists, and so on from using them. That seems to be totally lost on you.) 
3. You think Canada has a good system. In Canada hand guns are restricted but they are often used illegally. Read the papers. Watch the news. the laws don't prevent their illegal use by criminals. It is usually drug gangs that use hand guns to shoot at each other, and assassinate each other. The laws only restrict the conduct of people willing to obey the law.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In Canada people walking around carrying a gun are illegal and considered dangerous. In the US.......maybe.........maybe not.


----------



## jollybear (Jun 28, 2015)

steve41 said:


> It's all about good ol boys and Country Music!!! My theory is that he called down to the band manager and requested some Hank Jr tunes to be played. The response was negative, so he retaliated. What's the big deal?


@ steve41: Great sense of compassion for the people that lost their lives. You should be really proud of yourself posting something like this!


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Pluto said:


> You need to distinguish between a correlation that is a cause, and those that are markers, and correlations that are irrelevant.) (By the way, not that it is relevant, Licencing, registration, and strict rules around use of cars never prevented bank robbers, kidnappers, B&E artists, and so on from using them. That seems to be totally lost on you.)
> 
> 3. You think Canada has a good system. In Canada hand guns are restricted but they are often used illegally. Read the papers. Watch the news. the laws don't prevent their illegal use by criminals. It is usually drug gangs that use hand guns to shoot at each other, and assassinate each other. The laws only restrict the conduct of people willing to obey the law.


I won't address all of what you said Pluto as I think we would start going in circles. The point about cars is that they can be dangerous and therefore regulated. Canada's biggest problem with handguns is that we live beside a market with almost no regulations - fortunately our border officials do a pretty good job or things would be worse. Although not perfect, I would say the Canadian laws do prevent their illegal use by criminals. While it is possible to get a gun illegally in Canada, it takes a lot more effort to obtaining one than in the US. For example, I believe if we had the same ease to obtain weapons as Nevada has the Edmonton knife indecent would have been a mass murder. I can't imagine him settling for a knife it was possible to walk into the local Walmart and buy a gun. Do you disagree? 

As someone said upthread, we can't deny the fact the US has the most gun deaths by a large margin among westernized nations. They must be doing something wrong.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Yes, and there appears to be no opposition to banning bump stocks. NRA supports the ban. Reagan signed the bill that banned sale of fully automatic guns to the public. Reportedly Obama allowed bump stocks.


Obama had nothing to do with it. ATF determined that they were not regulated by existing legislation.

Gun control falls to the legislative branch, not the executive. You would need a House majority and a Senate supermajority to pass meaningful gun legislation in the US.

Senator Dianne Fernstein tried to introduce legislation in 2013 that would ban semi-automatic weapons that would accept a “military feature” like a removable stock. The bill was never even brought to a stand-alone vote. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16422844/dianne-feinstein-bump-stock-ban-2013

ETA: Reagan signed legislation which would ban new registration of new fully automatic guns (called machine guns on the referenced blog) after May 19th 1986. Ironically, the same legislation also banned the federal government from creating a gun registry. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/21/machine-guns-legal-practical-guide-full-auto/. This reference may not be authoritative but it is an interesting read.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Spidey said:


> I won't address all of what you said Pluto as I think we would start going in circles. The point about cars is that they can be dangerous and therefore regulated. Canada's biggest problem with handguns is that we live beside a market with almost no regulations - fortunately our border officials do a pretty good job or things would be worse. Although not perfect, I would say the Canadian laws do prevent their illegal use by criminals. While it is possible to get a gun illegally in Canada, it takes a lot more effort to obtaining one than in the US. For example, I believe if we had the same ease to obtain weapons as Nevada has the Edmonton knife indecent would have been a mass murder. I can't imagine him settling for a knife it was possible to walk into the local Walmart and buy a gun. Do you disagree?
> 
> As someone said upthread, we can't deny the fact the US has the most gun deaths by a large margin among westernized nations. They must be doing something wrong.


1. If you are logged in and click on the chart referred to by a previous poster you will find US ownership to be high, yet many countries with lower ownership rates have up to 5x's higher gun deaths. Why do these low ownership rate countries have much higher gun death rates? Clearly ownership rates is nto the cause. 
2. You don't know what "cause" means. That's why you are going around in circles. A cause is neccessary + sufficient conditions to produce an effect. Gun ownership is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause a gun death. So it isn't a cause. 
3. What I am promoting is clearly understanding the problem. That's because a misunderstanding of the problem contributes to false solutions. The US has 20,000 laws relating to guns. What did they solve? Despite their 20,000 laws relating to guns, you say they have almost no regulations. 
4. Let me ask you this: When a homicide occurs with a gun, why do the charge the shooter, and not the gun? Becasue the shooter caused the homicde. similarily, when a car is used in a crime, they don't charge the car, they charge the criminal using the car. That's because the car didn't cause the crime. don't you get that?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Leave only the high income, 'first world' countries on that chart and the US would stand out.

Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Atlantic: The Rules of the Gun Debate

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/

One portion of the article which impressed me was the counterpoint to the WaPo piece. The author pointed out that targeted programs for older men, inner city youths and abusive spouses would require massive social intervention just to isolate individuals who are at risk (Sounds dystopian to me).


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

... (duplicate post)


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw said:


> Atlantic: The Rules of the Gun Debate
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...n-sense-tactics-the-debate-is-missing/542229/
> 
> One portion of the article which impressed me was the counterpoint to the WaPo piece. The author pointed out that targeted programs for older men, inner city youths and abusive spouses would require massive social intervention just to isolate individuals who are at risk (Sounds dystopian to me).




all three are desirable social action goals in themselves but would not have stopped las vegas

i still believe that easements to the problem have to be just that, easements from a vast repertoire of tiny steps. Restricting firearms & disallowing open carry are 2 steps that offer long-term benefits to society, one being that children are not raised to think that porting a loaded pistol on one's belt is as normal as tying a shoelace.

.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Pluto said:


> 1. If you are logged in and click on the chart referred to by a previous poster you will find US ownership to be high, yet many countries with lower ownership rates have up to 5x's higher gun deaths. Why do these low ownership rate countries have much higher gun death rates? Clearly ownership rates is nto the cause.
> 2. You don't know what "cause" means. That's why you are going around in circles. A cause is neccessary + sufficient conditions to produce an effect. Gun ownership is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause a gun death. So it isn't a cause.
> 3. What I am promoting is clearly understanding the problem. That's because a misunderstanding of the problem contributes to false solutions. The US has 20,000 laws relating to guns. What did they solve? Despite their 20,000 laws relating to guns, you say they have almost no regulations.
> 4. Let me ask you this: When a homicide occurs with a gun, why do the charge the shooter, and not the gun? Becasue the shooter caused the homicde. similarily, when a car is used in a crime, they don't charge the car, they charge the criminal using the car. That's because the car didn't cause the crime. don't you get that?


1. Your actually using countries like El Salvador, Guatemala and Swaziland as comparisons of countries worse than the US for gun violence? I don't know what to say to that. 

2. Guns don't cause crimes but they make it easy to do so. I'll answer this with my previous point. If the recent terrorist attacker in Edmonton could walk into any Walmart and purchase a gun, do you think he would have used a knife? Define it any way you please but the easier it is to get something the easier it is to use it.

3. Laws in themselves don't mean anything - they have to be effective. The US doesn't have effective gun laws. 

4. Of course guns don't commit crimes but they are tools for committing crimes. Anthrax, heroin or bombs don't commit crimes either but we don't allow possession of those things. 

As I mentioned before I believe that people with your arguments can really understand the facts but simply won't admit that they believe that people's rights to buy virtually any type of weapon, with no checks or training whatsoever, outweigh people dying. I'm certain that deep down you must realize that the US has a significantly worse murder rate than any westernized country with reasonable gun laws. 

