Deadliest mass shooting in US history in Las Vegas - More than 50 dead

stop the pop wrote:

Additionally, I want you to consider the negative consequences of an all-out ban. I assume that's what we're talking about here, yes? Because nothing else could possibly be effective aside from going after all guns.

People use guns to defend themselves in the US literally every day. The statistics are muddy, but generally the lower-end figures are around 60,000 defensive gun uses per year. If you take guns away from these individuals, some of them will be murdered. If even 0.01% of those defensive uses prevented a murder, that's 600 deaths prevented.

Interestingly, in 2016, there were 606 deaths in the US from mass shootings, including all familial incidents.

It should become evident that there are trade-offs. I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the costs.

Sources:

peep and egg wrote:

People use guns to defend themselves in the US literally every day. The statistics are muddy, but generally the lower-end figures are around 60,000 defensive gun uses per year. If you take guns away from these individuals, some of them will be murdered. If even 0.01% of those defensive uses prevented a murder, that's 600 deaths prevented.

I

Seriously, how is it possible for so many of you to be abysmal with simple math? I thought runners were a smart demographic.

spade detector wrote:

peep and egg wrote:

People use guns to defend themselves in the US literally every day. The statistics are muddy, but generally the lower-end figures are around 60,000 defensive gun uses per year. If you take guns away from these individuals, some of them will be murdered. If even 0.01% of those defensive uses prevented a murder, that's 600 deaths prevented.

I

Seriously, how is it possible for so many of you to be abysmal with simple math? I thought runners were a smart demographic.

Sorry, meant to say 1%.

DiscoGary wrote:

The reason "common sense" gun laws don't work, is that the "common sense" that more guns equals more gun crimes is wrong:

https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/

Does this correlation hold before 1993?*

Why does the trend flatten out after 2000 if there is a causal relationship?

* - No.

peep and egg wrote:

stop the pop wrote:

Additionally, I want you to consider the negative consequences of an all-out ban. I assume that's what we're talking about here, yes? Because nothing else could possibly be effective aside from going after all guns.

ralia

No. Reasonable regulation would do a lot to reduce gun violence. The main reason it is so easy for criminals to obtain firearms illegally is that there are too many firearms out there. If you want to keep a firearm at your house to protect yourself, fine. You can have a shotgun (this is the best weapon for home defense for a number of reasons) or a handgun with a max clip capacity of 15 rounds. No more collecting firearms. Find something else to do with yourself. Collect stamps. Go bird watching. I do not care who conscientious you are with your gun collection. Even the most responsible gun owners mess up and leave gun safes unlocked. If everyone just had a single weapon, the number of guns on the black market would dissipate very rapidly. And ban assault rifles.

What about all the guns out their? If you have a big collection of guns, you can turn them in or you will be strictly liable criminally and civilly if the gun is stolen and subsequently used in a crime. The government won't come take your guns. But if a criminal does, you will have to stand in the criminal's shoes.

I'm 100% on board with requiring guns to be locked up in the home. Though I think you could only sue for liability if you could prove a gun owner didn't reasonably secure the weapon.

I disagree that any of your points would prevent mass murder, however. This kind of legislation will only help prevent accidental shootings. Good outcome, but not the one you're hoping for.

This post is what liberals find so frustrating when dealing with "conservatives".

Here are a couple examples:

"What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths..."

Actually this is "told" fairly frequently.

"So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100."

Why exclude suicides? When a gun is used they seem pretty violent.

"So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 (very politically liberal) cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause."

This argument would hold water if there was a federal gun control law but, as others have pointed out; when you can drive 10 miles outside of these urban centers to buy guns without an id then no conclusion can be drawn on whether gun control works in these areas or not.

"This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some states have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1."

Uh, is this attempting to compare California with Alabama on a death per State basis rather than a per capita basis? Why not compare South Dakota with New York as well?

"• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose

• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths.

• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide).

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors.

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease."

This argument is so specious that I'm embarrassed to even note it. How many more deaths would there be if: illegal drugs were legal, there were no flu shots or health care, there were no license requirements for operating a vehicle, drunk driving - seat belt - distracted driving laws, heavily regulated healthcare, transfats?

The point is that all your numbers would be worse if we didn't attempt to do something about it, like regulate them to decrease the numbers.

"So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns?"

Because there is not 1/100th (don't bother to calculate that) the level of regulation for guns as there there are for the instances you named. Guns are really the last frontier of regulation that remains untouched. So you have to ask yourself why? Fear of government? Lack of data? Fear of overzealous regulation? All those fears are self induced by the right. I only know a handful of liberals that want to eliminate guns, a vast majority just want to regulate it so that these mass shootings don't happen so often. We understand that you can't regulate crazy but you sure can make it harder for crazy to obtain a lethal weapon designed to kill.

The hands off approach of gun regulation has created this monster and it will ultimately result in a policing action if the industry does not self police.

I read somewhere that the NRA is an enabler of state sponsored terrorism and completely agree with that sentiment. If we're going to get anywhere with regulating firearms (not eliminating them) then the first step would be to cut off their control over our legislature.

Well said but the rednecks on here won't get it.

