Vegas: The US is Not Mature Enough for Guns

Profahoben_212Hey dunc.

Just chiming in here....from the reports I've read, he was using automatic firearms. If true these would have to be either illegally obtained or modified to have. Or possibly pre 1986? (Not 100 percent on the date or what the auto ban entails).

If this is true, the guns he had were already under control. So I'm not sure what more we could have done on that end.


I think a really big issue in the US is the mental health of our citizens. I would speculate that 10 out of 10 gunman/terrorist/whatever you wanna say have severe mental illnesses. That is something that needs to change.

iFlipWhat a naïve, knee-jerk reaction. A gun is a tool, to be used for recreation and hunting (and personal protection if appropriate). Similarly, a vehicle is a tool, to be used for recreation and transport. The recent incidents of individuals using vehicles to plow into crowds causing multiple deaths did not yield cries to ban vehicles.

Guns are not the problem. Crazy is the problem.

Profahoben_212Hey dunc.

Just chiming in here....from the reports I've read, he was using automatic firearms. If true these would have to be either illegally obtained or modified to have. Or possibly pre 1986? (Not 100 percent on the date or what the auto ban entails).

If this is true, the guns he had were already under control. So I'm not sure what more we could have done on that end.


I think a really big issue in the US is the mental health of our citizens. I would speculate that 10 out of 10 gunman/terrorist/whatever you wanna say have severe mental illnesses. That is something that needs to change.

Profahoben_212Just chiming in here....from the reports I've read, he was using automatic firearms. If true these would have to be either illegally obtained or modified to have. Or possibly pre 1986? (Not 100 percent on the date or what the auto ban entails).

iFlipWhat a naïve, knee-jerk reaction. A gun is a tool, to be used for recreation and hunting (and personal protection if appropriate). Similarly, a vehicle is a tool, to be used for recreation and transport. The recent incidents of individuals using vehicles to plow into crowds causing multiple deaths did not yield cries to ban vehicles.

Guns are not the problem. Crazy is the problem.

theabortionatorMassive gun shows etc.

iFlipI very much doubt he was using automatic weapons. I imagine he was using semi-automatic weapons, which are very different but the media likely does not have a clue.

It is possible to legally acquire automatic weapons. They fall under NFA Class III items, and take some work and money to obtain, but can absolutely be done so legally. The process to acquire a NFA Class III weapon (or item - think silencer) is to file an ATF Form 5320.4. One must submit two copies to the ATF, and a third copy to one's local Chief Law Enforcement Official. With the Form 5320.4 one must submit two fingerprint cards, two passport-size photos, and a payment of $200. This entire process must be completed for each Class III item one purchases.

Additionally, as you alluded to, only automatic weapons made prior to May 19th, 1986 may be purchased. As there is a very finite number of these out there, they command high prices (think $20K and up). Furthermore, individual states have specific restrictions. Some states, such as NY and Hawaii, completely prohibit the sale of Class III items to citizens. Other states have restrictions based on the particular Class III item.

theabortionatorBut I don't think you can say that guns aren't a problem.

iFlipThe gun show loophole was closed years ago. The seems not to have registered with the liberal media.

Profahoben_212Have you watched the videos? Very clearly automatic. I have a hard time that a man can pull a trigger that fast. I thought it was pretty much the consensus that they were automatic.

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong....but everything I've read heard or seen points to automatic. Grab me a source that shows they arent.

robotdnaGun show loophole? All the gun shows in my area are pretty unregulated haha.

iFlipI had not watched the videos. I just watched one. It does absolutely sound full-auto to me. That's crazy.

iFlipGuns are not a problem. There, I said it.

Never once has a gun on its own killed a person.

iFlipOh really? And how many times have you recently attempted to purchase a gun at one?

iFlipGuns are not a problem. There, I said it.

Never once has a gun on its own killed a person.

iFlipThe gun show loophole was closed years ago. The seems not to have registered with the liberal media.

iFlipGuns are not a problem. There, I said it.

Never once has a gun on its own killed a person.

robotdnaNope, crazy people are the problem. Do you agree we need to regulate crazy people? My thought was as soon as good policies were in place for mental health then guns are fine. But currently there are a lot of wacky people out there haha

iFlipWe absolutely need to regulate crazy people. And I would support legislation and protocols that make it more difficult for the mentally ill to obtain firearms.

