Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

My condolences

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
My condolences
Post by Dilandu   » Mon Oct 02, 2017 2:29 pm

Dilandu
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1219
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 12:44 pm
Location: Russia

My condolences to the Las Vegas tragedy. This event... it is beyound just horrifying. So many innocent lives were just terminated, so many others injured.

My condolences.
------------------------
If power's on your shopping list
Then use the elbow and the fist,
Pummel 'em until they get the gist
Just make an example of
Representative sample of
And most of them will not be missed! (c)
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by dscott8   » Tue Oct 03, 2017 11:24 am

dscott8
Captain of the List

Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:17 am

It's right and proper to mourn the losses and offer condolences, but unless we do something, we have missed an opportunity.

As a gun owner, I do not support outright confiscation, not because of the 2nd Amendment but for the older common law principle that self-defense is a right, and is useless without the tools to exercise it. I do believe, however, that we can take reasonable measures to lessen the chances of more incidents like Las Vegas.

My first recommendation is that the federal government should assert its preemptive powers regarding firearms law, based on the 2nd Amendment. The laws should be the same in all US states, territories and possessions.

The second is establishment of a federal firearms owner's permit, with requirements for rigorous background checks, mental health evaluations and training on safety and the pertinent laws. Periodic renewals would require retesting on these subjects. Like a driver's license, the permit would not limit the holder to a specific firearm, but would have "endorsements" for hunting arms, self-defense, concealed carry, etc.

Next would be controls on sales, limited to permit holders and serial-number recorded by a federal agency. Ideally, if practical, the serial number database would include a record of bullet markings form a sample fired round, for comparison to bullets found at a crime scene. The registered owner would have a legal duty of care to safely control access to their arms, and would be liable for their misuse.

A big issue would be control of actual characteristics of civilian firearms, with the intention of limiting the ability to shoot large numbers of people. I can imagine no legitimate need for a civilian to own a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine.

Finally, severe penalties should be invoked for any crime committed with a firearm. That includes possession/sale of illegal types and modifications.
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by Daryl   » Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:06 pm

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2266
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Sounds quite similar to what we have. Works. Bet it won't happen though.


dscott8 wrote:It's right and proper to mourn the losses and offer condolences, but unless we do something, we have missed an opportunity.

As a gun owner, I do not support outright confiscation, not because of the 2nd Amendment but for the older common law principle that self-defense is a right, and is useless without the tools to exercise it. I do believe, however, that we can take reasonable measures to lessen the chances of more incidents like Las Vegas.

My first recommendation is that the federal government should assert its preemptive powers regarding firearms law, based on the 2nd Amendment. The laws should be the same in all US states, territories and possessions.

The second is establishment of a federal firearms owner's permit, with requirements for rigorous background checks, mental health evaluations and training on safety and the pertinent laws. Periodic renewals would require retesting on these subjects. Like a driver's license, the permit would not limit the holder to a specific firearm, but would have "endorsements" for hunting arms, self-defense, concealed carry, etc.

Next would be controls on sales, limited to permit holders and serial-number recorded by a federal agency. Ideally, if practical, the serial number database would include a record of bullet markings form a sample fired round, for comparison to bullets found at a crime scene. The registered owner would have a legal duty of care to safely control access to their arms, and would be liable for their misuse.

A big issue would be control of actual characteristics of civilian firearms, with the intention of limiting the ability to shoot large numbers of people. I can imagine no legitimate need for a civilian to own a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine.

Finally, severe penalties should be invoked for any crime committed with a firearm. That includes possession/sale of illegal types and modifications.
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by Fireflair   » Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:20 pm

Fireflair
Captain of the List

Posts: 420
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:23 pm

We've had a lot of discussion on guns on the boards over the years. And there is, naturally, a lot of discussion elsewhere. But it come down to the simple fact that gun control is a great deal like prohibition and just as foolish as the 'War on Drugs'. All for the same reason.

The laws emplaced make illegal practically every mass shooting event. Additional laws won't change what people do and are almost impossible to enforce. Especially given the large number of fire-arms out there.

Creating laws which cannot be practically enforced only makes the government look weaker and more ineffectual. Outlawing drugs hasn't stopped their use, despite people being well aware that their are negative results. Outlawing, restricting or constraining gun sales with further regulation falls in much the same category. The honest man who abides by them wasn't much of a concern before. The dishonest man will ignore them anyway, and the criminal could really care less.

