Las Vegas Shootings

[s_stabeler]

I wondered if this would come up. If I may be blunt, if the government wanted to confiscate all guns, then they would be more likely to send people door-to-door searching. (yes, I am aware of the 4th amendment. However, pro-gun supporters already allege they have the right to own guns due to the 2nd amendment- so, if they are right, the government would be breaking two amendments, rather than one. not unrealistic. If they are wrong, the government could ban guns, then get search warrants.) If you used your guns to try to stop them, then that is not going to go well for you.

[Tanasi]

If the government decides to go door to door searching for guns the a LOT of folks will die with a warrant or not.
Who do think the government will get to do these searches and confiscations?

[jackfaire]

If the government decides to go door to door searching for guns the a LOT of folks will die with a warrant or not.
Who do think the government will get to do these searches and confiscations?

I think that was their point. The fact that no one would and it would never happen. Yet it's the basis for the argument against any sane laws preventing people from getting the weapons they need to do things like Vegas.

The first response to any "let's figure out why this happens and how to stop it" is "no you can't because then they'll try to take all of our guns"

[mjr]

As far as is known, the shooter acquired the firearms legally.

And if a statistic I heard is correct, there are approximately 1.45 firearms for every person in the United States. That's approximately 464 million firearms.

Additionally, again, I bring up what I wrote earlier regarding 2A. What does "the right of the people" mean? And does it mean something different in 2A than it does in, say, 1A, 4A, and 5A?

And we must also ask ourselves how far we're willing to let our Constitutional rights be restricted.

Are you willing to let your 1A, 4A, and 5A rights be restricted further? If so, how much further?

[jackfaire]

Are you willing to let your 1A, 4A, and 5A rights be restricted further? If so, how much further?

Before the Supreme Court agreed with gun manufacturers most of the public didn't feel that the 2nd amendment gave an individual the right to have the same kind of armament as the Army or a Militia that the individuals right to a firearm was limited to a reasonable amount.

Then they lobbied and sued until now a private citizen can outfit themselves as well as any combat ready military team and everyone else is just supposed to be okay with it.

Also it would help if congress can't have the gun control conversation if we could have the mental health one. Unfortunately those two things that often seem to go hand in hand during situations like these are both Verboten topics in today's congress.

[wraiths_crono]

I am a gun owner, I also am in favor of better background checks that also include a psych evaluation. I know that we can never prevent every event however this shows we are trying to do something besides an outright ban. We need to better define the weapons as well, everything is called an assault rifle by the media which adds to those that will defend "no its not!" and also provokes a fear response by everyone else. We ban full auto - we should have a ban on any modifications that replicate this without the government control (As some know you can register and pay a fee to own full auto weapons, this also waives your right to a warrant should the ATF suspect you in any crimes however that's the deal.)

The guy next to my desk at work thinks that anyone in power that demands gun control should have their bodyguards turn in their weapons - proving that he thinks in an all or nothing kind of world, his reason is that HE had the mental fortitude to know that when he was depressed he handed off the key to his safe to a friend until he was better. This shows that too many pro gun people also believe that planned events just do not happen. From here the conversation went south into political reasons behind every attack and that 'they' are paying these people to shoot up the country and so on.

[s_stabeler]

If the government decides to go door to door searching for guns the a LOT of folks will die with a warrant or not.
Who do think the government will get to do these searches and confiscations?

considering that they found people for Extraordinary Rendition- and, for that matter, Guantanamo Bay might well count since that was originally set up with the intent of dodging judicial oversight of those detained on allegations of being terrorists-I'm guessing that would be able to find people to if they really wanted to.

However, you were missing my actual point- as did Jackfaire, incidentally- that not having a list will not actually prevent confiscation of guns by a government that is determined to do so.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

In practice, Governments have not gone door to door (at least in the free world.) What they have had is financial incentives to turn the guns back in. Add to that, a simple restriction on gun ranges and other activities that make recreational gun owning appealing, and you have a recipe for a slow dilution of the gun owning population up to the extreme case of those that commit idolatry of gun ownership. The black market or "underground" activities will always exist but will slowly ebb over time.

You can't do much about those people because that tends to be the nexus of internalized dogma, self-sustaining paranoia(wake up sheeple), and in many cases some sort of bizarre fascination with the idea of some sort of great rights firefight.

In reality, you simply offer (from the government) buy backs that pollute the gun market with ever escalating price points which will ultimately drive gun prices up to either unsustainable or truly "collectible" value. Those that want to keep them will forgo the buy backs, but many people interested in profit will purchase guns at lower prices from the market and sell it back for profit. The value continues to increase, the government continues to increase with it and gun inventories drop. The point isn't to rip the gun out of someone's hand. It's to make it less appealing over time. The person who is serious about enjoying them spends the money and probably isn't nuts because there's no longer anything "impulse" about ownership.

Ultimately you simply make gun ownership financially silly except in the same way someone might hold on to high value artwork. No one's hurt. Gun owners actually come out pretty well on the deal. No one kicks down a door. People find other passtimes.

^ And I advocate none of this btw, but there's not going to be a damn war for people's guns unless gun owners decide to open fire first.

I'm fine with gun ownership but I am a little bit sick with the how easy it is to get a gun compared to other things. And truthfully, I get the impression a bunch of Republicans are getting sick of defending the fringiest "out of my cold dead hands" wing that seems ok with the ubiquity of military grade hardware (or modified to military grade.)

They shouldn't be defended. They're a religion, not a rational political actor.

[Greenday]

The person who is serious about enjoying them spends the money and probably isn't nuts because there's no longer anything "impulse" about ownership.

Or just institute a 48-72 hour wait period before you can actually get the gun. Would reduce a lot of crimes of passion and suicides.

[mjr]

Would reduce a lot of crimes of passion

I dunno...crimes of passion could still be with a knife, baseball bat, crowbar, tire iron, etc...

and suicides.

Overdose on drugs, jump off a bridge, razor blade, crash a car into something at high speed while not wearing a seatbelt...

There are other ways...

[jackfaire]

Overdose on drugs, jump off a bridge, razor blade, crash a car into something at high speed while not wearing a seatbelt...

There are other ways...

There are and those other ways are subject to more regulation than fire arms are. Most people who attempt suicide give up after the first failed attempt. It's really hard to fail at shooting yourself.

It's harder to get onto a newer bridge to jump off. Drugs are closely monitored. Cars are continually designed to be safer.

[mjr]

It's harder to get onto a newer bridge to jump off.

Doesn't have to be newer. Just has to be high enough for you to land "wrong" and/or create enough G-force when you hit.

Drugs are closely monitored. Cars are continually designed to be safer.

People could overdose very easily. And if you're not wearing a seatbelt, the airbag might not do much.

[jackfaire]

You're completely missing the point MJR. No one is trying to stop us from making it harder to use those things to kill oneself or others.

But people are trying to stop us from doing the same with guns. It's not about whether someone could succeed once they have the item it's about keeping them away long for the impulse to pass.

It's like people who have issues with impulse buying so they freeze their credit cards into a block of ice. That way by the time it's thawed they either still want to buy it or the impulse has passed.

Making it harder for a person with a suicidal impulse to get a gun will make it harder for them to use that gun to commit suicide. If we make it the easiest method of suicide by not regulating it at all then people will just go that way.

[Greenday]

I dunno...crimes of passion could still be with a knife, baseball bat, crowbar, tire iron, etc...

Overdose on drugs, jump off a bridge, razor blade, crash a car into something at high speed while not wearing a seatbelt...

There are other ways...

The problem is, statistics show guns tend to be a lot more effective in murdering people and committing suicide. Gunshots remain the most effective method of suicide. Suicide attempts by gunshot wounds result in the least failures.

People impulse buy and use guns. It's way more effective than other means. Just one reason as to why it should be restricted.

[mjr]

The problem is, statistics show guns tend to be a lot more effective in murdering people and committing suicide. Gunshots remain the most effective method of suicide. Suicide attempts by gunshot wounds result in the least failures.

I'f you're arguing the "reducing suicide" perspective, that's fine. The issue there is that there are lots of people who could pass background checks (like the Vegas shooter), people with "mental health problems" often go undiagnosed.

Further, I saw a statistic recently (and if I am wrong, please correct me) that "gun deaths" via suicide are markedly higher annually than accidental shootings, murders, and those types of things.

But how far are we (in a general/legislative sense) willing to go? Are we willing to say that someone who wants to possess a firearm shouldn't be able to have one, because they want one? There are laypeople who already believe that.