At least 50 dead, 400 injured in shooting near Mandalay Bay casino, 1 suspect 'down'

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Boiler said:

Go through the links, see where the issues are plenty of simple things that could be done under existing legislation.

And yet we are barely over a year from the last "deadly mass shooting in US history" and we have another one.

 

I completely support "grounds up" change at the local and state level to help improve safety, but whatever has been happening for the past 10+ years is clearly not working. We can continue to say "these things should happen" but it doesn't seem like they are. At some point I think the Federal Government also needs to take some responsibility to try to change things and improve our situation.

[Boiler 46,121]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

And yet we are barely over a year from the last "deadly mass shooting in US history" and we have another one.

 

I completely support "grounds up" change at the local and state level to help improve safety, but whatever has been happening for the past 10+ years is clearly not working. We can continue to say "these things should happen" but it doesn't seem like they are. At some point I think the Federal Government also needs to take some responsibility to try to change things and improve our situation.

Huh, that makes no sense, where have the Feds ever been effective, Obamacare?

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

Huh, that makes no sense, where have the Feds ever been effective, Obamacare?

dunno, but currently they toss a mean paper towel.

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Huh, that makes no sense, where have the Feds ever been effective, Obamacare?

Obamacare is not perfect but I'd say having millions more people with coverage is better than what we had before. However our priorities in that regard may be different. My point of view comes from caring for patients. No one should be without access to healthcare. When I told my wife that millions have been raised for the victims of the Vegas shooting she was innocently confused as to why they needed it. I had to remind her that they will have to pay for their own healthcare caused by a man who had a "right" to bear arms.

 

It doesn't seem like local or states are able to effectively reduce our homicide rate, so where else would we turn?

 

I point again to the fact that our country is an outlier. No other country has a homicide rate like us. I don't care what level makes a change, whether it is local, state or federal. But we need to make a change. We haven't yet in the last 10+ years and the rate of mass shootings is getting worse. I say law makers at EVERY level should be working on it. I'm not willing to just "pass the buck" to city and state governments and just "hope" they will all do what needs to be done.

 

Some great review articles on the topic to read:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26905895

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25581152

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27836155

 

I can help get access to any of them if needed. The first two should be free access. The last one is Elsevier so you would need a login. If you'd like to read it I can send you the pdf.

Edited October 5, 2017 by bcking

[TBoneTX 46,126]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25581152

Does this journal really make authors list their references alphabetically, rather than by order of mention in the paper?

[Sonea 138]

Over the last pages two topics have been mentioned that I think are worth addressing.

 

1. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and the founding fathers were unaware of how technology would change firearms. Typically the Brown Bess or the french Charleville musket are referenced because of their low rate of fire. This argument insults the framer's intelligence. There were two major developments in the 18th century that showed rate of fire increasing that they would have been aware of. First multishot rifles were appearing. While they weren't the modern rifle with 20 rounds - 30 round magazines, they were starting to see 2, 3, and 4 shot rifles. Thats a huge increase from 1 shot every 20 sec. Secondly, breachloading rifles were appearing on the battlefield in limited numbers for rapid reloading. They were even used by Britain in the Revolutionary War. They would not be surprised at all by today's advancement...especially as gun development has actually stagnated for the last 70 years.

 

2. There has been discussion on why the US has a higher homicide rate than many industrial nations. While I can't fully explain why the US is this way, it doesn't seem like gun control is the reason. There is an interesting comparison that can be made with the UK for instance which I show below:

 

Prior to 1903 US and UK gun laws were similar. In 1903, the UK passed the pistol act which was the start down the road of full gun control. So lets compare the US and UK homicide rates in that decade and now and see if anything changed.

 

The UK had a rate of 0.96 in the 1900s. The US data fluctuates a bit, and there is discussion that numbers prior to 1905 were underreported so i'll go with the latter half of the decade which averages between 3.9 and 4.9.

 

Fast forward to the 2010s and the US fluctuated between 4.4 and 4.9. The UK with its years of gun control averaged .91 to 1.14.

 

Therefore, with or without gun control the UK has always been safer than the US.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Sonea

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Boiler said:

Huh, that makes no sense, where have the Feds ever been effective, Obamacare?

20 Million People who now have healthcare because of the say yes

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

11 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

20 Million People who now have healthcare because of the say yes

The same who say no to paper towel tossing.

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Sonea said:

Over the last pages two topics have been mentioned that I think are worth addressing.

