Senator John Thune thinks mass shootings are inevitable in a free society. So why even try and stop them?
I think people are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions to protect themselves. And in situations like that, you know, try to stay safe. As somebody said — get small.
Well, thank you, Senator Thune, for that brave leadership, innovative thinking, and reassuring suggestions. It takes a big man to suggest that if someone starts shooting, we should “get small.”
88 view(s)
Get small? Okay… Let’s misquote! “Tragedy is Comedy plus Time.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Get_Small
You can judge which senators and congressman are in NRA's payroll when they talk about mass shootings. It is as if their brains are on vacation.
Sounds like great advice to me! You wouldn't want to "get big". What does anyone do when getting shot at? GET SMALL! less chance of being hit. Or if you're like me, take out your firearm and shoot back for Pete's sake!
I reckon those 20 six- and seven-year-old kids at Sandy Hook weren't small enough, ay Senator TinyBalls? Is that what the NRA paid you $5,000 to say, you worthless meatsack? "Get small"?
I always thought – that's government function, to protect his citizens. After all, that's why we have to pay taxes, at the first place. But if there is no protection..
Who needs safety. We just need to ban guns that have already been banned.
We need everyone to be armed to the teeth so that dumbasses are firing off rounds left and right and killing other dipshits like +William Wallace
+William Wallace You would fire back at the direction of the hotel? Possibly hitting everyone and everything except the shooter? Alrighty
Gun control is JEW but jews allow to have the guns in Israel.
Gun control is propaganda, propagated by the political left .
+Canoon Canoon II dude, shut the FUCK up about Jews. Jews have nothing to do with maniacs wielding firearms. So again, stfu
Please Google Kennesaw Georgia, it's a suburb of Atlanta. Back in 1982 the city passed a law that all homeowners had to own a firearm. Following left leaning logic, this tiny town should already be blown off the map by all the crazies with all those guns. Kennesaw hasn't had a murder by a firearm in 25 years, the crime rate per capita for a small suburb next to a large city is the lowest in the nation. Now this doesn't mean we should all have guns, clearly the recent shootings that have happened in the US indicate that, but the ones not associated with terrorists have come down to those people being mentally ill, and all registered Democrats.
+Omar Carbajal As far as has been determined or released, the guns involved in the Las Vegas Shooting were all legal.
+Ever Stranger In a sense, Thune's response is a national-level version of "The Police Can't Protect You, Better Arm Up!"
+Aaron Bridwell ' the ones not associated with terrorists have come down to those people being mentally ill, and all registered Democrats.'
I'm pretty sure that's bullshit, Aaron. Esp. if it's based on memes debunked in this article.
http://www.snopes.com/democrat-shooters-list/
+Aaron Bridwell And here's what I find when I google Kennesaw, Georgia.
http://www.snopes.com/kennesaw-gun-law/
+Dave Hill "What kinds of guns were they? Authorities haven't told us yet."
-CNN ( cnn.com )
So let assume the guns were legal (highly unlikely, but still probable, because many have noted that the gun sounded more like an AK-47 or a variant of the AK, both of which are illegal and there are pictures of the AK variant as seen here http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/10/03/las-vegas-shooting-photos-show-killers-guns.html ), and let's assume for the sake of entertainment that these guns were simple weapons that were "bump stocked" as many authorities have noted (although they only found twelve so that was a stupid move by the Gunner). How was he able to get a hold of 23 weapons and hundred of rounds of ammo without suspicion? Nevada has background checks and according to reports, two gun stores say he passed those tests.
There are a lot of conflicting evidence to this claim of "he had legal weapons."
+Dave Hill BTW, there was a case when police didn't protect a man, and the man sued police. The court ruling was: 'Police doesn't have to protect citizens. Police has to enforce the law'.
+Dave Hill you've been hit by the Block Stick you liberal POS! You claim to want to promote discussion but then you block people with opposing views who post legitimate arguments who don't use 4 letter words as "logic" or as a valid rebuttal.
+Omar Carbajal As you note, bump stocks are (crazily enough) legal. And, with them, you can turn a perfectly legal semi-automatic into something that fires at near-automatic rates.
If among the guns found there were illegal fully-auto weapons, I suspect that news would have been out by now.
It's not at all clear that enforcing laws against illegal weapons would have had an impact here, though I am all in favor of enforcing those laws vigorously.
'How was he able to get a hold of 23 weapons and hundred of rounds of ammo without suspicion?'
Because there were no restrictions on how many guns he could buy over time (or even all at once) or on ammo purchases. The state has no restriction on semi-auto weapons or large capacity magazines. Nevada has no purchase permits, gun registration, or gun-owner licensing, nor any waiting period on firearm purchases.
And the popularly passed state law on stricter background checks is currently not being enforced by the state government because the federal government is no longer assisting such state laws.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/nevadas-gun-laws-wild-wild-west-law-enforcement/story?id=50229593
+Dave Hill correction. 47 guns were found in his apartment.
"As you note, bump stocks are (crazily enough) legal."
Okay, but I also pointed out that only 12 of the weapons found were using the device. As various articles mentioning the incident have pointed out. So it's not like all 47 weapons had the bump stock device.
But let's assume, for my personal amusement, that the shooter had all weapons bump stock. Why would he need a AK variant (shown below)? AK weapons are largely banned in the United States.
"Because there were no restrictions on how many guns he could buy over time (or even all at once) or on ammo purchases."
False. At least not according to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which "requires federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to report multiple sales or other dispositions of handguns to the same purchaser [18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)]. The sale or disposition of two or more handguns must be reported if they occur at the same time, or within five consecutive business days of each other." This law does not apply to Nevada admittedly, but it does apply to California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, which, according to reports, is where the shooter got some of his guns. To avoid suspicion, he moved to different states.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/c6TlEgdqLZCpYmOkgUjM0w4aGc9HiddcL6hbD0GeVxseoy9BiAPoPPSsom39oh7TZn6RBc65Fs8
+Omar Carbajal There are AK variants that are legal in the US. They have to be semi-automatic. You can easily find them for sale (e.g., https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/search.do?query=ak-47&sku_instock_b=true).
The latest I easily found for the weapons mix at the hotel was https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/10/02/video-from-las-vegas-suggests-automatic-gunfire-heres-what-makes-machine-guns-different, which notes the AK 47 and AR 15 variants in use.
The question remains open as to how many of the weapons were used, or planned to be used. It seems unlikely he actually anticipated using all 23 rifles; the overkill (so to speak) is one of the weirdities of the whole event. Even if he just limited himself to the dozen bump-stocked rifles, he could have fired far more than he eventually did.
I think you're a bit confused on my statement about the restrictions on purchases in Nevada. Nevada guns shops must still comply with federal law. But, as you note, federal law only requires a background check (for in-shop purchases) and reporting of quantities of guns, but do not actually restrict purchases of multiple guns, or ammo for them, and neither does Nevada.
It's also not clear that a report that some dude bought five guns today would actually catch anyone's eye at BATF.
We don't have details on when and where all of his collection of firearms were obtained. Since there is no sign that this was a quick mental snap leading to a rash, violent action, but, rather, something that was planned over time (for reasons unknown), it may not have been even as big a deal as that to buy individual guns, even assuming he did so just through licensed dealers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/10/02/video-from-las-vegas-suggests-automatic-gunfire-heres-what-makes-machine-guns-different/?utm_term=.323229f0fe7f
+Dave Hill "there are also variants that are legal in the US."
But not the AK-47, an automatic rifle developed by the Russians, based off of the stg44 (source: militaryfactory.com ).
"You can find them easily for sale"
The one you showed was a semi-automatic variant. It's not even using the same ammunition rounds. That variant is using .22L rounds while the shooter used .308 and .223 caliber rounds (source: http://fox4kc.com/2017/10/03/gun-expert-weighs-in-on-types-of-weapons-las-vegas-shooter-may-have-used/ ). So yes, you can find variants, but not the one the shooter was using.
Also I need to correct you. It has now been noted that it was 47 guns (source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/guns-loaded-high-capacity-magazines-found-vegas-shooters/story?id=50228093 ).
"I think you're a bit confused on my statements about the restrictions on purchases in Nevada."
I'm not confused. I noted that Nevada doesn't have certain restrictions, but California, New Mexico and Arizona do, which, according to various sources, have stated that the shooter has gone out to different states to purchase weapons.
"But, as you note, federal law only requires a background check"
No I didn't. As I clearly stated "according to the Gun Control Act of 1968…..the sale or disposition of two or more handguns must be reported if they occur at the same time, or within five consecutive business days of each other"
" It's also not clear that a report that some dude bought five guns today would actually catch anyone's eye at BATF."
How can you be so sure? As I said, he did travel to various other states to get around this law. So there would be no way of knowing.
"Since there is no sign that this was a quick mental snap leading to a rash violent action…"
Are you sure? Many reports indicate various he was a high stakes gambler, and was the son of a convicted bank robber. (Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/02/las-vegas-gunman-liked-to-gamble-listened-to-country-music-lived-quiet-retired-life-before-massacre/ ).
+Omar Carbajal Re AK-47 — yes, but I don't know if we know whether what was found was an actually, full-auto AK-47 (which would be illegal unless it was a pre-'68 model legally licensed with BATF) or an AK-47 variant (which would not necessarily be). Again, I have heard nothing about any of the guns involved having been illegal, something that would most likely (but not definitely) be released to the public by now. Unless you have something that indicates that one of the guns present was a full-blown AK-47, that's all we can say.
