Information at hand versus gun debates and passing gun control laws.

[JoeStuckInOH]

Regarding all the talking points of, "when is it time to talk guns" and the need for more gun control before something like this happens again (and again (and again)).... Do we even have all of the necessary information to engage in a productive discussion of how to address this situation??

Shooter Identification?
Time & Location?
How Many killed? Wounded?
Any victim demographic information that is relevant?
Motive?
What guns were used?
Where did he acquire the guns and ammo?
Was he allowed to own the Guns?
Was there anything (technical or otherwise) unusual about the guns or ammo?
Were the guns and ammo legally obtained? Were they Legally Possessed? Legally Carried/transported?
Was there any warning signs or opportunities missed to prevent this from happening?

As far as I know, the only information released has been the name of the shooter, his background info, information about the dead/wounded victims, and details of the of the actual shooting events. I haven't seen any of the information of events leading UP TO the shooting, or any technical details involving the implements of the shootings... arguably the two most important aspects of discussing how this could have been prevented.

Do we have this information, yet?

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

1. We may need that to discuss this particular incident, but this is not

an isolated incident, so we can discuss the problem in general, which is certainly valuable.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a30024/mass-shooters-1014/

[JoeStuckInOH]

3. The more incidents we can bring into discussion, the more effective legislation can be.

Basically, you're gathering technical details from larger sample set - which should yield more effective, if not comprehensive, strategies and legislations.

[Brainstormy]

2. What does ANY of that have to do

with the necessity for citizen ownership of automatic weapons? NOTHING!!!!!

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

4. Super important, but that's not the only issue we

can address to try to stop these shootings.

[JoeStuckInOH]

5. You are aware how laws work?

by their very nature they are technical. Laws typically have very narrow language and are interpreted equally specifically/narrowly when they are enforced. The technical details surrounding the events you want to ameliorate are important because the legislation has to specifically affect those details.

For example, legally owning an automatic weapon is about the heaviest scrutinized firearm a civilian can buy. Names, ATF permit/applications, Fingerprints, Photos, addresses, Notification to your local police chief, fees, storage & access requirements, and several months wait for the ATF background check.

If this guy used a legal full auto, then we need to look at legislation that can improve the current means to obtaining full autos. Then again... what if his gun was illegally converted? Then the legislation needs to look at the mode and methods used for him to break that law so maybe new legislation can close those loopholes.

That is why specific detail matter immensely when making good laws THAT WORK.

Want an example of a law that didn't work? The 1994 Assault Weapon ban. It was entirely superficial and feel good to make some good PR on the front of "gun control" but did nothing to limit the firepower or dangerousness of guns available to the public. It was a farce, 10 years of statistics showed nothing was changing, and it was allowed to expire. It was very much like saying "many sportscars are red and have spoilers... so we're going to ban red cars with spoilers in order to reduce traffic fatalities".

[jmg257]

11. Because then you have people, maybe such as yourself, trying to ban automatic weapons when

he didn't even use one.

Details can be important.

[Brainstormy]

17. If he didn't, the expression "automatic weapons"

has no meaning whatsoever. And actually, yeah, I'm one of those.

[jmg257]

21. Sure it does. He did have a shitload of

Magazine fed semi-autos, and at least 1 bump-stock.

[JoeStuckInOH]

24. You're literally validating my entire OP point for me. Thank You.

"If he didn't, the expression "automatic weapons" has no meaning whatsoever."

But it does have a meaning! It has the meaning defined in the laws passed in 1934 that caused Automatic Weapons to be so heavily regulated and in the 1986 laws that prohibited the civilian registration of any new automatic weapons (ie: machine guns).

For Example, had those laws originally been so technically architected to define "automatic weapons" to mean "any gun capable of sustaining rapid fire greater than 1 bullet per second" ... then there would've been a different outcome Sunday and you wouldn't be lamenting when someone is picking nits about a "legal bumpfired semi-auto" having done this rather than an "illegal machine gun".

