Las Vegas shootings

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by Kizmet, Oct 2, 2017.

Loading...
  1. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    OK, true enough - I'll leave the field to you, then.

    J.
     
  2. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

  3. jhp

    jhp Member

    If we could just pass a law that makes murder illegal and any item that can be used as a weapon illegal, all types of murders would be gone. /s
     
  4. jhp

    jhp Member

    If progressives want full gun control, or complete removal of all guns from the US, how is it resolved with also wanting open or non-existent borders? Wouldn't that make illegal gun trafficking simpler?
     
  5. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    I forget what news outlet has the Pinocchio Awards, but this one would merit about 93,000 Pinocchios.

    The law overturned a blanket prohibition on people receiving SSDI disability payments who needed assistance cashing their checks from obtaining a firearms license.

    So, under the old provisions, if you were disabled by emphysema to the point that you had to have someone go to the bank to cash your disability check, you were prohibited from obtaining a firearm, so you had to sit in your wheelchair at home while you were robbed & murdered. Too bad if you wanted to exercise your Constitutional right to own a firearm.

    Oh, and here's a pesky fact for you; that law was endorsed by those infamous, crazy, unreasonable gun nuts at the American Civil Liberties Union;

    https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-endorses-hr-3516-social-security-beneficiary-2nd
     
  6. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    aaand made it easier for people with mental illness to obtain firearms. It would have been pretty simple to carve them out by crafting the language in the bill but they didn't bother because, well maybe it was just too much like work.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

  8. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Please correct me if I am wrong, my understanding is that they were not approved, per se, only it was determined that the current wording of the law does not apply to banning them, meaning that new legislation would have to be drafted to ban them.
     
  9. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member


    You might be correct, and I misspoke. Johann posted an article about them just recently and what the ATF recommended, seems a little slippery.


    I'm guessing with the NRA distancing themselves from them that they will be banned soon.
     
  10. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    From the Article:

    “It’s a goofy little doodad,” said Rick Vasquez, the former firearms official who first signed off on a recommendation that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives need not regulate the devices. (Emphasis mine - J.)

    As Vasquez reasoned, the invention did not technically alter a gun’s trigger mechanism, as earlier attempts had, with springs, hydraulics or electric current. So it did not infringe on a law that bans the sale of machine guns manufactured after 1986 and restricts the sale of those made before then. (Emphasis mine - J.)

    Cory, I'm guessing that you're right. The device itself is not a firearm - and NRA appears to be stepping aside. That's why people are in a hurry to buy them. I think sale of them may be made illegal quite soon, in a flurry of political grandstanding and showmanship.

    J.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2017
  11. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    ...or at the very least, regulated, (possibly out of existence?). If ATFE, in its infinite wisdom, can recommend that it need not regulate the device, surely it can rescind its recommendation and go the other way, if it finds such a change necessary?

    Looks like a device that could be home-made without too much trouble... :sad: In fact there are Youtube videos re: home-made bump stocks. I'll leave you to find them...

    J.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2017
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    You do know that not everyone with mental illness is a psychotic spree killer, right? Do you think someone with a mental illness as innocuous as agoraphobia should be Federally prohibited from firearms possession?

    And, you do know that every state already had provisions to prevent the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms, right?

    Or was that too much work to research, and trying to make the President look bad was more important than accuracy?
     
  13. Phdtobe

    Phdtobe Well-Known Member

    The incident in vegas is definitely a tragedy.

    In the USA, I can't say for sure if I see it from other countries' tragedies but I noticed excessive amount of self congratulatory and laudatory statements by officials at news briefings. It goes beyond a professional thank you and almost like a pat on the back for doing a great job for responding to a tragedy e.g. for cooperating with other agencies, or even for hospitals staff doing their job. It just an observation , no opinion on it being a bad thing.
     
  14. jhp

    jhp Member

    I remember some countries where mental illness was used to restrict citizens in all different ways. . .
     
  15. jhp

    jhp Member

    To dwell into one of the things 2A defenders may fear is the memory of totalitarian societies where weapons were confiscated first...

    Guarantee me that after weapon confiscation, the mental illness lists will not be used to restrict my other G*d given rights,
    guarantee that the government will not oppress what I may say or write,
    guarantee that the government will not meddle in my faith,
    guarantee that the government will not restrict or force my movement within the federation,
    guarantee that the government will not indoctrinate my children in ways I find abhorent,
    and I will vote to repeal the 2nd amendment.

    And, when I mean government, I do not mean just the letter of the law, but overzealous prosecutors, law enforcement officers or bored bureaucrats.
     
  16. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Good point, but aren't you forgetting the fact that history never, ever, ever repeats itself ← joke :poke:

    I think it's similar to the problem with the no-fly list. No due process. Hardly any recourse to correct errors.

    If there were a law on the books that prevented "mentally ill people" from getting firearms, you can then use it as a political tool by either changing what is meant by "mentally ill" to suit your agenda or to label someone you don't like as "mentally ill" to suit your agenda.

    I don't think anyone wants a paranoid schizophrenic or a sociopath getting firearms. However, you'd have to get a diagnosis, first. Unless someone is either forcefully detained (in prison or institutionalized) or volunteers to seek treatment, you have no way of getting that diagnosis. In any case, that leaves the people who are not in custody and not seeking treatment- the most potentially dangerous- still without any barrier to getting the firearm. Would that not defeat the point of such a law?

    As usual, I'm not arguing for or against the law or any political view on the matter. I'm just emphasizing that it's not as easy as OMG COMMON SENSE DUH as all too many pundits would like to claim.
     
  17. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator

    OK, so you don't want to do this. You don't want to do that. Every proposed solution is off the table as far as you're concerned. So what do you propose? You're a Police Officer with a Masters degree in Forensic Psychology. What do you think should be done to solve this problem. Or maybe you don't want to do anything? You tell me the answer.
     
  18. Abner

    Abner Well-Known Member

  19. decimon

    decimon Well-Known Member

  20. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

Share This Page