Slaughter in vegas

[bym051d]

I just tried to email my senators regarding gun control and I got this:

WEBSITE TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE DUE TO MAINTENANCE.

Normal service will return soon.

Great job trying to politicize this when it's not the time.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

You can't argue with naive and uninformed people. So I'm going back to work.

It's a shame that ideas that could actually work will get lost in the nonsense debate, nothing will be done, and in a month we'll be talking something trivial again, like Kim Jong Un's haircut.

Have a good day folks.

"Ideas that work" almost always equals "ideas that won't inconvenience me at all".

Non-trivial conversations are hard, and are made even harder still when people walk away when their ideas are challenged.

 

[RJKarl]

So they've convinced their target demographic to purchase something they don't need and has little to no practical use? Welcome to America, enjoy your stay.

Convincing someone to pay $1000 for an iPhone is grossly different than making a product available to the public that makes hunting and killing people much easier.

 

[RJKarl]

You can't argue with naive and uninformed people. So I'm going back to work.

It's a shame that ideas that could actually work will get lost in the nonsense debate, nothing will be done, and in a month we'll be talking something trivial again, like Kim Jong Un's haircut.

Have a good day folks.

This is a perfect example of the problem. although Brangus agreed with about 75% of what I posted, he refuses to negotiate the technicalities and verbiage of the concepts. Then runs away.

This is why sensible solutions can't be made

 

[ONW]

"“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’"

WWCRD?

 

[silk]

What a BULLSHIT answer.

Silencers are so that you kill people silently and for gun companies to make more money.

Who cares if gun ranges are a little quieter when compared to the DEATHS silencers will cause. Many more people would be dead in Vegas if his weapons didn't make any noises.

You are lost
Silent, Didn't make noise, LOL

 

[Bubble Boy]

This is a perfect example of the problem. although Brangus agreed with about 75% of what I posted, he refuses to negotiate the technicalities and verbiage of the concepts. Then runs away.

This is why sensible solutions can't be made

Newsflash: you are on a message board and not in Congress. You are not making solutions. Perhaps what you say is the best idea ever proposed, but it is still just words on a message board.

 

[Wakeforest22890]

"Since you guys don't know the difference between a .38 and a 40 rack, it's obvious that we can't make any changes to the current gun laws."

 

[DG3]

Convincing someone to pay $1000 for an iPhone is grossly different than making a product available to the public that makes hunting and killing people much easier.

RJ, that's the thing. They don't. At all. Whatsoever. In fact it makes it a hell of a lot harder to conceal a weapon. Suppressors are an aesthetic toy so people can pretend they are James Bond. Firing a suppressed weapon is still loud as fuck. When Joe Dirt gets drunk and shoots someone, the people in the trailer next door are still going to hear it. Rest assured.

 

[RJKarl]

RJ, that's the thing. They don't. At all. Whatsoever. In fact it makes it a hell of a lot harder to conceal a weapon. Suppressors are an aesthetic toy so people can pretend they are James Bond. Firing a suppressed weapon is still loud as fuck. When Joe Dirt gets drunk and shoots someone, the people in the trailer next door are still going to hear it. Rest assured.

So, if they are "loud as hell", why fight for them?

To say they don't put more people at risk is ridiculous.

 

[RJKarl]

You are lost
Silent, Didn't make noise, LOL

Make it "less noise" and it still would have taken more time to locate him at a loud event.

But keep support a product whose purpose is to make it easier to kill people. Just like not opposing making large capacity devices illegal.

 

[thatguy2016]

That game in Littlejohn was a must-win

 

[DG3]

So, if they are "loud as hell", why fight for them?

To say they don't put more people at risk is ridiculous.

Because if someone wants to buy a useless accessory, then let them. That's a good portion on our economy at work. I don't know how many more ways we can tell you this. They are virtually useless. You have to drop this Hollywood idea you have on them. They aren't taking a 9mm from loud to silent fart level noise. It's more "ear drum rupturing" noise to "almost ear drum rupturing noise."

 

[Louis Gossett Jr]

The idea that we can't do something is so stupid. You could technically do anything you wanted with guns but the will to do it isn't there.

 

[RJKarl]

Because if someone wants to buy a useless accessory, then let them. That's a good portion on our economy at work. I don't know how many more ways we can tell you this. They are virtually useless. You have to drop this Hollywood idea you have on them. They aren't taking a 9mm from loud to silent fart level noise. It's more "ear drum rupturing" noise to "almost ear drum rupturing noise."

Sorry, we don't need them to embolden killers.

 

[06deacon]

I'd recommend you give it a rest with the silencers rj. They are useless truck nuts and it's just undermining the other good points you're making.

 

[06deacon]

The idea that we can't do something is so stupid. You could technically do anything you wanted with guns but the will to do it isn't there.

Exactly. A lot of excuses.

There's reasonable regulation on most things in our society that could create public safety issues. It shouldn't be so contentious to restrict access to bazookas just so some folks can collect shiny things.

 

[Deacon923]

making ownership more expensive is the obvious market solution here.

I've handled a fair amount of estates. Most Personal Reps/Executors are stressed out, poorly educated, seedy, or idiots. This is not a procedure you want in the hands of the average Personal Rep/Executor.

The gun safety lobby (I avoided the word "control") should focus on things that can actually be practically done. Magazine capacity limits and cash for guns and associated equipment are doable. The rest is just internet screaming.

We can’t have some of these reforms because it may impose difficult obligations on executors. I mean. Come on.

You know what is really inconvenient for an executor? When Grampa dies without a will. The estate planning lobby has finally beaten into the heads of most - not all - Americans that they need to have a will and some other advanced planning so as not to burden their kids. It would not take long for the gun owning public (which skews old and white) to figure out that leaving an unsecured gun behind when they die is a burden on their kids, so they would start to make plans for that particular asset class, just like they do for other asset classes. One way of planning for that asset class is turning in Grampa's gun to the aforementioned buy-back program before he croaks.

But it doesn't matter. Anything that in any way impinges on the convenience or personal fetishes of gun owners cannot be allowed because 2nd Amendment, everyone else's freedom to go to a concert without fear of being brutally gunned down be damned. It's a funny and incredibly narrow definition of "freedom".

Changing the subject: There is no "good" thing about this shooting, but perhaps there is an educational moment. This event forever disproves the "good guy with a gun" theory. The good guy with a gun theory has always been highly questionable, to say the least, but now we have a proven case where no amount of armed civilians, heat packing elementary school teachers, etc. etc. would have made one iota of difference. All those tough guys with CCLs and off-duty cops who were probably carrying at the concert were helpless. A guy who completely outgunned and outplanned them rendered their hero fantasies impotent and killed 58 people. Even the cops were ineffective. He stopped when he decided to stop, he could have probably unloaded on the cops in the hall if he'd wanted to. Some people are starting to see this (notably one of the performers has been posting about it). Maybe it will change a few minds around the edges, who knows.

 

[warak]

so i am having trouble understanding how a guy accumulates over 40 weapons and never be noticed or added to any list. how many background checks are done (for a gun) before being added to a watch list?

 

[06deacon]

Also up until this guy started firing, he was probably a "good guy with a gun." Hindsight 20/20, he obviously was not but he passed all existing purchase restrictions and probably would pass whatever mental illness test that gets proposed. Some folks are just psychopaths. How do we know that Joe Smalldick who open carries in church isn't gonna snap also?