But obviously you prefer Nevada's system where any terrorist, ex-con or someone intent on mass murder can very easily purchase military style weapons. But in the end it doesn't much matter because we live in Canada where you are not likely to be able to change our system. Likewise I doubt if the US congress is intently scouring my points to decide how to implement more intensive gun control so I'm unlikely to have any affect on them. Additionally, we're unlikely to change each other's minds. So I guess we both have to accept those things that are outside our control. (Stoic philosophy) But it is an interesting debate. Have a good day. :smile:


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Spidey said:


> But obviously you prefer Nevada's system where any terrorist, ex-con or someone intent on mass murder can very easily purchase military style weapons. But in the end it doesn't much matter because we live in Canada where you are not likely to be able to change our system. Likewise I doubt if the US congress is intently scouring my points to decide how to implement more intensive gun control so I'm unlikely to have any affect on them. Additionally, we're unlikely to change each other's minds. So I guess we both have to accept those things that are outside our control. (Stoic philosophy) But it is an interesting debate. Have a good day. :smile:



1. I clearly stated it is important to understand the problem. Then you go, Pluto wants people to understand the problem, therefore he supports a system "where any terrorist, ex-con or someone intent on mass murder can very easily purchase military style weapons." That's absurd.

2. Again we have a chart showing the drop in homicide rates over hundreds of years. Obviously things are much better than in the past. What factors contributed to this huge decline? obviously you won't listen to me, so consider reading this and other works by that author,

https://www.amazon.ca/Hunting-Humans-Modern-Multiple-Murderer/dp/0771050259


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Acts of terrorism & wa most insurance companies do not cover medical bills. A lot of the wounded will be bankrupt. Read bill are multiple times higher then if prices were posted.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

The best example for no gun control is the Holocaust. 

Vegas shootings is perhaps the best example for gun control.

Cycles cycle in & out of when gun control is net positive & when it is net negative to have.

I do think we are entering a time when it will soon be net positive to have no gun control with the immigration problem & governments totally getting out of control citizens will need to protect.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It's a miracle all these gun fanatics didn't start shooting each other

Just saw a video of a guy who was trying to be the hero during the shooting. He was trying to find the shooter until a uniformed responder told him to GTFO I don't know who you are (after he tried to join and help him saying he was a reserve cop!)

I've been involved in mock active shooter events designed to train the response team and the best thing you can do is to get out of their way, even if you are a "trained professional" You only make it more difficult for the responders if they have to consider what you're doing

This especially goes for anyone carrying guns thinking they will be a hero. You may well end up getting shot by the responders, especially if you do manage to get near or attack anyone. Creeping around like that makes you fit the profile of a threat

And what drives people to hold up a camera while bullets are cracking by


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Slight aside here - Atlantic suggests that a congressional ban on bump stocks is unlikely. NRA didn’t endorse a ban, it said bump stocks should be regulated (by ATF). McConnell says it is premature to discuss legislative solutions. Whitehouse says now is not the time.

Talk of bump stock bans may be a cynical attempt to appear reasonable in the aftermath of the Vegas shooting. It may well be followed by the familiar paucity of legislative action. The second amendment folks will win. Gun enthusiasts will rush to buy bump stocks for their own AKs and ARs. American streets will become a little less safe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/vegas-shooter-bump-stocks/542313/


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

olivaw said:


> Slight aside here - Atlantic suggests that a congressional ban on bump stocks is unlikely. NRA didn’t endorse a ban, it said bump stocks should be regulated (by ATF).


Any machinist will be able to make a bump stock or other semi-to-full modification. My coworker's brother (in the USA) manufactures all kinds of tools for enhancing guns, as a side hobby. This kind of thing is _fun_ for many Americans. Guns are toys to them, they go bang bang and they make you feel like a big man.

People can now also use 3D printers to make weapon modifications.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)




----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

3D printing is now making "printing" parts for guns that are untraceable. They deliberately make the parts where registration numbers are imprinted.

Maybe it is too late. The guns are already out there and the only way for people to deal with it is to arm themselves.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

There could come a day when do not to have to buy anything everyone has 3D printer & a pile of each element in the periodic table & we just make what ever. 

Then rearrange the atoms & recycle elements back into their pile when product not needed anymore. 

Though cycle might change & we start heading back to dark ages before we get there might have to wait for a larger up cycle


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Two words no one wants to see in the news in the next while.... "copy cat"


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Deadliest mass shooting ever, _not conducted by the government_.


