Las Vegas Priorities

pheller said:

In reply to Huckleberry :

I totally agree. There is something about our gun culture that makes it the preferred weapon. Lots of people have access to vehicles and knives and all other types of tools of terror in the USA, but more often than not, they select a military derived semi-automatic magazine-fed firearm. 

And yet, we defend those specific weapons because they are "used for hunting." 

I want to go hunting with hand grenades and bird hunting with surface to air missiles. 

It's pretty obvious why guns are the preferred tool.

Cheap, easily accessible, and damn lethal even at a distance.

Shooter sent $100k to the Philippines.   Do we black ball Western Union?  Banish all Fillipinos?  Everyone has an agenda and frankly I'd rather see a coupla Mormons on my porch than an anti-2nd amendment mooyak.

Much like a bad Mexican sampler platter, this too shall pass.....

In reply to MadScientistMatt :

What about the shooting in the TN church a few weeks back. That one got little to no national press coverage, and I think it was because the facts did not fit the narrative.

T.J. said:

In reply to MadScientistMatt :

What about the shooting in the TN church a few weeks back. That one got little to no national press coverage, and I think it was because the facts did not fit the narrative.

Ya think???

Wow, I had NO idea that happened.  Church shootings are normally pretty popular with the news types...

... oh.... never mind.

From what I understand, the big problem in Chicagoland is the rotating door to the jail.  Kid attempts to shoot another kid, or gets caught with an illegal gun---- he goes to jail, but is back on the streets in a month.  Gang members killing gang members--- with others getting caught in the crossfire.  He killed my buddy--- so I'm gonna kill him.....rinse and repeat.  

There are so many firearms in circulation, new laws won't help. (at least not the Chicago problem)  This is  the GOP / NRA angle.

 Seriously enforcing existing gun laws should help.......but then you have the civil rights folks saying that those gun laws discriminate against people of color, as they are arrested with illegal guns more often.   This is the DEMS angle.      

Nothing gets fixed, nothing gets addressed.   Then we act surprised when it happens again.......

Joe Gearin said:

From what I understand, the big problem in Chicagoland is the rotating door to the jail.  Kid attempts to shoot another kid, or gets caught with an illegal gun---- he goes to jail, but is back on the streets in a month.  Gang members killing gang members--- with others getting caught in the crossfire.  He killed my buddy--- so I'm gonna kill him.....rinse and repeat.  

There are so many firearms in circulation, new laws won't help. (at least not the Chicago problem)  This is  the GOP / NRA angle.

 Seriously enforcing existing gun laws should help.......but then you have the civil rights folks saying that those gun laws discriminate against people of color, as they are arrested with illegal guns more often.   This is the DEMS angle.      

Nothing gets fixed, nothing gets addressed.   Then we act surprised when it happens again.......

I shoot in competitions at least twice a week with a very pro-gun crowd but even in that setting there are plenty who support "some" gun-control.  The problem is that most of the "common sense" gun control proposed really only affects the common law-abiding citizen.  It doesn't help that the anti-gun crowd (let's face it, that's what they are) pretty much make arguments completely devoid of facts or at best, based upon half-truths.  The average person with limited or no exposure to firearms eats that crap up and perpetuates the same crap across Facebook, etc.  Until the problem is tackled by a group with no political motive and who actually know what they are talking about, shootings like this will continue to happen.  The NRA has a lot of faults but they are the only group with the power to fight decisions based upon lies and half-truths.

Regarding semi-autos used for hunting:  Semi-autos have been used for hunting for a very long time without notice because the firearms involved do not look like the AR-15.  Throw some black plastic and a pistol grip on a gun and all of a sudden it's stupid?  Ruger 10/22s have been (one) of the .22s of choice for small game hunting for a very long time.  Add black plastic and a pistol grip and now it's not a good choice?

I don't drink that often and last night I got drunk to take my mind off of this whole situation.  Let's not show actual real concern for the people who actually lost their lives, let's use it to further our political ambitions (talking about the politicians).

Had to get this off my chest in a place where people will agree or disagree with me in a logical manner and not just call me a "angry old white supremacist/ closet Rambo/baby murderer with a small dick."

