Another fucking spree shooting. Great.

you have children, don't do it

stop fucking saying this to me

Well this isn't a surprise:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-at-his-local-starbucks-vegas-shooter-1507060195-htmlstory.html

This weird binary between "ban all guns" and "do nothing" is what's so infuriating about this. I think people should be allowed to own guns, but also be mandated to take classes, do safety checks, and purchase some sort of liability insurance. You know, like you have to when you want to drive a car. And no dumb honking automatic rifles.

I'm all for an AW ban, but I also know that you have to let everybody who has one keep it. (So if you see one, you have no way of knowing whether it's pre- or post-ban). Else you go house-to-house collecting them (not gonna happen in red USofA). There are already enough to kill every one of your children a dozen times over.

Buyback programs work

assault weapons ban w/buyback program, no gun show loopholes, onerous paperwork for everything else --> would almost certainly lower the number of spree shootings as well as accidental deaths.

it wouldn't be as effective of a blanket ban, or 2A repeal, or w/e, but i think it would be possible practically and politically to enact "sensible" gun legislation that would actually save lives and not just be superficial

12-month trade-in for muskets, after that any person publicly seen with a gun is captured and released into a wild game preserve where the only prey is the deadliest kind... other hunters previously released.

I like it

"This is the true story of seven strangers picked to live in a housegame preserve and have their lives taped. Find out what happens when people stop being polite and start getting real."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/10/03/what-a-macho-gun-packing-instagram-star-did-when-he-was-caught-in-the-las-vegas-shooting/?tid=hybrid_collaborative_1_na&utm_term=.076e32a853a5

compare and contrast that nimrod with

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/03/he-helped-people-escape-from-the-storm-of-gunfire-in-las-vegas-now-he-has-a-bullet-in-his-neck/?hpid=hp_no-name_hp-in-the-news%3Apage%2Fin-the-news&utm_term=.c8cdebfc602f

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/two-strangers-bond-over-country-music-and-beer-then-the-shots-started/2017/10/03/d5d4541a-a846-11e7-b3aa-c0e2e1d41e38_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.6cac1f4d998b

An Assault Weapons Ban along the lines of what we've had before would be pointless (a decade of panic buying has made them one of the most common types of gun in the country and there's now an entire industry dedicated to getting around it) - what someone with a ton of money should be doing is pushing a lobbying group that aims to add any semi-automatic rifle .22LR or above - to the National Firearms Act registry list (alongside automatic weapons, short barreled rifles and shotguns). There's precedent for requiring existing weapons to be listed, tracked and adding more onerous conditions for their transfer. Doing so would be perfectly fine with the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

(tldr of the NFA - $200 tax stamp and ~8 months of waiting on ATF approval for the transfer of a gun)

I still don't see that happening in my lifetime and there are serious questions about the extent that it would do any good given the sheer number of guns in existence - but it means that anyone you see with an AR-15 has to be carrying his ATF paperwork and tax stamp at all times (as someone with a short barreled rifle does now).

XXP agh I wish I didn't know that guy existed
thanks internet

there are serious questions about the extent that it would do any good given the sheer number of guns in existence

this is a majority belief of many GOP voters, and is subsequently used as the rationale for opposing any and all gun control legislation. just pointing that out for the record.

At the same time, I recognize that it is indisputable that the massive amount of guns already owned in this country make it impossible to achieve the kinds of results Australia did, or to fully abolish or outlaw any particular make of gun.

Given this kind of no-win situation I think supporting any and all gun control legislation makes sense from a strategic point of view - some approaches may be effective, some may be ineffective, but passing as much as possible increases the odds that some minimal gains will be made *AND* also (perhaps more importantly in the long view) would serve as the basis for further action in the courts to re-evaluate the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, put the NRA/gun lobby on the defensive, etc.

I'm kinda done with the FB arguments. they all seem to devolve into "how's your socialist utopia Venezuela working out for you?" and "oh you can't have guns in Germany and it's basically a fascist state"

Why do all of these types consistently ignore what happened in Australia. We had a massacre you'd all remember (Port Arthur shootings) and our PM did a wide ranging gun ban/amnesty and WE HAVE HAD NO MASS SHOOTINGS EVER SINCE.

(yes, we've had shootings, and homicides and suicides but nothing will stop those in any country)

sorry but this kind of leftist bullshit will never fly here

https://frinkiac.com/video/S04E21/-fpLwli87-tB5YP1E0i8tM_F9Ds=.gif

xp. britain similarly has had 1 shooting massacre since the change in legislation that came about after the dunblane massacre in 1996.

so many guns in u.s. that gun control wouldn't be quite as effective I'm sure, but when less effective still = saying a ton of lives any argument to the contrary is craven and horrific.

so you've met our political leadership then

“My greatest fear is that someone will break in & I won’t be able to decide what #gun to shoot them with,”

guilty lols, mostly for the use of hashtag

imo that asshole was clearly "going to get a gun" to bide his time til the shooting stopped.

lol Trayce i dont think Australia’s example gets ignored at all - I’ve seen it cited in my feed like 20 times from 20 different people (non Aussies) in the past 2 days

(xposts)

when I was at the Hollywood Bowl several weeks ago the thought crossed my mind several times about someone coming in and shooting the place up. either into the crowd while the show went on or into the crowd as they exited. it crosses my mind at every show now. sometimes even before a movie. and at sporting events. and sometimes at school. i wait with our kid in the schoolyard til he goes to class (where the doors are locked now.)

in other countries, I don't shrug that this will inevitably happen again, and i don't cross my fingers that someone i love will get caught up in it. but at the same time i've been close enough to gun violence or near-violence (where guns were flashed) to feel not secure in my safety.

Given this kind of no-win situation I think supporting any and all gun control legislation makes sense from a strategic point of view - some approaches may be effective, some may be ineffective, but passing as much as possible increases the odds that some minimal gains will be made *AND* also (perhaps more importantly in the long view) would serve as the basis for further action in the courts to re-evaluate the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, put the NRA/gun lobby on the defensive, etc.

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, October 3, 2017 5:39 PM (forty-nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

generally agree w this these days -- keep pushing, hope for some gains and down the road a cultural reappraisal

If Trump really wants to piss off the Republican "swamp" he should support an assault weapons ban. 500 fucking people were shot. I have a feeling Republican voters would come around if some of the people they trusted started pushing something other than the NRA line.

500 people were not shot.

Bannon has already said that any gun control whatsoever is a dead letter to his 'nationalist' base

Sorry. 500 injured. I didn't see how many were gunshot victims.

nbd, just don't give the RWNJs any reason to dismiss arguments.

No, actually, fuck them. They don’t have any fucking numbers either. The only numbers they have are 2 as in Second and Thousands as in Dead Americans. fuck them. The defense is on them. Fuck them. I’m done with them playing the “realists” in these fucking arguments

Or basically what Andrew Farrell said upthread about how trampled vs shot

i think the argument has to be pointed at quietist or camp-follower republicans (and whatever independents can be peeled off) at this point. we're held hostage to their party position. the party won't listen to people who want reform. the people driving the party position won't budge unless the ground shifts. so where can it shift? the people who don't super give a shit about gun rights but also have messed up ideas about the need to take action on reform. it's like the line race relations activists take on dealing with white people: we're at a point where yall need to have these conversations among yourselves and start doing the work with your fellow white people. well, republicans need to be trying to move other republicans.

I'm hearing the "its a waste of breath trying to change gun control laws, the country is awash with guns on the black market" argument a lot on FB
...
Given this kind of no-win situation I think supporting any and all gun control legislation makes sense from a strategic point of view - some approaches may be effective, some may be ineffective, but passing as much as possible increases the odds that some minimal gains will be made *AND* also (perhaps more importantly in the long view) would serve as the basis for further action in the courts to re-evaluate the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, put the NRA/gun lobby on the defensive, etc.

