SHOOTING at Mandalay festival

Quote: Boz

So was he saying? Let's make it clear:
1. He wants to move to these 3 countries named?
2. Those Countries have better gun laws than the US of America and we should follow their lead?
3. Or?

In any of the above I feel his opinion is welcome here but why not state why you disagree with my opinions?

I don't necessarily disagree with you or him. I don't know the laws of other countries well enough to support what they do. My comment was directed at your second post in the same vein, after he had (imo) clarified he was not saying he was leaving.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. Gun laws need fixing and enforcement, not banning private ownership. But laws need to be progressively tougher until we find the point this stuff stops happening.

This guy brought down 2 full plane loads of people and terrorized tens of thousands. Doing nothing is not an option.

Quote: Neutrino

I'm going to buy gun stocks now pre market, I heard usually when mass shootings happen gun sales go up because people are afraid liberals will take away their guns. That translate to usually a huge boost to the gun stocks on the stock market

Did you do it? Nice prediction by the way.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/gun-stocks-rise-after-las-vegas-shooting/article36457157/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Wiz,

Are you going to let us know if the shooter had a user name here?

(Posting so no one thinks it was me....)

Quote: Boz

Taking away this gibber gabbish. Welcome back.

Quote: slackyhacky

Wiz,

Are you going to let us know if the shooter had a user name here?

I wouldn't know.

Any of the poker players recognize him from around the games? I get the feeling most poker pros and or high limit players kind of recognize each other.

Quote: billryan

Any of the poker players recognize him from around the games? I get the feeling most poker pros and or high limit players kind of recognize each other.

When I first saw some of the pictures, I thought he looked familiar, but then I realized he looks like a composite of a bunch of old guys in Vegas.

Quote: Neutrino

Democrats are pushing anti-gun agenda already. Too soon?

It's an appropriate time to discuss the issue, just as it would be appropriate to discuss infrastructure after a bridge collapse or pertinent regulations after an oil spill etc. These events are a big part of what the discussion is about. Could and should different laws prevent this?

On the other hand, people passionately rooting for the guy to be white or Muslim because they think it validates their ideology are just looking to score cheap political points off a tragedy.

Much of lefty social media was gleeful to learn he was white while righties are still desperately searching for an Islamic conversion.

So nobody on this forum met him or knows him?

Quote: slackyhacky

Did you do it? Nice prediction by the way.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/gun-stocks-rise-after-las-vegas-shooting/article36457157/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Wiz,

Are you going to let us know if the shooter had a user name here?

(Posting so no one thinks it was me....)

Yes I did it, I bought premarket and sold at around noon. Made about $5k in a day from day trading gun stocks with regards to the news.

Good opportunities like this doesn't happen very often

Quote: Ahigh

So nobody on this forum met him or knows him?

Apparently not. Which perhaps indicates his poker playing was not that active or the term poker is being confused with video poker.

The rule is Stay Calm and Carry On. So I'd keep any travel plans to Vegas.

Sorry to hear about Lisa but it shows that the stampede or escape attempts caused injures, not just the bullets.

Has it been determined if any information came over the event speakers.

Anyone know the duration of his gun buying?

Quote: Face

It's not likely. With a bit of practice, one can "bump fire" by holding the trigger finger and hand stiff and using the off hand to apply forward pressure to the gun. The forward pressure causes contact between the trigger and trigger finger, it fires, the recoil bring the gun back, the trigger resets, and the continued forward pressure fires off another. Repeat until click. Works on any semi auto, provided you can control it. Rifles, shotguns, pistols, you name it.

The fire rate at Mandalay was variable. Variable fire rate weapons do not exist. This was bump fire with a drum mag.*

*$0.02. Keep the change.

Legal "bump fire" stocks available for $40+.
One website I looked at was http://www.slidefire.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

MSNBC reported he had two "bump fire stock" devices.
Earlier ABC article - A modified bump stock rifle was also found, which allows a gun to simulate rapid automatic gunfire.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/guns-loaded-high-capacity-magazines-found-vegas-shooters/story?id=50228093

Apparently, the large number of rifles (10+ out of 23 in room at last report) helps with barrel over-heating.
-> Disclaimer: I am not ex-military, and my gun experience is limited to handguns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/10/02/video-from-las-vegas-suggests-automatic-gunfire-heres-what-makes-machine-guns-different/

So far, at least one has been identified as an AK-47 type rifle, outfitted with a stand to steady it and improve accuracy, said people close to the ongoing probe. Lombardo said the weapons that have been recovered range in caliber from .223, which is associated with AR-15 style rifles, and .308, which is a caliber commonly used in hunting rifles. Lombardo was unsure if any of the weapons were automatic. Scopes were also recovered on the scene, and at least one firearm was a handgun.

