Las Vegas Shooting: 50+ Dead 500+ Injured at Jason Aldean Concert

[Hemi-Cuda]

I hope countries start putting out travel advisories for the United States. Between their dysfunctional love for guns, rising racial tensions, and mess of a healthcare system, they're looking more like a 3rd world country in a lot of areas

[Muta]

Don't forget the corrupt dictator running the country!

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I hope countries start putting out travel advisories for the United States. Between their dysfunctional love for guns, rising racial tensions, and mess of a healthcare system, they're looking more like a 3rd world country in a lot of areas

The United States despite heading towards a collapse is still the world's largest super power and the leader of the free world. Countries that care about their own economy and people don't put travel advisories on the US.

That's just asking for trouble and retribution, not worth it.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's the United States of America, they can spend more money to do pretty much anything.

If a buyback would be in the hundreds of billions, you're suggesting the US would spend more than they spend on science, energy/environment, international affairs, housing/community, transportation, education, agriculture, and vet benefits?

The only thing they spend over 200B a year on is debt interest, military, medicare/health, and Social Security/Unemployment.

I'm sure they'll just throw a couple hundred billion at buying back guns though because they're American and can spend money.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Countries that care about their own economy and people don't put travel advisories on the US.

Not to mention nothing on that list is travel-advisory worthy yet.

[Wormius]

What does that statement even mean anymore? "Leader of the Free World"? In what actual sense?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by jayswin

The United States despite heading towards a collapse is still the world's largest super power and the leader of the free world. Countries that care about their own economy and people don't put travel advisories on the US.

That's just asking for trouble and retribution, not worth it.

Does much on here not ring true if you swapped Mexico for US?

The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens about the risk of traveling to certain parts of Mexico due to the activities of criminal organizations in those areas. U.S. citizens have been the victims of violent crimes, including homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery in various Mexican states. This Travel Warning replaces the Travel Warning for Mexico issued December 8, 2016.

For information on security conditions in specific regions of Mexico, see our state-by-state assessments below. U.S. government personnel and their families are prohibited from personal travel to all areas to which the Department recommends “defer non-essential travel” in this Travel Warning. As a result of security precautions that U.S. government personnel must take while traveling to parts of Mexico, our response time to emergencies involving U.S. citizens may be hampered or delayed.

Gun battles between rival criminal organizations or with Mexican authorities have taken place on streets and in public places during broad daylight. The Mexican government dedicates substantial resources to protect visitors to major tourist destinations and has engaged in an extensive effort to counter criminal organizations that engage in narcotics trafficking and other unlawful activities throughout Mexico. There is no evidence that criminal organizations have targeted U.S. citizens based on their nationality. Resort areas and tourist destinations in Mexico generally do not see the level of drug-related violence and crime that are reported in the border region or in areas along major trafficking routes.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Wormius

What does that statement even mean anymore? "Leader of the Free World"? In what actual sense?

It's just a Cold War holdover.

[woob]

It's insane to me that a device which is designed to *technically* change a semi-auto into a full auto is perfectly legal, as is a larger magazine to facilitate the increased rate of fire. I understand there is some learning curve to shooting a bump fire weapon, but I imagine you can become quite proficient and accurate with it, if you have time and space to practice.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by woob

It's insane to me that a device which is designed to *technically* change a semi-auto into a full auto is perfectly legal, as is a larger magazine to facilitate the increased rate of fire. I understand there is some learning curve to shooting a bump fire weapon, but I imagine you can become quite proficient and accurate with it, if you have time and space to practice.

Well you have to remember the individual upgrades to make them auto can be as easy as adding pieces as simple as a crank that fires the trigger. You can't really legislate away cranks or other simple methods. Sure some bump fire slides or other methods are more involved, but again, they're tough to legislate since they're often just parts and could be created by anyone with the knowledge.

Same thing with magazines - they can be legislated on capacity, sure, but easy enough to add capacity if you wanted yourself.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Well you have to remember the individual upgrades to make them auto can be as easy as adding pieces as simple as a crank that fires the trigger. You can't really legislate away cranks or other simple methods. Sure some bump fire slides or other methods are more involved, but again, they're tough to legislate since they're often just parts and could be created by anyone with the knowledge.

Same thing with magazines - they can be legislated on capacity, sure, but easy enough to add capacity if you wanted yourself.

You can however legislate the sale of them. No it won't stop the do-it-yourselfer, but it's a start.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

You can however legislate the sale of them. No it won't stop the do-it-yourselfer, but it's a start.