In the US, guns are here to stay. We may as well all get past that idea. States (and the federal government) have enacted restrictions to make purchasing certain types of guns difficult or illegal. For example, the famous "assault weapons ban." What exactly is an "assault weapon?" There is no definition, nor any type of weapon that was sold as an assault weapon, to either the military or civilians. Instead a crazy definition was created by lawmakers, which essentially came down to any gun that looks scary is classified as an assault rifle. This ban has done absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence.

Stop trying to regulate what decent firearms owners may purchase and own. Let's shift our focus to keeping any and all weapons out of the hands of those who are mentally ill.

robotdnaNope, crazy people are the problem. Do you agree we need to regulate crazy people? My thought was as soon as good policies were in place for mental health then guns are fine. But currently there are a lot of wacky people out there haha

eheathThe amount of guns we have is a problem. We have so many guns that serve no purpose.

iFlipSo you want to restrict how many firearms I may own? Or do I need to rationalize each? Would you limit me to 3 firearms? 10? Two dozen? Or, if I have a valid reason for each and every one of my firearms, is it ok for me to own 200? Let's break this down a little, and pretend that each of these apply to me:

A .22 for small game hunting
A bench-rest .22 for competition target shooting
A lightweight but long-barreled .22 for 3-gun competitions
A specialized .22 for biathlon competitions
A .223 for larger small-game hunting (coyotes, foxes, etc.)
An AR-style .223 for 3-gun competitions
A bench-rest .223 for competition non-rimfire shoots
A .270 for hunting situations out West where I need a flat-shooting round
A lightweight .270 for mountain hunting situations (sheep, ibex, etc.)
A 30-06 for big game hunting
A 45-70 for bear protection
A 12-gauge over/under for trap shooting
A 12-gauge semi-automatic for waterfowl hunting
A 12-gauge side-by-side for upland hunting
A short-barreled semi-automatic 12-gauge for 3-gun competitions
A 20-gauge for dove hunting

We are only getting started, and haven't gotten into handguns for competition, self-defense, etc. I could make a very valid case for why I personally "need" 30+ guns. This also hasn't touched on collectability, having spares, guns with sentimental value that have been passed down, having loaner guns for getting new shooters into the sport, and more.

iFlipWhat a naïve, knee-jerk reaction. A gun is a tool, to be used for recreation and hunting (and personal protection if appropriate). Similarly, a vehicle is a tool, to be used for recreation and transport. The recent incidents of individuals using vehicles to plow into crowds causing multiple deaths did not yield cries to ban vehicles.

Guns are not the problem. Crazy is the problem.

theabortionatorWhy does it have to be 1 option or the other? We need to do something about mental health in this country. That said, it shouldn't be a reason why we don't do anything about the gun issue.

Also the idea that we're just going to magically make people not crazy, and everything will be rainbows and unicorns.

onenerdykidand you had a loaded run lying next to you

eheathI could care less what "you" can justify, you sound like a very unique individual. Basically every gun you just listed is also not the problem, and you know that.

onenerdykidHoly false equivalence batman. Of course crazy is a problem, but you are clearly lying to yourself if you don't see the difference between a tool that is a purpose built weapon that puts a hole in almost anything and one that is used to move people around. Are you telling me that if an attacker was running at you with a knife (or insert weapon of choice) and you had a loaded run lying next to you and a running car pointed at the assailant, that you would be unable to decide what to defend yourself with?

The use of a weapon and this misuse of a transportation device are not the same thing and this is why no one is calling for a ban on trucks or cars.

iFlipHow much less could you care? Because it sounds like you already care quite a lot.

What guns, specifically, ARE the problem according to you? What specific guns can we ban that will magically make gun violence go away? Also, several of the guns I listed already have been banned by various states.

As long as we are banning things, let's look at crime statistics. If we ban the sale of guns to individuals who have incomes of less than $40K per year, then theoretically we have just eliminated 98% of all gun violence. Next perhaps we should ban the sale of guns to individuals who earn less than $200K per year. Now we have eliminated 99.9% of gun violence. Or we could break it down racially. Or maybe based upon education.