----------



## Pushpinder (Dec 14, 2016)

Talks about toughening procedures for obtaining a license to purchase, store and carry weapons in the United States have been conducted for several years. According to the most conservative estimates, the population holds about 300 million small arms of various caliber. Executions in schools, clubs and bars of the country are perceived as commonplace, but members of the shooting associations of the United States are worried that psychopaths that have received licenses not only for semiautomatic devices can put an end to the free wearing and possession of weapons by US citizens.


----------



## boingboing (Jul 5, 2017)

What shocked me most was seeing all of them duck, becoming the easiest shooting targets in history for a mass shooter. Of course, no one knew where the shots were coming from but still you'd think initially many would have run which is more common. It seems most ducked because others were ducking, rather than instinctually run away.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

They quickly outlawed 'lawn darts' years ago because the product was leading to deaths. Shame they cannot seem to do the same with gun control and more particularly semi automatic rifles.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

boingboing said:


> What shocked me most was seeing all of them duck, becoming the easiest shooting targets in history for a mass shooter. Of course, no one knew where the shots were coming from but still you'd think initially many would have run which is more common. It seems most ducked because others were ducking, rather than instinctually run away.


Finding cover and making yourself a smaller target is generally the better defense. While running you are a larger and easier target. Add to that, if you don't know where the shots are coming from, you may actually be running _towards _ the shooter.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

The shooter had no criminal record and could have obtained the same firearms and products in Canada, with the exception of the bumper product I'm not sure of the legalities of those within Canada, but that's irrelevant as semi-autos can often be fired at near automatic rates without them. 

Yet as expected, everybody is blaming this incident on gun control. There are countless examples of people intent on causing terrible harm throughout the world using all kinds of devices and methods, but only guns seem to have people trained to blame the tool and not the underlying issues.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

5Lgreenback said:


> The shooter had no criminal record and could have obtained the same firearms and products in Canada, with the exception of the bumper product


You can buy these kinds of weapons in Canada? AR-10, AR-15, AK-47, DDM4, FN-15

Which store can you buy these at, and what is the process like to get one?


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

james4beach said:


> You can buy these kinds of weapons in Canada? AR-10, AR-15, AK-47, DDM4 rifles.
> 
> Which store can you buy these at, and what is the process like to get one?


With the exception of the Ak-47, yes. Virtually any gun shop and sports shooting shop will have them for sale. As well as numerous online shops.

To legally own them you have to have an appropriate firearms license.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Good article in Calibre that reviews the requirments in Canada for something like the AR-15. 
https://calibremag.ca/ar-15-canada/
I don't have one but a family member brings theirs to the range most visits.


----------



## Joe Black (Aug 3, 2015)

5Lgreenback said:


> Yet as expected, everybody is blaming this incident on gun control.


How do you explain that in countries like Canada and the UK there are far, far fewer mass shootings? The overwhelmingly obvious answer is the stricter gun control laws.


----------



## 5Lgreenback (Mar 21, 2015)

Joe Black said:


> How do you explain that in countries like Canada and the UK there are far, far fewer mass shootings? The overwhelmingly obvious answer is the stricter gun control laws.


There are a multitude of other reasons I would say culture is probably the biggest one, as well as social safety nets playing a role and peoples physical and mental health. 

Within the US each state has different gun control laws, the states with tighter gun control laws often have the most gun violence, and some states such as Nebraska with virtually no limits on firearms purchases have some of the lowest gun violence rates. Using your theory (and the narrative pushed by the media) that should not be the case. California has as strict or stricter gun control than Canada, yet much higher violence and gun violence rates. To me, it seems that culture, which is much more difficult to discuss and scapegoat, is the obvious difference.


----------



## pwm (Jan 19, 2012)

Here's a thought experiment: If one could buy dynamite at the checkout isle at Walmart would the incidents of people blowing each other up increase or decrease?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

pwm said:


> Here's a thought experiment: If one could buy dynamite at the checkout isle at Walmart would the incidents of people blowing each other up increase or decrease?


Here's a thought experiment: If one could legally buy alcohol at Walmart (they can in the US), would the incidents of drunk driving deaths increase or decrease?


----------