Congresswoman Feinstein advocates for a 5 round magazine limit on the premise that it would reduce the number of fatalities at any given shooting and would give the police more time to respond. (Side knit: Average police response time country wide for any call is 15 minutes.) She has obviously never seen how fast a person can change magazines. Most certainly I cannot fire quite as many rounds off if I have to change mags every five rounds, however it just means I carry more mags. Instead of 10 rounds in 10 seconds, I fire 10 rounds in 12-14 seconds. The number of rounds in a magazine is immaterial to the results garnered.

I have no objection to training and licensing, with restrictions on who can have weapons, but bear in mind that all these legal methods have little to no effect on the criminal element, which is the point most people miss. Making weapons harder to acquire for honest people does not impact the ability to find a gang banger who will sell you a Glock down in an alley.
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by Annachie   » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:26 am

Annachie
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1707
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Dscott, honest opinion time.
None of that is legal.
Hell, the current gun laws aren't legal. (We're talking personal here. Manufacturing etc way out of scope)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by Daryl   » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:34 am

Daryl
Admiral

Posts: 2266
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Standard military maxim, never give an order that you know will be disobeyed. Still, I wonder if having a federal restriction on the type of weapons legally available and tradeable mightn't help over time.
The argument that criminals always get access has a point, except that generally professional criminals are quite careful gun owners. They know the penalties, and consequences so usually use their arsenals in house against each other. Muggings using Saturday night specials would continue, but true criminals usually don't commit massacres.
What we sought to do was to limit the civilian nasty nutter from easy access to semi auto and auto centre fire guns. In our sleepy provincial city a local loser managed to get hold of a SKK (Chinese SKS semi auto converted to take 30 round banana clip mags) and ambushed a local cop who he had history with. Cop died heroically, nutter died the next day, national headlines and still newsworthy a couple of months later. So not possible to restrict nutters from serious firepower in all instances but the fact that this one incident is national news for a couple of months shows just how rare it is.
I gave up an SKS and SKK at our national buyback, and was unhappy at the time, but 20 years on can now see the sense in it.
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by pappilon   » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:36 am

pappilon
Captain of the List

Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:29 pm

Annachie wrote:Dscott, honest opinion time.
None of that is legal.
Hell, the current gun laws aren't legal. (We're talking personal here. Manufacturing etc way out of scope)


Most of the problem isn't guns. It is mental health and the embarrassing lack of treatment options for the mentally ill. And the republicans scream about gun control, access to basic medical care, Stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly when anyone mentions mental health services. They blame liberals for the gun violence, The shooter was definitely a Hillary Clinton supporter, or maybe a member of the Antifa.

I can't think of a single gun law that could have prevented this. Yes some equipment mods might have slowed or reduced the carnage, but heck he brought 20+ rifles into his suite. He could have legally bought and brought twice that many with smaller magazines. been to the movies,saw the settlers fire a gun dry, toss it and grab the next one while maw and the kids were busy reloading the empties.
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by dscott8   » Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:14 am

dscott8
Captain of the List

Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 5:17 am

pappilon wrote:
Annachie wrote:Dscott, honest opinion time.
None of that is legal.
Hell, the current gun laws aren't legal. (We're talking personal here. Manufacturing etc way out of scope)


Most of the problem isn't guns. It is mental health and the embarrassing lack of treatment options for the mentally ill. And the republicans scream about gun control, access to basic medical care, Stick their fingers in their ears and hum loudly when anyone mentions mental health services. They blame liberals for the gun violence, The shooter was definitely a Hillary Clinton supporter, or maybe a member of the Antifa.

I can't think of a single gun law that could have prevented this. Yes some equipment mods might have slowed or reduced the carnage, but heck he brought 20+ rifles into his suite. He could have legally bought and brought twice that many with smaller magazines. been to the movies,saw the settlers fire a gun dry, toss it and grab the next one while maw and the kids were busy reloading the empties.


One legal decision that could have lessened the carnage was the ruling that the "bump stock" found on several of the shooter's weapons was not illegal, due to creative rules maneuvering by its makers. For those not familiar, a bump stock converts a semi-auto rifle to rapid fire while sneaking around the legal definition of a "machine gun". Also, the high-capacity magazine ban that we allowed to expire would have slowed the shooter down some.
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by pappilon   » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:56 pm

pappilon
Captain of the List

Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:29 pm

dscott8 wrote:
One legal decision that could have lessened the carnage was the ruling that the "bump stock" found on several of the shooter's weapons was not illegal, due to creative rules maneuvering by its makers. For those not familiar, a bump stock converts a semi-auto rifle to rapid fire while sneaking around the legal definition of a "machine gun". Also, the high-capacity magazine ban that we allowed to expire would have slowed the shooter down some.


Not arguing with you at all, almost. With 20+ rifles, the ability to exhaust the magazine in one, toss it and switch to the next one, even without a bump stock,would have done little to lessen the carnage. And lessen the carnage is all that could have been accomplished. And "automatic weapon" is based on the lower receiver.

The issue is WHY did this guy feel the need to haul 20+ rifles into a hotel suite and open fire? NO legislation, no control of equipment modifiers will solve the problem of the lone shooter determined to take his own life and the lives of others.

I share the outrage and the feeling that something should/could/ought-to be done to prevent events like this. I just don't see the efficacy of dealing with equipment. I mean unless you are talking outright ban on all or well defined classes of firearms, AND a door-to-door search to ferret out all these illegal items.

Don't know about you, but I happen to live near a hardware store and 10s of 1000s of acres of wilderness and national/state forest. Good luck Sheriff John Brown, trying to find mine.
Top
Re: My condolences
Post by Fireflair   » Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:41 pm

Fireflair
Captain of the List

Posts: 420
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:23 pm

I quite agree with pappilon on this, and that's why I have a problem with the insistence on gun control laws/bans/whatevers.

Trivia fact for those concerned about keeping guns out of mental ill patient's hands (Not that I disagree with the idea mind) 60% of mass shootings are caused by some one with a considered medical issue of some sort. However there are about 36,000 shooting incidents in the US each year. About 11,000 of them deaths. 60% of all mass shootings are by people who are mentally compromised. Mass shootings only cover a few hundred deaths each year. Even if it were 2000 deaths caused at mass shootings, reducing 60% of them (so about 1200), would still leave nearly 10,000 gun related deaths each year. Obviously fewer deaths are significant to anyone involved, but statistically it's not a big enough number to justify the amount of money and effort which would need to go into keeping guns out of the hands of mental patients who already shouldn't be allowed to get them. While removing 60% of mass shootings is a fine goal (A mass shooting being any time more than 4 people are killed), blaming a majority of gun deaths on mass shootings and mentally disabled individuals is really stretching the facts.

Back on track here... The question is why the man, an otherwise stable, intelligent and not notably compromised in some way, individual decided to carry out a clearly well prepared plan of mass murder?

When it comes to many of these shootings the causes are unclear. Sometimes the guy is just a wacko, yes. But even then there are factors in his life which drove him to do what he did. We need to understand what the underlying issues are and address them, not handle the symptoms or results. An ounce of prevention and all that.

I also believe that more than you, papp, would simply ignore any sort of mass gun ban in the US which required the turn in of your weapons. I'm certain my cousins in Virginia and West Virginia would hold on to theirs, as would many of my friends here in Kentucky and Tennessee. As you pointed out, a door to door search would simply mean most moving their guns to the shed out in the back of their property.

@dscott
The bump stock is legal because it does not change the mechanical operation or mechanisms of the firearm, which is how the weapon is considered when being evaluated by the government. Modifying the trigger, spring and firing assembly to make it automatic is illegal for this reason. A bump stock doesn't make a gun fire as fast as an automatic, though it does admittedly increase your rate of fire. It operates by shortening the trigger stroke time through allowance of the recoil as an aid to firing the next round. Say 1 round a second to 3 rounds in a second.

However, as anyone who has fired automatic, burst and semi-automatic can attest to, when you start firing in rapid bursts never mind fully automatic, your aim goes right out the door. It is worth noting that it is doubtful that the man bothered very much with aimed fire in this case. A concert venue packed with people is very much like fish in a barrel, after all.

I would suggest you consider my earlier comment with regards to Feinstein and her desire to reduce magazine sizes. As pappilon remarked, and I explained, smaller magazine size would not have significantly reduced the amount of ammunition which could have been expended.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...