Las Vegas Mass Shooting - Oct. 1, 2017

Look, I know I was only 18 when the Port Arthur Massacre happened, but there was no particular cultural shift in Australia. We weren’t all that macho about guns before and we weren’t all that macho about guns afterwards. All that happened is the Government decided that it would take steps to limit firearms that, really, there is no use for. It really is that simple.

Sure, some folk whinged, I guess, and probably some or many even did not turn in their weapons, but that’s ok, that shit is illegal now - whoever hid them instead of turning them in can’t take them out of hiding without risk of prosecution. Maybe one will be used in another shooting in Australia in time, maybe they will stay hidden - if they are out there it remains a possibility. But there was no particular cultural shift associated with the buy-back.

Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.

Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if Australia is like Canada, where they still offer the occasional ‘no questions asked’ days for handing in guns. I think it’s more often done at the local municipal level instead of nationally. It’s just another way to get guns off the streets, and it acknowledges that things happen and situations change, and gun owners aren’t criminals.

For example, my situation was my grandfather passed away, my dad picked up his shotgun, and we had it in our house for a few years. When gun control came around, my father handed it in; we have no use for it and it wasn’t worth taking the course to keep it and register it. It’s easy to imagine similar situations happening today.

Damn, they’re gonna be dragging that Op Ed out for years as proof of the ‘liberals want to take your guns’! concept.

Whatever. The whole thing is a colossal unfuckable shitshow. Either that, or it’s just the NRA is the only player with its act together.

This is actually the end goal for many gun control advocates.

Indeed, last month in WA:

Eh. “End goal” is actually a little more fuzzy than I think many believe. Yes, lots would like for all guns to be gone. However, most realize that’s a pie in the sky ideal, kind of like “I want world peace, a gazillion dollars, and to date a super model.” So it’s more a dream than a goal for most, imho.

I mean if we can just implement my grand “Eliminate Electoral Influence of the South” strategy, we can start taking guns and registering gun owners post-haste.

Ah, one can dream. . .

No doubt. Right in this thread a lot of discussion has been about Australia and how they got rid of most of their civilian firearms. That talk has mostly been along the lines of “Why can’t we do that here?” That’s about as close as you can get to “Let’s just repeal the 2nd.”

I’m cool with no guns. Zero guns = zero gun deaths.

Gun registration seems necessary for several of the control and tracking plans: making sure who owns which guns, tracking for all sales, inheritance, and family transfers, new training requirements, accountability for “lost/stolen” weapons, etc. But registration is also seen as the key enabler for gun confiscation, so it will be fought and rejected at all costs by “2ndA people”.

In ancient times, someone burned down the temple of Ephesus. When he was asked why he did it, he said he wanted to be famous. They made a law there that no one was to say his name and that’s why I can’t tell you who he was.

Yesterday I went downtown and stepped over a dozen homeless people to get where I was going. An ambulance went by, just like every time I’m in downtown Portland, because another junkie had ODed. Meanwhile everyone else is staring at their phones looking for something to be outraged about and not taking a moment to look around and see all the pain and suffering around them.

That’s simple. Just write an amendment to the constitution to reaffirm the right of gun ownership and that the government may never confiscate lawfully purchased firearms. Then there’s no reason to worry about registration.

A litttle give and take. Should be no problem!

There are quite a few who have been criticizing/instructing the media on this in the last few years, but the urge to know and therefore the econ. interest is too strong to ignore.

@zeynep is good on this, more examples back to 2012

https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-mass-killers-want8212and-how-to-stop-them-1383957068

Some advice I summarized on FB:

  • NEVER show photos, or even the name and background/story of the accused (unless he is still at large)
  • NEVER publish lists of grievances or a manifesto
  • NEVER use emotional language or assign simple motives which may be felt as justifications
  • NEVER emphasize the “body count” or create “scorecards” to compare to other crimes
  • MINIMIZE details and avoid gory specifics
  • ALWAYS focus on the victims but not the grief of friends/famiy
  • Create an alternative story, such as positive community response, or ways others are getting help

They feed on notoriety, they want to be famous, make a splash, and create more horror and havoc than others before. They want their grievances and stories to be told. They want to leave a huge mark on the psyche of the world, and the less we give them that power, the less it will be seen by others as a good way to go out with a bang.

This reminds me of gun control: a nice idea, but kind of like closing the gate after the walls have been destroyed.

Like guns, you’d always be able to find out the truth if you really wanted to. Perhaps it would have some marginal effect on lazy law-abiding potential copycats.

I should stop being so negative.

At least it would reduce the level of fame. So that’s fair.

Sure it won’t stop anyone who wants to go look for the details. But that’s different than every network leading days of 24 hour coverage with bloody victims, gun porn, and “lone gunman” profiles and photos.

FWIW Stephens is a climate change denying conservative.

As expected.

Oh, plus a healthy dose of “Thanks, Obama!”