Fair enough. I think even taking automatic weapons, or converted automatic weapons out of the equation makes sense. But the underlying problem remains - even with your proposed changes it really only reduces the scale of this one specific sort of attack, where it is setup like a battlefield position. Sure it is a start, but doesn't really impact most "day to day" shootings or mass shootings where semi-autos are used to kill scores, given they're just as effective.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Sure it is a start, but doesn't really impact most "day to day" shootings or mass shootings where semi-autos are used to kill scores, given they're just as effective.

Right, but given how out of hand the gun-nuttiness is down there, the only way you'll ever get a handle on it is baby steps.

It's a lot easier to slowly introduce gun restrictions, and to start it with something that granted does little to solve the mass-murder scenario, but also infringes on little of the 2nd amendment.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Good I'm afraid. Getting a gun should be the biggest pain in the ass there is. If your pops love guns that much - he'll go through the process to procure them legally. If the forms, fees, and red tape makes him throw up his hands and find a new hobby - job done.

Exactly.

It should be a giant pain in the ass. Much harder than getting a restricted license here in Canada.

[driveway]

Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment is the root of the problem - if you consider the problem to be the number of gun deaths and/or the number of mass shootings in the United States.

As long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, any and all restrictions on firearms or accessories are at risk of being found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Get an assault weapons ban in place? A poorly worded ban, or an unfriendly (or friendly depending on your perspective) Supreme Court and that ban is history. Restrictions on modifications, magazine sizes, extra background checks? Again, it's not that hard to imagine conservative, textualist jurists deciding those restrictions infringe on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

In addition, given the United States political construction as a Federalist Union of States, the inevitable variation of gun laws from State to State and municipality to municipality renders local efforts almost completely moot: see Chicago's efforts to curb handgun violence.

It is entirely obvious, based on the actions of Americans, that they don't actually care that tens of thousands of people die from guns every year. They don't care about mass shootings and they don't care about the victims of gun violence. Sure, they claim to care. They'll lower flags and have a moment of silence and talk about how people they disagree with are disgustingly politicizing the event "before the bodies are cold" (Sean Hannity). They'll claim to introspect and be heartbroken and pray and memorialize but they'll do nothing of any consequence.

America, you actually want fewer people to die from guns, and for there to be fewer mass shootings? Then you need to at least start talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment.

[Azure]

Well if you simply want more people to die from gun deaths without touching the second amendment end the war on drugs.

That probably won't stop mass shootings though.

[GGG]

The first place to start is mental health and suciide prevention. That is 2/3rds of gun deaths. The you have roughly 1/3 being homocides and then you have a smaller amount of police, mass shooting, terrorism etc and a small amount of accidents.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-gun-violence/

[driveway]

Originally Posted by GGG

The first place to start is mental health and suciide prevention. That is 2/3rds of gun deaths. The you have roughly 1/3 being homocides and then you have a smaller amount of police, mass shooting, terrorism etc and a small amount of accidents.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-gun-violence/

Access to firearms increases suicide rates regardless of access to mental health resources or suicide prevention efforts.

https://hub.jhu.edu/2017/08/17/high-...l-communities/

According to new research from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, in rural areas of Maryland, suicide rates are 35 percent higher than in urban settings—a disparity that can be attributed to greater use of firearms in rural settings.
...
"The reason that rural suicide rates are higher is because people in these areas are killing themselves with guns," Nestadt says.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/ma...s-and-suicide/

A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. ... in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/11...icide-homicide

Someone with access to firearms is three times more likely to commit suicide and nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a homicide as someone who does not have access ... Researchers found striking gender differences in the data. When firearms were accessible, men were nearly four times more likely to commit suicide than when firearms were not accessible, while women were almost three times more likely to be victims of homicide.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2015.302753

Using previous research, we examined the impact of 4 handgun laws (waiting periods, universal background checks, gun locks, and open carrying regulations) on suicide rates. ... Each law was associated with significantly lower firearm suicide rates and the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms. Follow-up analyses showed a significant indirect effect on overall suicide rates through the proportion of suicides by firearms

[wwkayaker]

Originally Posted by Northendzone

even if the government was to really tighten up the gun marketplace in north America as a whole, I would think it would take decades for all of the guns or even a significant portion of the guns that are currently out there to get taken off the street

i wonder if there is a real workable solution to this issue?

It may take decades but at least the process would be started. Currently, the gun market is probably doing a lot of sales just as happened after Sandy Hook when people thought bans were coming.

As to another poster’s comment about the black market, those guns wouldn’t be as cheap as Walmart nor as easy to access.

[GGG]

Thanks is for the links. I was wondering if access to guns would increase rates of suicide or if a substitution affect would take place.

The focus on assault weapons bans may prevent these types of tragedies or limit their damage but it in terms of overall body count won't move the needle.