Raylan Targaryen
Member
Weird, seems to have worked for every other country
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay Las Vegas; 58 dead, 500+ injured.
- Thread starter thenight11
- Start date
- Status
Weird, seems to have worked for every other country
Mortimer Brewster
Member
It wouldn't get the guns that guy like this. He would still keep or find a way to get more guns. The drug cartels in Mexico would pop champagne in celebration that they could make gun running an even bigger part of their business.
We logically talk about how difficult it would be to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants across the US, now try to remove 350 million legal guns that can be stashed anywhere and left for years without anyone being wiser. It's impossible.
Besides the 2nd amendment ensures that will never happen.
Bananajama
Banned
Amend the amendment
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Some people have already answered this to you. Now you may say "but some may keep them" - well, those people may still have weapons, but if it gets known, they will get punished. It's not like there never was anything that was legal before and became illegal afterwards. Some people may break the law, most people probably want and there are law-enforcers to make sure that the former group is as small as possible and has to live with repercussions. It is laughable that people always claim the lax gun laws are not at fault when clearly, the US is having way more shootings than the rest of the western world that has stricter gun laws (and is otherwise comparable to the US in terms of societal stability).
I think you're missing the point which is that nobody is naive enough to assume 100% total success. If such a scenario came to pass that guns were banned, buyback period, prosecution amnesty, etc. it would succeed in:
- Severely reducing the number of guns and ammunition in circulation.
- Reducing gun-related violence and death in the US.
- Making it harder to obtain illegal firearms. To use your example, trying to get in contact with a Mexican drug cartel vs. popping to Walmart.
We can't prevent every terrorist attack, but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't try, nor does a successful attack diminish the importance of the many attempted ones that were thwarted. I agree to an extent that a person determined to do harm will eventually do so, but your country absolutely has the means to make it a hell of a lot harder for them to. People cite other countries as examples (UK, GER, AUS) because they demonstrably work.
All of that said, if the will of the nation to change isn't there (and it sadly isn't), this cycle of violence will continue and people will continue to say "there's nothing we could've done" while the rest of the world says "we know different".
BladeoftheImmortal
Member
How Many have died now? I heard 59 at most, but the thread title still says 58.
I think it is 58 + shooter
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
You ban all guns and that will get extended, by government overreach, to banning any type of projectile dependent weapon. You also run the risk of creating a huge black market for gun sales. In turn, you are putting more guns in the hands of would be criminals and creating more criminals out of thin air. I'm not a criminal even though I'm a gun owner but make guns illegal and now I'm a criminal.
You don't win against people that aren't afraid to die by making them more afraid to live. All you are doing is making them more dangerous and creating more crime. You might even start some huge deadly riots and civil war.
I'm a gun owner, and I can say this with absolute certainty, you will never in my lifetime take away my guns. Some are part of my family's military history and others are just part of my lifestyle growing up. I don't use guns for defense or offense against other people.
This society just isn't ready for this kind of fascism, not with law enforcement out there that murders and rapes anyone they please. Do you honestly think if we banned all guns for the public it would end all our mass murders and police corruption? It would probably create more militias in the end, since that would be a way to circumvent the ban anyway. You think having larger and more organized armed militias is going to help our society?
A partial gun ban along with gun controls would make for a more logical and accepted first step.
Again, just my thoughts.
But aren't Cartels buying US guns and running them out of the country?
Bananajama
Banned
I've got my Grandads decommissioned military weapons.
Because it doesn't fire doesn't make it any less valuable to me emotionally
Because it doesn't fire doesn't make it any less valuable to me emotionally
Quiet with your truths! I roll my eyes at how taking guns=fascism. Just admit you like guns. Here are some facts:
Gun control has been proven to work multiple times.
The NRA shit themselves at researching gun violence. Why are they so scared of collecting data and evaluating evidence?
Feel free to move goal posts not based on evidence such as cartels filling the gun sale void in a hypothetical gun ban. Whilst that's a possibility, it will still probably reduce gun violence.
Yoshi
Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
Not out of thin air and criminals will not get more weapons just because it is illegal to have them, there is no automatism to criminals to do something just because it is illegal. You would surely reduce the number of weapons in people's hands this way, but you wouldn't completely succeed right away.
No, you afterwards willingly decide to break the law, this is not automatic. I can only assume that the reason you are not a criminal yet is that laws are convenient enough for you.
You see the civil wars in European countries like Germany and France? It's the wild west of Eurasia!
I do not think it would have any effect on police corruption, the rest of what you said can easily be found bogus by many examples of countries with significantly stricter gun laws.
Well, I used the German law as an example for a first step, which does not strictly rule out all weapons for general populace (though I think it should be more strict in that regard), but you can only have registered guns for specific purposes and you need a license which is not super easy to obtain. Still, there (rightfully) are discussions that gun law should be stricter in Germany than it is.
Of course it's impossible, so what? The point isn't to get every gun ever.
The more guns you get off the market the higher the price for a gun on the black market would be, and while yes that'd also make it a more lucrative business, it'd also up the stakes dramatically because then those groups instead of just being another way someone can get a gun in this country would then be the only way someone gets a gun into this country I promise we could put more law enforcement onto them. I mean we also might not, I guess that'd be our decision, it's not a given, but seems to me if you lived in a hypothetical country where guns are now illegal and the only new source of weapons into the country each year are Mexican cartels and not thousands of gun shops across the country it seems logical to me that they'd get increased scrutiny from law enforcement.
I'd also throw out that a lot of this isn't going to happen in a vacuum. If our companies are a major exporter of weapons to Mexico to begin with I think we could, you know, exert a little control over those companies and get them to maybe not sell thousands of guns to Mexico to begin with? Maybe we wouldn't but, you know, we could. I'm not familiar with how many Mexican gun manufacturers there are, if any, but surely we could exercise our control over our own, right?
To me currently enforcing gun laws in the United States must seem pretty futile. You take shit off the streets that's legally sold down the block in pawn shops, supermarkets and sporting good stores. It must make actually focusing on the criminal importing element of that business seem, well, pointless. What's the point of heavily focusing and expending resources on a trade dwarfed by your own legal trade of the same items?
And public pressure would probably start getting pretty immense for the government to do something if this were the case. Can you imagine the blame laid at the government's feet if there were a gun ban in the United States and some big mass shootings happened from guns brought in from outside the country? Either we'd drop the ban and re-arm ourselves or they'd fucking commit some more resources to catching gun runners at that point.
I think the biggest issue would be how to avoid Ruby Ridge type stand offs and I say just wait until they die. Again the ban needn't be immediate, just gradually get them back. Stop allowing the manufacture and civilian sale of new guns now, slowly buy back those from citizens who want to commit now, make the standards of ownership for people grandfathered in annoying enough that many casuals will turn theirs in to save themselves the hassle of dealing with legal gun ownership, confiscate the ones you'd normally confiscate during routine police work and finally just make those grandfathered weapons to a person non-transferable and collect them up when that person dies.
In the meantime as guns get gradually rarer and rarer the street price for them should just continue to rise making their use in crimes rarer and rarer. And while this guy specifically could have probably bought guns illegally under a ban as he had enough money to probably circumvent any ban in any country, the question beyond financial ability still remains as to whether or not he could have done so while avoiding detection from law enforcement.
Because once the act of trying to buy large quantities of ammunition and guns becomes "strange behavior" in this country the mere act will start to draw attention from concerned coworkers, relatives, even legal shop owners, let alone the police and all the Federal entities. Think about that, how weird is it that buying that arsenal now doesn't even raise eyebrows? Of course in an environment like that where you can go in and buy body armor, and fucking semi-automatic battle rifles somebody buying those things doesn't raise much suspicion, but what happens once that's illegal? What happens when a guy walks in to a legal gun store(assuming something like bolt action rifles or levers or something survive a ban) and requests an M-16 and a shit load of rounds?
We live in an environment here where prevention is nearly impossible because merely seeking or having the means to do this in the first place is both entirely legal and not weird. So how could authorities truly track every Tom, Dick and Harry that buy weapons illegally and why would family and coworkers alert anyone when someone's breaking no law and even if they did to what end could the police do anything about it when it's all on the legal up and up? But change that environment, change our culture and all of a sudden Tom buying a bunch of guns is "alarming" to coworkers, friends and relatives, change that legal operating environment for the industry to one where gun shops don't sell such weaponry and it's highly illegal and all of a sudden why is this strange person trying to buy a bad ass semi-automatic rifle, tracer rounds and lots of magazines? The entire operating paradigm would change. Now law enforcement would have far less people to look into, once the attempted, or successful purchase of an arsenal like his would be illegal then they really could look into everyone. If his friends, coworkers, family was weirded out and called someone they'd take it seriously because that would no longer be normal legal behavior in this country and if you owned a gun shop and some weirdo wanted to buy that from you and you passed that info along to law enforcement they'd have more reason to follow up on that.
And sure, maybe in the end this guy still would have flown under the radar, somehow found the right illicit connections to purchase these weapons and carried out his massacre but I guarantee that a lot more wouldn't and that number would drop significantly in later generations.
toddhunter
Member
If your argument is that people will just keep their guns and become criminals that is a pretty dumb argument against not banning those people from guns.
It would work, it is easy. 2nd amendment? That is just some shit politicians made up a long time ago. There is actually nothing special or magical about it, politicians today can make up their own shit too.
I will sadly never understand how an Amendment about guns when guns fired single loads, and had to be repacked has been used all these years to support the kinds of firearms that are easily access able today.
I am sorry, but like with this guy after he bought the first guy when he went to buy the second there should have been a flag on his id that said "Hey, this guy just bought a gun" and more scrutiny used.
And on the third, fourth, fifth....
I am sorry, but like with this guy after he bought the first guy when he went to buy the second there should have been a flag on his id that said "Hey, this guy just bought a gun" and more scrutiny used.
And on the third, fourth, fifth....
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
1) stop fucking bringing up bullshit conspiracies, it's not helping
2) any form of stricter gun control will involve bans of some kind
User Name Here
Member
That makes sense considering the fact that his dad supposedly had psychopathic tendencies. Or at least that's what I thought I read.
I was originally going to make a joke about it being better if he just decided to get into politics as a Republican, but I didn't think it was appropriate lol.
The mexican drug cartels bring guns from the U.S. to Mexico. Not the other way around. Gun smuggling starts in the U.S. and goes to Canada and Mexico.
Fast Forward
Member
I'm with you brother, but yeah... that will NEVER happen. People think the Constitution is a holly document handed down from Jesus Christ himself. Been years since there was even a new amendment to the Constitution.
Not to mention, NRA would absolutely loose their shit at such a idea. As it is, even you hint/breath at the idea of gun control, they start throwing a temper tantrum, and needless to say, the power/influence of the NRA is very strong.
DonMigs85
Member
Wonder what that guy thought when he found out the shooter was white.
skullmuffins
Banned
so the cops are now saying the security guard was shot before he started shooting at the concertgoers, and they don't know why the gunman stopped.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-vegas-shooting-20171009-story.html
Double Donut
Member
I feel like everyone has already moved on from this. Aside from the right wing fuckwads who continue to search for proof that this was an EVIL DEMOCRATIC INSIDE JOB TO TAKE OUR GUNS, Im not seeing much about the shooting anymore.
Sad. Shootings come and go and nothing ever changes. Fuck this bullshit.
Sad. Shootings come and go and nothing ever changes. Fuck this bullshit.
katsubento
Member
It's being discussed everywhere everyday.
Jawbreaker
Member
Hm, that is a really curious development. Something must have spooked him enough to end it, surely? From what I know, it doesn't sound like suicide was in the cards unless he felt his capture was imminent.
jellies_two
Member
So that puts a diffferent spin on the idea he police cooled their heels for an hour because he had ceased shooting.
The guard got shot did he have a radio how quick did police get to him, was it while paddock was still shooting the crowd? Why make such a huge timeline error were the police thinking they could get away with a more favorable explanation ?
The guard got shot did he have a radio how quick did police get to him, was it while paddock was still shooting the crowd? Why make such a huge timeline error were the police thinking they could get away with a more favorable explanation ?
adamantypants
Member
First step would be a national gun registry. It doesn't ban guns, but would probably make you consider your stock of guns and think twice before making another purchase.
You could also go the financial route and tax the ever loving shit out of gun sales.
You could also go the financial route and tax the ever loving shit out of gun sales.
You have a disturbing love of guns. Gun control does work. Your fanciful stories trying to describe how it wouldn't only goes to show how far gone you are.
I hope you come to realize that ready access to guns is not needed.
Shadow Puppetry
Member
I see it being discussed a lot on Facebook and local news.
Government conspiracy. Mental illness. Pick your poison.
These people don't get moments of introspection
Literally no one is talking about banning guns. That's some BS narrative made up by fear mongers to try and convince conservatives that the scary liberals are coming to take away all their guns.
People who are pro-control are just that. They want stricter control.
Didn't you hear? Cartels will pop Champaign bottles when guns are banned so we definitely shouldn't do anything at all
Also it's not like guns are something we grow.
Guns magically appear out of thin air, don't you know?
Especially if they're banned. That wont stop them.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
We've tried to ban alcohol. We've tried banning marijuana. Prohibition doesn't work. I'm not saying we don't need some common sense gun control. But a prohibition on guns is not realistic.
They're not the same, and thinking that they are is part of the problem.
innervision961
Member
Whats the deal with the security guard?
At this point I think it is more practical to take baby steps by passing quality legislation designed to minimize crimes committed with guns. There might come a day where there is a gun-less US.
He was shot 6 minutes before the shooting started not during like it was originally released.
There are people who are concerned that if they allow some restrictions, more will follow. And there are several people, even on these forums for example, who want the Second Amendment eliminated. Pro-gun citizens fear that may be the end goal with people who want to pass restrictive legislation.
I'm not saying that's correct or anything, just an observation.
chromatic9
Member
Perhaps he was exhausted after 10 mins. I can imagine it would take its toll and then decided to call it quits or maybe something clicked in his brain and he started to come around to what he'd done.
If this guy is a bit like his father then diazepam seems like a bad idea.
I'm afraid the amendment is the direct word of God, like it is with Prophet Mohammed in Islam.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
There are people in this very thread talking about banning guns. In fact, they refuse to accept anything less it seems.
jellies_two
Member
He had a single bottle of 60 from a doc a year ago, and like 1/3rd were gone.
This is not someone abusing drugs.
If you take almost any random american and look in their medicine cabinet you can create the same or worse a story.
At this point it really feels like people just can't seem to get over a rather non descript guy with no major traumas or obvious mental illnesses could just up and do this. Gotta keep bringing up anything and everything until the dots somehow connect to make it seem like something more dramatic happened to him to make him go through with all this.
chromatic9
Member
I wasn't suggesting he was abusing drugs.
Interesting you say it was a year ago. In an article it mentions things started to change for Paddock 12 months ago and he went on a weapons buying spree. The diazepam may have been just a coincidence or himself trying to do something after the fact but I wouldn't be surprised to find a small amount could tip someone like Mr Paddock, he's no random American. Diazepam can do the opposite.
Gambling addiction. Boom, media has their mental illness case.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked