Che'_Moderator

Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**

Assault Weapons Ban  

68 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I agree something should be done, but as we've debated in this thread off and on for years, what would you do to stop just this sort of action?

Given the profile of this guy from what I've read (wealthy, no real record of criminal activity, no evident mental health issues, white - yes this matters in the world of Trump and anti-Muslim / anti-immigrant, no trail of social media interaction with any form of terrorist - foreign or domestic including white supremacist and militias), there's nothing you could do to stop a law abiding citizen from acquiring weapons. You might restrict the number of weapons they own but on what basis? You might restrict the type of weapons and ammunition they acquire, but I'm fairly certain you'll learn that he modified the weapons to full auto independently. If you know someone with a CNC you can manufacture the necessary components since all the information is available online. Though anyone with money can acquire an old school pre-1986 automatic weapon and Nevada places no further restrictions on them. Which on second thought seems like the most likely path for a wealthy gambler who had 19 weapons in his suite and at least a dozen others at home.  This story is still young so we may learn that he really did have some connection somewhere given all the various preparations it sounded he had pulled together including bomb making materials. More likely is someone pissed him off at Mandalay Bay or one of the other casinos or at one of the Country music concerts he liked to attend and he just snapped one day and decided to go William Foster (Michael Douglas in Falling Down) in order to destroy their business by creating fear in Vegas.

The reality is, we have enough weapons in our country to put one in the hands of every man, woman and child. So even if you cut off new supply there's more than enough weapons out there to create the next 100 years' worth of massacres.  Especially since most of them are accomplished using semi-automatic pistols.

So what would you do? People say we need to do something. Well the 1994 AWB was something.  Take a step further and implement full background checks for weapon purchase and automate and link up all the databases of ownership and mental health so that you can properly check on people. Fully fund the ATF to get their paperwork into a real function database. Allow the CDC to do actual research on every gun related death. These actions (specifically mental health checks) probably would have stopped the Aurora, CO shooter from acquiring weapons. It probably also would have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter. But not the Orlando shooter, not the Sandy Hook shooter (because he used his mother's weapons), nor this guy in Vegas. So you start to limit some shooters and every life is worth saving, but does it stop the most devastating attacks? No.

What else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man. What happened is just plain sad. I don't have a fix, I honestly don't know where to start, but I have questions... how the fuck did this guy get all this stuff in his room without someone asking questions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go to a trade show in MB every year and I’m 100% sure we’ve used that suite.  

 

We have carts of boxes we bring into our suite.  Not really an issue. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

true. I go to trade shows as well and at times drag two huge pelican cases - didn't think of that, you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see worrying about the guns themselves as like worrying about trying to ban the act of suicide or ban drugs. If there's effort and money to be spent, I'd be more interested in trying to prevent them feeling like this is a good idea. Unfortunately that's going to be a lot more difficult than just banning some item or act.

At it's simplest level, it's as if they want to demonstrate some control over a society and I'm not sure more attempts to control people is the right response. Doesn't mean I'm opposed to some simple gun controls - I just mean that we have many other social aspects that are possibly becoming too overbearing. Especially collectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are limits to the number of drinks you can have and drive

 

there are speed limits.  

 

There are limits to the number of spouses  

 

why no murder machine limits? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no limits on the number of hammers you can buy. There are no limits on the number of cars you can buy. There are no limits on the number of hatchets you can buy. There are however limits on how many packages of cough medication you can buy (daily + monthly) and you give up all kinds of information in order to acquire them. 

https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm072423.htm

I expect the DEA and LEO examine these logbooks as they deem necessary and compare purchasing across stores to see if any patterns emerge.

I honestly don't think the number of guns is the answer here though Mike. The shooter could have pulled off this feat with a single weapon or even less than 6 in the event of overheating and jams.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

There are however limits on how many packages of cough medication you can buy (daily + monthly) and you give up all kinds of information in order to acquire them.

Technically it's a decongestant, not cough medicine. And the implementation leaves room for improvement. I recently tried to buy the maximum possible because I never have any on hand when I want it and the pharmacy is always closed when I realize this. I got conflicting answers on how much was allowed, and turned out most of it didn't really matter anyway since apparently I could only buy one box at a time. Quantity didn't matter. Big box of big dosages, or small box of small dosages. I wanted one of the 12hr, and one of the short acting. Told me I could come back the following day to buy the other one - because that makes sense. Best I could tell, none of the packaging corresponded with the limits on daily or monthly quantities either.

The patterns they're going to find are annoyed people who have allergies and a runny nose :laugh:

1 hour ago, flyfishing3 said:

There are limits to the number of drinks you can have and drive

 

there are speed limits.  

 

There are limits to the number of spouses  

 

why no murder machine limits? 

Because you can only shoot one weapon at a time? Two if you think hollywood is real. Does it really matter if I have a basement stock pile of weapons? I know that makes for a great media blurb, but humans only have two hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How long does it take to wound 550 with hammers? Even with a car? A lot longer than 10 minutes. 

