Slaughter in vegas

[ConnorEl]

Thought for sure when I saw 923 that it would be to post the new Frum piece from the Atlantic.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...he-debate-is-missing/542229/?utm_source=atltw

Quote
-----------
A parable:

A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain.

At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.

After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won’t work. “No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers - and oh by the way, you said ‘stilts’ when the proper term is ‘piles,’ so why should anybody listen to you?”

So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.
----------

 

[WFFaithful]

Tucker Carlson: bump stock saved lives

 

[WakeandBake]

Guys named Tucker, lol

 

[dartsndeacs]

Seems like the NRA was pretty spot on. Our attention span lasted about 8 days.

 

[marquee moon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...says-Stephen-Paddock-enjoyed-violent-sex.html

 

[MysteryMen]

Most likely #fakenews. If you do your taxes correctly, most gamblers like him will claim $5 million in winnings and $5 million in losses for a net of zero. (He probably lost a bit, but got enough free stuff to make it worth it, for example when we lived in Vegas we did the video poker thing solely so we could free 24/7 valet) No one profits $5 million in video poker.

This is called tax evasion. Anything you get for "free" from a casino is taxable. Drinks, food, rooms, everything.

 

[dartsndeacs]

This is called tax evasion. Anything you get for "free" from a casino is taxable. Drinks, food, rooms, everything.

As is every $5 bet you've ever made with a friend. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think casino's give 1099's for Comps.

 

[birdman]

Introspective question for you all. I've read almost all of this thread and I think I've made my position that gun control is essential and and screw the 2nd amendment, etc . pretty clear, but having read all of these posts I want to pose the questions: How do the liberals on the board feel about placing blame/responsibility for gun deaths on the gun community as a whole or gun culture in other words, while many of the same people assert that the actions of a few extremist Muslims do no represent the Muslim world at large? We've had some pretty clear posts saying that the gun community has failed and it is time y'all take responsibility, etc. etc...I also pose the same questions to the conservatives, who, on this thread, say that these actions (gun violence) are perpetrated by a few bad apple - lone wolf - crazy people and why should we have to give up our individual freedoms because some crazy people can't control them selves. Many of the those same people want to place the blame/responsibility for "Islamic terrorism" on the Islamic religion as a whole. They are willing to support politicians that institute Muslim travel bans and try to blame the Islamic world at large when really a it's small percent of Muslims that embrace extremist ideologies and resort to terrorist violence. So, how do we all square our views? Or is that kind of inconsistency, across issues, with how we place blame and try get to the root causes of these problems ok?

 

[cville deac]

Birdman, I'm mostly left of center, and I think they're 2 different issues. On the face of it, the number of Islamic terrorists in the world are a small number considering there are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. That said, I agree that some on the left de-emphasize Islamic terrorism and that we need to continue to spend what we do to combat it because it will continue to be an ongoing problem.

And like Townie, I don't really blame the "gun community" to the extent that exists. I'm not into guns and don't own any, but I have plenty of friends who like to go shooting and a couple who like to hunt. And these folks own some combination of rifles, shotguns and handguns. They don't have the arsenals that this Vegas whackjob or David Koresh did. I simply do not understand why rational people can't get behind banning individual ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons. We have way too many whackjobs, conspiracy theorists and Islamic terrorists (for that matter) who can and will use these weapons to kill dozens of folks. As for blame, I blame the NRA, Congress and to a lesser extent, the Supreme Court. For me, the banning of automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be easy. But at the end of the day, most of the gun deaths in the country still aren't caused by automatic and semi-automatic weapons in terrorist and like mass killings. The vast majority of gun deaths in the US are the result of handguns. And that's a tougher problem to solve. I get that folks want them because they like to shoot and for potential protection. But if we want to make a major dent in the number of gun deaths, handguns would have to be greatly restricted. And that is a way tougher sell.

 

[RJKarl]

Introspective question for you all. I've read almost all of this thread and I think I've made my position that gun control is essential and and screw the 2nd amendment, etc . pretty clear, but having read all of these posts I want to pose the questions: How do the liberals on the board feel about placing blame/responsibility for gun deaths on the gun community as a whole or gun culture in other words, while many of the same people assert that the actions of a few extremist Muslims do no represent the Muslim world at large? We've had some pretty clear posts saying that the gun community has failed and it is time y'all take responsibility, etc. etc...I also pose the same questions to the conservatives, who, on this thread, say that these actions (gun violence) are perpetrated by a few bad apple - lone wolf - crazy people and why should we have to give up our individual freedoms because some crazy people can't control them selves. Many of the those same people want to place the blame/responsibility for "Islamic terrorism" on the Islamic religion as a whole. They are willing to support politicians that institute Muslim travel bans and try to blame the Islamic world at large when really a it's small percent of Muslims that embrace extremist ideologies and resort to terrorist violence. So, how do we all square our views? Or is that kind of inconsistency, across issues, with how we place blame and try get to the root causes of these problems ok?

I see two real issues. The first is the cowardice and abdication of their duties of Congress regarding gun issues. The second is conservative need to get off the slippery slope BS.

If Congress acted on what the nation wants to be law, which is a major part of their job, we would have:

1. Universal Background Checks on every transfer of gun ownership
2. Gun Registry
3. Ban expanded clips/magazines/drums (choose your term)
4. Liability insurance for gun owners
5. Ban bump stock and other mechanisms to make semi-auto into fully auto

The fist four would pass a vote of the people with at least 75% each, if polls are at all accurate. None of them infringes on anyone owning a gun in any way shape or form. Until the past ten days almost no one had heard of #5, but it would pass well.

But Congress is too afraid of the NRA to do their job. It's disgraceful.

 

[birdman]

Shifting blame to the politicians is fine, I dislike most politicians. But, the policies you are advocating are still asking the entire gun community to sacrifice their freedoms because of a few crazy individuals? Most gun owners will never shoot a person, yet you suggest we should subject them all to background checks and a national registry, etc. How is that different than instituting a travel ban for people from Muslim majority countries because some of them might be terrorists? Inverse question goes to the conservatives, You are asking the rest of society to accept the risk of living amongst a lot of guns because freedom and 'Murica, etc., but at the same time you are asking us to accept banning Muslim tourists/immigrants because there is a small but non-zero chance that some of them might be terrorists. Why is it ok to place burdens and restrictions on an entire community for the good of the rest of in one case but not in the other?

 

[DistrictDeacon]

Shifting blame to the politicians is fine, I dislike most politicians. But, the policies you are advocating are still asking the entire gun community to sacrifice their freedoms because of a few crazy individuals? Most gun owners will never shoot a person, yet you suggest we should subject them all to background checks and a national registry, etc. How is that different than instituting a travel ban for people from Muslim majority countries because some of them might be terrorists? Inverse question goes to the conservatives, You are asking the rest of society to accept the risk of living amongst a lot of guns because freedom and 'Murica, etc., but at the same time you are asking us to accept banning Muslim tourists/immigrants because there is a small but non-zero chance that some of them might be terrorists. Why is it ok to place burdens and restrictions on an entire community for the good of the rest of in one case but not in the other?

Background checks and a national registry is not a sacrifice of freedom.

 

[birdman]

Background checks and a national registry is not a sacrifice of freedom.

I agree with you, but I think a lot of gun owners think it is. I'd bet a lot of them think it violates their right to privacy.

 

[RJKarl]

Shifting blame to the politicians is fine, I dislike most politicians. But, the policies you are advocating are still asking the entire gun community to sacrifice their freedoms because of a few crazy individuals? Most gun owners will never shoot a person, yet you suggest we should subject them all to background checks and a national registry, etc. How is that different than instituting a travel ban for people from Muslim majority countries because some of them might be terrorists? Inverse question goes to the conservatives, You are asking the rest of society to accept the risk of living amongst a lot of guns because freedom and 'Murica, etc., but at the same time you are asking us to accept banning Muslim tourists/immigrants because there is a small but non-zero chance that some of them might be terrorists. Why is it ok to place burdens and restrictions on an entire community for the good of the rest of in one case but not in the other?

"In October, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans — including 87 percent of Republicans — favor background checks for all gun buyers.Jan 5, 2016"

87% of REPUBLICANS support universal background checks. It doesn't "sacrifice" ANY type of freedom.

As of today if you buy a gun, from a gun shop ANYWHERE in America, you have to go through a background check. To simply make all sales have the same rules is on NO WAY, ANYTHING LIKE the Muslim Ban.

RE: Gun registry - as of a week ago 56% of Republicans and 84% of Dems support a federal database of gun sales. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/bipartisan-gun-control-policies-majorities/index.html

Like background checks, gun registration in no way keeps a single person from owning any legal gun/rifle. In no way would it "sacrifice" any freedom. But a Muslim Ban does keep Muslims from entering the US.

You must be trolling, because these positions make no sense.

 

[birdman]

"In October, a CBS News/New York Times poll found that 92 percent of Americans — including 87 percent of Republicans — favor background checks for all gun buyers.Jan 5, 2016"

87% of REPUBLICANS support universal background checks. It doesn't "sacrifice" ANY type of freedom.

As of today if you buy a gun, from a gun shop ANYWHERE in America, you have to go through a background check. To simply make all sales have the same rules is on NO WAY, ANYTHING LIKE the Muslim Ban.

RE: Gun registry - as of a week ago 56% of Republicans and 84% of Dems support a federal database of gun sales. http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/politics/bipartisan-gun-control-policies-majorities/index.html

Like background checks, gun registration in no way keeps a single person from owning any legal gun/rifle. In no way would it "sacrifice" any freedom. But a Muslim Ban does keep Muslims from entering the US.

You must be trolling, because these positions make no sense.

I am not trolling, I am asking what I thought was an interesting question. Why do we generalize responsibility for bad actors and the burden for protective measures in one case and not the other? The responses to my question thus far have focused on the minutia of specific policy details rather than the larger, in my opinion, more interesting question. I agree with all of the policies you proposed RJ, in fact I don't think they go far enough. Fuck guns; outside of hunting rifles and law enforcement, who needs them? Ban them all except muzzle loaders. But at the same time, I don't think we should be banning Muslims, creating Muslims registries, or what ever, despite the increase in violence inspired by a perversion of Islam over the last 4 decades. That's seems like an inconsistency in my policy preferences, and, maybe, like it would be something interesting to discuss because it appears several others on the boards have the same inconsistency. I can't force anyone to answer the question though, so, whatever.

 

[Gooner]

Both gun massacre terrorists and Islamist terrorists can be attributed to mental health issues.

 

[RJKarl]

I am not trolling, I am asking what I thought was an interesting question. Why do we generalize responsibility for bad actors and the burden for protective measures in one case and not the other? The responses to my question thus far have focused on the minutia of specific policy details rather than the larger, in my opinion, more interesting question. I agree with all of the policies you proposed RJ, in fact I don't think they go far enough. Fuck guns; outside of hunting rifles and law enforcement, who needs them? Ban them all except muzzle loaders. But at the same time, I don't think we should be banning Muslims, creating Muslims registries, or what ever, despite the increase in violence inspired by a perversion of Islam over the last 4 decades. That's seems like an inconsistency in my policy preferences, and, maybe, like it would be something interesting to discuss because it appears several others on the boards have the same inconsistency. I can't force anyone to answer the question though, so, whatever.

I didn't BAN anything. Thus, comparing it to banning Muslims makes no sense.

All universal background checks do is fill a hole in an accepted law.

There is no "burden" on either registering guns or doing background checks. In fact they can be done at the same time.

 

[birdman]

I didn't BAN anything. Thus, comparing it to banning Muslims makes no sense.

All universal background checks do is fill a hole in an accepted law.

There is no "burden" on either registering guns or doing background checks. In fact they can be done at the same time.

OK, RJ.

 

[DistrictDeacon]

I am not trolling, I am asking what I thought was an interesting question. Why do we generalize responsibility for bad actors and the burden for protective measures in one case and not the other? The responses to my question thus far have focused on the minutia of specific policy details rather than the larger, in my opinion, more interesting question. I agree with all of the policies you proposed RJ, in fact I don't think they go far enough. Fuck guns; outside of hunting rifles and law enforcement, who needs them? Ban them all except muzzle loaders. But at the same time, I don't think we should be banning Muslims, creating Muslims registries, or what ever, despite the increase in violence inspired by a perversion of Islam over the last 4 decades. That's seems like an inconsistency in my policy preferences, and, maybe, like it would be something interesting to discuss because it appears several others on the boards have the same inconsistency. I can't force anyone to answer the question though, so, whatever.

Screen gun owners, and let the acceptable ones own appropriate guns. Screen visitors, and allow the acceptable ones into the country for appropriate reasons/lengths of time.

Seems pretty consistent to me.

 

[RJKarl]

OK, RJ.

I agree there is no real purpose in having semi-automatic long guns, but that's really hard to get out of the system. Although, it worked in the 90s-early 00s and mass killings dramatically declined.

States tried to limit the number of guns you could buy in a month. I'd support that. If they don't do that, I'd support not being able to buy more two guns at a time unless it was for a collection or if you had a licensed security company.

I'd love to see the same liability laws for guns that you have for cars or even bartenders.

If you sell a gun to someone who is a felon, you should be considered a co-conspirator in any crime he/she commits with the gun you sold him/her. This could be avoided by doing background checks.

I'd be for only licensed dealers able to sell guns/rifles at gun shows. I wouldn't be opposed to banning gun shows. They aren't covered in the 2nd Amendment.

But none of these would pass.

As Teddy Kennedy said, "Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Let's get something done.

P.S. Since 2002, twice as many Americans have been killed by white supremacists as by jihadis/Muslims.