In reply to Joe Gearin :

Has anyone linked to the Onion articles yet? They pretty much concluded what you just did about how we act surprised when it happens again....

As long as there are people with little to no regard for human life, there will continue to be shootings like those in Chicago. That seems to be a different thing than this Vegas evil guy, but the net effect is similar.

By the way and not that it matters, but my post a few pages back about me avoiding large groups of people, is not really driven by fear, but more from my dislike of being part of a large groups of people. I'd just rather spend a few hours alone doing whatever than spend it in a large group of people. I wasn't advocating that we should live in fear.

GameboyRMH said:

Bobzilla said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Define "mass shooting". 4 seems awfully low threshold for "mass" to me. But, like always, statistics are just numbers to be manipulated to prove/disprove a point. 

4 is the legal definition in the US. It would be interesting to be able to set your own threshold and see how the graph changes.

 I'm pretty sure I'm comfortable with calling four dead people a mass shooting.  One is a murder, two would be a drive by, three would be a guy getting rid of the wife and kids...Anything beyond that is just stupid.

Insert sarcasm font, please.

mapper said:

The NRA has a lot of faults but they are the only group with the power to fight decisions based upon lies and half-truths.

Interesting how replacing "based upon" with "utilizing" and it still works just as well.

The problem is that it's the extremists on BOTH sides that are the ones leading this 'fight', among others, in a battle over power to force  their particular brand of extremism on everybody else...Ultimatly forcing the rest (majority) of us reasonable and rational people in the middle to literally choose between the lesser of two evils.  It is a fight where in only the extremists win.

Nothing will get better in this world until people finally realize that they need to outwardly reject the extremism that is closer to their perspective, the same as they do the extremism that is farther from their perspective...Which sadly may not happen until it's too late to save humanity. 

Functionally, there is no difference between Hillary's gross overstatements and the NRA's absolute silence.  They are merely flip sides of the same bovine manure minted coin that is ruining this country, as well as the world....And supporting or endorsing either is contributing to the problem, rather than the solution.

The definition of mass shooting seems grey. I've read the FBI uses 3 killed when it used to use 4 but doesn't count gang or familial violence. The other end of the spectrum is when some of the trackers use every type of shooting involving 4 or more people shot at without qualifying for injury or death. I honestly don't mind using different scales as long as you reevaluate the historical data with the same rules before using it for comparison. You know-tell the truth and then use the truth to support or counter a cause.

mapper said:

Joe Gearin said:

Throw some black plastic and a pistol grip on a gun and all of a sudden it's stupid?  Ruger 10/22s have been (one) of the .22s of choice for small game hunting for a very long time.  Add black plastic and a pistol grip and now it's not a good choice?

I've always been curious about the current trend towards 'military' style firearms - whether it's  just a fashion trend, or the influence of video games, or what.  I guess I'm old school in thinking that rifles should have beautiful walnut stocks.   (my dad was a pretty talented amateur gunsmith, who built some amazing rifles for himself and others back in the 1950s and 1960s.)  It seems to me they would raise a lot less flack from the anti-gun people, just because they don't look as dangerous.

My thought on military weapons looking the way they do was always because it's been found that that form makes them work better in the situations they were meant to be used in. Wooden stocks and such look nice and things that look nice are easier to sell to a private consumer. I also like a nice wooden stock. 

Also, as far as gun control goes, I believe there is a problem but nobody will find a solution when everyone that's willing to speak up are the people at the extremes and unwilling to consider the wants and needs of the other side. I've found that very few people are able to think clearly when they're angry. 

Final thought, the image in the original post was worth a sensible chuckle.

stuart in mn said:

mapper said:

Joe Gearin said:

Throw some black plastic and a pistol grip on a gun and all of a sudden it's stupid?  Ruger 10/22s have been (one) of the .22s of choice for small game hunting for a very long time.  Add black plastic and a pistol grip and now it's not a good choice?

I've always been curious about the current trend towards 'military' style firearms - whether it's  just a fashion trend, or the influence of video games, or what.  I guess I'm old school in thinking that rifles should have beautiful walnut stocks.   (my dad was a pretty talented amateur gunsmith, who built some amazing rifles for himself and others back in the 1950s and 1960s.)  It seems to me they would raise a lot less flack from the anti-gun people, just because they don't look as dangerous.

I agree though a pistol grip is much more comfortable than most traditional stocks.

In reply to Driven5 :

I don't like PETA much but do appreciate the work done to cut down on the abuse and torture of animals in labs.  I feel the same way about the NRA who can be absolute in their stance but at least can they can present facts.  The left (It pains me to say that because on most subjects I tend to lean liberal) relies on emotion and sketchy "facts".  I'll admit to being guilty of ignoring the message if the messenger screams their point, calls names, and refuses to use some measure of logic.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0

In reply to Spitsix :thank you.  I’ve said this a few times myself  

In reply to mapper :

I respectfully disagree...From what I have seen, the NRA and their extremist hard-line supporters is absolutely no better (or worse) than the anti-gun extremists at relying on sketchy "facts", emotions, screaming their point, name calling, and just as often refusing to use some measure of logic.  You always notice a current much more when paddling against it, than you do when paddling with it.  Even if normally left leaning, as a (competitive) shooting enthusiast the NRA's arguments are inherently going to be paddling with the current for you on this particular topic.  If you tried in earnest to paddle the opposite direction for a while, or even stand on shore for a moment, I believe it would become much more obvious...Unfortunately that's not only very difficult to do, these things become so ingrained as a part of who we are that it's often not even possible for most people that are 'too close' to the subject.

All I have to say is, I had to go to a UK news site to get real information. The US news we're just listing Twitter reactions. 

In reply to Spitsix :  If we are to imagine that the second amendment is written only for that period in time, then we have to hold the first amendment to the same standard.  No dissemination of information faster than the single sheet printing press!   

See, it's a ridiculous argument to make.  Not that we don't need reform in the system but use arguments that hold up to logical scrutiny.

In reply to yupididit :

That is true. If I wanted to get my info from twitter, I'd sign up for a twitter account. 

Curious what the big gun supporters think would be "reasonable" restrictions? It's always said, "THAT IS OVERREACH WE NEED SOMETHING REASONABLE.".................yet, I never hear what is reasonable.

After 9/11, we made it more difficult to get into the cockpit of a place. After OKC, we made it more difficult to buy large amounts of fertilizer and other explosive materials. 

But I can still go to the store buy an AR, get online to mod it to near full auto, and tons of ammo with basically no restriction.

If you were going to fight a foreign power you'd join the military and have your weapons provided to you. The neighborhood watch group isn't going to assemble in the streets with rifles to shoot @ foreign jet fighters.

If you think you and your middle-aged buddies are going to fight back against tyrannical gov't who happens to have the most powerful military in the world by an order of magnitude..............lay off the Call of Duty and Rambo movies. 

z31maniac said:

Curious what the big gun supporters think would be "reasonable" restrictions? It's always said, "THAT IS OVERREACH WE NEED SOMETHING REASONABLE.".................yet, I never hear what is reasonable.

After 9/11, we made it more difficult to get into the cockpit of a place. After OKC, we made it more difficult to buy large amounts of fertilizer and other explosive materials. 

But I can still go to the store buy an AR, get online to mod it to near full auto, and tons of ammo with basically no restriction.

If you were going to fight a foreign power you'd join the military and have your weapons provided to you. The neighborhood watch group isn't going to assemble in the streets with rifles to shoot @ foreign jet fighters.

If you think you and your middle-aged buddies are going to fight back against tyrannical gov't who happens to have the most powerful military in the world by an order of magnitude..............lay off the Call of Duty and Rambo movies. 

For a real-world example of what happens when a bunch of well-armed civilians go up against a modern military, see the Syrian civil war. And Syria's military is a little pissant compared to the US military.

This is where I really get lost. I think that we can agree a well regulated militia is not happening, and foolish. So, let's go to the next argument: self defense. Why would anything other than a handgun or a [sawed kff] shotgun be necessary?