If you can't stop all of the mass killings only some of them, then go ahead and enact changes to stop some of them.

blah blah blah ... there are always retorts to why small steps don't fix everything, but of course they don't. It's a nasty fucking problem, there are no instant fixes, like any complex problem start with small steps.

Like, don't eliminate restrictions on gun silencers. Don't walk around saying the ridiculous excess of guns is this country is not a problem, that has ONLY upped the body count. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstood my evidently very subtle statement of contrasts. The government can find a way to limit things it considers dangerous.

There’s no reason they couldn’t put tighter restrictions on gun volumes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a general comment motivated by your post, not a targeted reply, but evidently I wasn't paying enough attention.  Apparently we elect our lawmakers so they can pray and express concern now and then, not to legislate; I'm a little grouchy right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, flyfishing3 said:

There are limits to the number of drinks you can have and drive

 

there are speed limits.  

 

There are limits to the number of spouses  

 

why no murder machine limits? 

 

Thank god no one drinks and drives... or speeds... or cheats on their spouses.  This makes me think you're just trolling in an epic fashion.  

 

Putting limits is not going to stop or even slow down those who wish to commit atrocities like this fuckstick did.  

Look at France... is the answer to put limits on the amount of trucks they have?  

 

I detest people thinking that a type of weapon... or the amount of ammunition it can hold... or how long it takes to reload said weapon... etc.... is at the crux of this issue.  The problem here is people, and until you are unable to even acknowledge that, you have no right restricting the freedoms of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Lucas, I get your libertarian approach but the reality is the type of gun and the amount of ammunition it holds had a direct correlation to the number of dead and injured in the massacre - there is no better word - that happened in Vegas. 

Is there a reason why a civilian needs the ability to shoot a gun in fully automatic mode? No. Is there a reason why a civilian needs a magazine that holds more than 12-30 rounds? No. 

Yes people kill people and they will find highly unusual ways to accomplish it. Look at the assholes who blew up a truck next to the pre-school in the Oklahoma Federal building.  But, that does not mean we need to ease the path for them. No other country in the world has these kinds of massacres on this level committed so frequently by civilians.  It just doesn't happen. And the responsible and reasonable person asks the question: how do we stop this?

People say that the crazy or angry people will just do it with knives or rocks or trucks. Possibly. But if that's the case then why does every patriot not arm themselves with an arsenal of knives or rocks or trucks or bomb making materials? Because they recognize the simplicity of the gun as a weapon for self defense and for portably spreading death quickly, precisely, cheaply, and decisively.

  A reasonable mind then recognizes that it is possible to take measures that will limit and reduce this impact. Other countries have successfully accomplished this, even those where a gun is in every home (i.e Switzerland). How many lives are acceptable before we step back and say, we need to actually do something rather than send out hopes and prayers?

I've outlined what are definitely reasonable measures starting with tracking and doing thorough background checks that tie in with mental health checks. The NRA is a disease that is allowing the thousands of deaths to happen across our country and atrocities like this to happen regularly. We need to find a cure. And there are reasonable measures that can start to change the circumstances.

19 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

Because you can only shoot one weapon at a time? Two if you think hollywood is real. Does it really matter if I have a basement stock pile of weapons? I know that makes for a great media blurb, but humans only have two hands.

Gun barrels will overheat if you keep putting bullets through them at rapid fire to the point that the barrel will distort and deteriorate accuracy but you also run the risk of ammunition cooking off (exploding in the chamber). This is primarily why I would guess the guy in Vegas had so many. You also run the risk of misfires and jams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Burn-E said:

Gun barrels will overheat if you keep putting bullets through them at rapid fire to the point that the barrel will distort and deteriorate accuracy but you also run the risk of ammunition cooking off (exploding in the chamber). This is primarily why I would guess the guy in Vegas had so many. You also run the risk of misfires and jams.

Sure, and I guess I should have been more specific. I was thinking more the difference between 5 and 50. If you're going to limit to maybe less than 5 weapons, I can see the angle. Unless we go with a very low maximum ownership count, I don't see the difference in one gun locker full or twenty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, gun violence that kills one person is no less terrible than that which kills 59.  Or 168.

If you think limiting weapon capacities is an effective way to prevent this kind of behavior, you're simply mistaken.  People have 3D printers.  You can make an AK47 automatic in minutes.

 

What this leads to is those who want to talk about gun control limits going to confiscation ultimately, which I'm completely against.  

So you can confiscate weapons all you want... but someone will figure out how to do what Timothy McVeigh did, and build a truck bomb.  He killed 168 people in seconds.

 

What really bothers me is that this is all some kind of score keeping, and it's fucking gross.  Too which point, the more people sensationalize this, the more the news makes it their leading story with headcount for headlines... it only spurs craziest to be envious of that light.  My guess is that we lack either the abilities or the courage as a nation to address our mental health problems.  

 

My plan to decrease gun violence?  Legalize marijuana.  Everyone needs to chill the fuck out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites