Gun control and real estate

[njtosd]

[quote=ocrenter]

Guns are not the problem. Lack of regulation that allows someone to buy and own 40+ weapons and endless ammo is the problem.

If cars need to be registered, if dogs need to be registered, then why not guns?[/quote]

How can you be sure? People used to be able to buy most of what is available now through mail order or at sporting goods stores, and there weren’t problems like Steven Paddock. How do you know that more regulations won’t increase criminal activity in terms of stealing firearms or trafficking in illegal firearms?
As I’ve said a couple of times – I am not a gun enthusiast. But, I think everyone wants to believe that these sorts of tragedies can be prevented with more gun control. Exaggerating to make a point: I’m sure there is a lot of gun control in North Korea – that doesn’t make it a great place to live.

[FlyerInHi]

Well, I’m just glad is wasn’t a Muslim terrorist attack because people could be sacred and that would be bad for business.

Notwithstanding that this was the worse shooting, Vegas is scoffing it off. I am in Vegas now and over the weekend with friends. It was packed full. White men mass shooters do not seem to scare people. Fine by me. Let the free markets decide.

[outtamojo]

Flyer you shoulda named your thread gun proliferation and real estate. It is clear now that gun proliferation has not made us safer. If attempts to limit arms have no effect why are we beefing with North Korea and Iran?

[svelte]

[quote=njtosd][quote=ocrenter]

Guns are not the problem. Lack of regulation that allows someone to buy and own 40+ weapons and endless ammo is the problem.

If cars need to be registered, if dogs need to be registered, then why not guns?[/quote]

How can you be sure? People used to be able to buy most of what is available now through mail order or at sporting goods stores, and there weren’t problems like Steven Paddock. How do you know that more regulations won’t increase criminal activity in terms of stealing firearms or trafficking in illegal firearms?
As I’ve said a couple of times – I am not a gun enthusiast. But, I think everyone wants to believe that these sorts of tragedies can be prevented with more gun control. Exaggerating to make a point: I’m sure there is a lot of gun control in North Korea – that doesn’t make it a great place to live.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s the number of guns one owns that is a problem. I think it is how fast they can be fired. I remember all of the gun racks in the back windows of trucks when I was a kid in the Midwest. There are actually good reasons to own guns. I just don’t think there are good reasons to own guns that can fire automatically. And back in the early years of my life, no one owned such weapons. At least no one I knew.

My opinion.

[ocrenter]

[quote=njtosd][quote=ocrenter]

Guns are not the problem. Lack of regulation that allows someone to buy and own 40+ weapons and endless ammo is the problem.

If cars need to be registered, if dogs need to be registered, then why not guns?[/quote]

How can you be sure? People used to be able to buy most of what is available now through mail order or at sporting goods stores, and there weren’t problems like Steven Paddock. How do you know that more regulations won’t increase criminal activity in terms of stealing firearms or trafficking in illegal firearms?
As I’ve said a couple of times – I am not a gun enthusiast. But, I think everyone wants to believe that these sorts of tragedies can be prevented with more gun control. Exaggerating to make a point: I’m sure there is a lot of gun control in North Korea – that doesn’t make it a great place to live.[/quote]

No one can be sure of course. Except to say there are plenty of examples of success throughout the world in regard to gun control, much like universal healthcare. Yet we act like this has never been tried before anywhere else and we are somehow trailblazing our way through this, when in reality we are the lagging way behind the curve.

[Anonymous]

The fundamental capabilities of guns that are available to the public haven’t changed much over the years. You could legally get a semi automatic rifle or pistol decades ago – if you wanted one.

But the gun manufacturers have found ways to make gun sexier, and it is a surprisingly successful marketing approach. The changes are superficial: black metal/plastic bodies instead of wood, accessory rails, ergonomic grips, etc. None of this stuff has any real application outside of military use but people think it’s cool, and it definitely sells more guns.

In any gun control debate you’ll be sure to hear the argument that “assault rifle” bans are pointless because they only focus on cosmetic differences in firearms. And it is generally true: The decked-out Call of Duty style M4 loaded with “tactical” accessories is not going to be more deadly in the hands of a mass-shooter-crazy than a wooden M14 from the early 1960s.

But the killer seems to always choose the sexy gun.

That’s one of the reasons pragmatic gun control is difficult. It’s really impossible to outlaw guns that are suitable for “mass shooters” because mass shooters fundamentally use guns that have been very ordinary for a long time.

[CA renter]

[quote=svelte][img_assist|nid=26430|title=gun deaths per state|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=350][/quote]

Not sure where this map is from or what year they used (edited: I see where it’s from, but not the source data or year), but the CDC map (below) tells a different story. Granted, the CDC map is for total homicides (not just limited to “gun deaths”), but I think that total homicide rates matter more to those who are honestly concerned about safety than the “gun death” rate which excludes homicides of other types, and includes suicides, which comprise around two-thirds of the “gun death” rate.

So, here is a map with homicide rates:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm

You’ll notice that the states with the lowest homicide rates also have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S., with some of them having effectively no gun laws. (You’ll also notice that some of the states with very high homicide rates have less restrictive gun laws, as well.)

The information regarding gun laws by state can be found here (this is an anti-gun site, so no pro-gun bias here):

http://smartgunlaws.org/search-gun-law-by-state/

You can also see here that homicide and violent crime rates actually increased for a number of years after a number of countries passed their most restrictive gun laws. After around 5 years of a rising trend, the trend declined, but the same declining trend in homicide/violent crime rates was seen in the U.S. as gun ownership and proliferation increased dramatically (and gun bans were not instituted).

https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Dueling Claims on Crime Trend

FWIW, I think that fully-automatic weapons should be banned across the board. They are designed for indiscriminate killing, and I don’t trust the government with this power any more than I trust some Joe Schmoe with this power. Nobody should have fully automatic weapons.

[Anonymous]

Lol, we’d be all be safer if the Marines weren’t allowed to have machine guns.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter]
FWIW, I think that fully-automatic weapons should be banned across the board. They are designed for indiscriminate killing, and I don’t trust the government with this power any more than I trust some Joe Schmoe with this power. Nobody should have fully automatic weapons.[/quote]

At least you’re consistent. If anyone will come take our guns away, the military will.

[FlyerInHi]

Why weren’t there more good guys with guns at the church to kill the bad guy?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/06/investigators-hunt-for-motive-in-texas-church-shooting-as-the-grieving-spans-generations/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_texasshooting-714am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.09c254a277ab

[FlyerInHi]

I guess now, the operators of buildings where people gather should have an active shooter plan, just like a fire escape plan.
I wonder if real estate operators can be held liable for not developing a plan.

[spdrun]

Yeah, like what? Like an old “duck and cover” nuclear war drill?

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Yeah, like what? Like an old “duck and cover” nuclear war drill?[/quote]

Yeah, something like that just for formality’s sake.
Some buildings need hazmat plans, etc… already.

Marjory Stoneman is a good school but not the best.
But wow, this junior sure speaks extemporaneously really well. I wish I were like him at that age. My speaking ability sucked in HS.

[outtamojo]

Crawl inside a womb.

[FlyerInHi]

Seems like there’s a mass shooting once a month.

[Author]

Posts