Heartbroken for Los Vegas

Yeah this is all insane.

Gun Stocks are up after the shooting. As per usual:
guns:http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/02/investing/las-vegas-shooting-gun-stocks-sturm-ruger-american-outdoor-brands/index.html

========================

House of Reps poised to pass legislation legalizing gun Silencers:
“…the House is poised to pass legislation legalizing the use of gun silencers as early as this week, a move that critics say could make it more difficult to identify where gunshots are coming from during a mass shooting like the one that took place in Las Vegas Sunday night.
RELATED CONTENT
Police officers stand along the Las Vegas Strip the Mandalay Bay resort and casino during a shooting near the casino, Sunday, Oct. 1, 2017, in Las Vegas.
At Least 50 Dead, 200 Injured in Las Vegas Shooting

A provision called the Hearing Protection Act, tucked into the bipartisan Sportsmen Heritage and Recreational Enhancement, or SHARE Act, would eliminate restrictions on silencers and instead treat them as ordinary firearms….”
Guns:https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-10-02/house-poised-to-pass-law-easing-sale-of-gun-silencers-after-las-vegas-shooting

“…Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States’ gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States’ suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation’s gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said.

The study was published online Feb. 1 in The American Journal of Medicine…”
link:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
=================

And this is now the country that can aim drone-guns at people in other countries and blow them away. And its all done in secret. For secret reasons.

And the American people get all misty-eyed at the national anthem.

w
v

Listening to various Republicans talk about why we can’t prevent this drives me up a wall. Their slavish devotion to a radically stupid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment — an archaic, totally unnecessary “right”, set up to protect the state FROM American citizens, especially slaves — is the true “anti-American” position.

By definition, we could stop this carnage. No rational human being can make a legitimate argument that we can’t.

The gunman purchased 47 weapons, legally — that we know of so far. Most had rapid fire capabilities, and long range. He killed dozens of people and wounded more than 500 BECAUSE he could shoot rapidly and from far away. By definition, if you make that impossible, he can’t do that.

Ban all weaponry with detachable ammo. Max out the firepower of weaponry at a six-shooter, with internal chambers only. No possibility to slap in dozens of rounds in one motion, in seconds. Force the shooter to reload by hand, one bullet at a time, and stop the manufacture, sale, import, export, trade, exchange, gifting, etc. etc. of long-range weaponry. There is no justification, via self-defense, or hunting, for long-range capabilities, or rapid-fire capabilities, and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect them. It only protects “keep and bear arms” if you’re in a state militia, which also means bullets have no Constitutional protections, either. Or usage of any weapon.

It’s not in that amendment. Nothing about bullets or actually using the weapon. And if someone says, “Well, that’s all assumed.” No, it’s not. It was assumed at the time that people would load their single-shot weapons when needed. They didn’t walk around with them loaded. And “bear arms” means “present arms.” It says noting about actually firing them.

Almost no one is talking this, but the 2nd amendment is actually toothless. It can EASILY be bypassed via several routes, the most devastating one, at least for gun fanatics, is the one about bullets. We could literally ban every bullet on the market and we’d still adhere to the 2nd amendment, even if we throw out the part about militias.

It’s time to attack this insanity from that and so many other angles. It’s time to end this carnage.

Billy_T wrote:

Listening to various Republicans talk about why we can’t prevent this drives me up a wall. Their slavish devotion to a radically stupid interpretation of the 2nd Amendment — an archaic, totally unnecessary “right”, set up to protect the state FROM American citizens, especially slaves — is the true “anti-American” position.

They use the same argument now for climate change. Even if WE cut back on emissions other countries like China and India are increasing emissions. So….we shouldn’t hurt our economy to save the planet because others aren’t going to do that.

This has changed a bit from….there is no global warming.

Now it’s pretty much, so what? We can’t do anything about it.

Those talking points work with a large segment of Americans.

PA Ram wrote:

Here’s a video on how easy it is to make semi-automatic into automatic through a “bump stock”. The bump stock is perfectly legal by the way.

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2013/09/11/n-rifle-machine-gun-slide-fire.cnnmoney/index.html

Which is why it’s not even enough to try to limit the kinds of semi-automatics we allow via number of rounds. For the Dems, this is usually 10.

To me, that’s just insane. Make them ALL illegal. Dial back the capacity of weaponry to six shots, max, which must be loaded by hand, one bullet at a time. The reason why ANY kind of semi makes mass shooting easy is because you can slam in a magazine in seconds and start firing again.

Gun nuts want zero restrictions on that or numbers of rounds. Dems counter with limiting the rounds. Both are dead wrong.

Just limit all legal weaponry to internal chambers only. Problem solved. You can’t gerry-rig that to fire automatically. It’s internal chambers only.

Just flat out make it illegal to have detachable ammo containers of any kind, regardless of rounds.

One’s “self-defense” is kept in place. “Keep and bear arms” is kept in place. But you save lives.

I honestly don’t see how anyone could argue against that, or for the need for more firepower and capacity.

waterfield wrote:

BTW: did anyone watch Jimmy Kimmel’s moving address to this issue?

=============

====
w
v

Waterfield,

Interesting idea. I was listening to NPR this evening, on my way toward some communing with Nature and reading — we have a pretty cool new arboretum nearby — and I heard some interviews of gun-rights folks in the Vegas area. Most of what they said made me want to punch a hole through the roof of my car, but in retrospect, one of the more “moderate” interviewees had an interesting comment along the lines you raise.

He talked about the rush people get by firing those automatic weapons, and he basically, kinda sorta, suggested the reporter should do so. Again, I’m thinking about punching a hole through my car roof as he’s saying this. I’m saying to myself, your blankety blank pleasure in firing those guns isn’t worth one single life, and that IS the trade off in existence. No one’s “freedom” to blow up shit is worth a single life. Not one. Not even one single injury. It’s the height of extremism and selfishness to put your pleasure above other lives.

But . . . hmmm. Not that they would agree to this, cuz the vast majority of gun-rights folks are absolutists and won’t budge an inch. But if they’d trade their guns for the ability to rent ’em and use ’em in one spot, in a shooting range, etc. etc. . . . I could go with that. Make them illegal to own, to have in one’s possession, except in designated, licensed places ONLY, and maybe there’s some room for compromise.

But if they say no, then I think the only answer is to match their absolutism with our own. Ban all bullets.

That, as mentioned, goes beyond the issue of militias. Even if you remove that clause, there is still no “right” to a loaded weapon, or bullets, or firing of those weapons. All it says, with or without the militia clause, is “keep and bear arms.”

Not a word there about ammo or actually using the weapons. Not even implied.

Hope all is well, W.

wv wrote:

A rightwing response to Kimmel:

WV,

I didn’t hear a single truth escape from Shapiro’s mouth. Not one. Not one of his criticisms of Kimmel was true. And I always find it utterly laughable when right-wingers claim “the left” is attacking the right solely on issues of “intent” or “motives.” Anyone who has spent any time online, arguing against folks on the right, knows at best, on their best day, the right does that at least as much. My own experience is that they do it far more, are more hysterical about it, and more vicious. On balance, “the left” is far more measured and more likely to discuss the issues, instead of the person.

But the most important lie he delivers is to say no regulation could have prevented this. I list several above that would have saved most, if not all of the people who died, and most, if not all the gun shot injuries. And none of that would run afoul of an actual objective reading of the 2nd Amendment, which people like Shapiro can’t do. They can only do the usual right-wing revisionist reading. A great example of this is their bizarre insistence that the founders wanted everyone to have “military grade weaponry” and that this somehow is future-proofed to include all new technological improvements.

First of all, there is NOTHING in the amendment that remotely points to that fantasy, and second, the difference between “civilian” and “military grade” in the 1780s was non-existent. It was all single-shot, load powder and ball one at a time. Maybe, if you were super fast, you could get off two or three shots a minute, and it made no difference if you were a hunter or a soldier. Same weaponry.

In short, he’s full of shit.

wv wrote:

Well BT, the ‘right’ fears the US Government much more than they fear
crazy-people-with-automatic-weapons.

I think thats the bottom line with themz on the Right.

w
v

Agreed. I think that’s the heart of the issue.

They fear certain parts of the government. Not all of it, of course. Just the parts they see as threatening their own “freedoms.” They’ve always been fine with Big Gubmint stomping all over people of color, doing mass incarceration, shutting down antiwar voices, Occupy, unions, leftists in general. They actually root hard for that. They also root for Big Gubmint when it comes to immigrants, borders, wars, empire and capitalism. And as I’ve mentioned — probably too often — the real irony in their love of capitalism is that their system of choice requires massive government, or the system dies.

Anyway . . . yeah, that’s their fear. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that governments can’t make public policy just to assuage the fears of fringe movements, especially when they radically increase death and destruction in the process. They have to make public policy that improves and protects the lives of all citizens.

The lack of sensible gun control endangers all of us. It’s literally killing us with its irrational permissiveness.

When I started living alone again, I briefly considered buying a hand gun. Briefly as in about 30 seconds. I’ve fired weapons from time to time and it really is a lot of fun. However, I’d rather be gunned down by an armed intruder than have one of my grandchildren hurt by a weapon I may own. That’s good enough for me.

So I know many gun owners and I can see why many of them do. They may live out in the sticks, or they hunt. Or they may be collectors. But with some, I find it disturbing when they react with almost religious fervor at the mere hint of ownership restrictions. It boils down to this…incrementalism. They fear a little gun control here and there will lead to the confiscation of their weapons.

Well, I’m tired of waking up, turning on the TV and muttering, “Fuck. Again? Tired of it. I so feel for those lost and those left behind to deal with this madness. And I know grief up close and personal.

It time to ban military style weapons. No civilian should own one. And maybe handguns, too.

Ozoneranger wrote:

However, I’d rather be gunned down by an armed intruder than have one of my grandchildren hurt by a weapon I may own

That’s me.

And statistically, a grandchild is more likely to be hurt or killed with your gun than an intruder is.

I dunno. I used to be FOR getting rid of guns. Now…I dunno. I get where some people are coming from.

But I do NOT understand the resistance to gun training, licensing, and screening. And these automatic weapons…I mean…stop it. I don’t know how they are even debatable.

You want protection? Get a handgun, and pass safety training and a marksmanship test. Wanna hunt? Same thing.

Protect yourself from the government? There’s no such thing, and you aren’t using that as an excuse to buy battlefield weaponry. Get rid of internet sales, gun shows, and so on.

You can have a gun – I guess – but it’s going to be within reason, and you are going to demonstrate competency.

But I give up. That’s not happening.