 

1. The 2nd Amendment is outdated and the founding fathers were unaware of how technology would change firearms. Typically the Brown Bess or the french Charleville musket are referenced because of their low rate of fire. This argument insults the framer's intelligence. There were two major developments in the 18th century that showed rate of fire increasing that they would have been aware of. First multishot rifles were appearing. While they weren't the modern rifle with 20 rounds - 30 round magazines, they were starting to see 2, 3, and 4 shot rifles. Thats a huge increase from 1 shot every 20 sec. Secondly, breachloading rifles were appearing on the battlefield in limited numbers for rapid reloading. They were even used by Britain in the Revolutionary War. They would not be surprised at all by today's advancement...especially as gun development has actually stagnated for the last 70 years.

 

2. There has been discussion on why the US has a higher homicide rate than many industrial nations. While I can't fully explain why the US is this way, it doesn't seem like gun control is the reason. There is an interesting comparison that can be made with the UK for instance which I show below:

 

Prior to 1903 US and UK gun laws were similar. In 1903, the UK passed the pistol act which was the start down the road of full gun control. So lets compare the US and UK homicide rates in that decade and now and see if anything changed.

 

The UK had a rate of 0.96 in the 1900s. The US data fluctuates a bit, and there is discussion that numbers prior to 1905 were underreported so i'll go with the latter half of the decade which averages between 3.9 and 4.9.

 

Fast forward to the 2010s and the US fluctuated between 4.4 and 4.9. The UK with its years of gun control averaged .91 to 1.14.

 

Therefore, with or without gun control the UK has always been safer than the US.

1) at least for me it isn't the advancement in firearms that I think the founding fathers couldn't predict, it is the advancement in mechanised warfare.

 

A "well-regulated militia" would get you nowhere in today's world. What we pulled off in the Revolutionary war would never work today. The disparity between what individuals keep in their gun locker and what the government controls through the military is infinitely wider today than it was then.

 

2) interesting comparison, and it makes a reasonable point. Only thing I would add is if you could provide your sources. Especially for homicide rates in the early 1900s. Just curious where you got them.

[bcking 3,157]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

 

Wikipedia has everything these days. I was initially pulling up Home Office statistics etc... And then found this.

 

Man America is just an all around less safe place. Obviously we have pockets that are safer, but as a whole....we are just violent I guess.

[Sonea 138]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

1) at least for me it isn't the advancement in firearms that I think the founding fathers couldn't predict, it is the advancement in mechanised warfare.

 

A "well-regulated militia" would get you nowhere in today's world. What we pulled off in the Revolutionary war would never work today. The disparity between what individuals keep in their gun locker and what the government controls through the military is infinitely wider today than it was then.

 

2) interesting comparison, and it makes a reasonable point. Only thing I would add is if you could provide your sources. Especially for homicide rates in the early 1900s. Just curious where you got them.

 

Someone actually broke out the numbers on this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

 

They use this:  "Homicide rates from the Vital Statistics, 1900/2002". National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics. Archived from the original on 2006-10-24. Retrieved 2006-12-09. 

and this: Hicks, Joe; Grahame Allen (1999-12-21). "A century of change: trends in UK statistics since 1900, research paper 99/111" (PDF). House of commons library, Social and general statistics section. p. 14. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 12, 2006. Retrieved 2006-12-30.

for the early 19oos data.

 

Regarding point 1. There are examples of militia holding their own against the US military on foreign soil in the 21st century. A militia could easily win on home territory if a portion of the military joins it like what occurred in Syria. Also take in to account the will of a leader to level domestic urban areas.

 

 

[Sonea 138]

NRA just came out and stated they support regulating bumpfire stocks

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-breaks-silence-bump-fire-devices-tightly-regulated-article-1.3543525

Edited October 5, 2017 by Sonea

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, Sonea said:

NRA just came out and stated they support regulating bumpfire stocks

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-breaks-silence-bump-fire-devices-tightly-regulated-article-1.3543525

there is no way the firearms industry was going to tolerate being brought down by a few guys making an add-on in their garage.  The legislation is a done deal.

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 hour ago, Sonea said:

NRA just came out and stated they support regulating bumpfire stocks

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-breaks-silence-bump-fire-devices-tightly-regulated-article-1.3543525

 

Of course they want it regulated. LOL. They want to be the regulators of it too, I am sure. 

[Sonea 138]

5 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

Of course they want it regulated. LOL. They want to be the regulators of it too, I am sure. 

I'd rather they write it than Brady or Newtown given the latter know nothing on arms. Both Brady and Newtown wrote the California AW regs that were released this summer and they were horrendously vague and overreached the penal code the legislature created. That lawsuit will cause the regs to collapse within a year.