Shooting at Las Vegas casino

Maybe a little. Maybe something like a bump stock should be illegal.

I’d prefer a system that focused on potential threats and keeping guns out of the hands of potential threats.

What makes this case all the more disturbing, is that so far, there’s no indication that this guy should have been viewed as a threat (other than the purchase of the guns, and accessories, obviously).

 

I hope it does change things, but I go back to the common line that if Sandy Hook didn't change things, nothing will.

 

You're reasonably skilled at woodworking and making stuff, right? I bet, if you wanted to, you could make one. I know nothing about them and I bet I could.

And that's why @YankeeFan's semantic distinction is important from a policy standpoint. Both you and I, even if we were in Canada, could take the kind of weapon that has no chance of being banned and make it into, basically, a machine gun.

 

One obstacle, as I see it, is that this was ever permitted to become classified as a "political" debate to begin with. When citizens see it as "political," Democrats lose on this - they are politicizing a tragedy, and Americans attach a negative connotation to "politics." I stipulate that doing nothing, save "thoughts and prayers," is also "political." Just as "political," in fact. But Democrats are disadvantaged because they are the movant here and thus the side seen as playing politics. You're much better positioned as the status quo.

Now I don't know how you change the framing - policy is accomplished through the legislative process, through politics. They seemed to do a pretty good job on same sex marriage - that wasn't a discussion about politics, it was a discussion about equality. From a public opinion standpoint, it's probably one reason that liberals like to accomplish things through the courts a lot of times, where it is a Constitutional rather than a political battle, as thin as that distinction is.

 

Well, two points.

1) If that sort of piece of equipment is made illegal, then so, too, should any reasonable facsimile thereof. Doctoring semis into autos in any fashion should be illegal. Otherwise the limits on autos are useless. Some people still might do it, but then they should be charged for it, the way some people still drive fast despite posted speed limits. That doesn't mean we don't have speed limits.

2) Banning the piece of equipment will still reduce the number of people who use them. Not everyone who wants one would have the skills to make one.

Obviously bump stocks are one small part of the problem, but it's a start.

 

People say this a lot. The 3D printer is a big bogeyman, along these lines.

And then whenever something like this happens, it turns out that dude bought his stuff legally at Guns R Us.

 

So maybe

- a searchable national gun registry. Buy too many too quickly, get a visit from ATF.

- a searchable national registry for ammunition. Buy to much too quickly, get a visit from ATF.

- limit magazine capacity to 10. Anyone found using, selling, importing or manufacturing magazines in excess of 10 rounds does automatic Federal time.

- 30-day mandatory waiting period for every gun everywhere.

- mandatory psych profile in advance of first gun purchase.

- mandatory psych profile update every 5 years as part of national or state licensing procedure.

- no sales at 'gun shows.'

- no private gun sales, except on consignment through federally licensed gun sellers.

- $1000 per gun federal/state/local buyback program. No questions asked.

what else?

 

This always worries me - a great deal, in fact - because I think that it disincentivizes veterans, in particular, to seek mental health care.

 

Several of the injured - WHO WERE NOT WOUNDED BY A FULLY AUTOMATIC RIFLE - are paralyzed.

 

Yeah ... but a 3D printer capable of making a bump stock would run you, I don't know, $1,000, $1,500. And once you've made the first one, the second one doesn't cost shit.

Take 'em off the shelves at Guns R Us and you'll cut down on their number, but I'd be surprised if it's a significant reduction.

 

The counterargument to which might be that it would incentivize otherwise reluctant veterans to get psychological help if they're seeking a license to purchase firearms.

Raises another issue, too, which is the necessity to rebuild the mental health apparatus in this country, rather than throwing everyone in for-profit prisons.

 

So you're saying that if you want to get a gun, you have to get a psychological profile performed? I was thinking you were simply advocating pulling people's existing mental health records.