How exactly would you like your banning to take place?

eheathI don't think banning guns is the solution. TBH i don't think anyone knows the solution here, its a dark day.

robotdnaYou're right. Often I am too black and white. Part of me just wants to do the "parent" thing and say since we aren't able to control these things more we. Should really have much much more regulation. However, working on both mental health and regulation simultaneously will give the best results. Our government has tried to do this and it didn't seem to work well as nobody agrees on anything.

iFlipI personally would get into the running vehicle and drive away from the situation.

onenerdykidI hope we all would, but that also proves a point that you knew what the car was primarily for. You didn't try to drive the gun or blatantly use the car to run him over and then walk home.

This is a cheesy line, but I do think it rings true: with great power comes great responsibility. If we make pilots undergo hundreds if not thousands of hours of education and testing before they earn their pilot's license, why do we not do the same for someone wanting to own a deadly weapon? Moreover, how about we have post-license and post-sale mental health exams and operating exams for all gun owners? This would definitely catch a lot of the problem without taking away one's constitutional right to own a gun.

iFlipAnd we still fall short, even with pilots. Example: MH370.

If we are going to implement recurring exams for gun owners, then I would ask that we do the same for all drivers. If we have exams every 5 years for drivers that tested their eyesight, their reaction times, and their mental ability, we would save untold lives by revoking licenses of senior drivers who just can't seem to stop driving, even though they have absolutely no business being behind the wheel.

onenerdykidShort answer: yes.

Just because some instances are not prevented, it does not mean that we shouldn't try to do a better job. I don't think anyone is expecting a perfect solution that does away with all gun violence, or violence in general. But there is assuredly more that we can do and ought to do in order to ensure that our citizens are better protected. This is in fact one of the main jobs of any government- protect its citizens.

saskskierWhy is this, the worst mass shooting in US history, not being called a terrorist attack. How long would it take for the topic of mental health to come up if it was being labeled terrorism, if at all?

Brown/middle eastern dude = terrorism
White guy = mental health

iFlipThe difficult question is where we can draw the line, if indeed a line should be drawn. How much should the government protect us from...us? In the not-too-distant past, a class-based system did a phenomenal job of protecting the citizens. The wealthy proletariat had the rights, and everyone else had specific roles within the feudal society, with set guidelines. We could return to a feudal state, and it would be great for the few.

As I said in my tongue-in-cheek post to eheath, if we regulate certain things such as guns based largely upon income level, or education level, then we can solve all kinds of problems. However, this is unjust, according to our current societal norms. We do have solutions available to us, we just don't like them.

We could do away with massive financial drains by requiring pre-birth testing for genetic and mental illnesses, with government-mandated abortions for "problems." We could "allow" reproduction based upon ability to provide for the child or children, again looking toward income level. Obviously these examples would not fly for a second in our current society.

saskskierWhy is this, the worst mass shooting in US history, not being called a terrorist attack. How long would it take for the topic of mental health to come up if it was being labeled terrorism, if at all?

Brown/middle eastern dude = terrorism
White guy = mental health

iFlipHere's another ignorant, knee-jerk response to the horrific Vegas incident. Way to twist it and try to make it about white privilege. This has NOTHING to do with race.

In fact, even CBS wrote an article on this very issue, for the uneducated and media-puppets such as yourself: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-shooting-is-it-terrorist-attack-stephen-paddock/

saskskierWould CBS write the same article if the attacker was middle eastern? Guaranteed all news headlines would be 'suspected terrorist attack in Vegas'. They definitely wouldn't be writing articles about how it's too soon to label it as terrorism.

.frenchyThank God the NRA is a thing and will protect my rights from buffoons like you who try to infringe on them. Way to make it political hours after a terrorist attack, classy

TheHamburglarLegitimate question, how are stricter gun laws going to limit access to fully automatic rifles with high capacity mags? Current legislation doesn't seem to be stopping people from obtaining the tools for doing maximum damage, what would tougher laws do?

And everyone saying "but muh guns" needs to shut the fuck up and recognize that the US has a serious gun problem and we need to do something about it. But what?