L L wrote:

A total ban on guns is politically impossible to be implemented.

Be realistic

You might have well have said that Superman could have stopped this.

And that is the kind of thinking that leads to more gun deaths.

Me thinking like that has not lead to a single gun death.

There are very passionate gun control people out there shouting all of the time.

And every time an incident happens like this and they start shouting, more guns get sold.

Last year there was bipartisan legislation written to introduce new gun regulations and the senate majority leader wouldn't even bring that bill to a vote.

Given those conditions, it is my belief that it is politically impossible to ban all guns.

Plus the majority of Americans do not want a total gun ban.

I'd be OK with it but the majority rules.

And people that are against guns and don't have guns are very, very unlikely to ever get shot.

It is typically gun people that shot.

A mass shooting like this is a frightening exception but doesn't change the odds much.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

Exit through the gift shop wrote:

300 million guns are owned by a third of US households. Two thirds of household own no firearms.

3% of gun owners own 50% or 150 million of the guns.

These are the RWNJs holding the rest of us hostage.

I want out of this nuthouse of a county and I won't mind if the door hits me where the good lord split me.

Current estimates are 30% of households. Down from 53% in the 70's. Don't like it here? Perhaps you can move to Mexico, with quite stringent gun control. Its also quite warm there.

see? brains! and really OLD SMTC, even I can trust you, why are there so so so so so so many gun owners are reckless, negligent morons? as a hunter I am in no way anti-gun in general but I am not, and never have been, a fan of the NRA. Whether you know it or not, the organization was founded on lies-- look up Ramon Casiano-- and that legacy continues to this day.

I'd post the one about the cop killing himself cleaning his weapon but I can't stop laughing (I also don't believe it was an accident; probably suicide that was covered up.)

Correct, you will never disarm We The People so it is best you get it out of your pea sized brains.

😎🇺🇸

L L wrote:

Me thinking like that has not lead to a single gun death.

There are very passionate gun control people out there shouting all of the time.

And every time an incident happens like this and they start shouting, more guns get sold.

Last year there was bipartisan legislation written to introduce new gun regulations and the senate majority leader wouldn't even bring that bill to a vote.

Given those conditions, it is my belief that it is politically impossible to ban all guns.

Plus the majority of Americans do not want a total gun ban.

I'd be OK with it but the majority rules.

And people that are against guns and don't have guns are very, very unlikely to ever get shot.

It is typically gun people that shot.

A mass shooting like this is a frightening exception but doesn't change the odds much.

Yes, you, and everyone else that thinks like you, share blame for these gun deaths.

In almost every product sold in the US there are pretty strict safety standards. If any one product slips through and causes multiple deaths, laws and regulations are passed to correct the oversight.

EXCEPT GUNS.

The gun rights folks sticks their head in the sand and says "Oh, Well, nothing we can do here. We just have to accept the large number of dead Americans every year."

DiscoGary wrote:

they banned lawn darts wrote:

No way. I'm not feeding someone else's kill fantasy. If the time comes I will simply have them destroyed.

If the guns are the problem then why don't you destroy them now?

Because as long as these guns are in my possession they are no threat to innocent people.

I guess an example of why I stayed away from this thread in the first place.

Pointless arguing.

And in this case, we both don't want guns.

The difference being, I am practical and you are not.

People like you get the NRA all fired up to lobby Washington against ANY reasonable gun safety law.

You are the definition of irony.

Your very efforts produce the opposite result that you are trying to accomplish.

Congress is going to look into these bump stocks that can alter guns to become fully automatic.

Rants like yours will drive NRA lobbyists to threaten to primary any Republican that considers making them illegal.

L L wrote:

The surviving victims and all of the victims family members just need our support now.

This thread just shows the minds of gun owners: many could give a shit about the helpless victims slaughtered like cattle and are more worried about their stupid gun rights! We are such a primitive & violent society, and have become so desensitized to tragedies like this! People are struggling to cope with deaths of their loved ones, victims seriously wounded with some who will be permanently disabled and many more emotionally traumatized forever. And gun owners are arguing about their gun rights...sickening! 😠

Agreed 100%, well done Jefe

L L wrote:

I guess an example of why I stayed away from this thread in the first place.

Pointless arguing.

And in this case, we both don't want guns.

The difference being, I am practical and you are not.

People like you get the NRA all fired up to lobby Washington against ANY reasonable gun safety law.

You are the definition of irony.

Your very efforts produce the opposite result that you are trying to accomplish.

Congress is going to look into these bump stocks that can alter guns to become fully automatic.

Rants like yours will drive NRA lobbyists to threaten to primary any Republican that considers making them illegal.

+2

Paradoxically Stop the pop's way of thinking leads to more gun deaths than LL. Stop the pop creates the mantra, the paper tiger if you will, that the gun lobbyists use to prevent all gun control. They fire up their members by telling them that those liberals want to take away all your guns, you need to fight each limitation on guns that they try to push through.LL's approach is not only more realistic but it is more effective.My opinion

stop the pop wrote:

L L wrote:

A total ban on guns is politically impossible to be implemented.

Be realistic

You might have well have said that Superman could have stopped this.

And that is the kind of thinking that leads to more gun deaths.