Vegas Shooter Kills 50+

I wouldn’t mind jumping through a few extra hoops for “assault weapons,” though that term has been poorly defined by anti-gun politicians as is frequently butchered by the media. I would also be happy raising the age on long gun purchases from 18 to 21.

There are a lot of compromises that I would make that the NRA isn’t able to make, because apparently they play to some of their more extreme members. On the otherhand, as the anti-gunners are preaching Australian style confiscation I can’t blame the NRA from digging in their heels.

Can’t we just get rid of the Incorporation Doctrine? Let individual states restrict firearms to their hearts’ content.

Yes but I also get annoyed when someone says assault weapon was used and someone else is like technically that’s not even an assault weapon! Doesn’t push the debate forward just gets everyone caught up in the minor details.

We would have to hammer home some definitions but everyone realizes we aren’t talking about a basic hunting rifle and we aren’t talking about your basic protection pistol.

And maybe moving from a culture where a politician thinks in order to drum up support for me I should give away an AR-15 or a culture where when one is used for murder some people say turn in everyone ever.

I just think enough people are in the middle on these things to work on compromises. It’s just the extremes that make all the noise.

Can someone give me some good reasons to further restrict the right to bear arms in this country that don’t also support an outright arms ban? Why ban AR-15 variants but leave “hunting rifles” alone? Banning the latter should just increase any positive effects that can be expected from banning the former. Why can’t hunting(which is only necessary to control animal populations, since meat can be acquired plenty of other ways) be handled by government-hired experts? If you believe arms restrictions help people, why compromise with those that want to see dead kids just so they can play G.I. Joe at the range?

Can you repost that in English?

If you are a strict 2A is for protection against the government reader which I know you are then it’s a moot point so not sure why to go down this path but…

Compromise for one thing which I know doesn’t play well to you. The idea that people can use guns for personal protection and sport but don’t need a lot of access to high powered weaponry at home or in large supplies.

If you feel like people should be open carrying AR-15 variants in the middle of the street because by God that’s what the founders would have wanted and those people are going to use those in case the government goes bad on us then the conversation won’t go anywhere. And I’m not even saying this is a bad thing but I do find it to be on one of two sides of the extremes where this stuff tends to go.

The opposite of the middle ground approach I was talking about…but we (the forum) has done all that a million times here. If that’s where people are or on the take them all away which is where these things always go then we will just keep having the same debates over and over again on forums and social media after each one of these mass shootings happens.

The idea in banning “AR-15” variants is really to ban the high capacity magazine, something that hunting rifles don’t have - primarily because hunters have no need for high capacity mags. Hunters that need a clip of more than three cartridges are either horrible shots (and should therefore pick a different past time) or/and assholes for “spraying” wildlife with bullets instead of killing with lethal (and ethical) precision on one shot.

The vast majority of people who own “AR-15 variants” are tacital-cool bros - guys who spend their time (and their high capacity mags) shooting targets for fun.

1 Like

How dare those HS students speak up after watching their friends get slaughtered. Shes nuts to say thoughts and prayers don’t work. Obviously they do look at all the progress we’ve made. Gun control only works in Europe Asia and other developed countries we obviously don’t need it. Nothing could have prevented this. Nobody saw it coming. Oh wait this shit happens every 2-3 months… :unamused:

2 Likes

Not to continue this weary topic, as someone stated this has been debated forever. The problem with your suggestion is this:

Let say you went through 40 hours of training, passed an extensive background check, and you are an established community leader, retired from the military, and now you are a high school science teacher for a second career. You complete your requirements and receive your concealed carry permit from the state of Georgia. You decide one day to take a trip and visit your child who is a student at Virginia Tech.

The minute you cross over the imaginary line of the state of Virginia, you are a felon. Period. The state of Virginia does not recognize the license from Georgia, so you are in violation of the law. You went from responsible gun owner to felon in 3 seconds.

Our drivers license are recognized in all 50 states, however your gun permit isn’t. All it does is create felons. That is why we need the current reciprocal law passed. We have to take “drivers education” to obtain a drivers license and insurance, why not be required to take similar training to have a concealed weapons license recognized in all 50 states?

This is why I left the NRA. Throughout the history of warfare, the ability to change tactics is the key for victory. The NRA could have taking a leadership role, pushed for required training, offered suggestions on when you could purchase different weapons systems, pushed for more extensive background checks, anything, to show that “we” are concerned with responsible gun ownership. Would it have been a pain in the ass to jump through these steps? of course, but so is having your taxes done before April 15.

Also, here is the beast they have created. You gun permit may not be recognized by Virginia, but, don’t fret little one, just go on the Virginia State Police website and apply for a “out of state license” pay your $120.00 dollars to the state and Viola! you are no longer a felon.

4 Likes

No, I agree. Maybe I am just getting old, but, i don’t “see” the maturity level at 19 that I saw when I was 19. At 19, I had already been in two combat operations. Now I know this is going to sound like a stupid dinosaur, but I really blame the constant stream of electronic stimulation. Why “mature” when you depend so much on your electronics? Did the Florida shooter actually know he was killing people?

Example: And this is not rare, in Iraq, I was asked to help prepare the Marine Embassy Guards for their Martial Arts belt system. Remember, these are Marines, who should have all phases of “fantasy” wiped from their consciousness. On the day of testing, the Gunny and I were in the training area and I asked a young marine if he was ready: get plenty of sleep? eat breakfast? ect. His reply: 'man I killed this first person shooter game last night" WTF?

1 Like

Here’s an idea I just thought of:

In order to obtain a firearm, you need at least 3 referral’s. At least 1 family member, and at least 1 non-family member. A felon is not a legit referral. If the person you provide a referral to commits a crime with the gun you approved of, you can be held at least partially (maybe 1/4 of sentence for person who committed the crime) responsible for the crimes they commit.

How does that sound? I really think this would have stopped a few of these crazy white guy mass shootings, and could prevent many more.

I shoot recreationally. I’m not a nut, but I think we should be able to have these things for various reasons. There is work to be done, but I think we can do a lot better than countries like Australia, UK, etc. I think the issue lies more in the mental health issues and less in guns. A crazy guy is going to find a way to have the news talk about him for a week plus, whether its a bomb, or a truck/car plowing over people.

So you’re not only restricting BoR but threatening to punish people for crimes they haven’t commit?

Yeaaaa…

So you’re saying someone who is legit crazy is protected by the BoR? There are certain rights that they should not have!

Yes, I could argue that it’s a crime to approve the sale of a firearm to someone that is not fit. There would need to be some form of accountability with what I am thinking of.

…or we can just keep doing what we’re doing, seems to work well.

No I’m saying people without 3 referrals are protected by the BoR. Unless all people without 3 referrals are crazy people?

Never said we shouldn’t do something. Just seems like the most un american way to do it.

Request referrals from people to obtain firearms so only people with 3+ friends willing to risk jailtime can have firearms.
Punish referrers for crimes they haven’t commit when they had no way of knowing if said person was going to commit a crime.

Yes, people who submit their request and don’t get 3 referrals are crazy or a threat in one way or another. Who knows this better than the people that know them the closest (I’d trust them over the government).

And also, yes. think about it, who can’t get 3 people to vouch for them? CRAZIES! and what do we hear repeatedly on the news with these guys, “loner, kept to himself” etc.

Hey, if you don’t like it, don’t provide the referral, pretty simple.

So you’re saying anyone that can’t obtain 3 referrals (of which the potential price of giving is jailtime) is crazy by default? You don’t see the glaring problem with that?

Let’s say this goes into place. I’m (personally) never vouching for anyone on the planet. I wouldn’t vouch for my mother in this scenario. Reason being by vouching for someone the reward is “friend gets to own a gun” and the potential cost is “being sent to jail and leaving my family without me.”

What kind of a sack of shit would risk his/her families livelihood so somebody can own a gun?

3 Likes

Yeah.

You may seem cool, but there’s no way I’m writing you a letter of referral that is 100% sure to put me on a Secret Government List.

1 Like

You ask question, I provide answer, you ask same question again…this time I don’t provide answer.

Maybe we reduce the sentence a bit, but there should still be a form of accountability.

Can you argue that this would not have prevented the recent FL shooting, the Texas shooting, the north Carolina church shooting? And potentially, but less likely, the Vegas shooting?

It was just an idea. I understand the points you’re making, and as my idea stands it’s probably unrealistic, but I think it could be salvaged into something usable. You could argue that for everything you knew about the individual at the time you provided your referral, he did not seem like a threat in any way.

I believe the government should focus on the mental health issue primarily. But I also have a fear of the government simply calling people mentally-ill who are not. But isn’t there a way to be committed…by like family members? this sounds kind of like the track that I’m on with my idea…

Can I argue this WOULD not have prevented? Nope. Nobody can. Can I argue this COULD not have prevented? Absolutely.

Possibly. I think you’d have to get rid of any part that punishes someone for giving the referral (which invalidates the entire referral tbh).

If every single refferer said this, how would you prove them wrong. In a literal sense.

Let’s say I referred the FL shooter be allowed to have a gun. He kills some people and the govt comes knocking to give me 1/4 his sentence. I say “hey man he didn’t seem crazy to me.” What do you (as the govt) do?

In a situation where you can be involuntarily commit by your family member there’s probably a very very good chance you’re already not allowed to buy a gun (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

I’m not saying gun reform shouldn’t happen, I just see a ton of holes in the “find a referral” route

Edit: and I still can’t get past needing to find 3 people that are total sacks of shit in order to buy a gun

A lot of people should be able to buy guns, how do we specify who these people are?

Some people should not be able to buy a gun, how do we specify who these people are?

As a side note I think it’s hilarious to see people think that we can get rid of ARs…like there aren’t hundreds of backwoods machinist guys out there who could build one in a day or two (or already do!).