Either/Both/All would have been heavily restricted and difficult to obtain for the past 31 years. In fact, if bump-fire stocks existed at the time the 1934 NFA or 1986 Hughes Amendment was passed, I'm sure they would have been summarily prohibited along with full auto machine guns.

So you see, the technical details of laws are incredibly important to the scope of effect any legislation can achieve. Which is the point of this thread. Lets get the details correct and then formulate effective advocacy.

[jmg257]

6. More info out on the weapons, and now pictures of at least numerous assault style long guns.

They seem to confirm at least 1 gun with a bump stock, tripods, regular cap mags (and suicide).

Press yesterday conference said ATF will get back with gun technical info within a day or so'.

ETA link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4944234/Two-23-rifles-inside-Stephen-Paddock-s-room.html

[JoeStuckInOH]

8. Thank you for info. Two things that jump out immedately are "Bump Fire Stock" and "72 Minutes"...

A) So his guns were NOT full auto weapons... but had a (legal) accessory to make them operate at VERY high rates of fire. Essentially, full auto speeds from a semi-auto gun.

B) How the hell did it take the SWAT team over an HOUR to get up there and stop him?!? There didn't even need to be a SWAT team, the guy killed himself once the broke into the room. They never even saw the guy. It could have been regular security guard kicking in the door.

IMO both of these need addressed badly.

[jmg257]

10. And luckily - apparently he did not fire the whole time.

A) yes - very fucked up.

B) Apparently (based on conferences) they had to locate him - via several floor search, then supposedly regular LE/security tried to engage and he shot at them (one hit in the leg), then finally swat got through the door.

[HopeAgain]

7. I have enough information

Ban assault weapons. Make their possession regardless of where and when obtained or how modified a felony. Period.

[JoeStuckInOH]

9. OK, define "assault weapon". What do you do about the (literally) tens-of-millions out there?

Successful legislation requires details. Ergo, the point of the thread.

This isn't as simple as writing the 10 commandments on a piece of stone and calling it good.

[hack89]

13. It is going to cost a lot to buy them all. nt

[HopeAgain]

14. It is not a constitutional taking.

They do not have to be bought. Just as when a drug is classified as Schedule I, we don't have to buy the drugs.

[hack89]

18. That simply means the law will be ignored to a large extent.

look no further than the compliance rate in CT and NY. AWBs are a paper tiger - they won't be enforced.

[HopeAgain]

20. Your right, why bother... maybe we can get little victories

That will make the NRA wink and allow the Democratic politicians pretend they are doing something about it.

[hack89]

22. That's what it is going to take

small victories. Until you get the support of gun owners nothing is going to happen. You won't get their support with talk of gun bans. It is that simple.

[JoeStuckInOH]

19. Drugs are not durable goods. You can't prove that your kush was in your possesion before the ban.

On the other hand, serialized weapons that have transfer records are quite simpler to prove date of possesion and ex post facto laws are specifically forbidden in most applications. Simply put, possession of legislative affected guns would need grandfathered into any new law... or conversely confiscated for public benefit with just compensation under the 5th amendment (ie: eminent domain).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States

An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law.

...

In the United States, Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution. The states are prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 1 of Article I, Section 10. This is one of the relatively few restrictions that the United States Constitution made to both the power of the federal and state governments before the Fourteenth Amendment.

[HopeAgain]

23. No, ex post facto prohibition would not apply

If you arrest people for owning a gun before it is illegal, that is an ex post facto application. But once it is made illegal, the possession becomes a current act that is illegal and not ex post facto. That is an old debunked pro gun-argument

Argued like a true gun enthusiast, however.

[Brainstormy]

16. Damn right! n/t

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Good God, man, the issue is SO much bigger than this massacre du jour

Way to COMPLETELY miss the point.

[JoeStuckInOH]

15. The point is we NEED TO DO SOMETHING.

And I'm finding the technical details are lacking to begin advocating what could,specifically be done.

Way to COMPELTELY fail at constructively approaching a situation with problem solving mentality.