I do think being "awash with guns" is a major impediment to gun control laws being effective but vehemently disagree that "it's a waste of breath". The litmus test for any proposed law (gun control or otherwise) isn't "will this law instantly eliminate all instances of X". A gun-loving culture awash with guns needs to be slowly changed into a gun-hating culture with much less guns. That will take decades, if it's even possible at all. But baby steps. Any laws that can get passed -- even if they don't prevent a single act of gun violence! -- are worthwhile to show that US as a society thinks guns are a problem that must be addresed. Flag in the ground n all.

otm

to be fair we are very good at telling people they can't be trusted with certain weapons, but those people tend to be the political leaders of other countries

hmm, that's not a bad idea

we'll just get trump to say that if everyone doesn't get rid of their guns asap, we will "totally destroy" their owners and they "won't be around much longer"

so I'm at a bar watching the baseball game and there's a guy here with a sidearm (NM is open carry) wearing a Rick and Morty tshirt that says "wubba lub dub!!!"

god bless america :-/

I only wish we knew how to fix the cultural problem of firearms being used to compensate (for lost masculinity, etc). Ultimately, I think the ideal is a world where guns are no longer seen as a means to to address powerlessness and feel potent, but viewed with no more affection than we would have for other mechanical devices, and perhaps a fair amount of revulsion.

I don't know how to effect this. Perhaps if every gunshot depicted on TV was followed by gore, agonal breathing, and the misery of family members, that might help. The direction most fictional media has increasingly taken for decades, trivializing the consequences of gun violence, treating guns as problem solving tools, should disgust us. They provide the resolution to most police procedurals, with the commercial break cutting in before any reflection on the suffering. But I'm not innocent. I buy and enjoy war films and FPS shooters (though I haven't touched a firearm since serving in the Army).

FPS games are so fucked up

Every other developed country in the world has managed to legislate the use of firearms in a way which minimises gun violence, and they all have the same war films and police procedurals on TV etc so I don't think that's really the issue

Yeah its def not an issue.

It does bum me out that it's become such a dominant part of the videogame industry but thats just me.

have you seen their police procedurals, they're shit

Why do all of these types consistently ignore what happened in Australia. We had a massacre you'd all remember (Port Arthur shootings) and our PM did a wide ranging gun ban/amnesty and WE HAVE HAD NO MASS SHOOTINGS EVER SINCE.

― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Tuesday, October 3, 2017 6:57 PM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

(yes, we've had shootings, and homicides and suicides but nothing will stop those in any country)

― Stoop Crone (Trayce), Tuesday, October 3, 2017

but we have a Bill of Rights with a Second Amendment, see

I love a foreign police procedural

I hate cop shows, FPS/military games, war propaganda movies u name it

it is an issue i think because i think the depiction of guns as not psychologically *heavy* items but almost these lightweight instruments of justice, the way they're depicted and fetishized with such casualness to the point that our culture is infiltrated with them at every turn, the way that even if you've never touched one or seen one IRL you can just easily *imagine* using one and doling out justice or w/e....it's kinda fucked up.

the difference really is our gun laws vs other countries' laws though.

Y'all, we have a Supreme Court that has seen a right to bear arms in the Second Amendment; comparing us to Australia or whatever will do no good. We need to elect candidates who can stack the Court with justices who can overrturn District of Columbia v. Heller.

Fortunately, the late Nino's majority opinion in Heller also said this:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

I can hear opponents of gay marriage licking their chops: "The Framers, I'm sure, didn't envision a right to marry a man free of state intrusion in the Constitution." No, they didn't. But I'm a cynic. Appoint men and women who, aware of public moods and societal trends, will enact the laws I want and interpret the laws such that they help me. If a groundswell of support for gun restrictions is sustained, the courts and Court tend to respond, especially men with antenna as finely tuned as Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts.

But, nah, nothing will happen.

but there are cultural differences even in action films though, i mean obviously for example Hong Kong action films are super OTT but they also tend to be a bit more concerned with morality, maybe?