Re How Many Guns — read the article you cited. 23 in the hotel. 47 total, including at his house(s).
Re Snap Decision — What I meant was, this was not a "I've had a rare day" guy goes over the edge and starts shooting someplace. The number of guns, the modifications on the guns, and some other info that's come out makes it pretty clear that this was planned for some time. We just don't know why.
+Dave Hill So there is the possibility that the suspect had an already illegal weapons (we don't know yet. investigations take time so of course we haven't gotten an official word from it). So lets assume that the gun he used was an ak-47 from recent years, not a 1968 model. How would gun control help in that situation?
Now let's assume that all the guns he bought were legal guns he bought from Nevada (like I said, he bought them from different states so he didn't just go out to a Nevada gun store and get them all from there but let's just assume he did) and everything from the bump stock to the ar15 variants were bought from that one store. How would gun control minimize the damage? Couldn't he instead find a different method of obtaining the guns illegally? I mean he probably got an AK 47 with full auto, so he probably must have known some other way to obtain those weapons. As his brother noted, he knew he had guns, but not that many. How would limiting the amount of guns he gets, let's say 1 gun and 5 rounds of ammo per year, limit the damage, when there are other ways to obtain these weapons?
This is all hypothetical, of course and we won't know more until the investigation is done.
The motives will remain unclear because as many people have pointed out, he was strangely one of the only mass shooters who didn't leave a manifesto before killing himself. As such, the motice will be left in the air.
+Omar Carbajal I'm not convinced we'll remain in the dark as to his motivations indefinitely, but it will certainly take some time.
As to the rest, you've managed to ramble your way to a set of hypotheticals and then asked how gun control could have stopped that. It's hard to suggest a specific on that basis, though if devices (such as bump stocks) to render semi-auto weapons as virtually automatic were illegal in the way that modification kits (or actual mods) of semi's to make them full auto are, it might have had an effect. A more thorough and integrated set of purchase reporting might have raised red flags that could have been checked on beforehand.
What we do know is that, under current federal and state laws, he was able to amass a large arsenal, make many of those guns effectively automatic, and kill 50+ people with them. I'm not as willing to shrug it off like Bill O'Reilly as "the price of freedom." I believe that more diligent enforcement of the gun laws we have, and looking at where we have gaps in them that are exploitable should both be on the table here.
+Dave Hill I agree current law is not stern enough to address people who have huge arsenals of weapons and large amounts of ammunition. But I don't think gun control will prevent such disasters from happening. It may or may not have some effect, but if we look at how Chicago's current gun laws play out, I highly doubt that it would have any effect on minimizing gun violence as so many people propose.
I present these hypothetical scenarios as a thought exercise. Nothing more. If anything I'm suggesting what I already mentioned by presenting these hypothetical scenarios.
The impact gun control will have might be good, or might be the equivalent of the prohibition era. I suggest you consider that side.
+Omar Carbajal Chicago actually ties into that Prohibition argument (ironically enough). While the general disdain of Prohibition was the driver, dodging it was possible because there was a great big country immediately to the north from which booze could be smuggled in from.
Similarly, Chicago / Illinois' efforts to control guns have been thwarted by dreadfully easy purchase and transport of guns from neighboring states with more lax laws.
It's also worth noting that while Prohibition was unsuccessful in stamping out drinking (and led to an increase in organized crime that continued beyond the Prohibition era), it did actually create a significant overall reduction in drinking and drinking habits that continued even after Prohibition was lifted.
(It also gave us the federai income tax, for better or worse.)
+Dave Hill "there was a great big country immediately to the northern from which booze could be snuggled in from."
I'd agree, if it weren't for the fact that Canada had it's own prohibition in 1918 and lasted very well into the 1920's. (Source: faslink.org )
A primary source of alcohol were speakeasies, bootleggers, at home bear manufacturing. And many of these bootleg bear were manufactured here in the states. Hence why mafias formed, since they were the only ones willing to disobey the law. Bribery was at an all time high, crime increased, etc. (Source: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/10/137077599/prohibition-speakeasies-loopholes-and-politics )
Will gun control lessen the amount of guns? I highly doubt it.
+Omar Carbajal Canadian prohibition was provincial, not national. "Well into the 20s" is misleading — Quebec (which borders upstate New York) ended theirs in 1919 (including hard liquor in 1921). BC and Manitoba, also bordering the US, ended theirs in 1921 as well. The Canadian provinces themselves suffered from extensive internal smuggling, and often ended their own efforts because they were not able to enforce the laws.
In short, Canada provided extensive liquor (and beer and wine) to smuggle into the US. Just as neighboring states provide extensive amounts of guns to carry into Chicago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_Canada#Repeal