Reader Jerry Spiegler writes…
Dear Mr. Farago,
I read your essay in USA Today and found much with which I can agree.
By way of disclosure I confess ignorance about guns, except they are rather expensive when I visit the local Cabella’s superstore. However, I am vitally interested in the truth.
Today I am 66 years old. The last time I fired a 22 caliber rifle was some 50 years ago. I missed the cardboard target and the wall of the abandoned rural barn to which it was nailed. So yes, I am that person who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn.
Knowing this has given me a respect for firearms and has also kept me away from them. I have no grudge against hunters, collectors, or shooting sports enthusiasts. West Virginians view hunting as both a family tradition and a humane way of sharing nature with deer, beer, and small game that reduces suffering for all.
I strongly agree with your premise that no law or proposed law would have prevented Mr. Paddock from shooting 586 people and killing 59 of them according to the latest reports.
But that is not my purpose for writing today. Ultimately there are two points I respectfully offer. My first point is that random acts of horror that convey some aspect of forethought elicit a strong emotional response to “do something” rather than feel helpless and inconsequential; perhaps even vulnerable.
You are absolutely right that no law stops the individual from carrying out a murderous plan. But that is not my point.
What can be done is to reduce the number of killed and injured; a form of harm reduction. No law can be perfect because none of us are perfect. But we can manage risks and reduce harms.
My own preference would be to ban the add-ons that make large numbers of shells and continuous firing possible. Motivated individuals will always look for and discover workarounds. But impediments, while inconvenient to law abiding citizens, might reduce deaths.
My second point is that the solutions you suggested ask more of some people than they are reasonably able to give. You wrote,
We have to end the revolving-door justice system that returns dangerous criminals to the streets. We have to improve economic and educational opportunities for inner city youth. We have to find new ways to provide mental health care to teenagers, veterans and others contemplating suicide. We have to strengthen the bonds that tie us to each other, so we can help keep each other safe. We have to realize that we are our own first responders, and work to identify threats before they’re realized.
Yes, we want parents to stay off drugs, to raise their children to respect laws and social norms of behavior, to themselves be law-abiding role models and contributing members of the community whose children aspire to similar attainments. Sadly, seemingly reasonable expectations are not consistent with the manner in which some portion of our fellow citizens live their daily lives.
Again, the law cannot force people to “be good or do the right thing.” It can only punish them when they break the law and are caught. Challenging them to step up their game, as you have done, is aspirational at best.
Your suggestions quoted above would not have deterred Mr. Paddock in any way. We will never know his true motivation and will be unable to prevent others from repeating similar horrific misdeeds.
All that can reasonably be done is to identify high risk individuals such as convicted felons, violent individuals with a history of mental illness, and individuals with a stated intent to harm themselves or others and aggressively enforce the existing laws that make it hard for them to legally obtain weapons.
I understand these laws don’t work. But I also believe that we cannot punish our way out of these problems. We can only be vigilant and hopeful.
While I appreciate the effort of the writer, I do not understand his message. My bad.
Laws don’t work, so we should definitely pass them anyway?
“Laws don’t work, so we should definitely pass them anyway?”
Are you saying the writer merely restated the, “Do something, even if it doesn’t work; we gotta do something” meme?
“I understand these laws don’t work. [The we should get rid of them] But I also believe that we cannot punish our way out of these problems [that’s the same thing].”
I’m with you guys. I don’t know what his point is.
“I’m with you guys. I don’t know what his point is.”
Guessing here, but maybe….”Why can’t we all just get along?” ??
“Laws don’t work, so we should definitely pass them anyway?”
Just heard Chuck Schumer on the evening news.
He stated banning bump-fires doesn’t go nearly far enough.
He wants “Universal Background Checks”.
Even though the shooter passed every background check. Just like nearly *every* mass shooter passed the background checks with *zero* problems.
The Leftists want full gun registration.
Fuck them with a concrete dildo sideways…
Sir, you forget to add ,” while wrapped in rusty barbwire. ” Please take care in the future to be more thoughtful in your written diatribes. Sincerely, The Internet
His message is: I don’t know anything about the topic at hand but we’ve got to DO something!!! And I don’t really have a solution to offer either.
Personally, stupid places just got a whole lot bigger and broader!
Ok. I will at least give him credit for not shrieking the usual platitudes. He was nice about it.
That’s the way to do it, accusations of moral degeneracy do little good. Though I understand and am guilty myself of slipping when the arguments seem disingenuous, and I’d say that for both “sides”.
The problem with these folks is they’re “useful idiots” for the people who want a full firearms confiscation scheme, and while most are good people trying their best to find a solution that works for everybody they have little empathy for our distrust for these kinds of initiatives, because we know the end goal of the people driving them.
“Risk Management”? Does this guy sell insurance? Stepping outside into the real world everyday is a risk, dude.
I’m reading “I don’t need guns so screw everyone that does”. Pointless
What this moron doesn’t understand is even if they get rid of every single gun in the United States, there will still be guns available for criminals that wish to break the law. If you’re willing to commit the worst crime of all, murder then you’ll commit any other crime in the book that is a fact! So laws aren’t going to keep people who do not follow laws safe. End of the story. That’s why I always say freedom isn’t free, the people that died in Las Vegas and every one of the Spree killings in the past are all people who have paid for freedom same as the men and women that died over in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for our country. This is a tradition in this country to have these freedoms and these constitutional rights it’s what our country was founded on. We have drunk drivers we have people that beat up people with baseball bats which by the way blunt force trauma is the leading cause of death in the United States. Does that mean we’re going to Outlaw baseball bats and softball bats and tire irons and alcohol and cars and trucks Rivers you can’t swim anymore you can’t go in the ocean anymore because you might drowned. Where do we stop this endless bull crap? I mean are you going to stop going outside because you’re afraid of a piece of aircraft or a meteor hit you in the head come on. Grow a set of nuts.
Honesty requires us to admit that mass shootings would be less likely without AR-15 type weapons. The usual mass shooter would neither have the resources or the connections to get one. However, Paddock was not a regular guy. He probably would have had no problem getting one along with all the ammunition he wanted.
By the way how is life for you with the Giants 0-4. Would you like someone to rebury you in another stadium.
It always frustrates me when people make that “the AR is no more dangerous than any other weapon” argument. Of course it is. That’s a disingenuous argument and everybody knows it. We have to nicely explain it’s rarely used for crime and murder, and only when the opposing part says “yeah but still” may we tell them “well it’s mine so fuck off”.
Mass shootings are not the big problem. Gang on gang accounts for most violence. Chicago has a Las Vegas every month. Even “safe” NYC has a murder rate above the national average.
There are many magazine-fed semi-automatic weapons that are exactly like the AR-15. The AR-15 got its popularity because of its modular design, lightweight, and relative ease of use.
There is nothing magical about an AR-15 that makes it more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle out there. In fact there are many rifles out there that are far more deadly than an AR-15. 90% of AR-15s shoot .223 or 5.56 projectiles weighing between 55 and 62 grains. The average effective combat distance is 400 m. There are many magazine-fed weapons that shoot .308 at 140 grains with a 6 to 800 m effective range. Much deadlier and just as easy to obtain.
Less likely to happen without AR15’s?…. that VT chinese guy racked the second highest count with a bike chain, 9mm, and .22.
“Honesty requires us to admit that mass shootings would be less likely without AR-15 type weapons.” That’s not true. Mass shootings can be divided into three categories, ones with long guns, ones with handguns, and those with both. I can’t remember the specifics, but none of those categories had a majority and they were pretty evenly distributed.
The real James Earl Hoffa is alive and well serving as the President of The Teamsters Union. His father the former head of The Teamsters was James Riddle Hoffa whose body may or may not be buried at the stadium.
Again, the law cannot force people to “be good or do the right thing.”
What a ignorant statement. Laws cant “force” people, unless you consider that the threat of punishment and expectations can change behavior, case in point, seat belts.
Punishment works only with people who compare it with the potential benefit of the prohibited behavior and conclude that the cost/benefit ratio is unfavorable. It works pretty well for most people especially if the punishment is light (e.g. a speeding ticket.) It doesn’t work so well with criminals. It doesn’t work at all with fanatics for whom no cost is too high if they can accomplish their mission. Neither does it work with the mentally ill or people with poor impulse control because they are incapable of making a rational decision.
“It doesn’t work so well with criminals. It doesn’t work at all with fanatics for whom no cost is too high if they can accomplish their mission.”
So if that’s the case…why don’t we see more crimes or terror attacks in the US using illegally-modified-to-full-auto weapons or explosive devices? Sure there’s a handful of cases: North Hollywood, a couple major fertilizer bombings, and (relative to that) minor improvised nail/pipe bombs. But they are still rare. Why? Because modifying an HK such as in North Hollywood is hard to figure out. IED’s aren’t easy to make either. Most have as much chance of blowing up yourself making them and again…it’s hard to learn. Most bombings with symtex or the like required foreign connections which will run you afoul of Customs enforcement.
My point is there’s more than just “threat of punishment” as deterrence. There’s a theory that reducing ease of access (creating supply or knowledge “chokepoints” if you will) is also a deterrent. Its an extra barrier a, as you say “determined fanatic” has to jump through. And an additional level where that determination is an outlier more easily spotted and investigated. Sure, you can 3D print a bumpfire stock. But if its a 10 year NFA violation to do so, or to help someone do so, nobody’s lending you their printer if they know what you’re doing, nobody’s showing you how to work the thing, or set up the blueprint. You have to buy and figure it out yourself or network with like-minded individuals, either of which makes it easier to catch you. Or makes you give up and try something different.
I’m going to guess that many (or most) here share certain political views about border security as it relates to terrorism or immigration. All of border security relies on this. A determined individual could always covertly get into the US (or on a plane with a weapon, or any number of things). But that’s not an argument not to have any security or deterrents at all. You make it so he has to be lucky if he tries and difficult enough that he doesn’t think trying is worth it.
I have to rant a little. I hate it when a ‘comment’ looks more like an essay.
“I hate it when a ‘comment’ looks more like an essay. ”
A. twitter-like commentary does little to elicit or produce thinking
B. after the first 144 characters, stop reading
“But impediments, while inconvenient to law abiding citizens, might reduce deaths.”
How does this jive with “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” ?
Methinks it doesn’t . . .
“Might” is the key word here.
“We can’t punish our way out of problems, so let’s punish all the people who haven’t actually done anything wrong.”
Here’s your sign.
You Sir, deserve two innernetz for that!
Well, all I can say is: “Whut?”
Even if we could rid the country of guns (which we can’t), bad guys can use cars, planes, bombs and pressure cookers to commit mass murder.
Robbing law abiding citizens of the tools needed to defend against evil will NOT deter evil in any way.
How hard is that to comprehend????
I spend most my waking hours in San Francisco and have lived in the SF Bay Area most of my life (-4 years service), so please alow me to translate that for you so your target audience can understand…. ehem…. “BA-AA-AAA-AAA-AAA-AAA!!!”….. They should understand that well enough…
“Robbing law abiding citizens of the tools needed to defend against evil will NOT deter evil in any way. ”
Rabbi, they could care less about *you*, they are thinking of saving their own asses from the likes of *us*, when we eventually have enough of their crap.
I stand by what I said yesterday, with nothing more than single-shot bolt action rifles in a major caliber, we could defeat the US military in Civil War 2.0.
We would pay a fearsome price in casualties, but we *could* do it…
Great gobs of greasy goose shit. How much lead do I put on that F18? Where’s the best place to poke an Abrams with my major caliber rifle? And how deep in the pond do I stick my barrel to sink that Ohio class. Damn the casualties, I’m reloading,,,,
Joe, three things to consider: 1) You’re talking like it will be a symmetrical war. It won’t be. Think Afghanistan or Vietnam. 2) Where do you think the majority of today’s troops come from, conservative or liberal families? I.E. Expect a fair number switching sides. And any military commander will tell you it only takes 10 – 15% casualties/attrition to make many units combat ineffective. 3) The friends and families of the troops will be in enemy territory. Think that might play into things?
Yeh, I know. It just got my shorts in a bind. I thought about Afghanistan and Nam, and all . Our military is pretty darn strong and I’m proud of that. …….. GDdamn maniac in Vegas sure did stir up a mess. My sons career Army, stepsons a Marine, so you get where I’m coming from I hope
Best spot to poke an Abrams or FA18 with a rifle is the crew. Preferably before they get in.
Then you have an Abrams. (There are some additional qualifying conditions for that statement).
We should also put limiters on all vehicles except emergency ones…speed kills.
Should put breathalyzers on all cars as well…
Should put cell-phone jammers in vehicles…
should have mandatory mental health testing for all…every year
Should limit caloric intake of individuals…ban cigarettes…etc etc etc
There is a LOT we can do to mitigate risks all around…just sayin’…
I first heard about mandatory speed governors on cars more than 50 years ago. I believe MADD has already advocated equipping all automobiles, not just those owned by convicted drunk drivers, with breathalyzer interlocks.
Breathalyzer interlocks should be required equipment on all new cars.
Whoever votes against it proves they are against saving lives…
And don’t forget to ban swimming pools! You couldn’t drown in your back yard if you didn’t have one of those. All it takes is one bad step on a rake and in you go!
And while we’re at it rakes are dangerous too! And rocks. And pointy sticks….
Hell, lets just ban everything that can kill you, including water in greater than 2 ounce quantities.
STOP DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE DEATHS NOW!!!!!!
Do it or you’re pro death… think of the children. etc. etc.
I am sorry to say I had to think long an hard to come up with the solution the Marines (I am not one) had all along.
“Close to engage.”
This creep stopped like all the rest, when he thought resistance was at the door. The coward shot himself. The arrival of the unarmed Mandalay Bay security guard (who was shot) may have actually ended the spree. The sooner a good guy (preferably with a gun gets there) the sooner things terrible events end.
Good point. That’s probably part of why the coward got a room so high. To buy him some time. May he burn in hell.
Multi day outdoor event in a 14 acre field surrounded by high rise buildings. Hundreds of cops working overtime and not one counter sniper working amongst them…. horrible planning that no PD will make again, while this incident exists in the national conscious. In other words…
-SWAT team (close with and destroy) took 10 minutes.
-One CS (from the ground) would have taken 20-30 seconds.
For shame LVPD planners. Cops on the ground did the best they could with what they had and multiple uniforms and off-duties (including their families) got wasted dealing with this guy because you dropped the ball.
The author is clearly mentally unsound.
I can’t believe all of “us” that I have read over the past few days are calling for a new regulation and blaming an object!
In case your not aware this clearly shows that you have lost and are willing too accept there mindset and depletion of your rights one by one.
If “we” give on this…we are surely going to lose it all.
For a second I thought the author’s name was Jerry Springer.
“Your suggestions quoted above would not have deterred Mr. Paddock in any way.” (Idiot calling the kettle black)
IF THE POS LEFT CAN COME UP WITH ENOUGH LAWS TO MAKE YOU DISREGARD THEM (a/k/a gun laws in Australia) then they have won.
At what point to we start getting something in return? We have continually lost more and more since gun control’s inception, yet where are our wins? Heller? Was already made that way, then they took it away, and we got it back. When are we going to get something instead of everything always being taken away?
“Well you don’t need THOSE, so compromise.”
You don’t need THOSE, so compromise.
I can’t imagine how good the founders had it. I can’t imagine how good the people prior to ‘86 had it. Or prior to ‘68. Or ‘34.
There’s always talk of restricting something in a “compromise,” but I never see anything offered in return. I don’t think congressmen understand what compromise means. I’d give up sliding stocks in exchange for passage of the SHARE act and removal of SBR and SBS from the NFA. If we’re going to lose something to government regulation, we should get something back in the form of deregulation.
Giving up bumpfire stocks right now is like throwing our virgin daughter to the angry mob. There is no dealing or rationalizing with the rioters…. you only throw them fodder and tripe and hope you bought enough time for them to lose steam and go home without burning your house down. Its a losing situation and we’ll go the way of Sodom and Rome soon enough for it.
‘Motivated individuals will always look for and discover workarounds. But impediments, while inconvenient to law abiding citizens, might reduce deaths.’
The biggest thing he’s missing is that fire arms are not the only option for the would be mass murderer. Fire arms are hard to get in Europe so last year a guy named Mohamed got in a truck and drove into the crowd killing 86 and wounding 458. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 and injured over 600 with a rental truck filled with diesel fuel and fertilizer. In 1944 an unknown arsonist killed 167 and injured over 700. This idiot in Las Vegas went far beyond what the typical spree shooter does when it comes to planning and stockpiling weapons. If he were forced to seek out other means (than fire arms) to commit his crimes the death toll would likely have been far worse.
“It’s about nothing”…why do you give a platform to a know nothing old fart? I am getting to the same age but his blather made absolutely no sense. Do better!
Great, Robert wrote a piece that appealed to the liberal retards. Mission accomplished.
“My own preference would be to ban the add-ons that make large numbers of shells and continuous firing possible. Motivated individuals will always look for and discover workarounds. But impediments, while inconvenient to law abiding citizens, might reduce deaths.”
This right here is what I’d call fudd-ese for a ban on standard capacity magazines.
How very generous of him to be willing to compromise our rights.
And another thing for you fudds. Spare us the lip service. You’re no friend of ours so stop saying your a hunter, and hat you support the 2nd amendment. You don’t.
He was polite, if not coherent, which puts him in the top 1 percent of commenters who disagree. I say buy him some ice cream.
First and foremost this is a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to all those affected. This event is the worst of of a series of sprees that started with columbine. Perhaps I’m ignorant but I do not recall serious mass shootings before then. We could debate for days this new phenomenon and the psychology of why these are more common now a days as well as the resurgence of radical Islam but that is a beast on its own. As stated in previous comments, we cannot legislate ourselves out of these events. If a crazy person wants to murder people they will find a way.
That being said and I’m going to take devils advocate here. By reducing the methods available I.e the bump fire stock, we would see less casualties as the rate of fire would have drastically decreased. The point being we would drive terrorists to more illegal means of creating mass casualty events thereby having them take on more and more risk to achieve the same results (I.e buy a full auto ak on the black market: Mexican cartels) and hopefully get caught or killed in the process. Also limit the damage if the said terrorist proceeds as planned. Essentially, where do we draw the line in Gaining or limiting our freedoms as citizens in this great republic? And for what purposes will we do it? What is the desired endstate? And is that endstate possible?
I believe we cannot stop the crazies from killing. But we might be able to reduce their killing power and force them into doing other less effective things. As long as it doesn’t infringe on our inherent freedoms that limit the power of the government then it should be good.
that being said these evil pieces of shit are going to ruin the fun for everyone.
Also if it’s radical islam, at least we know that cause, if it’s another psychological unknown, we need to have a serious discussion as a nation on the psychological reasons behind this stuff as it doesn’t seem to be slowing down. Maybe it’s a deranged psycho’s 10 min of fame? 24 hour news network and internet age.
The purpose of laws was never to prevent crime. It was to punish criminals for doing it. Not until the age of lawyers and full time politicians did laws suddenly become an anti-crime tactic. Playing upon the feelings and emotions of the populace. Making them believe that if we just make a law crime will stop and everything will be better. All the while slowly taking the very Freedoms granted to them by being A Free Person. Our society is at a crossroads in it’s evolution. Due we continue down the road of freedoms lost for the so called sake of safety or do we take our safety into our own hands and Preserve It’s Freedoms. “Any society that willingly trades it’s freedoms for safety. Will soon find it’s self neither safe or free.” I believe that is a quote by Thomas Jefferson. A man who knew what it was like to live under the Boot of Tyranny. Keep Your Powder Dry…
” no law or proposed law would have prevented Mr. Paddock from shooting 586 people”
He didn’t shoot 586 people in the REAL world. The 586 number is greatly inflated by injuries caused by the crowd stampeding its own members.
Praise for a fool is out of place, like snow in summer or rain at harvest time.
2 Curses cannot hurt you unless you deserve them. They are like birds that fly by and never light.
3 You have to whip a horse, you have to bridle a donkey, and you have to beat a fool.
4 If you answer a silly question, you are just as silly as the person who asked it.
5 Give a silly answer to a silly question, and the one who asked it will realize that he’s not as smart as he thinks.
6 If you let a fool deliver a message, you might as well cut off your own feet; you are asking for trouble.
7 A fool can use a proverb about as well as crippled people can use their legs.
8 Praising someone who is stupid makes as much sense as tying a stone in a sling.
9 A fool quoting a wise saying reminds you of a drunk trying to pick a thorn out of his hand.
10 An employer who hires any fool that comes along is only hurting everybody concerned.[a]
11 A fool doing some stupid thing a second time is like a dog going back to its vomit.
From Proverbs 26
And at the cost of what? The cost of my freedom. All of our freedom. His solution is to take MY freedom, and trade it for maybe, possibly, perhaps, some harm reduction, possibly, while in his own words admitting that no law could truly stop it. “It may help.” is his idea. I.E. (We have to do something)
The problem isn’t the murderer access to things that he can employ to commit mass murder, because the human mind is creative and can employ an immense number of conceivable options and scenarios, with or without guns has proven here:
The problem is that he desires to perform mass murder. The problem is he is willing to perform mass murder. Each day the US becomes more nihilistic. Colder. Uncaring for ourselves, our brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, friends, and neighbors. Having strong family values and instilling them in our children can reduce the mass murders, and it can be done without taking away our freedoms. Laws do not inspire morality. This is why we keep saying that laws don’t help. That gun control doesn’t work. Family and friends, and localized social networking face to face with our loved ones do. Gun control isn’t the answer, and gun control isn’t going to work. The mass murderer in Vegas broke all manner of gun laws to achieve what he wanted. No gun laws stopped him.
“By way of disclosure I confess ignorance about guns, except they are rather expensive when I visit the local Cabella’s superstore.”
I can agree with this. Even a gun muggle knows a rip off when he sees it. The rest was a head scratching rambling mess. Ban shit cuz da feelz.
Throw my rights at a problem like they’re cannon fodder but whatever Farago suggested is asking too much of people?
“…whatever Farago suggested is asking too much of people?”
The writer knows his own, knows that self-discipline, self-control, self-reliance, consideration of others are totally foreign concepts to the electronically switched-on generations. They have no adequate examples to learn from, to follow, to respect. Farago is asking the self-consumed to put aside the personal code of “Me, me, me, me” .
Basically, I guess. I mean, I wouldn’t blame a generation. I’m a millenial, had lacking role models, am selfish. I’m not in awe of previous generations, WWII gen have their fingerprints on a lot of anti-gun and basically big government laws. A strain of baby-boomers are coddled, permanently immature. Gen X has tree-hugging civic heroes.
But yeah, he has his audience, who’d violate natural rights, pat themselves on the back for being heroes, get off on the power trip, and balk at any real hardship for themselves.
“We have to improve economic and educational opportunities for inner city youth. We have to find new ways to provide mental health care to teenagers, veterans and others contemplating suicide. We have to strengthen the bonds that tie us to each other, so we can help keep each other safe. “
This is just more utopian progtard BS. Right out of the Obumer/Alinsky playbook. I would hope RF was just tweeking the twits
The basic problem with gun control is that it approaches the problem from the wrong end. Which is the same as not properly identifying the problem in the first place. And the real problem is people being killed. Innocent people being killed. Yet, there is an ingrained refusal by the Left to acknowledge this. They purposefully concentrate on the back end, so as to be as far away from the questions and the issues that really matter, such as the causes of why people are being killed. Perhaps the Left knows it, or suspects it, but it will never admit that it is the Left, their policies and attitudes that have enabled the killing culture. Whether it is the entitlement mentality of spoiled children who have no concept of personal responsibility or the Islamic hatred of everything Western that the Left has taken under its umbrella, the killing culture is a product of the Left’s polity. Perhaps because a belief in socialist nirvana is an indication of a mental disorder or at least an indication of imbecility (when 40 and 50-year-olds remain at teenage maturity levels, that is certainly an indication of retardation), but the Left will come up with any excuse to avoid looking at itself as the cause. Thus the banning of guns, perhaps trucks to be banned next, or pop tarts. But always far away from themselves.
“But I also believe that we cannot punish our way out of these problems.”
What do we get when we don’t hold people responsible for their actions?
We get our current society.
What do we get when we don’t hold politicians responsible for their actions? (e.g. violating their oath of office)
You wanna mitigate harm? Get some EMT training.
What’s the net in lives saved, long-term health or similar from half the screeching-effort put into going to an EMT class. You wanna make a law? Make a law allocating however much it would cost to have the ATF enforce this stuff into putting first-aid training in classrooms. There’s lots more ways people get hurt than gunfire (certain urban centers notwithstanding.) For the same price you can mitigate the harm from a kajillion other causes.
Let’s do the most good we can with this energy. Making ineffective laws that burden people who aren’t you while empowering an agency that casually abuses what authority it has is … something else.
How about this. The media should do a full report on the lawful lives lost by existing overreaching unconstitutional laws already on the books.
Like firearm waiting periods so long that the women waiting have died from a violent spouse, ex, or boyfriend. I guess their lives don’t matter.
Or all the lawful gunowners that were injured or killed while disarmed in gun free zones.
These laws cost innocent lives while claiming to save innocent lives.
Time to expose the truth.
“…What can be done is to reduce the number of killed and injured;”
Some guy in Oklahoma filled a truck full of fertilizer and killed a crap-ton of people. How do you ‘do something’ to reduce the number of killed an injured in this situation?
A small group of guys took airplanes and killed a crap-ton of people. How do you ‘do something’ to reduce the number of killed and injured in this situation?
Your desire to ‘do something’ is appreciated. It shows you care about others.
Mourn the dead. Heal the wounded. Find out, if you can, why it happened to see if there is an opportunity to learn. Beyond that, there is nothing you can do that will prevent the next tragedy unless you find a way to remove evil from the world.
Little Jerry has a very clear message. You are not good enough to be entrusted with the free exercise of your rights. Well armed, competent citizens are simply too scary to be tolerated. Only when we are all helpless and inept can we be truly equal.
We can whip the U.S. military with bolt action rifles in a major caliber. Hardy har har “the casualties would be great” …like duh, no shit, the fly’s would be so thick I couldn’t even eat my yummy MREs
I agree with most here. Having read this I have no idea what the point, if one exist, is. Sorta like having a snack only to find that one is still hungry.
The bottom line is this: There are NO Constitutional gun laws in this country. Despite what the Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, says my previous sentence stands. Every time this crap happens the statists (Democrats, Communists, Socialists, progressives and the rest of the freedom hating vermin out there) come out from under their rock and pontificate on just how much safer we would be if we did something, anything. Banning seem to be the preferred panacea of the illiterate. On a side note, if that were the case than the act of voting would be removed from anyone who voted for Hillary considering her record and the danger she posed to this country but that is another matter. NO wonder this country has the problems it has. With solutions such as this being proposed it is a wonder that some can even tie their shoes.
Well intentioned and sincere, I’m sure, but these proposed countermeasures miss the mark. Widely. In terms of reducing spree shootings, this not only misses the broad side of the barn, it misses the whole farm.
even if bump fire stocks were already NFA items, it wouldnt have mattered in THIS situation. As we see he had more than enough financial means to acquire it and pay the tax stamp fees. the only reason he didn’t use a suppressor is because it would reduce is range too much, which would force him to get closer and more easily detectable. it just goes to show the level of detail he planned out.
Sorry, Mr. Spiegel, but you’re wrong.
We, as a society, should be punishing immoral and unethical behavior, that may not break the law, but nevertheless has negative consequences for society. This can’t be legislated, as you pointed out. This has to come from the society and culture we create. No, it won’t have an immediate affect, but it’s not the present we should seek to influence, it’s the future we seek to change.
Stephen Paddock came from a broken family, and his father was a criminal. This speaks ill of his entire family. His mother made the poor decision to marry a criminal, and her family failed to stop her. She had children with this criminal, and her family failed to stop her. Paddock’s parents later divorced/separated, which is known to have negative developmental consequences on the children involved – look at Paddock’s brother Eric.
None of the above contributes to a good upbringing. None of it is a guarantee of bad behavior, but they have all been tied to it.
Now imagine, if you will, that his mother had the moral wherewithal not to marry a criminal, or if her family and friends had the moral fortitude to stop her – we wouldn’t be here today discussing this massacre.
Strong morals and ethics would have helped prevent this, but they require consequences to work. As a society, we have been eroding these values and consequences. We can’t do that anymore. We can’t let immoral or unethical behavior go unpunished. We can’t accept it anymore.
The Original AR platform was a POS, he wanted to roast those people by Igniting the Fuel in the fuel farm, thankfully no tracers were used which may or may not have ignited the fuel! Sounds like that was his getaway plan Ignite the fuel farm and add a fuel fire too the mess, escape in the chaos, Philippines here I come, could buy a hideaway through his girlfriend and contact the Muslim’s