He had a hunting license, but no military experience.
----
P.S. NBC says he had a Seven Stars card.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/casino-security-video-shows-vegas-shooter-2011-n807016

Can I respectfully ask....

-Why is it that the actual gunfire can be so easily heard when the guns were so far away and up some 32 stories? By heard of course I mean on the various phone? recordings sent out.

-Was his suite comped or not? There have been mentions but no facts/disclosure.

Thank you and God Bless the Victims and Survivors and Families of same.

Quote: RS

So yeah, I'd say I've determined the guy's probable political affiliation

this article shows how fake news ramped up after the shooting to claim among other things that:

"Americans may have been shocked to learn that the man behind the mass shootings was an anti-trump liberal who liked rachel maddow and moveon.org, that the fbi had already linked him to the islamic state and that mainstream news organizations were suppressing that he had recently converted to islam."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/business/las-vegas-shooting-fake-news.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

Quote: lilredrooster

this article shows how fake news ramped up after the shooting to claim among other things that:

"Americans may have been shocked to learn that the man behind the mass shootings was an anti-trump liberal who liked rachel maddow and moveon.org, that the fbi had already linked him to the islamic state and that mainstream news organizations were suppressing that he had recently converted to islam."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/business/las-vegas-shooting-fake-news.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fbusiness&action=click&contentCollection=business&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

Huh? I never said he was an anti-Trump liberal, liked Rachel Madow (eww), or was a Muslim/terrorist. My analysis was based on the supposed association of Marilou Danley at the time. Perhaps my use of "probable" was a bit of a stretch, where "possible" would have been more appropriate.

Do you think what I wrote was "fake news"? If so, please describe how. I thought I made it abundantly clear what I wrote was strictly my opinion on a way it could fold out. I don't think I wrote he is a liberal, anti-Trump, etc. but it may be likely he is given his connection with Marilou and her (ex) husband, on top of it being at a country concert (where the audience is a majority of republicans/conservatives, or at least that's a stereotype).

Quote: RS

out. I don't think I wrote he is a liberal, anti-Trump, etc. but it may be likely .

did you ever think that the guy was obviously heavy into guns and likely pro gun and that it the opposite of the liberal position?

Another day, another mass murder. Just sickening, sad, depressing, and a helpless feeling really.

The problem i have with all of this is the fact that we have all become so numb to these tragic events, almost as if its just a rinse and repeat scenario. You get the same sorrow and empathetic rhetoric every time after a mass shooting and then the next day everyone just goes on with their lives like nothing ever happened.

Let me remind all of you, 60 (SIXTY) people have just been MURDERED by being GUNNED DOWN while trying to just have a good time with their friends and family at a concert, not to mention as well as over 500 injured. Let that sink in rather than just give your sorrow for one day and then completely forget about it.

I also want to make something clear about all this gun control propaganda spewed by celebrities and politicians after every single mass shooting. Gun control WONT do ANYTHING other than strip guns from law abiding citizens and make more people prone to danger. Our founding fathers knew the danger of having a disarmed citizenry with only the government being able to have guns. History told them what happens and that it inevitably would just make us one step closer to a communistic police state and inhibit any freedom they intended to accomplish.

The point is, if a crazy minded suicidal individual wants to cause harm and get access to guns, hes going to get that gun whether legally or illegally, whichever way he pleases, and thats just the sad fact of human nature. Just because something is illegal doesnt make the item completely disappear. You think these crazy mass shooters care about followimg the law? They will find a way to get the weapon they want regardless.

What these gun control advocates should be focusing on if anything is tighter border security and smuggling of weaponry and explosives and to make it as hard as possible to smuggle in or buy illegal items. But even with that being said, a crazy individual who wants to cause harm is going to cause harm whether its guns, explosives, or running people over with a vehicle. You cant stop everything and its a depressing, sad, and almost helpless feeling of being a human because theres really nothing we can do to stop someone who wants to cause harm.

God bless all the families who lost loved ones. Im still in disbelief at what happened and I thank god I wasnt on the strip walking or playing that day as I usually am.

Quote: FleaStiff

Apparently not. Which perhaps indicates his poker playing was not that active or the term poker is being confused with video poker.

I've seen them specify "video poker" on many of the news reports.

Issues to be resolved:

Poker / Video Poker. The two are not mutually exclusive but it appears its likely video poker only since no live poker plays either here or elsewhere are speaking up.

Dates/Manner of firearm acquisition:
The brother denies knowledge of any rifles or machine guns. Was this a sudden buying frenzy or a protracted interest?

SOUND:
You hear what you expect to hear. Start shooting in a mall and all the blacks hit the deck and hunt for cover. All the whites look around to see the firecrackers that are going off.
Echo location software and microphones are often installed by cities to isolate the origin of gunshots amidst all the echoes and other noises.
An AK47 at 400 yards still makes quite a racket. Most people seemed to grasp the situation not so much from the noise but from the falling people and the blood, screams, etc.

Issues to be resolved:

Poker / Video Poker. The two are not mutually exclusive but it appears its likely video poker only since no live poker plays either here or elsewhere are speaking up.

Dates/Manner of firearm acquisition:
The brother denies knowledge of any rifles or machine guns. Was this a sudden buying frenzy or a protracted interest?

SOUND:
You hear what you expect to hear. Start shooting in a mall and all the blacks hit the deck and hunt for cover. All the whites look around to see the firecrackers that are going off.
Echo location software and microphones are often installed by cities to isolate the origin of gunshots amidst all the echoes and other noises.
An AK47 at 400 yards still makes quite a racket. Most people seemed to grasp the situation not so much from the noise but from the falling people and the blood, screams, etc.

Quote: terapined

Yup, not soon enough
Some nut out there with guns may be planning something right now

What new law will prevent that? Why didn't existing laws prevent Sunday?

Wouldn't it be easier to ban casinos? Maybe we should just ban video poker.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Close the gunshow loophole.

There really is no such thing. Purchasing a gun from a dealer at a gun show still requires a background check.

Quote:

Enforce the waiting periods.

They are already enforced very strictly

Quote:

Do not allow mentally ill people to have guns.

The mentally ill are already prohibited from buying firearms by law

Quote:

Ban semiautomatic weapons and kits to change weapons into automatic, banana clips and drums, and silencers. None of those are needed for home protection, hunting, or other excuses.

Most firearms today are semi-automatic. "Kits to change weapons to automatic" are fantasy for the most part and are already highly regulated and incredibly expensive to get. Legally-transferable automatic weapons already cost 5-6 figures.

Everything on your list is already illegal yet it didn't stop that madman. Wouldn't it be easier to ban video poker or just casinos altogether?

Quote: RS

Perhaps my use of "probable" was a bit of a stretch, where "POSSIBLY" would have been more appropriate.

He "POSSIBLY" could have been a Rastafarian or a practitioner of Voodoo or a member of the Falun Gong sect or a devotee of Hinduism.

Bump stocks are a gimmick and had nothing to do with Sunday night. The guy had fully-automatic machine guns that are already strictly regulated. Blaming this on bump stocks is very naive and just shows how dumb the politicians think you are.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Do not allow mentally ill people to have guns.

just words. many mentally ill people do not receive treatment for their illness so it cannot be flagged by a gun merchant. many develop mental illness gradually after they have already become gun owners.

delete repeat

Quote: lilredrooster

just words.

Yes, a dangerous kind of virtue signalling that's become all too common. Again, why not just ban casinos? Plenty of tragedy has come as a result of casinos.

Quote: Skeptic

The mentally ill are already prohibited from buying firearms by law

The GOP is doing everything they can to change this.

Republicans in Congress just made it easier for mentally ill people to get guns

Evil bastards...

Quote: ams288

The GOP is doing everything they can to change this.

Republicans in Congress just made it easier for mentally ill people to get guns

Evil bastards...

The Washington Post lies, a lot. If you would've clicked the link to their source here is the first sentence:

"The Senate nixed an Obama-era rule that could block some people receiving Social Security disability benefits from being able to buy a gun. " http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/319640-senate-nixes-obama-era-gun-rule

That's the left's idea of "mentally ill": people on social security disability. Well done. Who is evil again?

It isn't hard to argue that casinos promote mental illness. Why don't we just ban casinos?

We all want to hit the ban button or the undo button, but in reality its similar to these spouses who could call a divorce lawyer but instead just take a gun and kill their spouses. Its part mental health and part frustration and part this and part that but it is entirely unpreventable.

Good to see a start to a difficult conversation. Here's my contribution.

In the United States, where gun ownership is celebrated and cherished in its Second Amendment, there is no way that one is going to prevent gun ownership from occurring. And, for the most part, like gambling, most people think they are responsible gun owners. Of course, every year, there are 12,000+ homocides and 20,000+ suicides by gun. That's alot of death caused by criminals or people who are depressed and end their lives. I would call them "irresponsible" gun owners.

The question to ask is "should we invoke protections on the 69.7 million responsible gun owners" (30% of adults own a gun) when 300,000 gun owners are the problem? (10 years of homocides and suicides)? Is 0.4% a large enough problem where we should restrict people's ability to bear arms?

Well, yes, there are ways to protect people and give them their rights.

First, there should be a way to take away guns from those who are mentally ill. It's fairly straight forward. When you have an incident with mental health services or there is a family member who suspects mental health problems you can require an evaluation with the result of the evaluation being that all guns are removed from you if you are found to have a mental health/drug addiction condition. In addition, your name is put on a registry where you cannot buy guns and gun shops who sell arms to these people are shut down.

Second, in homes with children under 18, all guns must be locked up, in a safe. Homeowners who feel the need to protect themselves from home invasion will keep their gun under the bed anyway and children will find these guns and blast themselves with it (in which case the parent gets charged with manslaughter). In fact, in homes where people own more than one gun, the extra guns should have no ammo in them and stored in a safe, to prevent them from being stolen or misused. You can be allowed to keep a single handgun or rifle, for protection. And you can carry it around with you, for protection. But let's face it, you are not going to need access to those weapons unless you are going to the range or an actual hunting trip or the uprising occurs (in which case, the law has gone to hell anyway).

Third, for those who fancy the AR-45s, the semi-automatics, and the high-powered weaponry, mandatory education, permits, and strict regulations on where you can carry and what you can carry, with hefty penalties when violated. That does not mean repealing C and C laws but what it means is that you cannot carry your semi-automatic in your car unless you are going from point A to point B and have a current permit to do so. It also means proper storage of these high-powered weaponry in a safe, not just to protect yourself, but to protect thieves when they break into your home when you're away. If you want to keep a long gun or handgun near you to protect yourself, that's fine - the rest of the arms to protect against the government or to show off your hobby should be locked up and emptied of ammo at all times. This is not taking away from your rights at all. I would also recommend an annual mandatory mental health and addiction check (similar to what a pilot or ATC must go through) when one has a weapon of mass destruction in their arsenal. And when one misses their annual check, then their weapons are taken away and the owner fined. Weapons can be restored when the test is taken and passed.

But most of all, the culture needs to be addressed. Smoking used to be cool. Now it is known for the cancer-causing life-sucking succubus that it is. Guns can start to have the same stigma. The hollywood industry can start by taking guns out of movies and stop glorifying death by gun. Video game makers can start taking guns out of their games and replace them with grenades or items that are not readily available on the street. Make guns uncool, if possible, and make them out for the extremely dangerous and deadly piece of machinery that they are.

None of what I am saying takes away your right to own and bear arms. It provides protections from society (locking them up prevents theft and protects children) and still allows you to protect yourself from home invasions (when not living with children). It allows you to own guns (if you are mentally capable and responsible). It allows you to carry and conceal.

But with protections in place to allow people to report mental health issues and to have screenings for those with high-powered or semi-automatics may take arms out of the loons.

Discuss.

Quote: Skeptic

The Washington Post lies, a lot. If you would've clicked the link to their source here is the first sentence:

"The Senate nixed an Obama-era rule that could block some people receiving Social Security disability benefits from being able to buy a gun. " http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/319640-senate-nixes-obama-era-gun-rule

Of course, you could have skipped to the second sentence in the article.

Quote: Same Hill Article, next sentence

"Senators voted 57-43 to strike down a regulation that requires the Social Security Administration to report people who receive disability benefits and have a mental health condition to the FBI's background check system. "

I think it's clear that striking down that law indeed "made it easier for mentally ill people to get guns" as the headline reported. Nice try.

What it comes down to is freedom and one group wishing to define that freedom and force their own will onto others. What you describe is a very slippery slope. The segment screaming about preventing the "mentally ill" from owning guns are very eager to define mental illness as ideas they disagree with. Or voting for the wrong person. They don't see how convenient it is for them to advocate taking away freedoms that they don't personally partake in and how dangerous that is for the freedoms that they DO partake in. Again, why don't we ban casinos since that would have prevented this tragedy?

Everything that happened Sunday night was already against the law. Laws didn't stop it.

The problem is that the Washington Post and people like you will quickly define voting for a Republican as a mental illness. Having the wrong ideas (ThoughtCrime) will become a mental illness.

This is how freedoms are taken away. Little by little. If the harcore Left were honest they'd just tell the truth: the want all guns everywhere banned. But they know they'll lose that fight so instead it's just a steady drip of incrementalism whose end goal is the same.

MGM stocks took a nosedive. Looks like vegas is going down for at least a short period of time

Quote: Skeptic

The problem is that the Washington Post and people like you will quickly define voting for a Republican as a mental illness. Having the wrong ideas (ThoughtCrime) will become a mental illness.

Exactly. Reference the CBS lawyer who said yesterday that we should not feel sorry for the victims of the Vegas shooting because they were country music fans and therefore probably Republicans. When the remark became public, CBS fired her (or terminated their contract with her) and disavowed her comment. But still, it shows that there are people with a legal background who think like that and talk like that.

"No Fly List" The problem with forbidding people on the no-fly list to own guns is that the "no-fly list" is an arbitrary list compiled by government administrators without any published rules/criteria as to why people are on the list. It gives too much power to anonymous bureaucrats in the Federal government without adequate protections from governmental abuse.

Quote: Neutrino

Democrats are pushing anti-gun agenda already. Too soon?

This is why I'm not a democrat though I suppose I lean left. I don't think gun laws would ever stop something like this from happening. If someone wants something like this to happen, there really isn't a great way to stop them. I, myself, for example have no criminal record and have not committed any crimes, yet if I wanted to go to a gun store and buy a gun that I could then take to a crowded place, what would stop me from doing that? And even if you had some delay for buying EVERY gun... what would stop me from taking it to a crowded place a week from now, or a month from now? NOTHING. You can't stop gun violence by attempting to restrict guns, unless you basically ban them all, and that will never work. This is sadly a side effect of being such a 'pro-gun' country. You have a lot of guns, in a lot of peoples hands... and just like anything else in our society... most are good people, but some are bad people. You can't magically predict when a good 'appearing' person will do something evil.

That all being said, it's been REALLY obvious through all of your posts what your rhetoric has been this entire thread, and it has had very little to do with the unfortunate event, showing signs of compassion and concern for others, or attempting to rebuild in a positive light. Your comments have been narrow minded, false facts, and trolling to push a false agenda in a massacre thread. You disgust me.

if the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms is so sacrosanct and it means that as a nation we cannot restrict even the acquisition of very powerful semi automatic weapons that can discharge 60 rounds per minute then since the word arms does not necessarily mean guns then that would also mean that we would have to allow the acquisition by anybody with the means to do so of tanks, missiles, jet fighters, 10,000 pound bombs, even nuclear weapons. all of these devices fall under a broad definition of the word "arms." what's good for the goose is good for the gander. and we seem to be helpless to solve our problems because of the interpretation of this amendment. if we are determined to stay the course of inaction then it is a sure bet that there will be many more mass shootings and that they will occur soon and close to our homes. there is no constitutional right to safety and security. and under the status quo you can be sure that you and your family will never feel safe and secure.

Support for Romes' post above! I understand how much everyone in a city/region suffers when a terrible tragedy like this occurs, and in an ideal world this Forum would hang together for a day or two without acrimonous posts about gun control. We don't even yet know if any forum members were injured, or worse -hopefully the Wiz will continue to keep us informed.

Gun control is a difficult issue and I think there are intelligent, rational people on both sides. I also realize that there are irrational, combative people on both sides! Times like this reveal character and emotional intelligence. I encourage everyone to consider their posts in that light.

Automatic weapons are already tightly regulated - more regulated than virtually anything else in this country. It didn't prevent what happened Sunday night though.

You give yourself away a little by being against "semi-automatic weapons that can discharge 60 rounds per minute". There is no such thing unless you can pull the trigger twice per second for a full minute. It sure makes a great knee-jerk slogan to confuse people though, doesn't it? Virtually every gun made today other than revolvers and muzzle-loaders are semi-automatic. Muzzle loaders have no restrictions whatsoever - you can order one online right now and have it delivered to your door without any background checks whatsoever. You know good and well that once muzzle-loaders are all that's allowed the march to ban those will begin.

This is off of the gun control debate but I seen something this morning that has me curious. I am not a conspiracy theorist at all. Let me get that out of the way before starting. I seen a video of a eye witness who was interviewed that stated multiple people where on the ground shooting into the crowd and following the crowd continuing to shoot.

I've never been apart of something this traumatic but I would think it would be really easy to get details confused during something like this. I did have a store robbed once and I can remember lots of details from that day. However I wasn't the one that had a gun held to their head. I wonder if the police really have suspicions of a addition shooter or shooters but aren't ready to say anything yet because of ongoing investigations.

I do know I listened into a police scanner while it was gong on and they where reporting shots at NY NY and a bomb at Luxor. Apparently none of that was true but it is strange that the news never even reported those suspicions.

Quote: Mikey75

Let me get that out of the way before starting. I seen a video of a eye witness who was interviewed that stated multiple people where on the ground shooting into the crowd and following the crowd continuing to shoot.

Consider for a minute how much video surveillance the casino properties have in place, not to mention everyone having a high-definition video camera in their own pockets. If that were even remotely true there would be a hundred different angles of it on film. The concert area was enclosed and a gun-free zone. Everyone who entered went through a security check-point.

I wonder if the shooter ever signed up and posted here on WoV?

A quick search shows no forum member listed using his given name.

Quote: Romes

This is why I'm not a democrat though I suppose I lean left. I don't think gun laws would ever stop something like this from happening. If someone wants something like this to happen, there really isn't a great way to stop them. I, myself, for example have no criminal record and have not committed any crimes, yet if I wanted to go to a gun store and buy a gun that I could then take to a crowded place, what would stop me from doing that? And even if you had some delay for buying EVERY gun... what would stop me from taking it to a crowded place a week from now, or a month from now? NOTHING. You can't stop gun violence by attempting to restrict guns, unless you basically ban them all, and that will never work. This is sadly a side effect of being such a 'pro-gun' country. You have a lot of guns, in a lot of peoples hands... and just like anything else in our society... most are good people, but some are bad people. You can't magically predict when a good 'appearing' person will do something evil.

That all being said, it's been REALLY obvious through all of your posts what your rhetoric has been this entire thread, and it has had very little to do with the unfortunate event, showing signs of compassion and concern for others, or attempting to rebuild in a positive light. Your comments have been narrow minded, false facts, and trolling to push a false agenda in a massacre thread. You disgust me.

When you become an FAA controller or a pilot, you submit to annual physicals that include mental health exams, to keep your job and to keep you from killing hundreds of people (in the case of a pilot, killing your plane, or the FAA controller, directing a plane into another one).

Similarly, when you buy any item that can shoot more than a certain number of rounds per minute and/or are long range weapons, essentially weapons that are capable of mass casualties in a short range of time, you have to submit to annual mental health exams. And if you do not submit to these exams, police come to your home and take away your weapons until you pass the exam and put you on a list of people who cannot buy weapons. In addition, you can have a reporting scheme where if you feel that a loved one is susceptible to suicide or mental health that you can have them examined and their weapons taken away.

I don't see what the problem is. You want gun owners to be responsible. I think 88%+ of Americans want people with mental health problems not to have guns, so why not a screening program. Given the number of soldiers who are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from PTSD and other mental health issues it makes sense. Given that the majority of mass-shootings that were not inspired by religion or racist beliefs were people with mental health problems, these mass-shootings may have been prevented with shooting.

No, it does not prevent a gun owner from momentarily losing it, taking their gun(s) into a hotel, and murdering people. And certainly it will not prevent criminals from shooting people nor will it prevent crimes of passion (husband shooting wife, ex-husband shooting ex-wife and boyfriend) etc. But it might prevent mass murders, the kinds where school children (Sandy Hook), gay people (Orlando), University Students (Virginia Tech), or a concert (Las Vegas) from occurring.

People without mental health issues to begin with are far less apt to do that. Clearly, it is likely that this person may have had mental health issues for a while that, under a mental health regulation like I am proposing, might have taken away access to the guns that he used.

At least it's a start. And no, unfortunately, Skeptic, I am not talking about taking guns away from Republicans. I am talking about real mental health exams that identify depression, schizophrenia, dementia, delusions, and addictions. See, you politicized it again. I am talking about safety issues that do not remove 2nd amendment rights but successfully protect public safety while maintaining your right to own and bear arms.

There isn't a constitutional right to being a pilot though.

What happened on Sunday night was not someone momentarily losing it. It was well thought out and planned. It was also a violation of dozens of laws. More laws will not prevent this. He could have killed just as many people by driving a truck through the crowd.

Why not ban casinos? Maybe just have mental exams before allowing people to gamble? Why is your slippery slope more valid than my slippery slope?

Or maybe we should have a discussion about country music. Maybe that's the problem?

Checked into Encore last night. Had luggage searched by a young girl looking for weapons. All she found was my dirty socks that spilled out because I was on vacation in FT Lauderdale 4 days prior. Had another person that used a wand on me. Given what happened I'm fine with that increased security measure.

Pictures of two of the guns used (and the hammer used to break the windows):

I saw those pictures to. Neither of those are bump stocks, by the way. Ask yourself how banning those has suddenly become the cause du jour. (incrementalism)

It's too hard to tell from the quality of the pics whether those are full-auto but I suspect at least one of them is. If so you're looking at a $20,000 rifle.

That is the type of gun commonly associated with hunting and home protection, right?

Can someone please tell me how to make an apostrophe work?

Quote: Skeptic

There really is no such thing. Purchasing a gun from a dealer at a gun show still requires a background check.

from personal experience, I can tell you, I walked into a gun show in Portland, OR, bought a S&W Model 689 with stainless steel finish, presentation grip, recessed sights, for $200 and no paperwork. I sold it many years later (recently)at a flea market in Florida with no paperwork. The loopholes are as large as a barge.

Quote: Skeptic

They are already enforced very strictly.

See above. Also, my ex, who does extensive gun business (personal hobby) would disagree as well.

Quote: Skeptic

The mentally ill are already prohibited from buying firearms by law

Not well enough by example (littleton, newtown, rtx). And less so since February, when Trump cancelled Obama's EO addressing this out of spite.

Quote: Skeptic

Most firearms today are semi-automatic. "Kits to change weapons to automatic" are fantasy for the most part and are already highly regulated and incredibly expensive to get. Legally-transferable automatic weapons already cost 5-6 figures.

Many weapons are still out there, grandfathered in pre-1986, and money was no object. The guy did purchase and use 2 bump stocks, about 40 each via internet. Not a significant difference in fire rate between the kit fix and full auto, according to experts.

Quote: Skeptic

Everything on your list is already illegal yet it didn't stop that madman. Wouldn't it be easier to ban video poker or just casinos altogether?

My list included several things you didn't address, so I disagree about "everything". My point was that there needs to be a start, and enforcement of what exists, and then progressively tougher laws until we get this fixed. That approach has worked for anti-tobacco forces, and is most likely to be effective, if anything short of total prohibition and 2nd amendment change can be.

Quote: boymimbo

When you become an FAA controller or a pilot, you submit to annual physicals that include mental health exams, to keep your job and to keep you from killing hundreds of people (in the case of a pilot, killing your plane, or the FAA controller, directing a plane into another one).

Similarly, when you buy any item that can shoot more than a certain number of rounds per minute and/or are long range weapons, essentially weapons that are capable of mass casualties in a short range of time, you have to submit to annual mental health exams. And if you do not submit to these exams, police come to your home and take away your weapons until you pass the exam and put you on a list of people who cannot buy weapons. In addition, you can have a reporting scheme where if you feel that a loved one is susceptible to suicide or mental health that you can have them examined and their weapons taken away.

I don't see what the problem is. You want gun owners to be responsible. I think 88%+ of Americans want people with mental health problems not to have guns, so why not a screening program. Given the number of soldiers who are veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan suffering from PTSD and other mental health issues it makes sense. Given that the majority of mass-shootings that were not inspired by religion or racist beliefs were people with mental health problems, these mass-shootings may have been prevented with shooting.

No, it does not prevent a gun owner from momentarily losing it, taking their gun(s) into a hotel, and murdering people. And certainly it will not prevent criminals from shooting people nor will it prevent crimes of passion (husband shooting wife, ex-husband shooting ex-wife and boyfriend) etc. But it might prevent mass murders, the kinds where school children (Sandy Hook), gay people (Orlando), University Students (Virginia Tech), or a concert (Las Vegas) from occurring.

People without mental health issues to begin with are far less apt to do that. Clearly, it is likely that this person may have had mental health issues for a while that, under a mental health regulation like I am proposing, might have taken away access to the guns that he used.

At least it's a start. And no, unfortunately, Skeptic, I am not talking about taking guns away from Republicans. I am talking about real mental health exams that identify depression, schizophrenia, dementia, delusions, and addictions. See, you politicized it again. I am talking about safety issues that do not remove 2nd amendment rights but successfully protect public safety while maintaining your right to own and bear arms.

There's a lot to unpack here. I like that you're trying to make a solid case to gain ground against something like this happening again - that's what the goal is. To come together and to come up with ideas. I just don't think this happens to be a very good one unfortunately. Who's going to regulate something like this? It would HAVE to be the government, right? 1/3 americans own a gun (according to a study I just googled in the journal of Injury Prevention). Who is going to keep the database of a HUNDRED MILLION individuals that you're stating now need to be tracked and have mental health checks EVERY year? Hell, a passport is good for 10 years. So in the time frame of 1 year, 5 years, or 10 years, someone could "lose it." Next, PEOPLE LIE. How hard would it have been for this guy to sit in a mental health exam and pass with flying colors? Sure, you might find one or two, but bad people don't go around on the streets telling everyone just how bad they are or what bad things they're planning on doing. People lie, all the time. There's no way this bulky, expensive, and INVASIVE procedure would stop mass shootings all the same... which brings me to point #3... invasive. It's my constitutional right to bear arms, and I do not need to submit to a health check because someone else did something bad. That doesn't give the government the right to "investigate" my mental health because someone else is crazy. The slippery slope this would open up to the government regulating us based on THEIR findings of our mental health is something that I hope NEVER comes over our country. Then you give the government the power to declare anyone insane they want. How long until we find completely rational people that just don't fit the exam locked up or declared insane?

Next, as was pointed out already, GUNS are NOT the problem here. What if that guy broke a beer bottle over a truckers head and stole his 18 wheeler and drove it through the crowd at 80 mph? Clearly dozens and dozens could be dead and hundreds injured all the same. This is the key to identifying that the guns themselves are not the problem. The problem is the individual. Of course there comes a 'fine line' of what to allow individuals to have, such as not letting people buy nukes... but we have pretty tight regulations on things. I thought it would be "cool" to get a suppressor for my pistol... Yeah, $2k and 6 months of background checks, waits, etc, etc, later I simply determined it's not worth it... and I just wanted it for a "cool" factor.

In the end, it's not any tool that a crazy/evil person uses... It's the crazy/evil person themselves that are the problem... which comes back to many other things that we don't have time to discuss, such as how they were raised, family home, society, etc, etc, etc. People think this is so bad, but really look where we've come from. Back when the west was "wild" people would just shoot each other because they didn't like the way the other person looked at them. Not saying that's impossible today, but look at the sheer statistical numbers of how many "good" people and "bad" people there are. Our population is growing at an insane rate, but our "bad" people proportionally I'd be willing to bet is FAR DOWN from the days of old.