Another mass shooting - largest in a good while, by a few victims

[Jimmy Higgins]

The police noted last night that they had indications that this guy was actually planning to get out of this. They wouldn't elaborate, but there was allegedly a note and it wasn't a suicide note.

 

[Opoponax]

Is my freedom to own a semi-auto combat rifle more important than all of the lives of those people in Vegas combined? Of course not. It's not worth a single goddamn injury. And I'd give that rifle up in a minute if the law called for it because I really do believe in that whole silly "common good" thing. My desire to have fun at the range with my muthafukkin Ay-kay yo, is outweighed by the overall needs and rights of society.

Really that means you should work on passing a constitutional amendment, unlike those on the gun-crazy side who try to find a way to interpret the 2nd Amendment to say people can't have guns.

While you're at it, perhaps you can tell me if you're also willing to give up freedom of speech for the common good, freedom of assembly for the common good, freedom of religion for the common good, freedom of petition for the common good, and freedom of the press for the common good. Back when the Bill of Rights was written they couldn't envision the internet, the greatest most powerful means of communication was a printing press. Oh, and also they couldn't envision Scientology, they only had to deal with different denominations of Christianity.

None of our amendments are interpreted as absolute. Thus, you can draw your conclusions from that bit of utterly common knowledge.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The police noted last night that they had indications that this guy was actually planning to get out of this. They wouldn't elaborate, but there was allegedly a note and it wasn't a suicide note.

He cased another concert a few weeks ago. Apparently he rented three different rooms with vantage points.

I wonder if the hotels are withholding info.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Really that means you should work on passing a constitutional amendment, unlike those on the gun-crazy side who try to find a way to interpret the 2nd Amendment to say people can't have guns.

2nd amendment says citizens can bear nuclear arms.

I have a few friends who own more firearms and ammunition than this killer. If they could buy heavier stuff they'd mortgage their homes to have it. They want bigger toys like grenades. They want those M16 grenade launchers and different rounds. They want mortars and howitzers and machine guns. There's no limit except maybe cost as to what they would like to obtain.

Admittedly, none of these guys are like this killer. Most have never even fired their assault rifles, having them is satisfaction enough, and I suppose if they obtained nukes they'd hold them the same way.

What I need to do is find out the background of why the U.S outlawed the sale and possession of machine guns for Joe Snuffy back in the 1930's. Maybe it was because of organized crime activity. But the second amendment only says arms, not prohibiting machine guns or light anti-tank weapons. So 2nd amendment worshippers should have anything they can afford to purchase, constitutionally speaking.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

2nd amendment says citizens can bear nuclear arms.

I have a few friends who own more firearms and ammunition than this killer. If they could buy heavier stuff they'd mortgage their homes to have it. They want bigger toys like grenades. They want those M16 grenade launchers and different rounds. They want mortars and howitzers and machine guns. There's no limit except maybe cost as to what they would like to obtain.

Admittedly, none of these guys are like this killer. Most have never even fired their assault rifles, having them is satisfaction enough, and I suppose if they obtained nukes they'd hold them the same way.

What I need to do is find out the background of why the U.S outlawed the sale and possession of machine guns for Joe Snuffy back in the 1930's. Maybe it was because of organized crime activity. But the second amendment only says arms, not prohibiting machine guns or light anti-tank weapons. So 2nd amendment worshippers should have anything they can afford to purchase, constitutionally speaking.

NPR reported it was in response to the Valentine's Day Massacre, which led to the deaths of far fewer people than the past massacre.

 

[Horatio Parker]

2nd amendment says citizens can bear nuclear arms.

I have a few friends who own more firearms and ammunition than this killer. If they could buy heavier stuff they'd mortgage their homes to have it. They want bigger toys like grenades. They want those M16 grenade launchers and different rounds. They want mortars and howitzers and machine guns. There's no limit except maybe cost as to what they would like to obtain.

Admittedly, none of these guys are like this killer. Most have never even fired their assault rifles, having them is satisfaction enough, and I suppose if they obtained nukes they'd hold them the same way.

What I need to do is find out the background of why the U.S outlawed the sale and possession of machine guns for Joe Snuffy back in the 1930's. Maybe it was because of organized crime activity. But the second amendment only says arms, not prohibiting machine guns or light anti-tank weapons. So 2nd amendment worshippers should have anything they can afford to purchase, constitutionally speaking.

Reminds of weekend warrior rockers who have 20 guitars and play two gigs a year.

I love military history, but am not drawn to weapons at all. I did like shooting outside, the couple of times I've done it, but I didn't like the indoor gun range at all. Felt a bit creepy to me

 

[barbos]

Admittedly, none of these guys are like this killer. Most have never even fired their assault rifles, having them is satisfaction enough, and I suppose if they obtained nukes they'd hold them the same way.

Really? I find that weird and hard to believe.

As for this shooting, I read that he was taking some antidepressants which I understand all have suicidal side effects.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So 2nd amendment worshippers should have anything they can afford to purchase, constitutionally speaking.

That's right. If someone really believes the 2nd amendment is to be interpreted to mean citizens can have machine guns, then it also means citizens can buy nuclear missiles and place them in their backyards between the dog house and the swimming pool, to be used to deter national invasion and home burglary and also to help when one goes hunting...just like machine guns.

 

[untermensche]

None of our amendments are interpreted as absolute. Thus, you can draw your conclusions from that bit of utterly common knowledge.

Not one word of the constitution is absolute.

The only thing absolute is what some arbitrary Court says they mean.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Admittedly, none of these guys are like this killer. Most have never even fired their assault rifles, having them is satisfaction enough, and I suppose if they obtained nukes they'd hold them the same way.

Really? I find that weird and hard to believe.

As for this shooting, I read that he was taking some antidepressants which I understand all have suicidal side effects.

I think most gun collectors never shoot most of their guns. My brother has quite a collection and he hunts mostly with a bow except for small game.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Admittedly, none of these guys are like this killer. Most have never even fired their assault rifles, having them is satisfaction enough, and I suppose if they obtained nukes they'd hold them the same way.

Really? I find that weird and hard to believe.

As for this shooting, I read that he was taking some antidepressants which I understand all have suicidal side effects.

Valium, associated more with trouble controlling aggressive impulses than a carefully planned mass murder.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

None of our amendments are interpreted as absolute. Thus, you can draw your conclusions from that bit of utterly common knowledge.

Not one word of the constitution is absolute.

The only thing absolute is what some arbitrary Court says they mean.

"Shall" is an absolute term.

 

[barbos]

Really? I find that weird and hard to believe.

As for this shooting, I read that he was taking some antidepressants which I understand all have suicidal side effects.

Valium, associated more with trouble controlling aggressive impulses than a carefully planned mass murder.

what if the subject stops taking it?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Valium, associated more with trouble controlling aggressive impulses than a carefully planned mass murder.

what if the subject stops taking it?

They dream in color.

 

[laughing dog]

If one person knows how to convert a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon, then it more semi-automatics will mean more automatics. It is an empirical question as to how many people have this ability, but it is rather unreasonable and illogical to deny that more semi-automatics will not mean more automatic firearms.

If you trace back up this back and forth far enough, you'll see me denying that there is a great abundance of fully automatics because of how absurdly easy it is to do the conversion. Why, all one has to do is be a highly trained gun smith. Sure, you could have a few more fully automatics because semi-automatics are available. A few. Not unter's great abundance. Do try to keep up for once.

The software excluded the entire contentof post to which your responded. The excluded part is

Originally Posted by Jason Harvestdancer

Quote Originally Posted by untermensche

I know for a fact it is very easy. It only takes the tools and a little experience.

If this is your argument you have none.

The more semi-automatics in society = the more automatics.

This cannot be denied.

I deny it on the grounds that the majority of Americans aren't gunsmiths. Majoring in Minority Studies didn't give you the knowledge after all.

There is no mention of abundance.

Furthermore, the post to which you initially responded made no reference to an abundance or a saturation of automatic weapons – it simply referred to guns.
Perhaps you should model your own advice about keeping up before you respond to posts.

 

[untermensche]

Not one word of the constitution is absolute.

The only thing absolute is what some arbitrary Court says they mean.

"Shall" is an absolute term.

Hardly.

A good Constitutional lawyer can make any shall into a shall not.

What was the intention of that "shall"?

What did Hamilton say about it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"Shall" is an absolute term.

Hardly.

A good Constitutional lawyer can make any shall into a shall not.

Shall implies an absolute directive. One can argue the limits of subject the shall applies to, however, there is no question as to the legal meaning of the word "shall".

What was the intention of that "shall"?

Shall means you will do this shit or we are sending Aaron Burr to put a plug in your ass.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We've covered this enough times that you are literally just lying now.

Making guns illegal will make less guns available for criminals and make illegal guns more expensive.

It will not make the world perfectly safe.

Only safer.

Despite all the hype it didn't work in Australia.

Yes it did.

1) The murder rate was already going down, the gun-banners are taking credit for this...

Except that the murder rate continued to go down even when violent crime overall spiked dramatically in the years following the ban. More importantly, the rate of homicides involving firearms dropped far faster than the homicide rate itself. All of which is what one would expect from a reduction in the availability of firearms to the general population.

2) They've had mass shootings since.

They've had A mass shooting since. Which, given the timeframe, constitutes an 800% decrease in the frequency of mass shootings.

The ban was intended to REDUCE mass shootings, not eliminate them completely. It clearly accomplished that.

3) Given their population many years between crazies would be expected anyway.

This was not the case BEFORE the gun ban, so this is clearly incorrect.

We simply don't have enough data.

As far as Australia, we have a shit ton of data and it supports the intent of the ban conclusively.

YOU don't have enough data because you filter out data that doesn't agree with your biases and then fill the gaps in the data you don't want to have with complete bullshit.

 

[untermensche]

Hardly.

A good Constitutional lawyer can make any shall into a shall not.

Shall implies an absolute directive. One can argue the limits of subject the shall applies to, however, there is no question as to the legal meaning of the word "shall".

What is always ambiguous with "shall" is who shall and who shall not and how much resources are put into "shall" and how long can "shall" be put off?

Nothing objective about it.

 

[J842P]

Valium, associated more with trouble controlling aggressive impulses than a carefully planned mass murder.

what if the subject stops taking it?

Valium is a benzodiazepine. These drugs work on the same system as alcohol, indeed, they act synergistically with alcohol, but essentially, they act as anxiolytics but also decrease inhibition generally. They work by potentiating the effects of GABA (and GABA receptor agonists, i.e. like alcohol) on ionotropic GABA receptors. Both alcohol and benzodiazepine can be dangerous to withdraw from. I do know that long-term use of benzos is "paradoxically" associated with increase aggression, irritability, and impulse control, i.e. "disinhibition."

My own experience with people who have been long-term on benzos is that they start acting crazy.